3621 - The Democrats Olds Problem w/ Rebecca Traister

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3621 – “The Democrats’ Olds Problem w/ Rebecca Traister” (Nov. 10, 2025)

---

Overview

This episode features Sam Seder in conversation with Rebecca Traister, New York Times bestselling author and writer at large for New York Magazine. The main theme is the entrenched senior leadership within the Democratic Party—the "olds"—and the resulting problems of power retention, generational succession, and the party’s resistance to internal change. The episode explores these dynamics in the context of recent events, including the government shutdown cave-in, Biden-era politics, and on-the-ground examples from Massachusetts and Maine politics. The discussion delves into the psychological, procedural, and strategic issues preventing Democratic renewal, contrasting them with Republican adaptation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Democrats' Shutdown Cave and Loss of Leverage

[00:18–13:22]

• Democratic Cave-In: Sam sets the stage with a blunt critique: Democrats, despite strong election results and judicial decisions in their favor (notably on SNAP funding), surrendered their leverage in shutdown negotiations for paltry returns.

  “We are literally at, after that ruling yesterday, the Democrats having peak leverage, like, the most amount of leverage they could possibly have. And then, of course, they took that opportunity to cave.” —Sam Seder [05:32]

• What Did They Get? Basically, promises for votes on issues that will likely fail, e.g., ACA subsidies, and reversals of already-illegal Trump actions.

• Senators Respond: Clips and quotes from Jean Shaheen and Angus King attempt to justify the capitulation, but Sam is unrelenting:

  “So we're basically exactly where we were 40 some odd days ago, but with the promise of a vote that won't pass. So refreshing. For some bipartisan...and the, if the argument is, well, look, that's going to help the Democrats. Well, the Democrats were already winning this shutdown fight.” —Sam Seder [10:17]

• Leadership Dynamics: Reporting (citing Robert Kutner, The American Prospect) reveals Senate Democratic leadership, led by Schumer, orchestrated the "cave," overruling more progressive or resistant caucus members.

---

2. Rebecca Traister on the “Olds” Problem & Generational Change

[24:23–41:50]

• Staying Too Long: Traister traces the problem back decades, from Ginsburg to Feinstein, and especially Biden. The inability (or refusal) of senior Democratic officeholders to step away blocks generational renewal and new ideas.

  “What it meant for that generation of Democratic politicians to have moved into office and then to have stayed until...they were literally [dead, like Feinstein].” —Rebecca Traister [24:51]

• The Lack of Mechanisms: Unlike Republicans, who (often through scandal or ideological pressure) cycle through leaders, Democrats lack both the will and systems to encourage healthy turnover.

• Groomed Successors, Same Problems: Even younger, “chosen” successors tend to replicate the attitudes, strategies, and moderation of their elders.

  “You can name a couple of the other candidates who are chronologically younger than the elder leaders, but who govern and view the party in the same way, who think about what it means to interact with the opposition...” —Rebecca Traister [26:57]

• Contrast to Republicans: The right moves with its base and allows (or is forced into) generational and ideological shifts (e.g., Tea Party, MAGA), while Democrats treat their younger base and left flank as threats.

  “You’ve seen the party actually treat that next generation as a threat to their power, rather than... future leadership.” —Rebecca Traister [29:45]

---

3. Roots of the Mindset: Civility, Compromise, and Power

[30:03–41:50]

• Culture of Civility: Many senior Democrats still live by norms forged in the '70s–'90s—compromise, bipartisanship, and clubby senatorial “civility”—even as the ground has shifted.

  “[Joe Biden on the ’70s]: There was this sense of the people in power in Washington had fundamentally something in common...that something was power.” —Rebecca Traister [31:22]

• Republican Ruthlessness vs. Democratic Hangups: Republicans have adapted to a “fight to win” environment, while Democrats’ disposition and institutional inertia make them resistant.

  “It was wrong to be so conciliatory in the ’80s...so much of what we’re seeing began with the Reagan era.” —Rebecca Traister [32:40]

• Why Can't Democrats Change? Sam asks why Republican leadership adapts and Democrats do not. Traister sees it as a combination of self-interest, history, and the unique difficulty of left/progressive politics—which require fighting against entrenched power.

