Trump's Revenge Leads to Republican Revolt

Summary

---

Pod Save America: "Trump's Revenge Leads to Republican Revolt"

Date: May 22, 2026
Hosts: Jon Favreau, Dan Pfeiffer, Tommy Vietor
Special Guest Interview: Matt Mahan, California gubernatorial candidate

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the intensifying political chaos triggered by former President Donald Trump’s recent actions, especially his problematic “revenge tour,” self-enriching slush funds, and internecine GOP battles. The hosts break down how Trump’s latest moves—from bizarre funding schemes to caustic endorsements—are igniting rare Republican pushback and jeopardizing their hold on power. They also dissect the long-awaited DNC autopsy and poll results showing what Democratic voters really want, plus feature a detailed interview with California’s San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan about the challenges of running for governor in a turbulent political era.

---

Key Segments & Insights

1. Trump’s Slush Fund & Senate GOP Revolt

Timestamps: 02:12–17:20

Main Discussion Points

• Trump’s recent push for a “slush fund” to pay out January 6th rioters and congressional attempts to attach it to funding bills.
• Senate Republicans’ growing discomfort, with some (like Bill Cassidy, whom Trump just helped unseat) expressing outrage.
• Internal GOP chaos: Senate Majority Leader John Thune cancelling votes and calling senators home as the party reels from Trump’s demands.

Notable Quotes

• Jon Favreau (07:04):
  “It’s such a politically bad move that I’ve been shocked by it...how could you be so stupid? It’s fun watching the Republicans freak out about this and everything fall apart.”
• Dan Pfeiffer (08:19):
  “A move so bad that even Republican senators can figure out that it’s bad politically.”
• On the fund:
  “There’s no oversight, no accountability...We may never know who they pay...the whole thing is just a fucking scam.” (Jon Favreau, 11:15)

Key Moments

• [06:42] Trump, asked about losing Senate control: “I really don’t know...I only do what's right. I don’t need money for the ballroom...I’m making a gift of the ballroom. This is the biggest misreporting I’ve ever seen.”
• [12:43] Dan: "Just driving a corrupt truck through another giant loophole in our system..."
• [13:10] Jon: “Mitch McConnell. Well, Mitch, the reason we're in this place is because of you.”

Analysis

• Broad condemnation—even from Mitch McConnell.
• Bipartisan legislation introduced in the House to ban the slush fund.
• Political costs for Republicans (confusion among angry moderates, Trump attacking his own party).

---

2. The Ballroom & The Arch: Trump’s Vanity Projects Falter

Timestamps: 19:32–24:18

Main Discussion Points

• Trump’s failed push for $1 billion in ballroom funding, ruled non-compliant by the Senate parliamentarian.
• Endlessly expanding personal pet projects, e.g., a massive "arch" that would block D.C. landmarks.
• General sense of declining empire corruption and Trump’s obsession with appearances and personal gain.

Notable Quotes

• Dan Pfeiffer (21:36):
  “No one in Congress wants to vote for $1 billion for a ballroom...An actual impressive Democratic messaging victory in this day and age.”

• Jon Favreau (24:13):
  “Worst declining empire shit...the most cartoonish version of corruption by an aging dictator.”

---

3. Iran, War Powers, and Senate Discord

Timestamps: 24:28–28:32

Main Discussion Points

• Senate upheaval after primary losses and shifting votes against Trump’s wishes—especially on Iran policy.
• Trump waffles between almost making a deal and threatening war.
• Bipartisan support for limiting Trump’s war powers, with Senators flipping votes post-primary.

Notable Quotes

• Dan Pfeiffer (25:55):
  “It’s every week: We’re on the verge of a deal, that lasts five hours...then we’re on the verge of war...then back to stalemate. Rinse and repeat.”

• Jon Favreau (26:43):
  “With each new draft of the peace proposal, looks less like peace and more like a meaningless extension of a ceasefire.”

---

4. Trump’s Texas Endorsement: Cornyn vs. Paxton

Timestamps: 28:32–34:20

Main Discussion Points

• Trump endorses scandal-ridden Ken Paxton over incumbent John Cornyn in a Senate primary, risking GOP control.
• Political calculus: Cornyn as the safer candidate, Paxton as a MAGA icon but a “serial adulterer, a fucking lunatic, and terrible at raising money.”
• Opportunity for Democrats as Republicans fight among themselves.

Notable Quotes

• Dan Pfeiffer (29:17):
  “Insane. A truly insane decision...Ken Paxton is by every measure less electable than John Cornyn.”

• Jon Favreau (32:21):
  “His own staff called the FBI on him. That’s my favorite thing—how many people have their own staff call the FBI on them?”

---

5. DNC Autopsy Debacle & Ken Martin’s Job

Timestamps: 35:26–47:43

Main Discussion Points

• Release of the long-awaited (and incomplete) 2024 DNC autopsy report, following public outcry and internal frustration.
• Chair Ken Martin’s leadership under fire for repeated mismanagement and loss of donor trust.
• Donor and insider frustration with DNC fundraising, transparency, and readiness for 2028.

Notable Quotes

• Dan Pfeiffer (36:34):
  "This is so fittingly stupid...Ken Martin hired the wrong person, lied, and got himself into this hole. No points for transparency."

• Jon Favreau (41:26):
  "The DNC is the problem. Not a party-wide problem, but a DNC problem...negative $3 million in the bank."

• Dan Pfeiffer (42:25):
  “This is why I think Ken Martin should step down. He cannot repair the trust here...Now he is the distraction."

---

6. What Democratic Voters Want: Poll Results

Timestamps: 47:49–60:27

Main Discussion Points

• NYT poll reveals Democrats’ priorities, dissatisfaction, and desire for specific policy moves:
  • Over half disapprove of the Democratic Party.
  • Voters favor “move to the center” to win in 2028, but support for leftward moves on healthcare/economy.
  • Notable splits between white college grads (move left) and non-college, Black/Latino voters (move center).
• General desire for big economic change (not “small ball” policies).

Notable Quotes

• Dan Pfeiffer (49:47):
  “Among Democrats, the narrative that we lost because we were too far left has taken hold.”

• Jon Favreau (54:49):
  “There is an appetite for big, bold ideas on the economy and healthcare. Nibbling around the edges isn’t going to cut it.”

• Jon Favreau (58:48):
  “It’s a good reminder...you (the listener) are so different than 70% of the electorate. Even among midterm voters, name recognition is abysmal.”

---

7. Texas Congressional Primary and GOP Trolling

Timestamps: 61:13–64:35

• Runoff between Johnny Garcia and Maureen Galindo, a candidate pushed by GOP dark money despite her openly anti-Semitic statements.
• Hosts condemn Galindo, urge turnout for Garcia.
• Republicans exploiting Democratic primaries via super PACs for chaos.

---

8. Trump Possibly Skipping His Son’s Wedding

Timestamps: 64:35–66:36

• Trump hints he may not attend Donald Jr.’s wedding:
  “Not good timing for me...I have a thing called Iran and other things.” (Trump via hosts, 64:44)
• Hosts joke about Trump’s history of neglecting his children; “generational trauma in action.”

---

9. Interview: Matt Mahan, California Gubernatorial Candidate

Timestamps: 68:37–101:44

Key Topics

• Voter Anger & Democratic Accountability:
  Mahan acknowledges frustration with California Democrats’ failures on housing, crime, cost of living; pitches himself as the only candidate with a record of government reform and outcome focus.

  • “We need Democrats who can govern and make people’s lives better...if we’re delivering bad outcomes, it becomes very hard to fight for democracy.” (Matt Mahan, 69:01)

• California’s ‘Jungle Primary’ System:
  Critique of the top-two primary; Mahan prefers improvement via ranked-choice voting, warns against reverting to closed primaries.

• Wealth Tax Debate:
  Mahan opposes the proposed one-time billionaire tax as likely to fuel capital flight and shrink state revenues; instead supports closing federal tax loopholes and reforming inheritance/capital gains tax.

• Tech Industry Scrutiny & AI Regulation:
  Mahan supports responsible regulation— parental consent for social media, no facial recognition, strong data privacy—but not “brake-pumping” on innovation. Emphasizes using new revenues from AI for job retraining, reskilling, and a potential UBI if automation destroys jobs.

  • “We have to regulate and protect people from these changes...We want to be innovative, but we have to raise the bar.” (Matt Mahan, 87:04)

• Campaign Donations & Tech Donors:
  On skepticism about tech money: “I have never done one thing to benefit the biggest employers in Silicon Valley over the people of San Jose, and I sure as heck am not going to do it in Sacramento.” (Mahan, 89:36)

• Newsom, Trump, and California’s Identity:
  Mahan says California must defend its values against Trump but must also fix fundamentals (homelessness, housing, clean streets) to be credible.

• Housing & Prop 13 Reform:
  Proposes enabling seniors to take their low property tax rates when downsizing and taxing property sales instead of annual increases. Argues for pragmatic fairness over major revenue grabs.

---

Memorable Moments

• “It’s fun watching the Republicans freak out about this and everything fall apart.” – Jon Favreau (07:04)
• “It is...so bad that even Republican senators can figure out it’s bad politics.” – Dan Pfeiffer (08:19)
• Hosts’ comedic riff on Trump’s priorities: “He cannot be bothered with...likes stealing money, revenge and interior design.” (Dan, 24:18)
• On DNC mismanagement:
  “Ken Martin should step down. He cannot repair the trust here...he is now the distraction.” – Dan Pfeiffer (42:25)

---

Episode Structure & Timestamps

• [02:12–17:20] Trump’s revenge tactics, slush fund, Senate revolt
• [19:32–24:18] Vanity projects: ballroom, arch
• [24:28–28:32] Iran, war powers, congressional pushback
• [28:32–34:20] Cornyn vs. Paxton: Texas GOP chaos
• [35:26–47:43] DNC autopsy, fundraising woes, Ken Martin
• [47:49–60:27] NYT poll: what Democratic voters want
• [61:13–64:35] Texas Runoff: Johnny Garcia vs. Maureen Galindo
• [64:35–66:36] Trump & the wedding—“Not good timing for me”
• [68:37–101:44] Interview: Matt Mahan on California’s future

---

For Further Engagement

• Full transcript: [Available by request via Crooked Media]
• Friends of the Pod: For ad-free episodes and exclusive content: crooked.com/friends

---

This summary is intended as a comprehensive guide for listeners and non-listeners alike, capturing the full scope, tone, and major themes of the episode, with direct quotes and timestamped references for deeper exploration.

Transcript

[Jon Favreau]

Pod Save America is brought to you by Simplisafe. Everything's more expensive in 2026, but peace of mind shouldn't be. Simplisafe starts at about a dollar a day without a long term contract. There's a reason they were named best home security system of 2026. It actually works for regular people, not just the elites. Tommy Simplisafest for regular folks like John Lovett.

[Tommy Vietor]

That's right.

[Jon Favreau]

Salt of the earth folks.

[Tommy Vietor]

Set one up himself. If I.

[Jon Favreau]

Ordinary Americans like John Lovett.

[Tommy Vietor]

That's right.

[Jon Favreau]

Set it up himself. No drilling. With Simplisafe, you can customize your system to fit your needs. Then it ships fast directly to your door. The app guided setup is simple and there's no drilling required.

[Tommy Vietor]

He was very lonely at the time.

[Jon Favreau]

It's true. He's in a dry spell setting up the Simplisafe. And then he was done for the day.

[Tommy Vietor]

What were you saying about the drilling?

[Jon Favreau]

No drilling required. So you can install and arm your system in under an hour. Simplisafe is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors, indoor and outdoor cameras, and 24.7professional monitoring. It's backed by SimpliSafe's 24.7professional monitoring agents who dispatch emergency help when you need it. Over 5 million people value and trust Simplisafe with their home security every day. Right now, our listeners will get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring. And your first month is free, just visit simplisafe.com crooked that's half [e-mail] crooked there's no safe like Simplisafe. Want to be a star?

