Lauren Egan (8:13)

Hey, how's it going? Thanks for having me.

Mike Pesca (8:16)

Pretty well. Newsletter one was about something I talked about earlier this week, Gavin Newsom's new attempt to, you know, get with the youth or at least with people who are a little outside his bubble. But before I even ask for your take, if you want to give it, what do the experts that you talk to say about Newsom's inaugural performance?

Lauren Egan (8:35)

Yeah, I would say this got not a ton of positive reviews first. It's only the first episode, so we have more episodes to come. But essentially, you know, there's been a lot of talk in the Democratic Party about how do they figure out this new media environment, how do they break through the culture a bit more in the way that Republicans have just been able to totally dominate over the past few years. And so to a lot of strategists, the Newsom podcast was an attempt, but maybe a misguided attempt to do so. A lot of what I heard from folks was that it kind of missed the point. The whole point is that Democrats need to go to more apolitical spaces, podcasts, TV shows, YouTube shows that aren't inherently political, where you're going to find those swing voters, where you're going to find those people that aren't tuning into MSNBC or Fox News, whatever it might be every day. And it's hard to imagine that that is going to. That the Newsom podcast, a political podcast, is going to be the where people who aren't already die hard Dems or reporters are going to hit subscribe.

Mike Pesca (9:37)

But don't they also have to go to not just apolitical places, but places that aren't inherently progressive Democrats? So I don't know, maybe Newsom will have some sports figures on in the future. But to have a very right winger as guess one Charlie Kirk and then Michael Savage, which I actually thought was kind of a head scratcher for guests too, that's doing something that the Democrats were criticized for that even like Pete Buttigieg would criticize his fellow Democrats for. You got to, if you want Republicans or possible Republicans to vote for you, you got to engage with Republicans.

Lauren Egan (10:09)

Yeah, I think what a lot of strategists will say to that is of course you have to engage, but if you want to actually have impact, then you need to go on their shows and you need to go into their spaces. So for example, I had one person argue to me, instead of having Charlie Kirk on his own new podcast, Newsom just should have gone on to Charlie Kirk's show that would have been way more impactful, had way more of a splash and reached people that Newsom couldn't.

Mike Pesca (10:36)

Otherwise reach yeah, except Newsom's not running for anything this year or next year. He's trying to establish himself as getting a little bit outside the hi, I'm a Democrat talking to fellow Democrat bubble. And if you want to do that in a big way, you have Charlie Kirk on and you have a conversation. And I do critique him for being overly solicitous, but you have a conversation that shows that you're open to hearing what Charlie Kirk says. In fact, so open. Maybe he'd say a little too open. And I got to admit, some policy proposals that I don't really endorse or wouldn't have phrased them that way if it was up to me.

Lauren Egan (11:11)

Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, Newsom has clearly, it seems like gearing up for a 20, 28 presidential run. It's funny, I think, you know, it used to be book tours that people would launch, and that's how we knew that they were going to run for president. And now it seems like you launch a podcast or you launch some sort of, like, YouTube thing. He has a while to figure this out. I do think there's. There are some people in the Democratic Party, they're like, as long as they're trying, as long as they're literally doing anything differently than what we've done in the past few years, that's a good thing. Give everyone space to sort of figure this out. And it's going to take some time and it's to. To figure out what kind of works and what everyone's own thing is like. A podcast might work for one person, but not someone else. Another person might be great on TikTok, but. But, you know, that's not. It's not like a one size fits all approach. The point is Democrats have to do more and they have to be doing it constantly 24, 7. The days when you could just do a CNN hit for three minutes once a week and think that that was going to be an effective way to get your message out or an effective way to shape public opinion is completely gone. And the parties had had a lot of trouble recognizing that and then adjusting their approach to take that into account.

Mike Pesca (12:27)

Do you think or do. Did you do any reporting that indicates if Newsom was pleased, how podcast number one, and maybe now two have gone his whole team.

