The Last Temptation of Sarah Longwell

Summary

---

The Bulwark: "The Last Temptation of Sarah Longwell"

Date: June 26, 2026
Hosts: JVL & Sarah Longwell

---

Episode Overview

This special episode centers around JVL playfully "tempting" Sarah Longwell with big political questions and provocative ideas—teasing out whether she can be swayed on thorny issues. The two focus on the idea of institutional reform, the state of American democracy, and candidate authenticity. The episode features sharp banter, behind-the-scenes stories, and nuanced analysis, particularly regarding Mayor Pete Buttigieg's evolution, institutional reform, lessons from the latest New York elections, and what voters really want from their leaders.

---

Major Discussion Points & Insights

1. Book Tour Announcements & Banter

• The episode opens with lighthearted banter about their joint book tour, including selling out the 92nd Street Y and additional dates in Seattle and New Orleans.
  • [01:20] Sarah: "We sold out 92nd Street Y in like 24 hours. It must mean there’s a pent up demand to see JBL irl."
  • [02:18] JVL: "We have to sell this out."
• There’s a competitive undercurrent with Tim Miller, and the pair float ideas on who should join them at various stops.

2. Sarah’s “Crush” on Mayor Pete

• JVL tees up a segment about Mayor Pete Buttigieg, teasing Sarah about her well-documented affection for the Secretary of Transportation.
  • [03:27] JVL: "Among the active politicians in America, is there anyone who commands your affections...better than one secretary? Mayor Peter Buttigieg."
  • [04:02] Sarah: "I do have a type… guys with nice young man energy."
  • Sarah shares a hilarious and self-deprecating story about embarrassing herself while meeting Mayor Pete, highlighting her admiration for his communication skills and thoughtfulness.
  • [07:13] JVL: "I believe you just simply said, 'there’s a guy,' and walked away."

3. Buttigieg's Moderate Radicalization: Institutional Reform

• The discussion pivots to a recent Buttigieg interview where he calls himself an "ideological moderate" but advocates for deep institutional reform, especially after his frustrating time in the federal government.
  • [11:12] JVL: "Pete Buttigieg sat down with the Notus people, and he had some things to say about his time in the federal government. 'In some ways, it radicalized me...'" [12:26]
  • Buttigieg critiques the idea of "returning to normalcy," instead advocating for substantial changes, including hints at Supreme Court reform and eliminating the filibuster.
  • [13:10] JVL: "He’s talking about moving, not just moving the furniture around, but, like, tearing down some walls and doing a renovation."
  • Sarah notes she finds Buttigieg's focus on inefficiency and sclerotic institutions compelling, reflecting ideas in her upcoming book.
  • Discussion of alternative reforms, e.g., Supreme Court expansion vs. term limits.
    • [17:43] JVL: "You can’t do them [term limits] is the problem. If you show me a way to do term limits, I’m in."
    • [18:06] Sarah: "I do think running… as a reformer, matters. The conversation is now: what are we going to build in its place?"

4. The Game: Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down on New York Election Analysis

• JVL tempts Sarah with a Twitter thread listing lessons from recent New York elections—asking for her unfiltered reactions.
• The “Lessons” put to Sarah:
  1. Authenticity is measurable; voters can sense focus-grouped candidates.
     • [19:55] Sarah: "Thumbs up."
  2. Endorsements from Dem leadership now read like warnings.
     • "Thumbs up in New York."
  3. Conviction beats caution; triangulators lost to candidates taking firm stances.
     • "Thumbs down."
  4. Cost of living is everything.
     • "Hard thumbs up."
  5. The middle is not a strategy; it’s an empty room.
     • "Thumbs down."
  6. Don’t fear the base; court it.
     • "Thumbs down."
  7. Leading a party means fighting inside it.
     • "Yeah. The question is, how exactly is Momdani doing it?"
  • Capstone: "The country is tired of being managed. People want to be led."
    • "Sure. True. Thumbs up."
• Sarah is mostly aligned on the importance of authenticity and leadership, but criticizes the “bumper sticker” nature of Twitter hot takes.
  • [23:05] JVL: "You love the leadership stuff, right?"
  • [23:30] Sarah: "I felt like the Pete stuff much more reflected my book than this particular post, which I think has elements."
  • She pushes back on the analysis, saying it's "facile" and a bit of "chum" for left-wing social media, cautioning against overreading DSA or progressive dominance from isolated results.
    • [25:08] Sarah: "I do not think [New York’s left-wing base] is the base of the Democratic Party… People want somebody… who's going to go fight for me. It is not an ideological valence. It is an emotional valence."