[Matt Mahan]

No problem. Anyone can shine on TikTok. Post your first video today. Real life, real story, real you. Download TikTok and get started

[Dan Pfeiffer]

with verbo care.

[Tommy Vietor]

Help is always ready before, during and after your stay.

[Jon Favreau]

We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great

[Matt Mahan]

trip starts with peace of mind.

[Jon Favreau]

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I'm Dan Pfeiffer.

[Jon Favreau]

On today's show, we're gonna talk about how Donald Trump's revenge tour is backfiring in a way that just about everybody could have predicted. With everything from his ballroom funding to his insurrectionist slush fund now in jeopardy, we'll also talk about how Trump may have made things even worse for his party with his endorsement of Ken Paxton over John Cornyn in Texas. And then, just to prove that Republicans aren't the only ones stepping on rakes. We'll talk about the long awaited release of the 2024 DNC autopsy and whether Ken Martin's job as DNC chair is in jeopardy. We'll also talk about new results from this week's New York Times poll focused on what Democratic voters want from the Democratic Party. Then you'll hear Tommy's interview with California gubernatorial candidate Matt Mahan. And finally, we'll explore the question none of us thought we'd have to ask is Donald Trump going to skip his son's wedding? Tune in to find out. Before we start, go ahead and subscribe to Friends of the Pod. Become a Cricket subscriber if you haven't already, because you get ad free episodes of all of these pods that you love and listen to. You get access to all of our excellent Substack newsletter. You get access to subscriber only podcasts that you're missing out on if you're not a subscriber, like Dan's Polar Coaster podcast where he dives deep into polls and Pod Save America. Only Friends, our extra secret episode of Pod Save America that we do every other week, so check it out. And you also get to support pro democracy independent media, in this case, us crooked media. So crooked.com friends go subscribe today. All right, let's get to the news. It seems like just yesterday, because it was, that the White House warned us to never again doubt Donald Trump's political power. And certain journalists proclaimed an incredible few weeks for the president's political operation. This is all because Trump's handpicked primary challengers defeated Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie. Well, 24 hours later, here's a text from a Republican senator to Punchbowl News quote, our majority is melting down before our eyes. So what happened? What happened? Well, the Senate was supposed to be voting on Trump's bill to fund ICE, but then he also demanded $1 billion for his ballroom, and he announced that he's stealing $2 billion from taxpayers so that he can potentially hand out cash payments to January 6th rioters who almost killed police officers and basically anyone else he thinks has been mistreated by the justice system. Neither of these things sat very well with some Republicans, including people like Bill Cassidy, whose career Trump just ended. And after a reportedly tense meeting about the insurrection of slush fund with acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, where some Republicans proposed restrictions on the slush fund, Senate Majority Leader John Thune canceled the vote entirely and told everyone to go home until June. Here's Blanche and J.D. vance earlier in the week, refusing to rule out taxpayer funded payouts for violent insurrectionists. You know who never, ever gets an

[Matt Mahan]

ounce of sympathy when it comes to. To that disproportionate sentencing is people who

[Jon Favreau]

voted for Donald Trump and participated in the January 6 protest. Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, as it makes plain.

[Jon Favreau]

Anybody else, just let me know if they're eligible for the fund.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

As, as, as was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply.

[Jon Favreau]

You're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

There is no judge.

[Jon Favreau]

Any independent authority that.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

An independent. What does that mean, an independent authority?

[Jon Favreau]

It means not somebody who's getting to pick five of the members.

[Matt Mahan]

Who is the President's former personal attorney?

[Jon Favreau]

That would be somebody who would be independent.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I'm the acting Attorney General, okay? The fact that I used to be President Trump's lawyer is just a fact, but I am the acting Attorney General. So don't say the President's former personal lawyer will do something. The acting Attorney General will do something.

[Jon Favreau]

Mr. Attorney General, you are acting today like the President's personal attorney. And that's the whole problem.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

That's the good shit right there.

[Jon Favreau]

That is the good shit. What a fucking whiner. So after Senate Republicans were in revolts and the majority was melting down, Trump was asked about it in the Oval on Thursday. Here's what he said.

[Matt Mahan]

Are you losing control of the Senate?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Senate Republican? I don't know.

[Jon Favreau]

I really don't know.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I can tell you, I only do what's right. I don't need money for the ballroom. You know, I'm making a gift of the ballroom.

[Matt Mahan]

This is the biggest misreporting that I've ever seen.

[Jon Favreau]

Okay, we'll dig into that in a little bit. An incredible week for Trump's political operation, Dan.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Just an incredible, incredible, truly unbelievable.

[Jon Favreau]

Let's start with the slush fund. You and I talked about this on last Friday's episode, and we talked about how Trump potentially settling the IRS lawsuit by personally pocketing billions in taxpayer dollars was maybe the worst political move we could imagine. And then they did the slush fund right as we were finishing the recording. So we only briefly got to talk about it. What do you think? What do you think about the political move of instead of Trump just pocketing the cash, deciding to put it in a fund with no accountability whatsoever so they can secretly pay out whoever they'd like?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Look, these brilliant fucking geniuses in the Trump political team, the same ones who spent $20 million to defeat a Congress Republican congressman in a district that Trump won by 35 points. Really figured this one out. So instead of giving billions of dollars to one criminal, they're going to give 1.776 billion, which is so clever, to an untold number of criminals, many of whom committed violent offenses. Assaulting the Capitol and assaulting police officers.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, it's a tr.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It. It is. It is a move so bad that even Republican senators can figure out that it's bad politically. Just so.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, part of this is it's such a politically bad move that I've been shocked by it. I've been laughing about it, because how could you be so stupid? It's fun watching the Republicans freak out about this and everything fall apart. But NPR did a story about it where they started going through some of the potential January 6th convicted felons, or people who were gonna be on trial until Trump pardoned them to talk about how this would play out. This guy, Jake Lang, he admitted to using a bat to attack police. He was on trial for assault when Trump pardoned him. He's now a white power activist who's on video saying the N word and giving Nazi salutes. When NPR called to confirm that he plans to apply for a payout, which he did, he confirmed it. He answered the phone, Jake Lang's office, America's newest billionaire. And he said that the message. He told NPR that the message Trump was sending with the fund is. And this is a quote from the insurrectionist who beat police officers with a bat, quote, if you do the right thing in the face of evil, you will be rewarded for your bravery and patriotism. That's what's happening there. That's what's happening. Another January 6 rioter, Andrew Paul Johnson, is currently serving a life sentence in prison for sexually abusing two children who he tried to keep quiet by promising them, quote, my Trump bucks that he expected to get as part of a restitution fund. And then that exchange we watched between Van Hollen and Blanche. Van Hollen was asking about that case and asking Blanche to rule out that that fucking guy could apply for a payout from the slush fund. And you heard Blanche, like, he just. He won't rule it out.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I mean, it's pretty clear what happened here is Trump wanted his money. I think he. Someone was able to convince him that him directly taking the money was probably a bridge too far politically. And plus, he's made so many other billions from so many other crooked schemes that he could take a pass on this one, but he obviously wasn't going to let it go. And they were facing this deadline because if they did, because there was a court of post deadline. So the day before the court and post deadline, they hatched together a poorly thought out plan that they thought would appeal to Trump. Right. It's not as bad as Trump getting the money, although that is actually debatable. But would, you know, it would still fit with his need for revenge. And it's like perfect. Trump, like, these people, these are my people. I'm going to help my people. I'm going to hook up my people.

[Jon Favreau]

And.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And they didn't think through any of the consequences. They just assumed every Republican would be for it. And they, as you said, they stepped on a rake, like a very obvious, very clear, very politically damaging rake. But they did it because they're kind of morons.

[Jon Favreau]

And there's no oversight, no accountability over this fund whatsoever. We may never know who they pay, how much they pay them, who applies, who gets, who gets accepted into this fucking slush fund, who gets denied. None of that, because Trump picks the people on the board, except for one, gets appointed by Congress, who, you know, he can find a lackey in Congress to give him whoever he wants. Trump can fire them at any time. The report is not required to be released to the public in any way, shape or form. So the whole thing is just a fucking scam. And it seems like it's. I mean, I guess two January 6th police officers filed a lawsuit to try to stop this, but there are going to be, I guess that's the best case they can make for standing. Right? Because they were police officers harmed in this. But the challenge is to have, like, who has standing to sue on this and the fact that it is legal because Congress passed a law to give the Justice Department basically an unlimited fund for restitution in the event that people sue the US Government. And then the Justice Department would have to pay it out, which is like, yeah, of course, right? If someone sues the federal government and they. And they win, the federal government has to get the money from somewhere to pay them out. But I don't think anyone envisioned that the fund would be used in this way.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Nope. Just driving a corrupt truck through another giant loophole in our system.

[Jon Favreau]

Here's a statement on the fund. So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops. Utterly stupid, morally wrong. Take your pick. Guess who that came from, Dan.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I know the answer. So am I supposed to pretend Like, I don't.

[Jon Favreau]

No.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Was that a resistance Democrat? Was that someone on Ms. Now? Was that a. Was that. Was that on Wednesday's episode of Only Friends with you and Tommy?

[Jon Favreau]

It was.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Subscribe now.

[Jon Favreau]

Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell. Well, Mitch, the reason we're in this place, by the way, is because of you.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yep. If you had just had the courage

[Jon Favreau]

that Mike Pence had, could have convicted him after January 6th, and then none of these rioters would be getting any money. How likely do you think it is that Congress will impose some kind of restrictions on the slush fund? Legislation was introduced today, Thursday to ban the entire slush fund. Not restrictions, just ban it. That was by. Introduced by Democrat Tom Suozzi in the House and Republican Brian Fitzpatrick, who's in a swing district in Pennsylvania and who Trump just threatened yesterday with a primary challenge in response to a question he didn't like from Fitzpatrick's fiance, Fox News reporter Jackie Heinrich.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, it's really clever of Trump to threaten a primary challenge on Wednesday when the primary was Tuesday, which is also. It's notable that all of a sudden, Brian Fitzpatrick has found his courage the day after his primary.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah.

[Tommy Vietor]

Do you think.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, I know that we were, like, not scheduled to talk about this, but on that note, I do wonder if a lot like, we're suddenly gonna see an outbreak of courage among Republicans now that most of the primaries have passed.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's gonna be an interesting political calculus. Like someone like Fitzpatrick, who is in. He might be the most vulnerable Republican in the country, or he is a couple. He's. He. He is up there. We got some people who have been redistricted out of existence, but of the people who remain in their previous district, he's quite vulnerable. And. But there is this challenge for Republicans, which is, on one hand, Trump attacking you would seem favorable. Like, just hit. If I was Fitzpatrick, I would think in that district, I think about taking the. The footage of Trump saying that he votes against him all the time and

[Matt Mahan]

put it in an ad.

[Jon Favreau]

Don't go to my dude.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But the challenge is they also need Republican turnout. And if Trump is trashing you are. That people are gonna turn out for you. And that's the real question.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, that is a good point. Well, so then what do you think about getting restrictions on this slush fund? Because it does seem like they're going for restrictions in this ICE funding bill, which is reconciliation, which means that you would only need 51 votes in the Senate.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

There's two things happening here. One is, as we mentioned, the Republicans recognize this is terrible politics, and they don't want to vote for it. And they, they know how bad it is. They feel the same way about the ballroom, which we'll talk about in a second. The other thing that's happening in the Senate is these people are just pissed at Trump. Like they. He took out Thom Tillis and you know, Thom Tillis retired rather than face a primary challenge. But Roy Cooper is much more likely the next senator of North Carolina because he's running against a anonymous RNC chair that Trump installed as the nominee. They took out Bill Cassidy. He just endorsed, as we'll talk about, just endorsed against John Cornyn, the number two person in the Senate for Republicans. And so he's basically taking all their people. And so they're, they're both pissed, like on this personal level that he keeps taking out their friends. But they're also. He's making, in almost all of these cases, he's making it less likely. They keep the majority. And so I think they're starting to get restive here and are looking for some place to show that they have some measure of spine. Now, are the restrictions they're going to put in be going to likely be pretty weak? Yeah, yeah, I think that's. That, that's the case. But I would be surprised. I would be surprised. And no one's ever made a lot of money betting on congressional Republicans to do something brave, but I would be surprised if this bill passed without some measure of something. That at least is a putative fig. Leave of restriction on the slush fund.