Lauren Egan (12:37)

I think the fact that they're not really engaging with any of the backlash kind of shows that I think they feel pretty good about it. Certainly for him, if he is indeed going to run for president, being the governor of California, he wants to come across as more moderate. He will be on a path these next few months to sort of have his public image moderate a bit. So for him, it's not at all bad if you have members of the party, especially if they're more progressive wings of the party, kind of coming at him and bashing him a bit, Especially the comments he made about transgender women's participation in sports. For him, it's kind of good if you've got some more of the left wing parts of the party saying, forget this guy.

Mike Pesca (13:24)

Yeah, this is, this is, this gets to my thesis. And I said this on the show yesterday. Right now, as we speak, he's number six on iTunes, eight on Spotify, actually reverse. That is doing better than the Charlie Kirk podcast. And I would think he'd be pretty pleased. I would also think that on of the critics, very loud ones, are exactly the people that he wants to have be his critics. You have to have good politics, not just a snazzy podcast or a sizzle reel from Instagram. You have to have good politics that the public agrees with if you want to win. And being on the side of the transgender and sports issue that he now seems to be on the side of, and it's just in sports, listening to what he said, all of that seems to the good for him. So I think a lot of the blowback that he's getting that I think has been in progressive circles characterized as what a disaster gets it entirely wrong. And in fact shows that the Democratic establishment, for as much as they say we have to do something different, and they mock the very staid examples of politicians being clunky in the media. I wouldn't go to them as the Sears or the people who really see the future. They've kind of locked the party into this, like, I'll use the word again, this staid way of interacting in the media.

Lauren Egan (14:51)

Yeah, I think it's been interesting seeing sort of what's happened in the days following that first episode of Charlie Kirk, because a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill, when they're on cable news now are getting asked to respond to this. And I've been, in a way, kind of surprised by how few people have actually wanted to go and criticize Newsom publicly. Some of them have clearly felt a little uncomfortable with the question still. And they, you know, have a long way to go on sort of workshopping good answers to, to the, to the transgender sports issue. But, you know, Alyssa Slotkin was on Meet the Press over the weekend, and she was just kind of like, like Leave it up to local communities. I don't really want to go there. So on the one hand, I do think there's a recognition within the party that rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, they were perceived as being way too far left on this issue in the 2024 election. The they them ad that we've all seen, the Trump ad, was really effective. They know that. And they're trying to figure out, where do we go from here? But it's going to be hard because at the same time, you know, you've got some members of Congress who are like, well, we don't want to just throw some kids under the bus, but like, we need to moderate on the issue. So, you know, they've got some work to do on the messaging there. But certainly no one's piling on to Newsom in a way that I think we might have thought would have happened just a few weeks ago.

Mike Pesca (16:21)

Yeah. So the trajectory of this particular issue is when the ads. When the they them ad was running, I remember I saw that and I immediately ran to my computer to try to prove that they doctored what Kamala Harris is said to have said, because I hadn't seen that before. And it was shocking to me that she would say that. Although given her past, I wouldn't have doubted that she'd say something like that because she has a history of stating opinions and then. Or stating positions and then backtracking, like, should we give felons the vote, for instance. That was an infamous CNN town hall. Anyway, once I found it was real, I said, my God, this is going to be a killer ad. And then none of the Democrats engage with it except to call it homophobic. And then after the election, when it was proved that it really did work, a couple Democrats came out, like Seth Moulton and Tom Suoz. Moulton got seriously criticized. Suozzi pretty much escaped criticism. I think that was because of the comportment of his district. And now Newsom is the highest profile Dem +18 or whatever California is Democrat coming out. Just saying the correct opinion that aligns with the vast, vast majority of voters. And by the way, you could be authentic and say, I totally reject that. And I've always stood with lgbtq and I think it's important, even if it's unpopular, to let trans girls play or trans boys play sports. But what this all exemplifies to me is that the Dems problem isn't, as you say, authenticity. It's not communication. It's what Ezra Klein points to. And a lot of other people. The groups still have such sway that they're leading them to unpopular positions with the public. And you could take away all the messaging if you have unpopular positions with the public, how are you going to win elections?