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [07:13] JVL, on Sarah’s Pete meeting: "I believe you simply said, 'There’s a guy,' and walked away."
• [13:10] JVL, on Buttigieg: "He’s talking about more than just efficiency… like, tearing down some walls and doing a renovation."
• [18:06] Sarah: "Trump’s going to burn it all down. The conversation now is, what are we going to build in its place?"
• [22:11] Sarah: "That reads to me like it was written by AI. I do not think it is… it’s all very pat."
• [23:40] Sarah, on Twitter analysis: "I think it’s facile… a lot of people want to overread what happened in New York to say the DSA is ascendant. And I don’t think that’s the analysis."
• [25:08] Sarah (on party base): "I think the base of the Democratic Party is Black voters, Hispanic voters, and suburban college educated voters. I do not think it is people who live in New York…”

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:02 – 03:10] – Book tour banter, New York & Seattle events, surprise at high-demand.
• [03:27 – 08:10] – Sarah’s “type” of politicians, the Pete Buttigieg embarrassing encounter.
• [08:10 – 18:06] – Buttigieg interview discussion: moderate radicalized to reform, institutional frustration, Supreme Court, structural inefficiencies.
• [19:00 – 25:15] – “Game” segment: Sarah judges Twitter wisdom on New York elections, thumbs up/down explanations, critiques facile analysis, and distinguishes emotional vs. ideological resonance for voters.

---

Conclusion & Episode Takeaways

• The conversation balances witty banter and earnest reflection, using Sarah’s affection for Pete Buttigieg as a recurring theme to explore deeper issues of party identity, institution reform, and the difficult question of what genuine leadership means today.
• Both hosts are skeptical of catchphrase-heavy takes (“the middle is empty!”) and caution against reading too much into local results. Instead, they advocate for pragmatic, thoughtful reform and authentic leadership—whether through major institutional renovation or finding the right emotional connection with voters.
• The episode is a showcase of playful, probing political analysis driven by mutual respect, clear-eyed skepticism, and a sense that American politics is at another turning point—one that requires more than just managing the status quo.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hello, everyone. This is JVL here with my best friend, Sarah Longwell. Welcome to a very special edition of the secret show the Last Temptation of Sarah Longwell. This. I'm so into this bit because I have come up with a theme show, like an actual idea for a show that centers around me trying to tempt Sarah to the dark side. I think it's going to be tremendous content. Hello, Sarah.

[B]

I came ready to play, bro.

[A]

I know you did.

[B]

I read all the things. I read all your triads.

[A]

You didn't read today's triad yet though, did you?

[B]

No, I'm on the west coast in a hotel and so I haven't gotten to that yet. I was too busy trying to make this hotel room look presentable for camera. I don't know if you can tell that the show light that I'm using is a very intense lamp that is shining right in my eyes right now.

[A]

No, it's good luck. No, what's funny is that in today's triad, I told people what this whole thing was gonna be and I said, I know I can share this with you because Sarah won't be reading it, but if you are a friend of Sarah, don't narc on me. So that all of your friends who read this and your Twitter friends, There's no time.

[B]

We're in it now. I'm right here. You got me. You got me. Here is the driven snow. I haven't read any of it. Hey, before we jump into it though, I want to tell you, okay, so we, you, you and I are, we're doing the 92nd Street Y for the book tour. We've started announcing the book tour dates. I promise you guys just sign up and do the book tour stuff and then, you know, we won't talk about the book till it actually comes out and can have the real conversations we need to have. But JBL and I sold out 92nd Street Y in like 24 hours. Which is funny. It must mean. You know what I think that it is? I think there's a pent up demand to see JBL irl.

[A]

And so in New York City, in my home, in your hometown, in my natural habitat.

[B]

And so they moved us to a bigger venue. So if you were in New York or in New Jersey and you wanted to come, do this and you orate area, wherever the places near JBL's home and you didn't get a ticket, they're for sale again. Go back and get them. It's a much bigger venue now. Uh, so now I'm like, nervous about it.