[Jon Favreau]

The challenge here is I don't think they get any. They're not gonna get any Democratic votes for it. Right. Even though Democrats would wanna ban this if it goes in the ICE funding bill, the restrictions. Democrats aren't gonna vote for the ICE funding bill.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, you'll get it on the amendment in the Votorama to put it in.

[Jon Favreau]

Oh, so Democrats can get it in there and then vote against it. And then not vote against. Okay.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I just way outstripped my expertise on Senate budget procedure. But I think that's right.

[Jon Favreau]

I think that's good enough. That's good enough for this episode.

[Tommy Vietor]

Foreign. Today's show is sponsored by Strawberry Me. You think about switching jobs, maybe ask yourself these questions. Okay, Am I growing or just repeating the same experience over and over again?

[Jon Favreau]

Okay, Ladder.

[Tommy Vietor]

It's a tough question to ask when we're doing this. Do I feel energized by my work, obviously, or am I constantly drained and counting the hours until it's over?

[Jon Favreau]

Can I do both.

[Tommy Vietor]

Do I know what my next career move should be or am I just hoping something better shows up?

[Jon Favreau]

I definitely don't know that.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, that's hard.

[Jon Favreau]

1.

[Tommy Vietor]

Am I going to stay here for another year? Will I be proud of my progress or regret staying comfortable?

[Jon Favreau]

I'm not comfortable. Interesting.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

These are.

[Tommy Vietor]

These are tough questions.

[Jon Favreau]

Who said we were comfortable?

[Tommy Vietor]

If you think it might be time for a change, you should talk to a career coach through Strawberry Me. Their coaches work with you one on one to understand your strengths, identify your gaps and build a clear roadmap towards a career. And you're actually excited about because the bigger risk isn't making the wrong move. Staying stuck without a plan. Take control of your future at Strawberry Me Crooked. Go today and get 50% off your first coaching session. That's Strawberry Me Crooked Positive America is

[Jon Favreau]

brought to you by Helix. We love Helix mattresses. I think all three of us have one. At least one. I now have many in those.

[Tommy Vietor]

They're very, very comfortable for kids. Everybody raves about it.

[Jon Favreau]

Kids love it. I think my in laws have one. I've done a lot of Helix mattresses. No complaints yet. In fact, plenty of compliments.

[Tommy Vietor]

And they just mail it to your house. Yeah, it's crazy.

[Jon Favreau]

And you take a sleep quiz and you figure out what the right Helix mattress for you is. And it's fantastic. Helix makes buying a mattress easy. You take the Helix sleep quiz as I just said, and it will match you with the perfect mattress based on your personal preferences and sleep needs, free shipping and seamless delivery. Helix delivers 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 so you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges. Plus, helix offers a 120 night sleep trial and limited lifetime warranty. You think anyone does like 119 nights and they send that mattress back? That would suck.

[Tommy Vietor]

It would be funny. It would be a funny bit.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, look, we're not saying that you can do that, but it is 120 night sleep trial.

[Matt Mahan]

That's right.

[Jon Favreau]

That's very true. How is your slip in an upgrade? Well, it's way more comfortable than the old one. And everyone who there sleeps in our guest room and then our and our two boys, they're always like, I love, I love my Helix mattress. It's so comfy. I had the best night of sleep.

[Tommy Vietor]

Damn right.

[Jon Favreau]

Go to helixleep.com crooked for 27% off site wide. That's helixsleep.com crooked for 27% off Site wide. This offer is exclusive to our listeners. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you helixsleep.com crooked. Next up, the billion dollars Trump wants for his ballroom, which he then just said he doesn't need. On Saturday, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the money couldn't be included in the ICE funding bill because it doesn't comply with the Senate's budget rules. Trump then demanded that Republicans fire the parliamentarian, but Republicans decided to remove the funding instead of the parliamentarian admitting that they didn't have the votes anyway. Probably because enough of them realized that asking taxpayers to fork over a billion dollars for a ballroom no one asked for is fucking crazy. Trump, meanwhile, took reporters on a tour of the construction site this week, which is, you know, that's his passion. And he defended the project as a military necessity. And he said that the roof would be a drone port that protects all of Washington. Does he think it's there's like an iron dome over the White House now in Washington because of the cause? That's what the ballroom is.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

He also announced how many stories deep the bunker would be, which is probably not a piece of information you just want to hand out to the public.

[Jon Favreau]

No, no. Is the ballroom in jeopardy, like, does Trump? Trump then said he doesn't need the money. It seems like he wanted the money pretty badly, which is why he told them to fire the parliamentarian and is getting really pissed about this. Is he going to find a way to just steal the money from taxpayers like he's been doing now with this slush fund for insurrectionists. Or maybe he just extorts more rich people with business before the government to just give donations.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, it's hard to say. I. Once again, it seems that no one in Congress wants to vote for $1 billion for a ballroom. And they're going to, as Trump has tried to do, the white tried to do. Well, it's not really for the ballroom. The ballroom is paid for by all the rich people who were buying access in terms in exchange for the ballroom. But it's the security, the necessary security underneath the ballroom that is. That cost $1 billion. It's too late for that. It's the $1 billion ballroom until everyone understands it. An actual impressive Democratic messaging victory in this day and age. So we should applaud that. Maybe Elon Musk, fresh off the SpaceX IPO, comes in and gives a billion dollars to build the rest of it. But I don't know how they're going to get it doesn't seem like they're going to be able to get money out of Congress for this this year. No one wants to do this this close to the election. Maybe they can throw something into an end of the year deal after the election. I don't know.

[Jon Favreau]

But seems hard and I don't think that. I think that the reason they asked for ask Congress for the money in the first place is they can't necessarily. They can't use private donations to fund like security.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, but then that says in Southern. Before we did, I was gonna say, I mean who did we let? Do we let Michael Dell pay our troops once?

[Jon Favreau]

Do you see the news that he also said he doesn't need congressional approval to build his 250 foot arc?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I have to say I've tried really

[Jon Favreau]

hard to be calling it an arch or an arc. Arch.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I think it's an arch.

[Jon Favreau]

Arch.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And it's an arch.

[Jon Favreau]

Thinking of like the arc. Yeah. Sorry.

[Matt Mahan]

Yes.

[Jon Favreau]

The fuck it is. We got arches, we got ballrooms, we got Qatari jets, we got. I don't know, I've lost track. We got, we got new Kennedy centers.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

We have new marble armrests at the Kennedy Center. Right.

[Jon Favreau]

We have new marble armrests.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Time and energy on that new helipad.

[Jon Favreau]

We got a new helipad coming.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

The drone port. I've tried really hard to not focus on the arch as you call it on the arch. It just seems, I mean it seems crazy. I don't know because we're doing this on the podcast. I finally looked at where the arch was going to be. It's in Virginia or it's across the river.

[Jon Favreau]

But it also like the New York Times did a good like sort of AI rendering of. Of what the views would be like and it kind of just like it blocks the view of the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. It's like bigger than anything else in Washington. It just.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, it's stupid if.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean. Yeah, if I was a. I was a D.C. resident I'd be annoyed but.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, like no one's asking for it.

[Jon Favreau]

Oh, do I know the reflecting pool. Don't forget the reflect. We forgot the reflect.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, we are. Yeah, we are re repainting the reflecting pool. Once again a taxpayer dollars.

[Jon Favreau]

I believe it's just worst declining empire shit.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

He is obsessed with home renovation projects. Like this is like that is his true passion. He cannot be bothered with. He likes stealing money, revenge and interior design.

[Jon Favreau]

It's like the most cartoonish version of corruption by, like, an aging dictator. He's just stealing money, cats, you know, smash and grab anywhere he can. He's just putting gold everywhere, ensconced in his fucking DC home that he's turning into fucking Versailles on the Potomac, you know, pardoning all of his friends, punishing all of his enemies, doing nothing else, decomposing before our eyes. It's just like, yeah, it's fucking great. It's fucking bleak, man. One more vote. Trump's having trouble with, in part because he ended the careers of Republicans whose support he needs. A measure that would force him to end the war in Iran. On Tuesday, the Senate finally voted to take up the War Powers Resolution, with newly defeated Senator Bill Cassidy flipping to vote in favor. The resolution now moves to the House, where retiring Maine Democrat Jared golden says he now plans to flip his vote in favor as well. And all this comes as Iran is reviewing the latest US Peace proposal, which Trump says he'll give them a few days to do. He'll give. He also said that the US and Iran are, quote, right on the borderline between war and peace, and that he's, quote, in no hurry to make a deal as the price of gas inches towards $5 a gallon. What do you make of the latest developments in Iran and the shift of Republicans now being in favor of the War Powers Resolution?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Just the cycle. It's every week we wake up on Monday, there is a. Either a Truth social or an Axios post with multiple sirens that tells us that we're on the verge of a deal. We are right there. They're circling around it. That reality lasts like five hours. Then we are on the verge of war. Trump is right. We really are on the verge of both. Then we are making war plans, we're threatening to bomb people, we're ending civilizations. And then at the moment, right before the bombing is set to begin, things get tacoed and we are back to stalemate. And it's just we've been on rinse and repeat of this cycle for weeks now.

[Jon Favreau]

I will say that with each new draft of the peace proposal looks less like peace and more like a meaningless extension of a ceasefire.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, well, this.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, the latest one is just like, this will be like a memo that gives 30 days for peace negotiations, but, like, nothing happens within those. Like the strait doesn't open in those 30 days. It's basically just where we are right now, but a more formal ceasefire for another 30 days.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, what have they been doing for the last 30 days?

[Jon Favreau]

I know what's different?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I don't even understand what the point of the memo is. Like, theoretically, people are talking somewhere, right?

[Jon Favreau]

People are talking somewhere. People are talking somewhere. Well, and it seems like the Iranians, of course, have every incentive to continue to kick the ball down the road without having to give anything up because they don't want to get bombed again. Because Trump keeps inching closer to resuming just hostilities. And Bibi is reportedly pushing him towards that as well. Apparently there was like a tense call between Trump and Netanyahu where Trump was like, give peace a chance. And Netanyahu obviously was like, no, let's bomb the shit out of them. And so. Yeah. Well, would I be. Would I be shocked if this time we actually get some kind of a deal this weekend? No. But I would be shocked if it was actually a meaningful peace deal that ended the hostilities and actually for permanently.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

What do you think is more likely this weekend we take a step towards peace? And I'm not a bit not peace, but even like some memo. Memorandum or something, or we invade Cuba. Oh, I think Cuba's highly more likely.

[Jon Favreau]

Oh, I think peace. I think. I mean, not peace. Can I just say the memo. I say memo. I say memo over Cuba, but Cuba, who knows?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

We're doing rapid response three hours after this. Rapid response in the middle of its wedding about the Cuba invasion.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, I will not be doing rapid response there.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Tommy has to do it. He's got to speak to the bar.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, well, you know what? We'll be at the bar when you wave to Tommy.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Are we having mojito?

[Jon Favreau]

All right. One other rake Trump stepped on this week that we gotta talk about. You mentioned this. The President has endorsed scandal plagued Ken Paxton over incumbent John Cornyn in the Texas Senate primary runoff, much to the delight of Democrats and dismay of Senate Republicans. Trump called Cornyn, quote, a good man, but said that he wasn't there for him when he needed him, when times were tough. And then he dubbed Paxton, a true MAGA warrior, who would presumably vote for all the ballroom funding and insurrectionist payouts that Trump asked for.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And the SAVE act, that's the big one.

