Should the Next Democrat Punish Red States? JVL Says... Maybe

Summary

The Bulwark Podcast Summary

Episode: "Should the Next Democrat Punish Red States? JVL Says... Maybe"

Date: May 12, 2026
Hosts: JVL, Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller

---

Episode Overview

This episode features a candid, early-morning discussion among JVL, Sarah Longwell, and Tim Miller, delving into the aftermath of the Virginia Supreme Court (“SCOVA”) ruling on redistricting, the asymmetrical political realities faced by Democrats and Republicans, the frustration in red and purple states, and whether process-based liberalism is a self-defeating handicap in the current political era. The hosts wrestle with the best way forward for pro-democracy reform, the limits of process, the potential radicalization among frustrated voters, and what actions (from voting to protest) are both possible and effective.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Virginia Redistricting Ruling & Liberal Process Frustrations

• JVL launches into the show by highlighting the SCOVA ruling, explaining his internal conflict:
  • He values process-based decisions but sees a one-sided disadvantage for good governance (“liberalism is a one-way street, right? The ratchet only turns one way.” [03:44])
  • In states with established processes (often Democratic), those systems become constraints, whereas GOP-led states that eschew reform face fewer checks.
• Tim expresses cynicism about procedural reforms, retelling how reforms intended for fairness can become weapons for those willing to break norms:

  "I’m for fighting fire with fire, but like, this is, this is ridiculous... That’s the dark JVL response: there are no rules, really. And this is all about norms and character." [05:04–05:48]

2. The Timing and Politics of Judicial Rulings

• Tim fixates on the Supreme Court’s decision timing, arguing it was “obviously a political decision” ([07:09]):
  • Notes precedent of major rulings announced at the end of June, contrasting with this case being dropped prior to Southern primaries, with visible fallout in multiple states.
  • Worries about “canceling votes in Louisiana,” primary date manipulation, and general erosion of voter trust:

    “Once you start moving the fucking primary dates around...there's no interest in even trying to pretend to go along with what would be reasonable..." [08:07]

3. Structural Reform vs. Persuasion—A Core Asymmetry

• Sarah outlines how Democrats, seeking to “do the right thing,” enacted non-partisan redistricting commissions, ironically limiting their own maneuvering:
  • “They were trying to do the right thing ... and instead the result of that is they’re now having more hurdles than Republicans...” [10:39]
  • She expresses skepticism about structural reforms—”never thought they were a better tool than persuade people” ([14:10])—and urges vigilance with major system changes.
• JVL and Tim probe whether faith in process is misplaced, given how rules can be selectively enforced or ignored by powerful actors.

4. Helplessness, Rage, and the Question of Action

• The hosts agree that many in disenfranchised communities (esp. Black voters in the South) feel helpless—”What am I supposed to think when they cheat, when they stop an election to block me from being able to pick my representative?” ([19:12], via Tim’s anecdote).
• Sarah wonders why rage isn’t translating into mass action:

  "If everybody's as mad as they say they are online, why aren't people in the streets right now?" [22:58]

  • Cites political science research indicating even 3.5% of the population in protest can create change, and compares the moment to past civil rights uprisings.
  • She calls specifically for organized, nonviolent resistance: “There's a whole bunch of stuff between violence and sit and take it. A whole bunch of stuff.” [21:56]
• Tim empathizes but describes how people can check out after repeated norm violations, feeling their vote or protest is futile:

  "I can understand the feeling of people just being like, well, fuck this... This isn't really a democracy. You know, I don't really have a stake in the system. They've taken my stake away." [24:11]

5. On Winning Power vs. Structural Fixes

• Sarah articulates a major thesis: the only path out is overwhelming electoral victory—not shortcuts:
  • “You have to have overwhelming force in the vote. You have to win elections. You have to have political power first. Everything.” [16:49]
• Tim and JVL (lightly) debate whether more strident countermeasures—"fighting fire with fire"—are necessary, but concede that even strong protest/voting may not bring change quickly in ruby-red states.