[A]

We have to sell this out.

[B]

Yeah. It's a point of pride in part because Tim and Bill are both doing talks with me, and obviously we want this one to be the best one. Although Tim was being a crybaby on TNL about coming to Seattle. And I'll tell you, I don't know whether it was because he was insulting Seattle, but that one is also selling out really fast. So if you're in Seattle, Tim may or may not be the person. I may not have Tim come. I may just have JVL come.

[A]

How about this? In the comments, tell me, who would you rather to see in Seattle, me or Tim? Also, aren't you doing a New Orleans show with Tim? Feels like that's a slam dunk.

[B]

Yeah, I don't think there's. I don't think we've done that on a book tour yet, but we will do it. I'll go to him. I'll go to him.

[A]

That would be amazing. I would come to that show as a guest. Just sit in the audience and watch that.

[B]

Well, maybe we'll do that. I did. We've added some things. Like, I'm gonna. Actually, some things I can't announce, but we are. We are gonna add some other stuff. So for people who are yelling like, you're not coming to Texas. I am gonna come to Texas. So I'm making. I'm gonna make it work. I'm gonna try to go everywhere.

[A]

All right, we start today with Mayor Pete. Sarah, you just to refresh. We have a lot of new listeners. Among the active politicians in America, is there anyone who commands your affections, who catches your eye, whose jib you like the cut of better than one secretary? Mayor Peter Buttigieg.

[B]

You know, I will say Jon Ossoff is competing for attention for me right now.

[A]

You have a type, don't you?

[B]

I do have a type. I do.

[A]

If I had to.

[B]

I was just thinking about how much I like somewhat optimistic, like, guys with nice young man energy. Like, there's a real, you know, Pete, John Ossoff, like, Westmore. Like, I do have. I. As Tim. Tim's always like, you have such a type. I have a little. For. For dudes, I would say I like that nice young man energy. Pete in particular, as somebody who said to him, I don't know if you guys haven't heard this story. I'm just gonna give you a quick refresher. I met Pete one time.

[A]

Half of our listeners have not heard this.

[B]

Yeah, I met Pete once and had like an actual full on embarrassing meltdown. Like, I was at a. I was at some like a fancy ish thing, and Pete was there as a guest and I saw him and Mara Liason was there, who I. And I was chatting with her and I was like, I love Pete so much. I've never met him. And she was like, oh, I'll introduce you. And so she walks me over and she's like, pete? Well, I don't think she said Pete, but she said, you know, Mayor Buttigieg, you gotta meet Sarah Longwell. You guys should know each other. And he's incredibly sweet and is like, oh, how are you? It's great to meet you. And I was like, oh. And I start to panic. I don't know why. Immediately I started to panic. I could not summon. And I meet a lot of politicians and I meet a lot of people who, who are cool and who I like. And I'm fine. In this case. I stopped my ability to connect with words. And so I just said, how are your kids? I was like, be a human. Talk about his kids. And he was like, oh, they're. They're great. And he's like, do you have kids? I do. My oldest was born when Trump gave his American Carnage speech. And like, that was really influential to me and thinking about doing this work. And he was like, his birthday's on whatever the date was of the actual American Carnage speech. And I was like, no. And then I realized I did not have my speech date right. Like, I have. This is a thing I have clearly said, but I was wrong. And I was saying how I, you know, I watched it in the hospital room, and it is true. I watched Trump take the nomination, the Republican nomination, in the hospital room with my baby on my chest. But it was not the American Carnage speech. And so his kid was born near the American Carnage speech, so he knew the date. So I was getting the date wrong. So I'm fumbling around, I can't quite get my grip back. Actually, I'm sort of forgetting there was, like, other elements of the story. But as I'm panicking, I have JVL in my head who always says about Pete, pete's got the best words. And so I just say to Pete, I just really admire you and I think you have all the best words. He was like, okay. And then I was like, I'm. I'm clearly, I'm being a lunatic. And so then I see a guy, jbl, and I both know, like, who is standing in the corner, and I just point to him and go, oh, I see a guy. There's a guy. And he looks over and he's like, yeah. And I was like. And I don't know if I just walked away, but, like, in some way I like, melted down.