[Jon Favreau]

The SAVE Act, Right. Remember the SAVE act we talked about forever and then that's just. That's dead. Yeah. I guess Ken Paxton would revive it in the next Congress. Runoff is Tuesday. What do you make of Trump's decision?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Insane. A truly insane decision. It's in the immediate aftermath. Let's just go back in time a couple months to the Texas primary, which honestly feels like 10 years ago, but Cornyn did better than anyone expected. The assumption was that Trump said he was going to make an endorsement. Everyone assumed he was going to endorse Cornyn. Paxton was going to have. If Trump had done that, Paxton would have probably had to drop out, his campaign would have dried up, and Cornyn would be the nominee. Instead, he invaded Iran. Instead of focusing on this, dithered for a long time, could have just stayed silent and then endorsed Ken Paxton with a week to go, almost ensuring that Ken Paxton will be the nominee. Ken Paxton is by every measure less electable than John Cornyn. We've seen this in the polling. There is a slice of Republicans who will vote for Cornyn over Talarico, but will vote for Talarico over Paxton. And just like he is so, like, this is the example. He's so focused on vengeance that he decided to go after John Cornyn. We already, we already just talked about the, the, the consequences in the Senate. And just even more practically, like this day, I think the, I think the Cook Political Report moved this to lean Republican.

[Jon Favreau]

They said they will if.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

They will. They will if. If Cor. If Paxton is the nominee. But. So they probably still have advantages here. But the NRSC, all the super PACs, are going to have to spend ungodly amounts of money in this race to try to just win a state that should. The seat they should have already won, all because Trump just could not help himself.

[Jon Favreau]

Could you make a political argument, and I realize it wouldn't be a good one. It's not one that I favor, that it's possible John Cornyn would be a weaker candidate than Ken Paxton because Cornyn, like the Trump, like the hardcore MAGA base, would be pissed and maybe stay home if Cornyn was the nominee. And so you would sort of. And you need turnout in a midterm. Like, is that, is that a thing?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Maybe we would have made that argument if Cornyn. We may make that argument if Cornyn wins the primary on Tuesday. So stay tuned. Hey, that's not next week's roller coaster. That's not what we do here. I think that argument is hard to support.

[Jon Favreau]

I mean, look, if you. All the polling shows that Talarico does better against Paxton than Cornyn, but only by a point or two in some of this polling, which in Texas could be everything, of course, probably would be everything.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

He's not winning by more than a point or two, FYI.

[Jon Favreau]

Right, right, right. But I, I thought that the delta between the two in the polling would be bigger than it has been now. There haven't been that many polls, but,

[Dan Pfeiffer]

you know, and then there's also, in these polls, there's, you know, like 10 to 12% undecided. And we have to look and see who makes up that undecided. But then if you are in Texas, I just. I think that it's just. It's. It's like, let's not overcomplicate this. Ken Paxton is a man who is an absolute crook, a serial adulter, a fucking lunatic, and he's terrible at raising money.

[Jon Favreau]

His own staff called the FBI on him. His own staff. That to me is my. That's my favorite things, like how many people have their own staff call the FBI on him.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And no one here. Right.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Nice checking.

[Jon Favreau]

They're all the way. They left.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But Paxton's such a perfect foil for Talarico. This nice, thoughtful guy who can talks about his religion is faithful. Like he just. They're the exact opposite of each other. And that is that it really helps tell the RICO in a way that is. It's not just Republican Democrats, like a good person, a bad person, and that that is going to help tell rico. We can pretend like Cornyn because he sucks as a politician and isn't very good on the stump. And it's kind of a.

[Jon Favreau]

There.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

He puts on a cowboy hat every year for an ad and he looks fucking ridiculous in it. Looks like it's basically photoshopped on his head. But Paxton, running as Paxton is way better for telo than Cornyn.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. I mean, you make the argument that Cornyn basically is generic republic in a ballot, and Paxton is less. Is more vulnerable than a generic Republican because he again, committed bribery and corruption and adultery.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But think about how close Beto came to beating Tommy.

[Jon Favreau]

And I talked about this on OnlyFriends, which I was like, there's like three factors here, right? It's three questions for does Tallyrico win? Do you think the overall national environment is bluer than it was in 2018? Do you think Talarico is a better candidate than Beto? And then do you think Paxton is a worse candidate than Ted Cruz?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I think on all three measures, this is better for Tall Reiko than it was for Beto. And Beto came within three points.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, I think that's probably right.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But now those last three points, that is a long fucking mile to cross in Texas.

[Jon Favreau]

I also said that that's where I came down. I'm like, and he could do better than Beto and still lose by just a little. But, you know, I think he's a special candidate I have for a long time. I know you do, too. And like I think you know, everyone should.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

If anyone can do it, this is James Talarico right now in this environment against Ken Paxton.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah,

[Tommy Vietor]

This episode is brought to you by the Obama Foundation. Democracy doesn't defend itself. It needs people willing to fight for it. That's why the Obama foundation is committed to training the next generation of leaders, building communities and strengthening our democracy. This summer, the Obama Presidential center opens as a global hub for change, providing emerging leaders with the tools and resources they need to make a real difference in their communities, our country and our world. But none of that happens without you. These leaders need support now, and your donation makes that possible. Years from now, when you look back on this moment in history, you'll want to say you stepped off the sidelines. So don't wait. Join the movement for change. Donate to the Obama [e-mail] podcast with VRBoCare. Help is always ready before, during and after your stay.

[Jon Favreau]

We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great

[Matt Mahan]

trip starts with peace of mind.

[Jon Favreau]

All right, Dan, Some breaking news this morning on the 2024 DNC autopsy. Ken Martin finally agreed to release the final text of the report, which CNN published after the uproar that followed his interview with us a few weeks ago. This is from Martin's statement, quote, I didn't want to create a distraction, but but by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that I sincerely apologize. He also said, quote, it does not meet my standards and it won't meet your standards. But I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word. Well, I agree with him there. The 192 page report is riddled with inaccuracies, at times incoherent, ultimately incomplete. The section headlined Conclusion comes with an annotation that says this section was not provided by the author. Still, you need to know there's also no mention of Biden's decision to run again, his age, Gaza inflation. Dan, do you have some. You have some thoughts you'd like to share? I feel like I've said plenty on this. You.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

You'll have more to say. I hope this is so fittingly stupid like it would like. This is what we suspected all along, which is Ken Martin hired the wrong person to do the report. The wrong person did a terrible job. Instead of starting the report over or saying that Ken Martin just started lying, couldn't stop lying and Just got himself into this incredible hole. And then he doesn't get points for transparency here because that CNN got some parts, they were able to get from some sources, parts of the report. And once the CNN had that, then the DNC made the decision, which was the right decision to release the rest of it. Like it's.

[Jon Favreau]

So

[Dan Pfeiffer]

it cannot have been handled more poorly, just every part of it. So I'm going to go through a couple of things here. One, this is just a management disaster. This was supposed to be a huge priority for Ken Martin. He hired someone to work for free who no one in the Democratic Party would have picked for this role. There was no actual process set up. There was clearly no monitoring of the process or oversight or anyone working on or tracking what was happening. Because when he got. He was shocked when he got the report. Well, why weren't you getting. Why weren't there calls every week? Why wasn't someone on your staff in charge of doing this? Why wasn't there a committee of people? I can think of dozens upon dozens of very, very qualified, very, very smart Democrats who would have volunteered to be part of this process, to do it.

[Jon Favreau]

Right.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And I know this because there have been a bunch of other autopsies that have come out where they've gotten really, really smart people to do it and completed the work.

[Jon Favreau]

Someone that we know reached out to me and said, we wrote a 700 page post mortem on the 2012 campaign, the Obama campaign, and it was done in January, the election was in November,

[Dan Pfeiffer]

and so it's just absolute management disaster. The second piece is the lying.

[Jon Favreau]

It's the biggest piece.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

The lying is so crazy. And I go back to the interview with you, which is. And you talked about this when we did the interview, we talked about since. I just want everyone to fully understand, we did not seek out Ken Martin for the purpose of talking to him about the autopsy. We had no interest in talking to Ken Martin about the autopsy. He complained to you about tweets sent by someone who's not you?

[Jon Favreau]

Nope. Ben Rhodes tweet. Ben Rhodes tweet kicked it off.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And then he came up to you at the Grindr party.

[Jon Favreau]

Yep, sure did.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And expressed his dismay. You can talk about how he expressed it. And so the response was that he would come on the podcast and discuss it. He, like, sought out the opportunity to do it, to continue to push the lie. Because the. The argument that they were making. Kenneth Martin had two points in this, about the autopsy. It's done. It was helpful. It has informed our playbook. He said the word playbook 10,000 times, that interview. And we can't release it because it would be a distraction and divide the party before the election. The last part is, yes, it would be a distraction, but the main reason not to release it was embarrassing to Ken Martin or not to come clean with why you weren't releasing this. Because it would be embarrassing to Ken Martin, not because it'd be bad for the party.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, yeah. And if it was just the autopsy and this was like just one incident here, that would be one thing, but the fact that it goes to trust issues and credibility. And as Ken says in his statement, we need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and people need to be able to trust us again. It is indicative of a larger issue that he has had since taking this role as chairman at the dnc. And look no further than the April fundraising reports that came out the same day today that say once again, the Democratic national committee has negative $3 million in the bank when you account for the debts that they owe. And the Republican national committee has $124 million in the bank. And then when you look at the fundraising of the RNC versus the dnc, the RNC has raised many, many, many, many, many more times the amount of money as the dnc. But when you look at the fundraising between the DCCC and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, when you the two House committees, the Republicans have outraised Democrats by a little, but not as much as RNC versus dnc. Same thing with the Senate committees. So it's not a Democratic Party wide problem, fundraising problem, it's a DNC problem.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And one of the reasons why the DNC is not able to raise money. And Ken Martin has disputed this, but many, many donors have said otherwise is the autopsy. Because the autopsy has bred just frustration. The DNC didn't do it. Questions of trust about Ken Martin. What are we giving our money for? For not getting it. And this is, I mean, bearing the lead here. But this is why I think Ken Martin should step down. I think this is a bridge too far. He cannot repair the trust here. He's. He's not. Everything we've seen here is he's not the right person for the job. I'm sorry, that seems like a harsh thing to say, but it is clear there's. He has an impossible job being even under I, we have worked with many, many DNC chairs, even under the best circumstances, the job sucks ass. It is really, really hard. No one has ever seen a successful DNC chair. People are hammered for it. But thing is, is that Ken Martin is now the distraction that he did not. He was trying to avoid. And because you're the distraction, then you should go. Like he said it, like he says in his post, my job is winning elections. Well, the best thing for the dnc, for the Democrats to win elections, is to have a fresh start at the DNC, both now and in 2028, where the trusted issue matters so much more. Because the DNC is going to run the presidential primary. They're going to set up the debates, they're going to pick the calendar, which is a huge thing. They're going to make decisions about how delegates are allocated, they're going to deal with states to try to jump the calendar. All of this matters. And when people don't trust the DNC, as happened in 2016 when all of the emails came out as part of the Russian hacks of dnc, emails that showed that people at the DNC were favoring Hillary over Bernie. People didn't trust the dnc. They didn't trust the process. They thought it was rigged. And it hurt, it hurt in the general election. We need people to trust the process, process, and I say that as a six year span, but we need people to trust the process.