Lauren Egan (18:11)

Yeah, and I think that a lot of those groups are trying to figure out what role that they should play going forward because there is kind of a bit of like a come to Jesus moment in the party where it's like, okay, we might say we care about trans kids, etc. Etc. But if we don't win, like, what good are we doing them? So they're trying to kind of figure that out. So I think there's a lot of just internal deliberation among some of these groups that you referenced, trying to figure out when do they pressure these lawmakers, how do they be more strategic about it? Should they do questionnaires again in 2024, which was the origin of that, that Harris quote that led to the they them adorable.

Mike Pesca (18:55)

Like, why are you asking the question if you want Democrats elected, why are you asking that question that yes. Disqualify them? Yeah. And I understand there are interest groups, but I don't know if the Democrats understand that. I mean, do you think I personally, I think it's important for the Democrats to be able to communicate. I don't think it's, I don't think it's as complicated as maybe some people do. Just go, go on the shows that Trump goes on and be a good communicator. You'll not be as good as Trump. The guy's a TV professional, essentially. But go on the shows and if you're bad at communicating, maybe you shouldn't get elected to national office. But I wonder if the Dems are willing to, and this is much more important than communication, willing to face the wrath or displeasure of the hrc, of glad, of other big parts of their coalition that have sway. And it's sorry to ask this two part question is, or maybe as you write your opposition newsletter, are you picking up that groups like the GLAD or the HRC are willing to back off a little bit and not have such a strong line or a harsh line on, say, kids in sports?

Lauren Egan (19:57)

Yeah, I think that the groups are definitely showing some initial signs that they're willing to back off a bit or be more strategic about it? Like I said, I don't think it's the end of the world if you have some of these groups going after Newsom criticizing him for what he said about trans participation in sports. That's a good Thing for him, it makes him look more moderate. He probably wanted that to happen. And those groups, they are political, political operatives. They understand that. They know that they have a role to play. So I think what we're seeing is just, you know, they're going to try to be more thoughtful, more strategic, more intentional about it, not just kind of revert to what they've done in the past where someone says something that doesn't totally align, doesn't totally fit into their box, and they blast off a statement to reporters. And it creates this whole cycle of, like, DC Media trying to be more choosy, more picky about when they actually do that and have it lead to the ultimate goal of, like, is this helping the Democratic Party win elections or not? Let's frame everything from that, from that mindset. I also think that politicians are going to have just thicker skin with this and tell the groups to just, you know, so what? Like, they got them in a lot of trouble this past cycle. There's for sure going to be more of, I think, a stomach to just be like, come at me. We're trying to win. If you're going to get in the way, like, fine.

Mike Pesca (21:19)

Yeah. Well, unless they do get in the way, and unless, because primaries are so important, unless the HRC doesn't ameliorate its tone and messaging, it could be a problem.

Lauren Egan (21:32)

Yeah, I think it'll be interesting to see as we get closer to primary time to how Democratic voters respond to that. Because what we saw after the first Trump administration was Democratic primary, voters almost play pundit, and they just, you know, really wanted to find someone who could beat Donald Trump. Remember there was that. All those conversations about, I can't be a woman, it has to be this moderate white man. I think we're probably going to see a bit of that again, which to me suggests that some of these groups, you know, saying so and so, it doesn't align with us 100% on trans issues or insert whatever issue it is you want. I think that there's going to be sort of an understanding among some primary voters that, well, if you want to win, this is what has to happen. And also, I mean, we'll see what happens with the primary calendar. We don't even know where we're starting the Democratic primary, which could totally shape sort of like the contours of how moderate.

Mike Pesca (22:29)

Has Iowa sufficiently discredited itself yet?

Lauren Egan (22:31)

I think I was done. I think Iowa is for sure done. But like South Carolina, you know, first, last time, that's a total wild card. What's going to happen there, since that was very much, you know, a gift to Joe Biden. And there's certainly conversations in Democratic circles about what is the most strategic state to start with for the 2028. And by strategic, they tend to mean where can we find the most a state that's an important state, but has a base of more moderate voters, not like the Iowa Democratic Party, aside from all of Iowa's issues with kind of botching that whole situation, the Iowa Democratic Party had a reputation for being incredibly liberal and picking people that aren't actually good candidates.