6. A Call for Leadership and Civic Engagement

• Tim argues it’s up to political leaders to mobilize alienated communities:

  "In that case, I think it is incumbent then, upon leaders to try to engage people...to make positive change." [23:52]

• Sarah insists that the way out of institutional gridlock is not just voting, but also nonviolent direct action and widespread demonstration.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• JVL: “Liberalism is a one-way street, right? The ratchet only turns one way.” ([03:44])
• Tim: “I was like, well then we’re fucked. So, you know, that’s pretty Depressing.” ([05:17])
• Tim: “It was obviously a political decision and now we’re canceling votes in Louisiana. So I will not be lectured by the anti. Antis or the MAGA folks about anything...” ([07:18])
• Sarah: “They were trying to do the right thing...and instead...they’re now having more hurdles than...Republicans.” ([10:39])
• Sarah: “The only way out of this...is overwhelming force in the vote. You have to win elections. You have to have political power first.” ([16:49])
• Sarah: “If everybody’s as mad as they say they are online, why aren’t people in the streets right now?” ([22:58])
• Tim: “I hear you. I want people to be in the streets I hear you. I’m also saying that once there’s been a breakdown in the social contract... I can understand the feeling of people just being like, well, fuck this.” ([24:11])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Virginia Redistricting Ruling & Liberalism’s Dilemma: 01:20 – 05:45
• SCOTUS/SCOVA Decision Timing, Political Fallout: 06:00 – 08:32
• Good Governance Backfiring for Democrats: 10:39 – 14:05
• Skepticism on Structural Reforms; Need for Persuasion: 14:10 – 15:48
• Limits of Legislative Reform, Need for Culture Change: 15:48 – 17:46
• Helplessness & Political Alienation in Red States: 19:12 – 21:55
• Call for Nonviolent Action & Civic Protests: 21:58 – 23:52

---

Conclusion — Where the Hosts Land

The Bulwark hosts ultimately express deep frustration with the “asymmetrical warfare” in American democracy, where good governance reforms in blue/purple states limit their own power, and bad actors in red states face no such constraint. There are divisions among the hosts about how aggressively to fight back (within the bounds of process), but all agree that simply relying on process, norms, and technical fixes is insufficient. The only sure way to protect democracy, they argue, is to win—and win big—while also seeking greater civic mobilization through protest and nonviolent resistance. But the path remains murky, and the sense of helplessness is palpable.

Next Up: JVL hints at a potential solution to the impasse as the episode moves forward.

Transcript

[A]

What I take from all of this is that Marjorie Taylor Greene's motives were in fact pure. She wasn't setting herself up to run for president. She's just starting another chapter in her life.

[B]

Pura Vida, if you will.

[A]

Hello, everyone. This is JVL here with my best friends Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller of the Bulwark Guys. Just. Everybody listening to this understands we are taping early in the morning, which is not normal for this show. So this show is veering into secret pod territory, likely to be a wheels off episode. You've been warned.

[B]

I'm punchy, okay?

[C]

I'm grateful for the new larger audience. I really am. But sometimes part of it is like when we used to just do this with like our little secret pod crew in the morning and they were used to us and our. They knew what the difference the secret pod is this. The new folks are just like, no, I want you to be like, the same every time. Or like. And like, sometimes when it's early in the morning, we're real different. Or when it's late at night.

[A]

This isn't cable news. You know, where everything is polished to a high gloss and it's interchangeable. This is real.

[B]

I looked awful on yesterday's podcast with Bill Kristol, by the way. And I appreciate everybody letting me know. I'm just like, good. I don't have a fucking makeup artist in the house, okay? It's a long weekend. It's a Monday morning taping. I'm not always looking 100.

[A]

We're in the authenticity era, guys, and we are built for the authenticity era. Okay? Late last week, we got the Virginia Supreme Court, the scova, as I've taken to calling it. Can I make that happen?

[B]

I like that.