[Jon Favreau]

Well, and what he has opened up to now is any candidate who runs for president in 2028 who complains about unfairness at the DNC, whether those accusations are fair or not, accurate or not. Like, no one's gonna believe Ken Martin because he has this credibility issue, right? And same thing with the excuses on the money, right? He did a whole thing with me in the interview about like, you know, we're actually fine and we're investing in state parties and you need to spend and all this kind of stuff. But like, I don't know, can I believe that now? I don't know. He had this other lie for a long, long time and tried to, tried to hide it, tried to cover up this report. So, yeah, I guess after it was released today, there was a call for DNC members, a private call just for all the DNC members and talked to some people who are on the call and he basically just read the statement that he gave CNN essentially and apologized again. And then also said that Paul Rivera, who he put in charge of this report, is no longer helping out at the dnc because part of the CNN story said that even after he fucked up the autopsy, Paul Rivera was still walking around the DNC demoralizing staffers just by his presence because they all knew that he had fucked up so badly. So he said that Paul Revere is no longer working. And then no questions on the call, no questions from any of the DNC members after this. I also got something from someone at the DNC saying that a lot of the outlets are mistaken in saying that there's no pathway to removal for Ken, that it's actually just a simple majority vote of the dnc. So that's interesting. And there is at least one congressman, Representative Mark Vesey said that it's time for Ken Martin to go. So I don't know. I mean, I tend to think, do you think his job is safe? Do you think he'll resign? Like it seems. It seems like a tall order, but I don't know.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I mean, I hope he would be willing to look at the reality situation and recognize that because of the mistakes that he made, that the best thing for the party would be to step down. I don't think he's going to do that. We're in this mess because he was trying to protect himself, not the party. So hard to say. I mean, you know, is the. Are we really going to take the. Even if it's easy, it's an extraordinary step to remove the DNC chairs. Anyone going to do that five months before the midterms? I'd be surprised.

[Jon Favreau]

And then you need another candidate.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's a real question before the 2028 calendar is set as to whether we have to do something different here. Also, the other problem is no one seems to want the job.

[Jon Favreau]

So you need someone else who would want the job. You need someone else who. You need the donors to say that if someone else takes the job, then the money will start flowing again and they'll start donating. Right, because you don't want the new. You want a new chair to still be stuck at the same problem financially. And it does. You know, people have been complaining this is a distraction, distraction, like it does at some point, eat up a lot of time and energy, you know, as we're getting close to the midterms. But the challenge is after the midterms happen, if they are as expected and things go well again, you can just, you can hear the DNC taking credit for it in advance and they will have nothing to do with the victory. Again, if things don't go well, it's still not the DNC's fault. They just don't have that much to do with, with midterm elections at all. But as soon as the midterms are over, we're fucking into the Presidential primary, and people are going to start putting their campaigns together, and you're going to need the calendars and all the stuff that you were just talking about. And so, I don't know. It's just. It's fucking mess. Fucking mess.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's so stupid.

[Jon Favreau]

And we're not digging into the actual autopsy because it's a joke. Like, I was just going to say, like. Like it's not worth talking about anything in it because it's not endorsed by the DNC or anyone else. It's just like Paul Rivera's ramblings that are the basis of him talking to just some people involved with the 2024 campaign who aren't even most of the senior people on the campaign.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, there's been a lot, I would say, to people who are interested in what happened. There's been a lot of actual autopsies from outside groups. Way to Win has one. Catalyst has their report. We talked about Rob Flaherty's Bulwark piece the other day. There's one from, I think, the Strategic Victory Fund, if I'm saying that correctly, has one. There's actually some pretty good, pretty exhaustive work about what happened in 2024 that people want they should go look at. But looking at this version is not worth doing because you could look for it. I would say read the executive summary, but that was also not provided.

[Jon Favreau]

Right, right. All right. Well, you think he'll come back on the pod?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Maybe. Maybe you guys will meet up again at next year's Grinder Party.

[Jon Favreau]

Fingers crossed. Maybe there'll be alcohol this time. All right. Speaking of Democrats being unhappy with Democrats, the New York Times released new results from their latest poll that we talked about on Tuesday. This installment is focused on Democrats and independents who say they're planning to support Democratic candidates in the fall. Overall, more than half of these voters disapprove of the Democratic Party. More than half also said the party should move to the center rather than move to the left in order to win the 2028 presidential election. But when asked that question about specific issues, the revolts, the results were more varied. On economic issues, 36% said move to the left. Pretty competitive with the 42% who said move to the center. And on health care, 45% of Democratic voters want to move to the left, compared to just 27% who said move to the center and 26% who said don't move in either direction. Health care was the issue where the biggest percentage of voters thought the Democratic Party should move to the left. And Then I would say economy was next. And then when you get to issues like crime, I think was the top issue where the most, the highest percentage of Democrats said that the party should move to the right or at least move to the center. Sorry. And then immigration and actually, you know, we can talk about this too. But trans issues was not as there weren't as many people and this would go against sort of the prevailing narrative, but there weren't as many Democrats who wanted the party to move to the center on trans issues as there were on crime. And immigration is still the top two. So what did you make of this novel line of questioning in the poll which they did ask voters, like, how do you personally feel about the direction of the party on these issues and what direction do you think the party should move in? And then they asked which direction you think the party should move to win. So they did both. But the move to win, basically asking voters to be pundits is a new one.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, I generally hate that idea. Like, it's always, it's just, it's just I much rather much more interested in what voters actually think because you would like to believe that that's what informs voting behavior. But I will say that this is a very interesting finding. One, it just proves that among Democrats, the narrative that Democrats lost because we were too far, the left too woke, too liberal has taken hold among Democrats, the plurality of Democrats believe that, at least on a core set of issues. And so it's like that's an interesting data point that, that has, you know, there was this battle after the election. Did we, were we too moderate or too left? And at least for the people responding in this poll, it was clearly the problem was we were too left, not left enough. And the other reason why I think this is somewhat informative is electability is become the preeminent issue in Democratic politics. It was a huge issue in the Texas Senate primary. It was a huge issue in the main Senate primary before Janet Mills dropped out. It's a giant issue in the Iowa primary that having a couple of weeks and it's, it's a big issue in the Michigan Senate primary that is in August. And so it's interesting to know what voters think makes someone electable or, or in this case may make them think someone is less electable. You know, looking at the numbers, it is you.

[Jon Favreau]

Did you dive into the cross tabs?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

If the cross tabs are not that, they're not that surprising.

[Jon Favreau]

I, I figured you did, but I did too.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, they're.

[Jon Favreau]

I'm Ready to nerd out about some cross tabs if people some real nuggets.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

But it's sort of. It's what you is the, the findings are kind of across the board. What would be interesting would be if there was one group who really thought they should move to the left but really just kind of across the board people or not move to the right or whatever it is. But the everyone kind of all feels the same way, just in varying degrees.

[Jon Favreau]

The call the college split on these issues is notable to me that non college voters tend to want the party to move towards the center and college voters want the party to move to the left and then it splits on racial and education lines in a very interesting way which is non college black voters and non college Latino voters along with non college white voters very much want the party to move to the center. And really the only demographic group that most wants the party to move to the left is white college grads. Also some black and Hispanic college grads. But it's just a larger chunk of the electorate is white and more with

[Dan Pfeiffer]

younger people like it all skews younger and all these.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. And particularly on issues again against the prevailing narrative on issues of immigration and crime.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah. You see that they. Wait.

[Jon Favreau]

That you see black and Latino non college Democratic voters say they want the party to move to the center.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Oh yes. Yes. I mean that is the. I guess I thought we felt like we were past that prevailing narrative or that even that narrative is kind of. But I guess I guess so it depends on where you're getting your news these days.

[Jon Favreau]

Right. Yeah, just. Just wait till we get to the next primary.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah. I mean and it's like obviously electability is going to hang over the 2028 primary in a massive way. And so this, this will inform that. I think the healthcare one is very interesting. On economic issues it's only a six point spread which I think is also notable. And then what I found also interesting is that there is. They asked people if they asked Democrats if they thought the economic system in the country was generally unfair to most Americans. 88% yes. Only 11% said fair to most Americans and whether the political and economic system needs to be changed and made 80s so 63% said major changes, 20% said torn down completely and 15% said minor or no minor changes. And 1% said no changes. Who that person is, which Democrat thinks they request no changes I'd be interested in. But I think there is this paradox here which is you have people saying we think the party should move right on Certain issues. But there is an appetite in it for big, bold ideas on the economy and healthcare. And people want real change. And so nibbling around the edges is not going to be sufficient. Both in the Democratic primary and the general, people want to see that you understand the scale of the problems affecting their lives, the ways in which the system is broken and corrupt, and you have big ideas. So the sort of, you know, not to pick on Kamala Harris's economic team, but like this is what not to do is we're going to offer tax credits, tax credits for home, for first time home buyers. It's a good policy, theoretically, but it just seems small compared to what people actually want.

[Jon Favreau]

Building more houses would be a better policy.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, that would be a better policy. You can do both.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, you can do both. But yeah, I mean, there was a line in here in the write up of the piece of the poll, which was. And when presented with two opposing economic visions, more than 2/3 of Democratic supporters, now we're 65, 66% said they favored a candidate who would go after corporate monopolies and price gouging, while just 30% preferred a candidate who promised to lower prices by easing housing regulations and expanding energy production. Now, you know, some of this is in wording that doesn't, that doesn't sound very exciting to ease housing regulations and expand energy production. But just to give people a baseline, because I thought this was interesting. So they asked, like, where do you, how do you think about the party? Is it too far left, is it too far right or is it not too far either way? 55% said not too far either way. 20% said 2 left. 17% said to right. So right there you're a candidate trying to win the party's nomination. You got like a little more than half of the electorate that you're trying to get who thinks the party is ideologically good where it is right now. And then you've got almost similar percentages on either side. So that is a tough thing to navigate. I also thought the delta between when they asked people, what would you personally like? Where would you personally like to see the party move and to win? Where would you like to see the party move? Was actually not that different. So 28% said they personally like to see the party move to the left. And 25% said that to win, the party should move to the left. And then 47% said they personally wanted to move to the center. And 52% said to win, they want to move to the center. So you do have a Percentage of people who are saying, oh, personally, I want the party to be more left, but to win it should move to the center. But not a ton. The delta wasn't as big as I thought it would be.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, it's. I mean, for the reasons we've talked about for many years, which is the median Democrat is a voter that didn't go to college and is more moderate than most people. Listen to this podcast and we are personally. And that's the party that nominated Joe Biden in 2020. And that remains true. I think these questions are a little confusing in how they're ordered, but it's just notable that 55% are generally okay with the direction of the party is now how many of those 55% can name what the direction of the party actually fucking is right now?

[Jon Favreau]

Well, I was just gonna say the other thing that stands out in some of the questions that they asked is, and we always talk about this, but it's a good reminder for everyone, is how those of you listening to this podcast, you are so different than like 70% of the rest of the electorate in that you pay closer attention to politics and know more about what's going on in politics day to day than most of the people who will show up and vote in elections. So they asked about Schumer and Schumer's approval rating in this poll among just Democrats and independents that they're going to vote. Democrat is 26% in favor, 31% opposed. And you're like, well, that's kind of low. 35% never heard of Chuck Schumer. Joe Rogan, 11% approved, 48% disapprove. The rest never heard of Joe Rogan.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Nick Fuentes. What is it? 9% approve.

[Jon Favreau]

I didn't even see Fuentes in there.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah, this is in the cross tank.

[Jon Favreau]

They asked, I guess, just for fun, have you heard maybe Ezra got this question in. Have you heard of the abundance movement? 91% of people that they polled, all of whom again, all these people said they're gonna vote in the midterms. 91% never heard of the abundance movement. So it's just, it's a good reminder that people who are even in Democratic, even in midterms, right. Which is a more engaged electorate. Even midterm voters are just not paying as much attention to all the shit that we talk about every week.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

These are registered voters, right?

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, but registered voters who said they're going to vote in the midterm. The Israel numbers, crazy. Only 20% favor more aid to Israel 74% do not. 15% sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians and 60% Palestinians over Israelis. The highest group of support for Israel of any demographic is 65 plus. Unsurprising there. Even that group, 65 plus, only 27% said that they have more sympathy for Israel and the Palestinians. That is just a massive shift on that issue.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yep.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

You can thank Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu for that.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, that is true. And then 49% favor socialism, 22% no socialism, and then the rest had no opinion.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Every age group of Democrats has a favorable opinion. So they don't support socialism. They have a favorable opinion of it, which I think is.

[Jon Favreau]

Thank you. That is important.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

That may be a distinction of difference in the ads that will be run, but I think it does matter on what people say. But yeah, Even voters over 65, if I remember correctly, Democrats over 65 by more narrow margin, have a favorable view of socialism.