Mike Pesca (23:13)

Yeah, yeah, just I would say do a, do a primary, not a caucus. That's an actual vote, rather than, you know, a square dance in a gym on a two degree night. I want to drill down on, because newsletter one was about a true thing, which is that Democrats have to get better at communicating and the shows they go on and maybe creating their own shows. But here's what I want to drill down on. Do the Democratic professionals, the operatives, the communicators. And you talk to Rebecca Katz, who I think knows what she's talking about. She advised Fetterman and Ruben Gallego. You talk to J.D. pritzker, who's not bad at what he does, But I wouldn't trust the J.D. pritzker lay of the media landscape as much as Rebecca Katz. Okay. That said, do they understand the difference between the need to have political shows like Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro, which I think what Newsom is trying to do, and the need to be able to play in the sandbox of cultural shows? Because at least the newsletter one, I saw some, I saw some intermingling or some gray area between the terms and I think between those two types of shows. And I think that's a very important difference.

Lauren Egan (24:28)

Yeah, I don't think that the party has really grasped the difference of that. I'll go to people like Pritzker or, you know, other people that are on the 2028 shortlist, and I'll say, what are you doing? Because they all want to talk of a game about how they're doing new media. And oftentimes the shows that they'll send me that they've been on are inherently political spaces, you know.

Mike Pesca (24:50)

Right. So it's new, it's on Instagram or YouTube or whatever. But it's for political junkies, people who are engaged. Right.

Lauren Egan (24:55)

And it's not that that's bad or that they shouldn't do that. They should absolutely be going there. But I think where they're really missing the mark is these apolitical spaces that they just really aren't showing up in yet. And the newsletter give the Yvonne as a great example. I think that show, you know, we've talked a lot since the election about how Harris didn't go on the Joe Rogan show. Obviously there was. That was complicated. It seems like he kind of screwed her team over a bit.

Mike Pesca (25:21)

But she didn't go on any of those types of shows.

Lauren Egan (25:24)

Right. She did call her daddy, but that's.

Mike Pesca (25:26)

Not by types of shows, I mean the ones that Trump did. I mean like Theo Vaughan or Flagrant with Andrew Scholz or we can name ten others.

Lauren Egan (25:34)

Yeah, right. That's the thing. It's like you. She did a few. That's good. But the whole point is you have to be doing that constantly, every single day. And the balance of, you know, the big sort of tentpole campaign rallies that she hosts, that she hosted compared to the few apolitical podcasts she went on is just like totally, you know, it's like running a campaign in a totally different era. So, yeah, they're not grasping the difference. They're not understanding, I don't think, how to have cultural relevance. And that's a big, big problem for them. The Theo Vaughn show this and I don't think get a lot of notice. He mentioned a few days ago on one of his episodes that he invited Harrison Walls on to his podcast. And you know, that's, that's a perfect example of a place that kind of, depending on who's the guest, you kind of can go either way. And how he talks about politics and when you just completely cede ground to conservatives or Republicans in a space like that, there's just no way you can, you can win.

Mike Pesca (26:37)

Lauren Egan writes the new the Opposition newsletter for the Bulwark. Check it out every Wednesday and Sunday. Lauren, thank you so much for coming on and talking.

Lauren Egan (26:47)

Thanks for having me.

Mike Pesca (26:48)

That was good. But don't you want more? I'm here to give you more. If you want more of Lauren Egan and no commercials, we dive deeper into the podcast sphere. A little Theo Vaughn talk, a little Joe Rogan talk. Talk about other ideas, other shows that Democrats are using to reach their public. Plus we discuss James Carville, his thoughts on rope a doping. It's all there for the low, low price of 8. 99amonth. 4. 99. If you just want ad free go to subscribe.mike pesca.com I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, hey, find a keto friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger so I can get in more squats anywhere I can. 1, 2, 3 will that be cash or credit?

Lauren Egan (27:47)

Credit.