[C]

Yeah. I think this is going to be a. I don't know that. I don't know that we're going to have so many conversations in the long term that we need to name for it.

[A]

Well, for, for the purposes of this conversation, we're going to refer to the SCOVA as distinct from the SCOTUS Supreme Court of the United States. And the SCOVA issued a ruling on the Virginia redistricting, which I, I have a. A tremendous number of internal conflicts on. And I wanted to talk to you about all of this stuff because there is like a bunch of practical near term consequences. There are some strategic long term decisions that have to be made. But there's also a baseline liberalism question which is, I don't know, like, I'm a pretty processes oriented guy and I am Open to arguments that are process based, which this Supreme Court ruling was and which didn't say that, hey, you can't do this redistricting, which just said, we do have rules on this. The process via which this was reached didn't follow those rules. And so you gotta check all the boxes. And normally this is the kind of thing that I love. Ooh, process, baby. Give me process. And our friend Nick Cataggio has a piece on this over the dispatch in which he says, this is, you know, you wind up in this place where the illiberals and illiberalism finds that it can get what it wants either through liberal means or through illiberal means. And liberalism is. It's a one way street, right? The ratchet only turns one way. And I just wanted to throw to you guys because again, like process based stuff, process based equals good. On the other hand, it does seem like the courts are basically saying, sure, when Republican states, which have not taken pains to do good government stuff, want to do very bad illiberal things, they are not constrained because they didn't have any good government processes in place, they can do it. And when places like Virginia want to try to establish some deterrence because they had good government processes in place, they really can't do that in ways on the timeline which they want.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

So I just want to throw that open to you guys. Are either of you struggling with this as well?

[B]

I am, yeah.

[A]

Talk to me.

[B]

I mean, look, I have the same issues you. And we talked about this yesterday with Bill Kristol and it was like, you know, there was that cockamamie idea out there that was like, we're gonna lower the retirement age for all Virginia judges to 53 and a half. You know, and it's like that way we have a new rule and we're doing it through liberal means. And you know, I was like, this just seems, this seems goofy, right? Like, I don't. I'm for fighting fire with fire, but like, this is, this is ridiculous. Like at this point we don't have rules. We're just creating a new fake rule. And maybe that's, I mean, that's the dark JVL responses. There are no rules, really. And this is all about norms and character. And I talked to Jim Comey about this actually for today's pod, and that was. I was like, what reforms would you like? He's like, I have some ideas, but really this is all about character. And I was like, well, then we're fucked. So, you know, that's pretty Depressing. But I guess my reaction and it overlaps. I don't want to go down. You guys do it on the secret pot all the time. They expand the Supreme Court fight. I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole. But this is where to me, this kind of, like, just an idea like, that becomes more intriguing because it's like, well, that is through liberal means. And if you do it through Congress, right? Like, if you do it, it's constitutional. You do it through Congress. Congress says you can do this. There will be people then that say, oh, you guys are going against the norms now. And I'm like, well, what do you want us to do? Like, we can't be totally handcuffed in this case. And, like, and I think that. That you have to look through what can be done, you know, within that is not a total affront to the rules and laws and norms to combat this. Like, you have to be as aggressive as possible. And, like, that's my kind of view on this at this point. And, like, the Supreme Court's. I've done so many rants about the VRA this week, but one thing I've really focused on is, like, the timing of what the Supreme Court did. You just, like, you cannot tell me it was a fucking accident, right? Okay. You just can't. Like, it was not a coincidence, right? Like, throughout my whole life, I've been. I've been following this stuff. I'm not SCOTUS blog person, but I just as a political follower and somebody that is in the political system that watches this, like, the Supreme Court have done the comp. The really, you know, controversial cases and decisions at the end of June, every time, you know, like, whether it was Dobbs, whether it was all the gay marriage ones or whatever. Any time, it's like, they wait till the end of the session, at the end of the June, and they dropped their, you know, the most controversial rulings. Maybe that's a stupid way to do it. I don't. I don't know. But that's how they've been doing it as long as I've been watching the Supreme Court. And, like, in this case, this, you know, extremely controversial case that could have an impact on this year's election gets dropped, like, right before all the Southern states have their primaries. And it's like, oh, you know, John Roberts is at a speech in Pennsylvania, and he's like, people say we're political actors, but we're not political actors.