  “Part of the project of the very loosely construed left...is fighting against centralized power. That’s a really hard project in this country.” —Rebecca Traister [38:04]

---

4. Psychology and Structures of Power Retention

[41:50–46:32]

• It’s Human, But Costly: Traister is sympathetic to aging and the loss of status, but criticizes the way this personal difficulty collides with pressing national stakes.

  “It’s not that I’m without sympathy... I am a little bit without sympathy...because...your job is...there’s a lot of people’s lives who hang in the balance.” —Rebecca Traister [41:40, paraphrased]

• Material Incentives: Elected office provides not only status and a sense of purpose but also social circles (staffers), material perks, and authority that's hard to relinquish—creating feedback loops and codependency.

  “It is also hard to give up power, which is very tied to this question of getting older and immortality.” —Rebecca Traister [41:20]

• Case in Point: Eleanor Holmes Norton’s refusal to retire despite advanced Alzheimer’s and Feinstein’s death in office are cited as alarming symptoms.

---

5. The Political Cost: Democratic Prospects in Massachusetts & Maine

[47:54–79:03]

• Massachusetts' Dilemma: Ed Markey (79), seen as a progressive hero, is challenged by centrist Seth Moulton. Despite top-level respect, Markey risks blocking Ayanna Pressley or other qualified successors, with younger progressives frozen out.

  “The idea that young people came out for him, but that he can’t even see...why do you need to have that seat for another six years at 80 years old?” —Rebecca Traister [54:49]

• Lack of Succession Planning: Democratic leadership (Schumer, Gillibrand) refuse to step in and facilitate a generational handoff, intensifying the logjam.

• Maine’s Senate Race: Schumer has recruited aging (78) incumbent Governor Janet Mills to run against Susan Collins, despite local excitement for Graham Platner, a left-populist outsider with genuine grassroots support.

  “The excitement around Platner is really unusual, and he’s a very unusual candidate...that is not something that a party apparatus can produce on command.” —Rebecca Traister [77:39]

• Disconnect from Voters: National party (DSCC, Schumer, Gillibrand) has misread the state’s political needs, prioritizing their own comfort and power over effective and generationally sustainable strategy.

---

6. Implications, Strategic Missteps, and a Potential Young Insurgency

[79:03–82:09]

• Possible Upset: If a candidate like Platner can beat both Mills and Collins (the latter far from guaranteed), it may signal a sea-change in Democratic politics and strategy, undercutting the assumptions of Schumer/Gillibrand and the old guard.

• Young People Will Force the Issue: Traister closes by emphasizing that real change will require energetic “next generation” candidates—chronologically young or not—taking initiative rather than waiting for their elders to “do the right thing.”

  “It’s gonna be the young people who come and knock it down...the next generation that understands democratic leadership in a different way...is actually gonna come and force the issue.” —Rebecca Traister [81:51]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Democratic Futility:

  “We’re fighting over the white flag. Which one of us will get to wave it?” —Sam Seder [13:22]

• On Generational Psychology:

  “You know, your staff is like your friend circle. But friends who are really helpful, which is...they’re employees.” —Rebecca Traister [43:08]

• On Systemic Inertia:

  “Power moves to the top, and then people don’t want to relinquish it. That is how you have a country that’s so based around corporate power.” —Rebecca Traister [40:14]

• On Difference of the Parties:

  “In the Democratic Party...you’ve seen the party actually treat that next generation as a threat to their power, rather than as the generation that’s going to move the party into the future.” —Rebecca Traister [29:45]

• On the Appeal of Youth:

  “Young people and young leaders are the most tangible reminder of, look, we’re going to have another generation of people...and that is, in fact, the path out of this moment.” —Rebecca Traister [45:23]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Democratic Cave on the Shutdown, Senate Dynamics: [00:18–13:22]
• Rebecca Traister on Democratic Olds Problem (start): [24:23–30:03]
• Difference Between Dem and GOP Generational Change: [26:47–30:59]
• Origins of the Old Guard Mindset & Resistance to Change: [30:03–36:42]
• Nature of Power Retention, Material Benefits, and Personal Cost: [41:50–46:32]
• Massachusetts & Ayanna Pressley “Frozen Out”: [47:54–54:59]
• Maine, Schumer’s Outsider Status, Grassroots Energy: [57:02–79:03]
• Implications for the National Party, Need for Young Insurgency: [79:03–82:09]

---

Tone & Style

Throughout, the conversation is critical, irreverent, and sharp with humor—a signature of Majority Report. Sam is relentless in his skewering of Democratic leadership, while Traister brings deeply reported insight and empathy for both the structural and personal elements at play, but without pulling punches.