[A]

I believe, I believe you. Simply, there's a guy and walked away.

[B]

Yeah, I walked over to see. Anyway, it was deeply humiliating. Also, though, after I told the story, he's now heard this story from a lot of people. They have told this story back to him. So now he only knows me in that context. Anyway, point is, I have a slight school girl crush on Pete, in part because he has the best words and in part because I do think he is genuinely one of the few people who thinks really hard about what the future should look like. And he is quite good at articulating that, including communicating, including the parts that he doesn't have figured out. And I am a sucker for a great communicator, and he is among the best in the Democratic Party.

[A]

How about for guys who go into the lion's den and go on Fox News and talk to conservative voters and meet them where they are? Are you a sucker for that as well?

[B]

I'm a huge sucker for that. I feel, I feel spiritually politically aligned with Pete. Meaning that I, and I also say, like, when you watch Pete take down, like, he did that thing where it was on CNBC and that maga, one of the MAGA anchors, I forget that guy's name. Pete just like, tears him apart in sort of a kind way that just leaves you sort of speechless or leaves them speechless. Leaves me needing a cigarette. I'm, I'm always so into it when he just demolishes because he's so much smarter than other people. And I, I lament for Pete the fact that Americans, especially Democrats, don't think he can be the nominee because, not because of them, but because they think other people won't elect a gay person. And I, I, I find that frustrating in that a little bit like Obama, right? Nobody thought they were like, I'll vote for a black candidate, but I don't think other people will vote for a black candidate. And I think at some point when people are like, wait a minute, actually, there's more people like me who actually will vote for a black candidate. I feel the same way about Pete as a, I feel that about Pete's gayness, that actually I do think he could win. But, you know, it depends on a bunch of factors. But anyway, launch into what you want to talk about. I've Established for you. Because I know it's what you want from me how much I like Pete. So go ahead, set me up.

[A]

And you, you agree with him. So when Pete says I'm an ideological moderate, that is also speaking your language.

[B]

It is Right.

[A]

Then he said that just this past week to not us. Notice.

[B]

Notice. Notice.

[A]

I am sorry. That is the worst name I've ever heard for a fucking media company. Well, quick, I am so sorry, but what a horrible, horrible name.

[B]

Do you know why? Because they got established as, like, a politico farm team. Like, like, you know how in F1 they've got like an F2? Like, they've got, like, their farm teams.

[A]

I did not know that.

[B]

Okay, well, you know. But sure, yeah. It's where people sort of train. And so notice did that. And then when the Washington Post fell apart, notice went and hired a bunch of their best reporters. And so notice is kind of like in the game now. And unfortunately, probably at some point needs a. Needs a good rebrand.

[A]

They do good work. I'm just saying that purely as a matter of branding.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Whatever firm they paid to come up with that name for them should be. Should be. Not hired again. Okay.

[B]

I think it stands for News of the United States.

[A]

I don't care. It looks wrong. And the aerial sans serif script with the white N T, U s but the yellow O which makes it look like no tus. Wait, it's. It's wrong. I'm sorry.

[B]

Axios.

[A]

Say what you will about Axios, that is a great name.

[B]

Great name.

[A]

Strong name. It's got the X in it. It doesn't really sound like anything. It doesn't really mean anything, but it kills on search results because it's so different and it sort of rolls off the tongue. It works. It works in every way. This is garbage. Anyway. Pete Buttigieg sat down with the not us people, and he had some things to say about his time in the federal government. In some ways, it radicalized me. Buttigieg told Not Us in an interview. It showed me the need for institutional change. I'm an ideological moderate, but when it comes to our institutions, I think what I saw was just how hard it was to get even common sense things done. I'm going to continue here with him. I believe very strongly that there's no going back. It is not possible or even desirable to try to restore a previous status quo. I worry that there's going to be a strong temptation in my party to adopt a kind of return to normalcy agenda. I think if a return to normalcy was possible or workable, then the last administration would have achieved it. Yes. You're with him so far.

[B]

I'm. I'm totally with him. I've read this.

[A]

Then he goes on and talks about the need to reform the supreme court.

[B]

No, he doesn't.

[A]

100. He does.

[B]

No.