[A]

Be careful, Tim. You're gonna hurt his feelings by noticing what he's doing.

[B]

Yeah, I'm just like, he not only

[A]

is allowed to do it, but he also is allowed to not have his feelings hurt by people noticing.

[B]

It's the craziest coincidence. It was obviously a political decision and now we're canceling votes in Louisiana. So I will not be lectured by the anti. Antis or the MAGA folks about anything, anything that they wanted to put forth. Even the stupid 54, you know, whatever year old retirement age. Because it's like they canceled votes in my state. Like people had voted already and they canceled the votes. They're doing it in the middle of the election in Alabama. They're like one week away from the primary in Alabama. In South Carolina now they might be doing it to such a degree that Nancy Mace could lose her primary and then still decide to run for Congress again. Because they're going to move the primary dates around. Like, sorry, once you start moving the fucking primary dates around, like, you know, they have, they just, they have. There's no interest in even trying to pretend to go along with like what would be reasonable. What is, you know, what, what, what the electorate would accept on the other side. And so, you know, I don't know, I like people are really fucking pissed here in Louisiana for good reason. Like, and, and it's outrageous and, and I don't know what else to do but besides, but continue to fight fire with fire. And I wish that wasn't the answer, but I don't know what else to do.

[A]

Sarah.

[C]

Okay, so I'm also struggling with this, but I do feel like I have a clear sense of what is happening, right? Because there's two things. There's the emotion of what happens when you feel like the levers that give access to people in a democracy that, that doesn't allow sort of majority to just rule you. Right. The whole point of our democracy is that the minority has a stake in a say. That's one of the reasons that it's good. And so the rage that people feel at not having some lever, right, they went and voted. That was the lever. The lever was in Virginia. You were gonna go vote. And Tim's right about something or maybe, sorry, maybe it was you jvl about the good governance. Like one of the things to understand is that if you go and look back over the years here, because I know this community, I've, I've been, I've been part of this community, right? When you're in sort of the democracy community, you know that there has been a, A, an active effort in many states, most of them blue and purple, to make redistricting nonpartisan. So they built these non partisan redistricting commissions so that they weren't done in this partisan way. Right. They did this good governance. And now those states who were pushing for those things, they pushed them in their own states and now their hands are tied in a different way than Republicans are in their states who did not push through any of these reforms. And it's a very complicated moment for that. They were trying to do the right thing. They were trying to be pro democracy and to have more representation, to have it be better. And instead the result of that is they're now having more hurdles than the right than the Republicans in this redistricting fight. It's also very difficult because Republicans kicked this off, right. Republicans started this with the Texas mid cycle redistricting. It's not a thing that people do. It was a, it is a hundred partisan ploy, 100% partisan ploy to eke out more seats for Donald Trump. Democrats fought back. They fought back and they fought back in those tougher states and they did it by having people vote and they spent $65 million to persuade people they did everything right. Except, and this is the part that I have not found a sufficient answer for because I am trying to understand in Virginia whose fault is it that this happened? Like not, not fault so I can blame but like to understand exactly how this went down because it appears like the rules were the rules and Democrats didn't quite abide by the rules. Right. They, while people were already voting, they had to pass it twice. They had to pass an amendment twice.

[B]

Well they didn't have the majority before the election. That's why.

[C]

That's right. But people were already voting. Right. And so, but here's what I don't understand and it goes to this question of Votus and SCOTUS and the way that they're acting in these partisan ways with their timing, which is they could have told Virginia they couldn't do this way back when, like if they let them go forward knowing there was a technical problem that they were going to rule against. So they let them spend the money, let them do that only to pull the rug out from them later. Like it feels is that, is that, that is true.