---

In Summary

This episode incisively examines why the Democratic Party’s upper echelons refuse to yield power, the cost to party renewal, and the resulting political malaise. Contrasted with the Republican Party’s (sometimes brutal) adaptation cycles, Democratic leadership’s clinging to office and status quo sensibilities actively suppresses new, dynamic leaders, risking electoral and policy obsolescence. The conversation, drawing from real-time events in Congress and state-level politics, underscores the urgent need for generational turnover and the pitfalls of waiting for the old guard to “do the right thing.” If change comes, it’ll be because the next generation forces it.

---

Transcript

[Rebecca Traister]

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this [e-mail] and get an extra hour of content daily.

[Sam Seder]

It is Monday, November 10th, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Rebecca Traister, New York Times best selling author, writer at large for New York magazine on the olds that make up the Democratic Party. Also on the program today, speaking of the olds that make up the Democratic Party, Chuck Schumer finally gets his Democratic cave on the shutdown. Eight Democratic senators coming out and agreeing to vote with the Republicans for the huge, huge price of just about Nothing. Meanwhile, the U.S. circuit Court of Appeals last night rules that Trump cannot withhold SNAP funds, making that shutdown deal even more ridiculous. Donald Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani Meadows, former chief of staff and others for their tiny little attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Meanwhile, Trump floating $2,000 checks to Americans to cover for his tariff disaster. New report. After meeting with Trump's former defense attorney, Ghislaine Maxwell is living her best life in a minimum security prison. Where does she literally gets to keep a puppy? I'm not joking about that. Biden administration had intel that even Israeli military lawyers thought what was going on was a tremendous war crime. Supreme Court refuses the appeal to revisit same sex marriage. And US summarily kills another six people in a boat in the Pacific to surpass 76. Just unilateral kills FHA contemplating a 50 year mortgage for Americans queuing up the next housing financial crisis. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen, Emma Vigelin, out today, in fact out all week. Brian is solo right now. Take it easy on me. So everybody just slow down. We have special guest in studio today. My friend Aya is here. Hello, Aya. He's waved me. So we're going to have some fun with the Democrats caving again. I want to make this. Well, let's start with this. Last night In Boston, a U.S. circuit Court after having the case essentially remanded to them from the Supreme Court. Katanji Brown Jackson wrote this order. She is responsible for the first Circuit Court. All of the judges have basically their own portfolio. The court looked at the question as to whether the Trump administration could be forced to release the funds they're holding. Remember, that's what they're doing. They're not Forcing them to spend money that's not there. The USDA had a contingent fund or contingency fund, I should say, in the event of an emergency. And having no funding for snap payments is an emergency. The Trump administration pulled that money offline. And a circuit court in Boston ruled last night that they needed to reinstate that funding. And with that funding flowing with the results of an election less than a week ago where Democrats ran the board, like, I am still looking for any election where Republicans, never mind, outperformed, but didn't underperform in terms of, like, the partisan splits, I have yet to find one. Now, I, you know, I haven't been able to look at, like, every school board in every county that had an election, but I have not seen a single race where the Republican outperformed the numbers that they should have gotten. In many instances, they underperformed, the Democrats way outperformed. So we are literally at, after that ruling yesterday, the Democrats having peak leverage, like, the most amount of leverage they could possibly have. And then, of course, they took that opportunity to cave. And to be fair, it's not all Democrats. Apparently, a lot of the Democratic senators are pissed about this. A lot of House members are pissed about this. But let's just start with a couple that are. One who's retiring, so inexplicable why she's doing this. Jean Shaheen from New Hampshire, she's not running for reelection here. She is responding to colleagues who say, this isn't a fight, this is a capitulation.