[A]

Let me, Let me effort this. A court that is wildly out of whack with the American. What the American people expect from our judiciary. If we're not willing to. If we're not really willing to undertake that deep reform, then I think we'll continue to have really frequent frustrations, no matter who gets elected.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

That is, he's not saying expand the Supreme Court, but he's saying expand the Supreme Court, and he's talking about deep institutional change, which runs counter. This is a, this is a place where you and I both struggle because both of us are institutionalists at heart.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But I have become convinced that even though I'm institutional, as things are so broken that we need to undertake deep reform of the institutions.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

And so I don't. I don't. What did you think of Mayor Pete walking up to the, the other side? He doesn't mention the filibuster, but it's pretty clear that he's thinking about eliminating the filibuster. He talks, and he does have a position on executive power, which I found incoherent.

[B]

The executive power one was kind of incoherent.

[A]

He was like, the executive needs. The presidency needs to be stronger and weaker. Right. He needs to be stronger to do the good things and weaker to do the bad things.

[B]

Weaker to do the bad things.

[A]

Sure, sure. Yes.

[B]

I actually, I chuckled at that one. However, look, I knew where you were going to go with this, and I'm actually. Even the thing that you pulled out from the court, maybe I was reading too fast, but I, I actually came away from it being like, he doesn't actually mention the court. But if that's from that story, then he did in that interview. But to me, the bigger thing that he was pointing out is something that I say in my book, like, I've got a chapter, we're not going back. And everything he's saying in this piece is part of that. And I was actually really excited to hear him talk about. He's essentially making a red tape argument. He's like, look, we got all this money for infrastructure, and it was impossible to get these things built. It was so hard to get this stuff done. And we're trying to do things for the American people, and we can't. And then he goes on to talk about Doge, which I thought was an excellent point, where he says doge was sort of right directionally. Like, there are places where there is waste, fraud, and abuse. There's a lot of inefficiencies in this government. But their plan was just, let's just burn everything down and then just say, like, screw it. And he's like, so not only did it not achieve its objectives. Fact check, totally true. It also ultimately ends up costing the taxpayers more money because it was done so haphazardly that we both. It both somehow cost more and then. And delivered much less. I do wish we had a better way of articulating, you know, not just talking about incompetence, but how bad Republicans are at doing the things that they. That are their stated objectives, which was sort of somehow getting rid of this waste partners. They did none of that. And so Pete is really talking about how do you build a more efficient government? Okay, that is Sarah Longwell bait, hardcore.

[A]

He's talking about more than just efficiency. I mean, when he's talking about deep reform, this is clearly a guy who's talking about, like, moving, not just moving the furniture around, but, like, tearing down some walls and doing a renovation.

[B]

Sure, but one. So. But he. Speaking of renovation, so he talks about the ballroom. He's like, look, Trump, those guys shouldn't have bulldozed the ballroom. That was stupid. He's like, but the ballroom did actually have a bunch of problems. And he. He makes this thing where it's like, you shouldn't just defend the institutions just for the sake of defending institutions. Like, a lot of these institutions are sclerotic. They're not delivering for people. And so to me, the. The moving the furniture around was more. When he was talking about the ballroom, he said, it's like, you need a new H Vac, it needs new wiring. It needs, you know, a bunch of these things. And they just bulldozed it. And he's like, my plan would be, you know, how do we make this something that. That works better for everybody? And so he was saying, like, we don't need a gilded ballroom, but, like, we probably did need an event space there or something. I don't know. He's. I actually saw it as an incredibly pragmatic, thoughtful approach. Now, when he says the Biden stuff radicalized him, what he means is he was trying to implement all of the infrastructure stuff and found it very difficult to do. So that's the part that radicalized him. And so I did not hear him say, let's pack the courts. Although I know he actually thinks we should expand the court. Like he does think that, that he's one of the people I respect the most who, and he's actually, he's thought about this a great deal. I am interested in his thought process. This is like one of those where I am a term limits person. I would like to figure out how to do term limits for the Supreme Court. That is my preferred way. I think you could get a lot more public support for term limits than you can.

[A]

You can't do them is the problem. If you show me a way to do term limits, I'm in.