[B]

The others just, I don't who the other side but like what they would say to that is that the Democrats I guess filed a motion or somebody on, you know, on the side of the ballot initiative, filed a motion basically saying you can't rule on this until after the, you know, like the argument being made by the pro reform side was that they don't have standing or whatever to argue on this. I've seen this back and forth on this on Twitter. So that's what they. That's would be the defense of the for our majority justices on Scova.

[C]

Uh huh.

[A]

Is there also you don't know what SCOVA is going to rule? Like for instance, if a similar style case were to happen in Texas, I suspect that Scotex would not be so scrupulous about the process being followed.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I mean this is again Scola.

[B]

Right?

[A]

You are, you are Only, it's only in states where the liberal and I mean liberal in the small l liberalism ideas are taken seriously. Where you would be like, huh, well this is an interesting question. And we don't know how the court will rule on it because the court is not a political actor in the, the egregious way in which it is in say Texas or Louisiana.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I mean this is again, this is the, the ratchet only turns one way. Heads I win, tails you lose situation in which small l liberalism finds itself in this moment.

[C]

Yeah. I guess my point is just that I think there's a lot of discussion that I've seen where people are enraged and they're like look what's happening over here, look what the Republicans are doing in their states. That's why we should whether it's like ignore the court or drop the age, any of that. And I just want to explain this is like a pure explanation that the reason is, is that Democrats over the last 12, 15 years have sought to make it harder to gerrymander for their own in their own states where they have political power, which is good, which we support, which is good, which is good. But that is why you're getting an asymmetry right now.

[A]

That's so you're starting to have.

[B]

Second, are you starting to have doubts about the pro democracy movement and doing gerrymander?

[C]

Well, no, this is actually, this is, this is, this is the point. I've never liked the structural reforms. I've or I've never thought that they were a better tool than actually trying to persuade people for exactly this reason. And it's why when JVL talks about expanding the court, My, my biggest thing is when you make changes like that, be so cautious because you don't know how things are going to go. You don't know where you could end up. And you know, whether it's in the tit for tat Back and forth like you think you make these changes for good reasons. You think you make these changes to make things better.

[B]

This is your Birkin. This is the Berkeley.

[C]

It is.

[B]

This is when people say look, I

[A]

understand it that I worry about.

[C]

I almost always agree all the time.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

And so it is not a reflexive. Sarah, you're such a Republican. It is, it is like a part of me that is risk averse and maybe, maybe it is my small c. Conservatism where it is when you make these changes, you do not know what the environment's gonna look like down the road. It is the now. Which is why full agree so for those structural reforms now I'm a now don't get me wrong though. I am hardcore into reform around things like all of the norms that we used to have that were like we do. We just know we do this. We don't let the, the President's son in law conduct foreign policy because we just don't do that. We're going to need rules for all those things. We need to reign in executive power. I've always been for reigning in executive power. We need a war powers act. Like, you know, there's. Okay, jbl, we don't have to have a whole fight about.

[A]

No, no. I, I just have a question though. I mean just for instance on this one, right. Things are so broken, right? Let's pretend we get a law passed saying that the President's son in law can't conduct foreign diplomacy. Well, the neck. When Donald Trump Jr. Is president, his Attorney general is never going to prosecute a case for somebody violating that law.

[B]

Right?

[A]

I mean it's like, well, we had a law mandating the sale of Tick Tock.

[C]

Yeah, I understand.

[A]

Now we're back and it just didn't, you know what I mean? Like I, I just don't understand how these things work anymore.

[C]

So first of all, you know what they do. Part of it is that you pass them to try to change the culture. Like if, if I have a theory of the case that I am arguing for all the time right now, it is to get Trump as low as possible. Right? Well, I want him below the Bush line. I want him at the decline where Richard, yeah, where Richard Nixon was. Right.

[A]

Tricky, we should say tricky decline because that'll make it easier for people to understand the reference.