[Jon Favreau]

Oh, last one I wanted to ask you about. 49% of voters said it was important to choose leaders with a fresh approach. 48% want to choose leaders with proven experience.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's a real.

[Jon Favreau]

And guess what? Young people wanted experience. Yeah. By like a lot more than other age groups. It was a sort of lost.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I think that this one is. I think this is a confusing question and I don't think it says exactly what you think it says. I think the backdrop for this is our reality TV show president who has no real experience and is fucking up left and right every single day. And so I think the better of the the question that will be more interesting as we think about the 2028 Democratic primary is inside. Do you want someone who is a part of the establishment or against the establishment? I think that's a. Because everyone is, everyone who's running is going to have some answer on experience. It's just what experience means. Like, we saw this in 2008. Like, everyone can define experience the way they do. And then you either sell it or you don't. Because if you don't, no one wants someone with insufficient experience.

[Jon Favreau]

That is true. That is true. While we're on this topic, there's a bit of a mess brewing in the Democratic primary in Texas's redrawn 35th district, where sheriff's Deputy Johnny Garcia is now in a runoff with a sex therapist named Maureen Galindo, who has posted wildly anti Semitic comments online, including calling Judaism the synagogue of Satan and promising to turn an ICE detention center into, quote, a prison for American Zionists. And Former ICE officers adding, quote, it will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles, which will probably be most of the Zionists. Disgusting. A mysterious super PAC called Lead Left, which was formed earlier this month and whose website initially linked to the Republican platform Winred, has now spent about $600,000 to boost Galindo. Demoline Super Pacs have now just about matched that spending to defeat Galindo. And everyone from James Talarico to Hakeem Jeffries to AOC has condemned her. What do you make of this?

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's a mess. It's an absolute mess. I mean, good for everyone for speaking up and trying to defeat this person. The Republicans are pretty devious in what they're doing. They're going to do this in multiple places around the country. They've already tried to do it in a couple states, including Pennsylvania. I mean, we have been involved in Democratic groups, have been involved in primaries before. So this is not beyond the bound, beyond the bounds of what's acceptable or what's appropriate. But add us to the list of people condemning her and hoping she does not win.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah. And if you are in that district, if you're a voter in that district, if you know voters in that district, like, tell them to go vote for Johnny Garcia.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

She got more votes in the primary.

[Jon Favreau]

I know, I know. That's what, that's what we're all worried about. This is on, this is on Tuesday. She got. So this is the runoff and she got more votes than him the first time around. And so, you know, I think I can't even begin. The most generous explanation is that people who voted for her did not know about all the comments and all the positions, I hope, and that maybe. And that she obviously had a lot of money in spending behind her. So her name ID was better than Johnny Garcia. So he needs better name id. Maybe this controversy getting kicked up will help sort of focus people. And people in that 35th district will, will hear about this and be like, oh, that's crazy. We've got to vote for Johnny Garcia. But anyway, we should, everyone should get the word out. Because this isn't just someone who's like, crazy lefty. This is like fucking concentration camps for Zionists. Are you fucking kidding me? Like, it's awful. And Republicans, of course, are so fucking cynical and having a field day with this and being like, oh, Democrats, Democrats are the ones voting for the anti Semites and the, and the people who want to put Jews in camps, not Republicans. And meanwhile, of course not saying anything about the Fact that there's this like mysterious super PAC linked to the Republican group Win Red that is spending to on this race, which is just crazy. So Johnny Garcia, go check it out. All right, one last topic today. There are two very notable weddings taking place this Memorial Day weekend. As we've said, one is our own John Lovett and Ari Schwartz, which we're all very excited to attend. The other is Donald Trump Jr. And Palm beach socialite Bettina Anderson, which Donald Trump Sr. Is maybe skipping. Let's listen to what he said in the Oval.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

He'd like me to go, but it's

[Jon Favreau]

going to be just a small little

[Matt Mahan]

private affair and I'm going to try and make it. I'm in the midst.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I said, you know, this is not

[Jon Favreau]

good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

That's one I can't win on. If I do attend, I get killed.

[Jon Favreau]

If I don't attend, I get killed.

[Tommy Vietor]

What you've done forever.

[Jon Favreau]

I saw this this morning. I am. It is 4 o' clock in the afternoon. I am still stunned by this.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I mean we have joked for many, many years about how Donald Trump does not love his children and they act this way because he does not love them and he can barely identify them and really did no parenting. This kind of proves the point.

[Jon Favreau]

Yeah, just generational trauma just in action. We're just watching it unfold right in that clip.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

It's just also, you know what I gotta.

[Jon Favreau]

Donald Trump's famous for skipping festivities and any kind of leisure activity because he likes to be focused on the nation's business. He's well known for that.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

No one would kill him for going to his son's wedding.

[Jon Favreau]

No one would kill him.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Like that's one free. Like he does a lot of dumb shit. I wouldn't criticizing him for playing golf. This would free pass for this one.

[Jon Favreau]

It's in the Bahamas, I guess, where he can't like Air Force One can go. Go to the Bahamas.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

He can go anywhere.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

And go anywhere. It could bring a fucking.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

I bet he says piss is not at Mar a Lago because he wanted to charge his son.

[Jon Favreau]

That is. I. I can't even imagine. I can't imagine that was getting married. And also not like he also wasn't even. It would have even been different if he was like, oh, I'm so like I can't make it. You know, like he was definitive and he had the excuse but he did the worst of all worlds, which is just be like, I'm going to try to make it, but I don't know. I don't know. It's not good timing.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Also, it's about me. It's.

[Jon Favreau]

I told him it's not. He had. Not good timing for me.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah.

[Jon Favreau]

Not good timing for me. It's really, it's your fault I'm not coming to your wedding, son.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Good stuff.

[Jon Favreau]

Anyway, anyway, Congrats to John, Jr. Congrats to John Jr. We'll.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

And John Lovett.

[Jon Favreau]

And John Lovett.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yes.

[Jon Favreau]

Just cut from the same cloth. When we come back, California gubernatorial candidate Matt.

[Tommy Vietor]

Pod Save America is brought to you by Nutrafol. Real change comes through the small, healthy habits you do every day that quietly add up to big improvements. That's the idea behind Nutrafol. It's built around a simple, consistent approach to hair health that works from within and delivers visible results over time, not overnight. Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand and it's the number one hair growth supplement brand personally used by dermatologists. Nutrafol's hair growth supplements are peer reviewed, NSF certified for sport and clinically tested. It's not a one size fits all approach. Nutrafol offers multiple formulas for men and women tailored to different life stages like postpartum or menopause and lifestyle factors such as a plant based diet. So you get personalized support that's right for you. Adding Nutrafol to your daily routine is easy. Order online, no prescription needed, with automated deliveries and free shipping to keep you on track. This whole their pitch of results over time, not overnight. I think that makes a lot of sense because remember the other options for this sort of thing, or one day you'd just be totally bald and the next day the commercial has a guy like jet skiing with a full head of hair and a sick mullet.

[Jon Favreau]

There's that or there's just. You're standing outside at a press conference and it's a little warm and suddenly you got the new hair dripping down your face.

[Tommy Vietor]

His head just melted.

[Jon Favreau]

Good old days. I know.

[Tommy Vietor]

Let your hair become one less thing taking up space in your head. And see thicker, stronger, faster growing hair with less shedding. In just three to six months with Nutrafol for a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping. When you visit Nutrafol.com, enter the promo code CROOKED. That's Nutrafol.com spelled N-U T R-A F O L.com promo code CROOKED. My guest today is the mayor of San Jose. He's running to be the next governor of the great state of California. My man. Great to see you.

[Matt Mahan]

Thanks for having me.

[Tommy Vietor]

Thank you for coming into the crooked media grand offices.

[Jon Favreau]

What do you think?

[Matt Mahan]

It's beautiful. I love the art.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, I'm really digging for compliments today. All right, let's cut to the chase. So, got a motley crowded field of candidates in this race. Election day is fast approaching. People are already voting. I got my ballot at the House. I'm an undecided voter. I want to talk to you about it in a bit. Why are you the best candidate to lead this state?

[Matt Mahan]

Well, thanks for having me on. I think I'm the best candidate to lead the state because I'm the only Democrat in the race who has a track record of challenging the establishment within my own party to make our government deliver for people. And at a time when we've got an authoritarian president who is trying to take the country in a very dangerous direction, we need Democrats who can govern and make people's lives better. The way we win in the long run is proving that we can implement policies that make people's neighborhoods safer and cleaner, their schools better, make housing more affordable. If we're delivering bad outcomes and people are dissatisfied with our leadership, it becomes very hard to fight for democracy and get people to care about climate change and many of the kind of longer term goals that we have.

[Tommy Vietor]

So I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but just, you know, we're in la, we have this mayoral race happening that's kind of goofy. I'm sure you've seen. We got Karen Bastian coming to the Democrat. Just got a challenge from the left from Nithya Raman, and then a challenge from the right from, like a washed up reality TV participant. I don't even want to call him a star. Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, and I think has channeled very understandable anger about the response into a surprisingly effective campaign. And he's like, tapped into this rage at the government, rage at the system that I think was bubbling below the surface for a lot of people. And, like, not just, you know, people who are feeling, like, the economic pinch, like a lot of rich, powerful people in this city are like, pro Pratt now.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Yeah.

[Tommy Vietor]

Are you hearing that anger on the campaign trail? And if so, how do Democrats address it and speak to it? Like, when we're in charge of everything here and have been for a while?

[Matt Mahan]

I am hearing that frustration and in some cases outright anger and that's exactly what I'm talking about. When I ran for mayor of San Jose, which is the third largest city in the state, I was hearing deep frustration with the most basic things. There's, there's crime in my neighborhood, sprawling tent encampments, our schools are failing. I can't afford the rent. I mean, the stuff that really keeps people up at night and affects them in their daily lives. And I realized very quickly when I was out knocking on doors and talking to people that we have to own those shortcomings and offer people change that is pragmatic and responsible. I believe we are almost continuously in a change election mode because government today is failing to get the basics right. In San Jose, I focused on things that are very simple but have an outsized impact. Speeding up permitting, creating a neighborhood quality of life unit within our police department, building basic dignified interim housing, and when it's available, requiring people come indoors, partnering with our county to get more people into drug treatment by focusing on very basic issues that people see and feel every single day that you sadly see go viral on Nextdoor and everywhere else. We've increased trust in city hall by 40% in my time as mayor. I think that's the playbook. It'll look different in different cities and different states. But again, I go back to this core premise that we have to be outcome focused. We have to look at the outcomes that matter most to voters. And they're pretty clear. They're telling us it's cost of living, it's quality of schools, it's public safety issues, it's very basic issues. Now it's the cost of gas. And yeah, we could spend all of our time arguing how much of the cost of gas is the. Is Trump's war a lot of it versus a lot of it? Yeah. The last, what, dollar and a half, $2, something like that is thanks to Donald Trump. But the $50 before that is largely our own policy decisions, and we need to be honest about that. I've argued that the gas tax in California has become the most regressive tax. It affects people living in the kinds of communities I grew up in. I grew up in a small farming town on the Central Coast. People who can't afford an ev, Californians who are driving farther because they live in rural communities or out in the suburbs and they're commuting every day. And we should keep it, but we should right size it. In fact, I would convert it into a flat fee that makes sure EV owners are paying their fair share. That would be Fair. You'd provide some relief to people and you'd show that the Democratic Party's still fighting for working people and trying to make a real impact in their daily lives.

[Tommy Vietor]

Let me be annoying and ask a process question. We'll get geek out a little bit. So you got into the race pretty late. It was a crowded field, but now you've been running for a couple months and there was a poll out earlier this week that had you at 4% of the vote. How do you turn things around if that poll is accurate between now and Election Day, when it's what, a month out? Less.