[B]

Okay, well, that's a lot. That's a different conversation. But like, remember when I was writing the book, I had a chapter on how somebody should run as a reformer, and we actually ended up cutting it sort of for space and partly because I, I, I didn't want to get into me outlining what the reforms should be.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But I do think running, because part of what he's talking about too is he's like, look, did I think we should shut down the Department of Education? No. Should the Department of Education sit in a different place? Does it need to be as big as it is? We're not delivering a good education system? It's like, what do we do about that? I'm sorry, I know that you felt like somehow, what people, or I think you thought Pete was saying something counter to me. I read that thing and maybe it's because he's not being so, so, so specific. Both of us can kind of impute our on it, but I found what he was saying to be very refreshing. I think his, his. You know, I have a line in the book that's like, trump's going to burn it all down. The conversation now is, what are we going to build in its place? And to me, I felt like this is what Pete was saying. And so I felt like this was as close to my thesis as I've heard a politician get.

[A]

Okay, so you survived your first temptation.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

The second one is going to be much harder. Sarah, I want to present you with a piece of wisdom, a piece of, No, I don't want to prejudge it. A piece of analysis about this week's elections. And Let me, let me pull it up on screen. I will just read it to you. I don't know if you can see it big enough on your screen here.

[B]

I can see it.

[A]

I'm not running for office. This is from this Twitter post. But if I were, these are some of the lessons I'd take away from what happened in New York yesterday. 1. Authenticity is measurable. Voters can smell a focus group from a mile away. Let's just do this. Thumbs up, thumbs down on each of these.

[B]

Okay. I'm gonna do a thumbs up downs individually, but then I am going to. I'm going to render a different judgment on the totality of it. Okay. Okay.

[A]

Individual, but just binary.

[B]

Thumbs up, thumbs up, thumbs up. Okay.

[A]

Number two. Endorsements from the current Democratic leadership now read like warnings. The establishment wing of the party is no longer a sword. It's a question mark. Sarah.

[B]

I'm gonna give it like a focus group. I'm gonna give it a middle thumb. I think that is.

[A]

Can't do that. Binary.

[B]

I let people do.

[A]

You're in or you're out. This isn't no focus group. This is the temptation of your soul.

[B]

Okay, well, I'm. This is true in some instances and false in others.

[A]

Is it true in New York?

[B]

It's true in New York. Okay, so let's say in New York, great thumbs up in New York.

[A]

Number three. Conviction beats caution. The candidates who said hard things about rent, about who pays for what, about Gaza, they won. The triangulators lost. Sarah.

[B]

Thumbs down.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Number four. Cost of living is everything. Everything else is wallpaper. Sarah.

[B]

Hard thumbs up. But I have a caveat to that. But I'll do it at the end.

[A]

Okay. Number five. The middle is not a strategy. It's an empty room. Voters reached past the establishment to grab someone who actually believes something.

[B]

Thumbs down.

[A]

Really? Okay. Interesting.

[B]

I'll explain. I'll explain.

[A]

Number six. Don't fear the base. Court it. The Democrats who ran from their own voters lost. The ones who ran toward them won.

[B]

Thumbs down.

[A]

Okay. Number seven. If you want to lead a party, you have to be willing to fight inside it. Mamdani didn't ask permission. He took the field.

[B]

Do

[A]

it. Feels like this is a Sarah Longwell special.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah, it is. You know, the question then becomes, how exactly is Mom, Donnie doing it? Go ahead.

[A]

The lesson under the lessons. The country is tired of being managed. People want to be led. Sarah Longwell. What do you think about that?

[B]

Sure. True. Thumbs up.

[A]

Wow. Okay, so on the whole, that's a. That's a pretty. Pretty lot of agreement. So do you have any overall thoughts? I'm sure there's some things in there that you quibble with that you maybe don't agree with entirely, but on the

[B]

whole

[A]

Pretty Sarah aligned view of politics right now in this moment.

[B]

Yeah. So there's a fair amount of top line agreement. But I want to say two things. One, that reads to me like it was written by AI. I do not think it is in the sense that it's all very pat, and I think not. I think that the substance beneath each of those assertions matters a great deal. And I think there's, like, a lot of analysis missing for what that means. And I'll just give you an example of what I mean. So I agree strongly with point 4. Affordability. I can't remember. Economy. Affordability. The rest is wallpaper. Okay, why is that number four? You're saying it's everything and the rest is wallpaper.