[C]

If anybody thinks I'm moving the goalposts, you're right. As Trump gets closer and closer to the Bush line, I'm like great, how low can we go? And the reason is, is that the more unpopular Trump is when he leaves office, the more likely it is that a Democrat wins in 2028 with a reform mandate. And we are in a position to make some of these structural changes. But here is my main point. I talked about this with Bill on the Sunday show. There is only one way out of this. There really is. And that is you have to have overwhelming force in the vote. You have to win elections. You have to have political power first. Everything. And this is at the core of the book that I wrote, which is it is about winning political power so that you can do the things that need to be done to save this democracy. Like, that is the. And so when you guys talk about how angry you are, and we are all extremely angry, nobody should get it twisted about.

[B]

I don't.

[A]

I'm not angry.

[C]

Oh, I am.

[A]

No.

[C]

Namaste. You're. Okay. Namaste. Fine. But. But the anger comes from feeling impotent and feeling like there's nothing a letter to pull.

[B]

I. So I agree with you. But can I offer just to the counter, just a little anecdote? I don't want a Tom Friedman here too much, but I got a. Was getting a text yesterday, live text from a friend who's in an Uber here in New Orleans. And, you know, so this is word of mouth, so just take it for what it's worth, but the Uber driver is a black woman. She's a bus driver. She was driving Uber on the side, and they started talking about politics, started talking about the redistricting ruling. And she's just like, I'm not like a radical far left black rights advocate. That's not me. That's what she was saying to him. That's not me. I just want us all to have the same rights and the same opportunity. And what am I supposed to think? What am I supposed to think when they cheat, when they stop an election to block me from being able to pick my representative? You know, and it's like she was like that radical. And she didn't say the word radicalizes, but, like the. What she was describing that she wanted, you know, it was like, that was. And if you're in Tennessee or in Louisiana, like, there really is like that. It's true on the national level. I agree with you. I agree with you. I'm just saying, like, I think that these things are both true. Like, it is true that we need to get him to the Tricky Dick line and that the Democrats need to win by enough that they win the House and the Senate and that Donald Trump. Trump needs to be, you know, go into the ash heap of history as a failed president. And that will help at a national level. And the national, our national politics is in broken. But like, it's hard to say to tell people in the south that, like, you live in a representative democracy where they're going to redraw Tennessee so that Every district is R +20 and Memphis doesn't have a fucking representative and Nashville doesn't have a representative, and now New Orleans or Baton Rouge aren't going to have a mat representative here we, when the people had already voted and like, not everybody understands all the, you know, the, the way that things go with the checks and the balances and the courts and the rules, and it's just like. And so you might be able to say on a technicality, Jeff Landry might be able to make the case like, well, on a technicality, we're following the law and this is what the Supreme Court said. And that ver. That first VRA ruling from four years ago, that was actually the illegal on and blah, blah, blah. Like, it's hard. It's hard. You can make that case maybe on the technicality, but, but what do you say?

[C]

I don't want that. The technicality down here in Louisiana. I just want to say it's complete. What they're doing in Louisiana is, is outrageous and in. What they're doing in lots of places is outrageous. But let me ask you, let me ask you a different question, because this is when I say we're all saying we're struggling, maybe we're struggling with sort of different things. The part that I'm struggling with is with that feeling of helplessness, right? With that feeling of what do you tell that woman? My question is, what do you tell that woman? Okay, you don't want to tell her that there's a, an answer. That there's a democratic way right through it. Like, you can't tell her that in Louisiana.

[B]

Right.

[C]

So what do you. What is the alternative, though?

[B]

I don't. Screaming at the clouds. I don't know. I, like, obviously it's not violence, like I'm not saying or anything like that. Or move to illegal means. What's that? Move to a new state.

[A]

Move to a blue state.

[B]

Move to a blue state, I guess.

[A]

I mean, I'm not being glib.