[Matt Mahan]

Less. I mean, look, there's a lot of fluidity in the polls. We also recently had a poll that showed us at 10%. I, I mean, look, when it's a low turnout race and voters are holding onto their ballots, it means there's a lot of uncertainty and therefore variability in terms of what can happen. I believe people are listening. They're not thrilled with the choices that they perceive to be the front runners today because they have some very legitimate concerns about Tom Steyer and Javier Becerra and certainly Steve Hilton. And I'm offering an alternative to that is resonant with those who have heard it. What we see in our data is when people have seen our ads and heard our message, we go above 20% and we're in the top two. So my focus is on communicating directly with voters through every possible channel, including, thank you very much, you know, this opportunity today I want to talk to people about what we've done to get housing under construction, to make San Jose the safest big city in the country, to reduce homelessness faster than any other city in the state of California and offer a different view of how we make Sacramento work for them. I mean, we, we have to own, as Democrats, the fact in the last six years we have increased spending in Sacramento by 75%. That's $150 billion per year more than we had six years ago. And none of the outcomes that people care most about have gotten better. That is a systemic breakdown. And that's why I'm trying to offer very concrete solutions. Fund Prop 36, expand treatment capacity, do high dosage tutoring when children are falling behind, to make sure every child's on grade level for reading by the end of third grade. These are things that work that we have not done, largely because of special interest capture in Sacramento. We don't build condos in the state of California anymore because the trial lawyers like the fees they collect from using construction defect Laws to sue builders of condos. So the city of Miami builds more condos every year than the entire state of California. Why does that matter? That's the most accessible form of homeownership for young people. And we wonder why people are getting priced out of our state. So I'm running against the special interest capture in Sacramento and the status quo. I've done that as the mayor of a large city and it's worked. We've delivered meaningful outcomes.

[Tommy Vietor]

I want to ask you more about homeownership and young people in the state. Just one more sort of process thing, which is like, look, I'm. I'm literally an undecided voter in this race in part because, as you know, we have this stupid jungle primary system here where there's a runoff, there's a first round on June 2nd. The top two candidates go to the runoff. So that leads to strategic voting, right? There was all this anxiety about Democrats splitting the vote to Republicans ascending, and right then we have a de facto Republican governor. That probably won't happen now because it's Chad seems to touch cuckoo. And Trump has chosen the British short king as his guy in California. Shocking what's going on there, I guess. Fucks. But then, but then there's people like me who are just like, overthinking it, right? Because I have candidates that appeal to my heart. And I worry though, that if they can't win, then maybe I'm doing a harm reduction vote because I have candidates that I think are bad and I want to vote for someone to displace them. Why do we have this dumb system? I hate it.

[Matt Mahan]

Well, I hope I'm speaking to your heart, Tom.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Well, we'll find out.

[Tommy Vietor]

We got 15 more minutes.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, you can let me know at the end. Look, I don't think people should overthink it. It is almost statistically impossible for two Republicans to get through. There are not that many Republican votes in the state of California. Donald Trump is not on the ballot, which means turnout will be lower than it would otherwise be. Bianco is hanging in there with his third of the Republican Party, but not any more than that. And I just, I think it's more likely we'll have two Democrats than we will have two Republicans. By far. It's just not going to happen. So I think people should vote for the Democrat who they believe will do the best job.

[Tommy Vietor]

Can we get rid of this process at some point, though?

[Matt Mahan]

The voters can.

[Tommy Vietor]

Let's do it.

[Matt Mahan]

They can.

[Tommy Vietor]

It's annoying. No one likes this. Who is this for.

[Matt Mahan]

Well, the theory, I do want to try to articulate it because look, there are trade offs. Partisan primaries also tend to drive candidates to the extreme.

[Tommy Vietor]

Agreed.

[Matt Mahan]

And so I don't know that there's a. I've heard another interesting alternative which is, I know this is going to sound crazy, but I was intrigued when someone pitched me on this the other day having the top three or four candidates advance and then in the final, the second round, do ranked choice voting.

[Tommy Vietor]

I would do ranked choice choice for sure.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah. I feel like that solves the problem.

[Matt Mahan]

If you winnow the field from 62, which is literally what we have on our ballot today, which is insane.

[Tommy Vietor]

Including someone named Barack Obama, I believe.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, yeah. Good move on his part.

[Tommy Vietor]

Well played, sir.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah. If you narrow it to say the top four, then you're almost certain to have ideological and partisan variety. And then because it would then theoretically if you did ranked choice, you would then optimize for whoever's kind of the best overall choice. So I'd be interested in something like that. I worry if you go back to a partisan primary, you get the most extreme Republican, the most extreme Democrat. It's all, it's all decided in the primary. And that's by the way, looking at the other side. That's how you ended up with a Ted Cruz in, in Texas he got 5% of the vote, but because it was enough to make him the top candidate in a hyper partisan Republican primary in a red state, he became the de facto senator for years to come.

[Tommy Vietor]

Well, he is a very appealing human being. So I can see that for that 5% drew that 5% in. You have come out against this proposed one time billionaires tax, a 5% wealth tax on billionaires in California. This could be on the ballot this fall.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Why?

[Tommy Vietor]

What's your opposition to this plan?

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, so it's not because I don't think billionaires should, shouldn't be paying more. I mean, look, I think there are a lot of loopholes in the tax code we should close. I'll give you one example. Today very wealthy people can borrow against their stock options or other assets that they have not yet paid capital gains on and then deploy use those dollars as a way of funding their lifestyles, their investments and then never having to pay capital gains. That's a loophole. We should close that.

[Tommy Vietor]

Actually.

[Matt Mahan]

I'll give you one more. Elon Musk, if he were to die today, would pass his stock onto his heirs, 500 billion or whatever it is, and it would automatically get repriced at market rate. Meaning they, even if they turned around and sold it the next day, would never pay capital gains on it. Fundamentally unfair. So there are a whole bunch of things in the tax code I would fix. I also think with automation, capital gains will probably need to go up so that we can lower income tax on those who are working for a living. Yeah, but when it comes to this wealth tax, the, the concern I have is it's going to punish the middle class. In California. We've seen about a trillion dollars of capital flight from the state already. And we're. This is right in line with what we've seen in every other place that's tried a wealth tax.

[Tommy Vietor]

Trillion dollars in wealth, asset value.

[Jon Favreau]

Right.

[Tommy Vietor]

Not taxation.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Correct.

[Matt Mahan]

A trillion dollars worth of, of wealth of assets that people hold that no longer reside within the state of California because their owner now has a primary residence in another state like Reno or something. Yeah, yeah. Nevada, Florida, Texas, whatever. And that's what we've seen. So there are 14 European countries that have tried wealth taxes at the national level, not even the provincial or state level. And they have generally rolled them back or had to significantly modify them for a couple of reasons. One, they have seen the overall tax base shrink as they've had capital flight. People with very high net worths moving their assets and their primary residence out of the country or out of the state. The other is to assess people's wealth is not a trivial thing. You actually need to have an army of assessors go out and go through people's belongings and figure out what are all these things worth and value them and then tax them. And there's a lot of distortionary effects. I just, I'm, I just think it's, it's a, it's likely to backfire. It's like it'd be very costly. And ultimately I think it's the middle class that's going to be left holding

[Tommy Vietor]

the bag because there will just be less revenue. You think?

[Matt Mahan]

So like everyone, and that's not just me. The Legislative Analyst office, the independent, you know, policy shop in Sacramento says that we've probably already taken 10 billion a year off of our future revenues based on the capital that's already left the state.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Right.

[Tommy Vietor]

But if we could recoup that with this one time tax, I mean, there's estimates that it could bring in up to 100 billion. I mean, it's hard to pencil out the math right, because we just don't know how many people will leave. I also feel like there's this concern we're talking about like 200 people, right? Like 200 billionaires in California. If they all left the state, do they all really have that much income that gets taxed? Like Jeff Bezos famously pays himself 80 grand or something and has since 1998. But all of his wealth is in often unrealized gains in Amazon stock, right? Which is not getting taxed no matter what happens. It's like, how do we get at that money?

[Matt Mahan]

Well, that's why I point to those other two reforms that I think make a lot more sense. One is if he's borrowing against those unrealized gains, there should be a cutoff, at which point it's considered realized. And you have to. You can't just endlessly borrow against your unrealized assets. I think that's a way smarter way to do it that's less distortionary. And I would, I mean really, ideally that would be a federal policy. The other is inheritance. The best wealth tax is a one time inheritance tax when you pass things on. And if you don't want to actually force people to sell assets because it's a family business or a farm, that's fine. But don't rebase the value of it at market rate at the moment the person dies. Leave the original cost basis so that when your heirs sell, they pay capital gains. That seems only fair.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yes. And there's so many carve outs for farms and it's like tens of millions of dollars is already exempted from the wealth tax. It's insane that we are not focusing more on that. So you're the mayor of a city at the heart of the American tech industry. In a past life you worked in the tech industry. Americans, I think, increasingly have a negative view of a lot of tech companies. Right. I mean, as recently as 2015, Pew found that 71% of Americans thought technology companies had a positive effect on the country. By 2019, that was down to 50%. Now you're seeing like AI explode onto the scene. People are worried about the data centers. There's polling that finds an increasing number of Americans are more concerned than excited about AI. You've got people getting booed for mentioning AI at college commencements this past weekend. What would you say to voters who are furious at Silicon Valley because certain tech CEOs got fabulously wealthy while they did not? The news media got hollowed out. They feel like harms were done by social media. And now it just feels like the same companies, the same people, they're getting to run it back with AI, which we're all Told is this unbelievably powerful, like step change, new thing. And I don't trust those people. I don't trust Elon or Mark Zuckerberg or Sam Altman to be in charge of it.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, yeah. I think it's a very real fear and I understand it and on some level I share it. I have little kids. I don't want them on social media or AI. I've argued that. And as governor I would fight for policies that require, require parental consent for using social media, ban cell phones in public schools. I've actually got experience with regulating technology because as a mayor our city is procuring and using technology and constantly thinking about the trade offs. New tools can give us new capabilities to improve things. We've sped up our public buses, we've improved language translation in our meetings, we've. We're identifying potholes proactively. We've done a number of things that are making government more responsive and efficient, which is great. That's really cool stuff. On the other hand, people's fears around privacy, manipulation of elections and just misinformation more broadly, job loss, environmental destruction are all very legitimate. And that's why we created something called the Govai Coalition. San Jose was the founding member of, of a platform that helps over 900 public agencies navigate technology adoption. And it's all about the ethical and responsible use of AI. So we use license plate readers, but we don't allow facial recognition. We don't sell data to third parties. We don't even share it with the federal government because we don't trust how they will use it. We delete it every 30 days. On the other hand, it's helped us solve murders and kidnappings and rapes and all kinds of horrible, horrible crime. So striking that balance of how do we harness the value of tools? And I think we want to continue to be a state that is innovative and that is at the cutting edge. But we have to regulate and protect people from these changes. Data centers you mentioned, I believe, and this should be a national standard, but certainly for California, any new data center needs to pay the full cost of the infrastructure they require. Require the full cost of energy. They should be required to use the cleanest energy. Their investment should help facilitate the clean energy future that we all want. They should have to use recycled water. So I think that we can raise the bar.

[Tommy Vietor]

Some people want to pause on building though, so that too far.

[Matt Mahan]

And that's kind of my point. You have this sort of much more laissez faire approach on the Right. That is sort of like, oh, you know, business is good, capitalism is always good, and let's just have this sort of unbridled capitalism and see what happens.

[Tommy Vietor]

The David Sacks approach. We're laissez faire until Silicon Valley bank is going to collapse and then we're

[Matt Mahan]

screaming, we really need help.