[A]

That's your number one guy thinking out. Or a guy or a girl. I don't want to tip my hand on Twitter thinking out loud with their thumbs. I mean, you know, you got to make allowance. It's just Twitter. This isn't a book, not a position paper. I think you love the leadership stuff, right?

[B]

I do love the leadership. I think leadership matters a great deal.

[A]

Right. People don't want to be led. How about authenticity? You're big on authenticity. It just seems like this is. On the whole, this is like 80% Sarah Longwell aligned.

[B]

You know, I think that could come

[A]

from this book that I've read, How to Eat an Elephant.

[B]

Do you know that I felt like the Pete stuff much more reflected my book than this particular post, which I think has elements.

[A]

Post. I mean, Pete sat for, like, you know, five hours with not us.

[B]

But I think that's why I responded to it better, is it was just more substantive. It had more things to really play the game. Sarah. I'm trying to play. I'm sorry. I know, but the problem is you're playing a game that you're like, Sarah's gonna be like, I agree with all this. And then you're gonna unload whoever the author is, and it's gonna be some joker that I think is dumb. But I want to explain something. The fact that I. I immediately looked at number four, and I was like, if everything else is wallpaper, why is this number four? Authenticity matters a great deal. What does authenticity mean? Is it a buzzword? Because it is a buzzword right now. What does it mean?

[A]

You and I both know what authenticity means.

[B]

Do we? What do you think?

[A]

Yeah, I think we. We know when we see it.

[B]

Yeah. I do think it has a lot to do with being comfortable in your own skin. But I also think There's a lot about authenticity can that can be converted negatively. Like Trump is authentic in that he vice signals and people take that as authenticity and so be like, oh, well, I know he lies, but he's telling the truth, right? He's like, like, so he's. And so I don't always think, I think authenticity is like, do you have a firm sense of who you are that's also in here, right? Like, know what you're saying. Be. Do have conviction Now. I do think that this was like this whole. But this, I think I thumbs down the, the base thing. I think there's a real question over who the base of the Democratic Party is. I think the base of the Democratic Party is black voters, Hispanic voters and suburban college educated voters. I do not think it is people who live in New York, in New

[A]

York, in these elections. That was the base. Right? These are, these are. Wherever you are, wherever you are running, run to the base.

[B]

And so let me, I just want to. This is a piece I keep threatening to write for you that I need to write and I should write it right now if I wish I wasn't traveling.

[A]

If I told you that this was Pete Buttigieg, you would say, yeah, I'm mostly aligned with that, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you?

[B]

No, I don't think this is Pete Buttigieg. This is somebody.

[A]

I'm saying that if I told you it was Pete Buttigieg, you'd say, yeah, I mostly aligned with it.

[B]

No, I don't think so. I think that there's a bunch of points in here that are true. I also think that this is somebody who is. I think it's facile. Facile. And I also think that it's like real audience capture, like chum to like, you know, there's a lot of people who want to overread what happened in New York to say like the DSA is ascendant. And I don't think that that's the correct analysis. That's why I think, overall, I don't think that's what's happening. Here's what I think is happening. People are very, very angry the Democrats lost to Donald Trump. They are very, very angry that the Democratic Party can't seem to stand up to Donald Trump in any way that's remotely effective. They are furious about it. People, voters all across the country are really strapped financially. There is an affordability crisis. And because of the Iran war and its relationship to our relationship to Israel, we have a perfect storm where people are more open to the candidates who are talking about separating our relationship from Israel, who are talking about affordability in ways that it seems like they care about. Like, that idea of, like, the middle is empty. Like, to me, that is such, like, lame analysis. Like, it's not about being centrist or progressive. It is. People want somebody. You're like, are you going to go fight for me? Like, it is not an ideological valence. It is an emotional valence.

[A]

That's what this. That's what this analysis was all about. From where I was sitting. Maybe I. This game would have played a little bit better if you had been a little, like, less primed for it to be gotcha. And be willing to be just say, like. Yeah, no, no, that's mostly right because on the thumbs up, thumbs down, you were mostly aligned. You were at least 70% aligned.

[B]

Yeah, but that's all. I. I don't like that, like, the bumper stickery of it. Like, there's a lot going on in there.

[A]

Well, it's Twitter.

[B]

Yeah, I know. Yeah, sure. All right.