Mike Pesca (27:48)

4 Galaxy S25 Ultra the AI companion that does the heavy lifting so you can do. You get yours@samsung.com compatible with select apps. Requires Google Gemini account results may vary based on input. Check responses for accuracy.

Lauren Egan (28:01)

Your data is like gold to hackers. They're selling your passwords, bank details and private messages. McAfee helps stop them. Secure VPN keeps your online activity private.

Mike Pesca (28:12)

AI powered tech's scam detector spots phishing.

Lauren Egan (28:15)

Attempts instantly and with award winning antivirus you get top tier hacker protection.

Mike Pesca (28:19)

Plus you'll get up to $2 million.

Lauren Egan (28:21)

In identity theft coverage, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit McAfee.com, cancel anytime terms apply.

Mike Pesca (28:32)

Last September, a shooting occurred in a subway station in Brooklyn. The original reports described not just a tragedy, but mayhem. Shot were a subway fare evader, two innocent bystanders and one police officer. Thankfully, no one died that night. Protesters surrounded the local Brownsville police precinct over the next few days, demonstrators jump subway turnstiles to make the point that fair evasion isn't justification for being shot. The Independent, which describes itself as a free, grassroots New York City progressive newspaper, posted on social media Now Around 200 protesters joined at the Sutter Avenue subway station tonight in Brownsville, where Darryl Mickels, two bystanders and one cop were shot by the NYPD on Sunday because Mickels evaded the subway fare. Here is Fox News Channel 5 reporting on the protests. Demonstrators criticized the NYPD's response, arguing that cops should have tried to de escalate the situation rather than opening fire on the 37 year old suspect. Darrell Nichols. New York Times headline was Critics Question NYPD Shootings After Fair Evasion stop in subway. Videos posted on Twitter captured protesters chanting live free ride free Fuck the nypd. Another post claimed they were, quote, taking the streets in response to NYPD committing a mass shooting in the subway recently over fair evasion. Mayor Eric Adams had a different explanation and he was not shot for fair evasion. He was shot because he had a knife and he went after the police officer officers after repeatedly asking him to put down the knife. Now within nine days, Adams would be arrested in a long simmering federal case which you probably read has since been suspended, although at the time his credibility was already damaged. Rumors of the impending charges had been swirling for months, but soon thereafter the NYPD released body cam video that, when thoroughly examined, backed up exactly what the mayor said. There was so much footage, however, that deceptive social media users could contradict facts by posting selective clips. One Twitter user took some choppy and hard to parse scenes of the event and wrote, nypd shot into a subway car full of people. There was never any threat of a knife, nor did he go towards the cops with knife. That post got 40000 views and was false. Fortunately, the protests, though large and leading to many arrests, didn't engulf the city. With the benefit of distance and perspective, a more complete picture of the facts had a chance to emerge. And so this Sunday, months afterwards, the New York Times published a considered retrospective. The subhead of this reads, new York's subway has been flooded with patrols to prevent crime and stop fare evasion. One Sunday in Brooklyn, it all went wrong. Now see if you could pick up the illusion in the headline of that piece, which was one hop turnstile, nine police bullets, four people shot. Does it add up? What's missing? Here's a clue. Put it down. Put it down. Put it down. Put it down. Put the knife down. I won't play all 38 times. Police officers May and Wong asked Mickels to put the knife down or drop the knife. His threatening behavior kind of hard to hear in audio. On video it's clear when he was tased and tore out the prongs and continued on and didn't drop the knife. That also makes for muddy noise, but it happened. So the facts are this. New York City had been experiencing a spate of high profile crimes and low profile fare evasions, accounting for upwards of $800 million in lost fares. Surveys show that only 49% of subway riders feel safe during the day, down from 80, 82% in 2017. At night, only 22% feel safe. These days. The police were in the subway to police to have a presence and when encountering a dangerous situation, to act. Let us be clear as the video is, this was not about fair evasion. Yes, Darryl Nichols hopped a turnstile at the Sutter Avenue L station in Brownsville last September. And yes, when the police approached, he left. He was told to leave and he did. That was the extent of the initial policing. They let him go. No chase, no confrontation, no ticket. Ten minutes later though, he returned and slipped through an emergency gate. And police notice that he had a knife out, blade showing. And Mickels holding a knife in a crowded subway station, then told officers Wang and Maze, who quite properly confronted him, I'm going to make you kill me. And he repeatedly said to the officers, shoot me. Put it down. Put it down. Put it down. Don't put it down. Put the knife down. We're no longer talking about a $2.90 cent fare. We're talking about public safety in its most immediate form. And even if it were only about fare evasion and not an exposed blade, it is undeniable that the policing of fare evasion is legitimate. The public has, in fact, demanded it. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority estimates that they lose $800 million annually to Turnstile jumpers. And if no fair evasion were enforced, that loss would be a lot greater. Darrell Nichols exemplifies exactly why such enforcement matters. Had officers ignored his second fair evasion, where he was clearly defiant, had they not followed him to the platform, who knows what might have happened to others in that station? The Times, in its coverage, offers a answer in a classic journalistic passive voice quote. Critics say that the fare evasion crackdown is misguided and too costly for what it recoups in revenue. And when it leads to a police encounter that escalates, as it did Sunday, September 15, that effort can quickly turn dangerous. Well, yes, it can. If fare evaders are armed and become combative when police request they disarm, it is indeed a danger. But the Times frames the potential for police enforcement to lead to an apprehension of a knife wielding criminal as a downside rather than a public safety benefit. The article continues, the mayor and other officials, in a nod to the broken windows model of policing, argue that being tough on fair evasion has helped reduce crime in the subway. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove how many crimes are avoided. All right, now what's going on here? Is this mention of broken windows policing? It's both intentional and inaccurate. What the broken windows theory actual posits is that visual signs of urban disorder, like broken windows or graffiti or other indicators of a neighborhood in disrepair encourage more serious crimes. That theory in no way advocates that police should turn the other way when they witness a crime being committed. In fact, this case proves the opposite point. Officers chose not to pursue Nichols the first time he hopped the turnstile. The phrase broken windows policing is deployed here as a means of discrediting the decision that placed officers Maze and Wong in that station in September to begin with. But this was at a time when there had been many, many high profile, violent incidents. A homeless woman was set on fire. Several people were pushed into oncoming trains or onto the tracks. The mayor, the governor, everyone who takes civic responsibility seriously knew that something needed to be done, including the public. Because public safety isn't an abstraction. It's the fundamental responsibility of government. And in this case, government acted responsibly. And as it turns out, with the fair evasion policing effectively, things are actually getting safer as of late. For instance, in the first two months of this year, there were no murders in the subway, and that hadn't happened since 2020. This is because of policing. This is because the problem of fare evasion was actually treated as a problem. And even if there had been no fare evasion patrol that day, the outcome might have been the same. Once police in the subway, for whatever reason, encounter an armed man who refuses to drop his knife. Not in his pocket, not in his backpack, but out. The situation is inherently dangerous. Mr. Mickels displayed signs of mental distress, but also clear dangerousness by repeatedly telling officers to shoot him. I'm not dropping nothing, Mickels said. I'm going to make you kill me. Shoot me. He insisted the police did not shoot him. They kept instructing him to drop the knife. They used non lethal force of tasers. That didn't work. Mickels charged at one of the officers. So what were police supposed to do at that point? Walk away from an armed man in a crowded subway? Well, in part two of this report, we will meet a passenger who answers that question with a simple yes, police should do nothing. This perspective, echoed in the Times coverage, seems trapped in the pre pandemic era when crime was low and reducing police presence seemed perhaps reasonable, or at least a strategy to try. But we're not in that world anymore. We did try it and it didn't work. The theories of less law enforcement across the board had their chance and the results were not good. Tomorrow we'll examine how this somewhat nostalgic way of thinking continues to mislead us about public safety, even when confronted with clear evidence to the contrary. That's it for today's show. The Gist is produced by Cory Warra, cbso, Michelle Pesca, Leo Baum is our intern. And thanks for listening. Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.