[Tommy Vietor]

Welfare.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, exactly. So I reject that mindset and approach. I also think, though, that there is a more extreme version within my party that wants to just hit the brakes. And I think, I just believe we are better served, and I think historically we have been better served by regulating, managing, shaping technological changes, but having the authority to do that than just saying no and having it happen elsewhere. And I think there's a balance to strike there. I put out an AI accountability plan that's all about striking that balance. It's about investing in workforce development, putting strict guardrails on the way that children interact with technology, accountability for data centers and robotics companies. We need to have an AI shared prosperity fund. That is pain, that is taking tax revenue from these hyperscalers, these big tech companies, and paying for the upskilling and reskilling. We need to make sure that people are prepared for the jobs of the future. And look, if it gets really dire, we haven't seen this yet, but we should have a plan B. If, if job loss increases, we're going to have to talk about things like a ubi. We need to have a whole other set of tools, a totally different safety net if this plays out in a way that some of us fear.

[Tommy Vietor]

What's your. What's your AI drug of choice? You a GROK guy? Claude Chat GPT. What are we using?

[Matt Mahan]

I go between Claude and Chat and, yeah, Chat GPT mostly. Although I end up by default in on Gemini a lot. Just because of the browser.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, but then it's always wrong. You know, you're just getting. Yeah, I'm a Claude guy these days. Yeah, I was using Chat gbt, and then Sam Almond did something shitty when he, when he swooped in, was like, I'll take your Pentagon contract to build the autonomous killer robots. I was like, I'm out.

[Matt Mahan]

Then you went to Claude.

[Tommy Vietor]

See you, buddy. Yeah, who's just, I don't know, secretly building the autonomous killer robots. Who knows? So you raised a bunch of money from folks in the tech world, CEOs at Google, Dropbox, Snapchat, Twitch, I think some prominent venture capitalists. What's your response to people who worry? Look, when you take all that money, there are strings and it could make you beholden to the tech industry.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, I mean, look, it's a very fair question, and my response is one, I've regulated tech. And as an elected official over the last six years, I have never done one thing to benefit the biggest employers in Silicon Valley over the people of San Jose. And I sure as heck I'm not going to do that in Sacramento. I'm actually running against special interest capture in Sacramento, and I'm not going to replace one set of interests with another. I have been very willing and have, have consistently put restrictions on how we use technology, how we interface with tech companies. I think the honest reason that there are tech employees, tech leaders, investors, et cetera, who have contributed to the campaign is I lead the largest city in Silicon Valley. And they've seen that we have led the state in reducing crime, reducing homelessness, building housing, fixing our problems. And I think people are drawn to results and competent leadership. And I'm just better known in the Bay Area where we have a number of tech companies. But that's why I'm spending so much time traveling around the state, getting to know people in other places and really making the case for good government. But I put out a very clear AI accountability plan that is based on everything I've done in San Jose over the last six years and is where I am on these issues. And I put that out transparently for everyone from voters to my donors to see it. And if donors don't like it, they can find another candidate.

[Tommy Vietor]

One donor name that surprised me was a guy named Joe Lonsdale. He's a co founder of Palantir, big Republican mega donor. He's like a big. Elon Stan gave a million to. Elon's like pro Trump super pac. Maxed out to you. What's up with that guy? He seems a little crazy.

[Matt Mahan]

I don't know. You'd have to ask him. I mean, I have probably thousands of dollars.

[Tommy Vietor]

He's not like someone you knew back in the day when he was a Palantir or something?

[Matt Mahan]

No, I know he's from. He's from the Bay Area. And I. Yeah, I don't know.

[Tommy Vietor]

I. Look, he's just an aggressive tweeter.

[Matt Mahan]

I've.

[Tommy Vietor]

We've come, we've crossed paths.

[Matt Mahan]

That's why you guys have been tweeting at each other.

[Tommy Vietor]

You know, look, we all have our weaknesses and that's one of mine. It does feel like though, like the, There was a time. Look, I was in the Obama administration and like the kind of 08 through 2013 phase of of like there was a lot of excitement around tech. There was a lot of cooperation between the administration and tech industry. Probably too much to our discredit in the Obama world. Now it seems like a lot of the tech industry guys are like, gloves are off. Fuck this. We're battling regulation, right? Like Andreessen Horowitz, according to the New York Times, has made more than 150 million, $115 million worth of, of disclosed federal contributions to candidates or entities working on the upcoming midterms. That's like 50 mil for like a AI pack, another 47 million for crypto super PAC. Like does that worry you? Does that disgust you that like this one VC firm can dump 100 million to advocate for like its, you know, book of portfolio companies?

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean I'm, I'm worried about concentrated power in politics in all forms. The biggest donors. And tech now is becoming one of the largest industries or donor bases in the country of any industry. You've had oil and gas in the state of California. It is worth noting there are other groups as well, from public sector unions to trial lawyers who spend a tremendous amount of money sometimes for things I agree with that. I think are generally good for society, sometimes for narrow interests that are not always was good for society. I actually got involved in the way I ended up in tech was building tools for grassroots organizing. The early petitions, like the Change.org tools, early fundraisers, go fund me these kinds of early tools to try to basically help people organize at a grassroots level and make the system more accountable to the people than to the donors. I've always been worried about the influence of, of concentrated money and power in our politics. So it does worry me. I do think though that the Democratic Party has to also recognize there's a split within the party right now. And we have also driven away many people who have started companies. And I'm not just talking about in tech. I mean, generally speaking, as I go around the state, just set tech aside when I go talk to people in agriculture culture in Hollywood, in manufacturing, in a wide range of industries. The regulatory burden in California is a real issue. And I think we become very dismissive of it as, oh, deregulation's a Republican thing. That's just because they want more profit. I don't think that's the case. I mean, we broke the housing market by overregulating it in California. That's making building more housing, creating room for new people for future generations. Making housing more affordable. Affordable is actually a very progressive aim.

[Tommy Vietor]

I totally agree. But I feel like we're just so far from over regulating like social media companies. I mean, Australia is banning accounts for kids under 16, right? I mean, we're just, we're doing nothing.

[Matt Mahan]

Right. And that's part of my proposal is actually to, to require at least parental consent up to, up to 16. So, yeah, I think that's, I think that's fair. But I, but I do think we, we risk losing natural allies of the party if our answer to every problem is another regulation, another tax. And I think, look, within tech, maybe it's appropriate. The regulatory environment is not very mature at this point, but there are plenty of other industries like housing and agriculture, where you could argue we're punishing. We're actually restricting economic opportunity and pushing people out of state.

[Tommy Vietor]

You've criticized Governor Gavinu some for focusing too much on trolling Donald Trump. I think you said he made a, quote, blind leap into meme land. Gavin and Trump have kind of a Ross and Rachel, will they, won't they, frenemies, you know, antagonistic thing going. It's probably unique to them, right? They're, they're big, larger than life people. But Trump and the conservative media, they love to beat up on California, right? Fox News all day is like some video of something that happened on the street. So I don't think the Trump attacks end when Gavin is gone. How would you manage that relationship differently than him or continuity?

[Matt Mahan]

I mean, the way I think about it is there's a set of things that are just red lines for me and for the state of California. We're gonna fight to protect our vulnerable neighbors. We're gonna push back on ice. We're gonna fight to protect constitutional freedoms. We're gonna fight for our fair share of federal funding. There are a number of areas where, unfortunately, we are going to have to fight fire with fire, as Governor Newsom has said. And in San Jose, I've led us to sue the Trump administration multiple times. We've used our budget to backfill cuts. We're funding legal services for immigrant neighbors who are at risk of deportation. We've banned ICE's use of masks and their use of public property. So I will use every tool in the toolbox, legal, budgetary, bully pulpit, whatever tools we have to fight back. I do want to go back to the place I started, which is, I also think that we've got to take ownership of our shortcomings and start solving highly visible and visceral problems that affect people every day. I mean, this may sound superficial, but when people drive around Los Angeles and see the state of the freeways and see thousands of people living outside in misery and tents and trash and fires and graffiti. It just undermines our credibility. It undermines trust in government. It makes it that much harder to stand for something different that people can believe in. And I'm not pretending that the Republicans have got it all right. They've got plenty of problems, and red states have plenty of problems. We, we do a better job in many ways at being economically inclusive and certainly more welcoming socially and politically. But I just, I think we've got to also fix our fundamental problems, starting with the high cost of housing. And until we grapple with that, I don't think we're going to be a very effective resistance.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah. My last question for you is about housing, which is in California. We have something called Prop 13. I'm sure you know about it. Listeners naturally don't. It was passed in the late 70s. Younger Californians mostly hate it because it means that new home buyers pay much higher property taxes on, like, the identical house to someone who bought it 40 years earlier. You can correct me if I'm getting from shorthanding this. It creates this general unfairness and it can lock up housing supply because if you're a senior, you're not going to downsize if that means you're going to pay a much higher property tax. Right. You want to lock in that privileged tax rate. Over time, Prop 13 has gutted revenue for California's public schools and, like, smart, kind of wonky people I know almost literally will blame it for, like, all of California's problems. Right.

[Matt Mahan]

There are a number of books to that. Yes.

[Tommy Vietor]

And so, like, sadly, it feels politically impossible to repeal the thing because high propensity to vote. Seniors like it because it keeps their property taxes low. So, like, what do we do here? How do we bring some fairness to property tax collection and unfreeze the housing market with this anchor around our neck?

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah. How many hours do you have?

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, I mean, look, Wednesday or Thursday.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah. I think one is just across the board. Our housing issues come down to a lack of supply. So we need to build more housing and that will slow down the rate at which the, the value of housing goes up, which will help moderate property tax increases. The reason Prop 13 was passed was property tax increases were happening so fast that people were literally getting pushed out of their homes because they couldn't keep pace with the rising costs. So it, it doesn't freeze it, but it caps it at a 1 1/2% increase per year, which you could argue is too low maybe to properly have a more functioning market. It should be. It should be higher. Right. That's a debate you could have. I think there are some pragmatic things that could be politically feasible. One is we should enable older residents to take their property tax benefit with them if they downsize so that we can free up that housing stock. So if you're a, you know, an older couple or you're living alone and you've got four bedrooms in a suburban neighborhood somewhere, if we could incentivize you to capture that benefit and continue to have low property taxes by moving into a condo by the beach, like, great, we should allow for that, that flexibility and fluidity in the market. Another thing that could be done is you could say, well, having property taxes go up more than one and a half percent per year could price people out. But what if some of that actually accrued over time and then was assessed at the time that you sold the home? And so that way you're not getting hit each year with a larger and larger property tax bill that you can't afford when you're raising kids or whatever else you're doing. But when you eventually sell the house, presumably the house has appreciated. That's why your property taxes are going up. That thing gets paid back in. But I would also just note, I don't. I think Prop 13 reform is about fairness and distortions in the market. I think it's a mistake for Democrats to make it a big revenue generator because the truth is, while it did reduce revenues to the state and to school districts, after it passed, we went and found a bunch of other sources of revenue. We created an income tax. We tax capital gains, we tax businesses, we tax everything. So our overall tax burden is the second highest or third high, depending on how you measure it. Third highest in the country, I've noticed.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah. So you're experiencing it. We found other ways to tax.

[Tommy Vietor]

You're right. We could talk about this forever, but you had a lot of things to do. Where can people find your campaign if they want to get involved, support you, knock doors, donate, whatever.

[Matt Mahan]

Yeah, thanks for the opportunity. Appreciate all the great questions. And my website is Mahan M A H A N for California dot com. You can find me on social media. If you have any follow up questions to this interview, shoot me an email. Otherwise, hope to see folks out there.

[Tommy Vietor]

Excellent. Mr. Mayor, thank you so much for coming in.

[Matt Mahan]

Thanks for having me.

[Jon Favreau]

That's our show for today. Thanks to Matt Mahan for stopping by. Alex will be back on the feed on Sunday with a conversation with our buddy Norm Eisen about the slush fund and all of Trump's other self dealing. Check it out. Everyone else have a good weekend.

[Dan Pfeiffer]

Bye everyone.

[Jon Favreau]

Pod Save America is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts and Farah Safari with Reed Cherlin, Elijah Cohn and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt de Groat, Ben Hefcote, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Kirill Pelavie, David Towles, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young and Naomi Singel. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.