[B]

I know. I don't, I don't. This is what I'm saying matters. Maybe the answer is, in the meantime, Jonathan Martin's political article this week is that there's going to Be backlash to this and say what you want. And Donald Trump, you know, like, maybe the answer at minimum right now is like, let's maximize the black vote. And like, and everybody. And this is just the moment for everybody to galvanize. But, like, at the end of the day, let's say everybody galvanizes and, and we wake up in December and like, there's no black members of the House of Representatives in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and there'll still be some in Georgia. Yeah, but, like, that's a possible outcome.

[C]

Totally. But.

[A]

All right,

[C]

I'm working myself to a point here. I have explained why it is the way that it is, how Democrats have done this. I completely understand the feeling of helplessness. Here's what I don't understand. Why aren't people in the streets? We're talking about rage. Because I see online more like, well, if they're not going to let us do democracy, violence is the only answer. Right. And I'm like, there's a whole bunch of stuff between violence and sit and take it. A whole bunch of stuff. And if you. I've been. I spent a lot of time this weekend as I was thinking about this, reading about nonviolent resistance, the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, and just like other nonviolent movements in other countries. And there's basically a political science theory around once 3.5% of the population.

[B]

Oh, yeah.

[C]

Is in the streets that. That becomes very difficult for elected officials to ignore. Now, we've been having. And this is something else. I see. This is my boomer appreciation rant. Everybody who's out in the streets so far has been. Is like, all of the older people who remember what America was like 20 years ago are getting out in the streets and making a patriotic case for why Trump's gotta go, why ICE is terrible, why what's happening is anti American. But, like, where are the young people? Where. Where is like, let's. I'm ready. I'm so mad. If everybody's so mad. If everybody's as mad as they say they are online, why aren't people in the streets right now? Why isn't the answer. Why isn't the answer to the woman who's driving the Uber? We've got to get out there and do this.

[B]

She's driving a bus and an Uber. I'm sorry, not to be glib. Not to be glib.

[C]

I know what you mean, but I

[B]

just, I guess what my say. I guess my point is. I hear you. I want people to be in the streets I hear you. I'm in the streets. I want you. I want it. I'm also saying that once there's been a breakdown in the social contract, once the president and the Supreme Court has decided that we're just going to do anything we can to go around the rules to screw people over, I can understand the feeling of people just being like, well, fuck this. Like, I'm not even. I'm not really. I'm just going to focus on my life and my family. Like, I don't. This isn't really a democracy. You know, I don't really have a stake in the system. They've taken my stake away. Like, I understand. And so in that case, I think it is incumbent then, upon leaders to, like, make the case and to try to engage people like these. This is challenging. I'm not. I'm not endorsing checking out, but I'm just. I'm saying, like, this is what they have done successfully, right? Like, is give people a feeling of just like, well, I don't have a way to make positive change. And I think that that's very concerning. And I felt that way about the minority election in 2016. I've been making this argument back since 2020. It's like he lost the majority vote and then stole a Supreme Court seat. And it's like. And then to go tell people, vote. I am on the side of, like, people need to go vote harder. Like, I'm on that side. But I'm just. I'm voicing.

[C]

Not vote harder.

[B]

I'm voicing. Why?

[A]

110.

[B]

I understand the reaction on the other side.

[C]

It's not vote harder. We. You do need. And this is. I mean, I've been making this case, and people don't seem to sort of like it. Even though I'm like, this is what we have to do is to. That they are taking away their representation. They should be so mad. Everybody should be so mad about black voters in Louisiana. And white voters in Louisiana should be infuriated. And they should make their political leaders pay for it. Not by going to their house and banging on pots and pans, but by organizing people to get into the streets and explain, show our political leaders they can't do this. Do you know why they think they can do this?

[A]

They can do this because they think

[C]

we'll just tweet about it and not try and do anything about it.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I have to say, I do not believe that having protests would change anything.

[C]

You hate leaving your house.

[A]

But I do have. I do. I come to you not just with problems, but with a potential solution.