[Jean Shaheen]

Thank you. Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

You say you're fighting on the Affordable Care Act. What do you say to your colleagues to say, this isn't a fight, this is a capitulation you're putting together. You're agreeing to a vote on a bill that it almost certainly will not become law, and you're allowing that to happen. Pause it for a second. Let me just make clear what they did get here. Positive for once again. And then we'll just go back and start again. Just to be clear, the big thing they got in the bill was a promise from the Republicans, the most upstanding people. I mean, if you ever want a promise, the best place to start is with the Republican leadership, because you can trust them. In exchange for a continuing resolution through January 30th, so that, I guess, presumably Trump's able to. Everybody's able to go away on Christmas vacation. Trump's still able to crank up the authoritarian machine that he wants to unleash on American cities, probably in February or March. This Bill fully funds SNAP, which of course we now know 12 hours ago was fully funded. It reverses Trump's illegal reduction in force proclamations, which of course, were illegal anyways. And it promises a vote on ACA subsidies by the second week of December, when hopefully Chuck Schumer's thinking, who's going to be paying attention? And the Democrats get to write the bill, and I will bet you every dollar in those subsidies, the bill will not pass. They know it won't pass, and that's it. That's what they get. So all of this. Oh, and it supposedly will pay everybody who's deserving of pay, which is already law anyways. And so if the Democrats were afraid that Trump wasn't going to follow this law, I don't know why they would follow this law. All right, but continue. You're fighting on the Affordable Care Act. What do you say to your colleagues who say this isn't a fight, this is a capitulation you're putting together? You're agreeing to a vote on a bill that it almost certainly will not become law, and you're allowing that to happen?

[Jean Shaheen]

Well, first of all, there was, as long as the government shut down, the clear statement from Senator Thune and the Republican majority and they control the Senate, the House, the White House was, we will not talk about health care with you. So there was no vote that we were going to get on the Affordable Care act premium tax credits. We have a guaranteed vote by a guaranteed date on a bill that we will write, not that the Republicans will write, although I do think it's important for us to engage with them, because we need a bipartisan bill that we know is going to get enacted to provide the relief that Americans need. And I think there's a commitment on the part of many of our colleagues to do that.

[Sam Seder]

But there's no guarantee this will become law.

[Jean Shaheen]

There was never a guarantee that it would become law.

[Sam Seder]

Well, right. There was no guarantee it would be law. There was never a guarantee it would be law. Unless you said the thing you want us to vote with you to open the government, we get something that we ostensibly want, which is the ACA premium extensions. Now, to be clear, the real reason why you shut this down is to get a promise that Trump's not going to continue to break the law and rescind money or pocket rescind money or failure to appropriate, and none of that's there. So we're basically exactly where we were 40 some odd days ago, but with the promise of a vote that won't pass. So refreshing. For some bipartisan. And the. If the argument is, well, look, that's going to help the Democrats. Well, the Democrats were already winning this shutdown fight. Here's Angus King. Granted, not a Democrat votes with the Democrats, certainly part of this group. In fact, he and Shaheen supposedly led it. Here he is explaining, look.

[Angus King]

We can't.

[Sam Seder]

Win, so we should definitely prematurely surrender.

[Angus King]

Well, Joe, you have to go back to what the strategy was at the beginning of the shutdown. There were two goals, both of which I support. One was standing up to Donald Trump. The other was getting some resolution on the ACA premium tax credit issue. The problem was the shutdown wasn't accomplishing either goals. And there was practically, well, there was zero likelihood that it was going to. In terms of standing up to Donald Trump. The shutdown actually gave him more power. Exhibit A being what he's done with SNAP benefit.

[Sam Seder]

Exhibit A, he's talking about this Monday morning, Sunday night. Exhibit A was actually reversed by a federal court under the auspices of an order from the Supreme Court. And so Exhibit A is not. It should not even be admissible at this point. It doesn't exist. And on top of which, if Trump's going to break the law in one instance, why won't he break the law in another instance? You've given up all your leverage.

[Angus King]

Exhibit A being what he's done with, with SNAP and SNAP benefits across the country. Oh, by the way, Joe, you're going to love this. Guess who's getting paid during the shutdown? Not the park rangers or air traffic controllers. The ICE agents under special law, under that big awful bill that they passed last summer, the ICE agents are being paid. Nobody else is. So standing up to Donald Trump, it didn't work. It actually gave him more power.

[Sam Seder]

Well, Joe, it didn't give him more power. That legislation that passed because you actually, you passed. The last continuing resolution made it possible. Does anybody think the big beautiful bill would have been on track if they had to deal with the government shutdown in March? And you know what? You just gave up the platform to tell people that ICE is being funded. Just astonishing. Hard to know what kind of decrepit thinking is involved in this. And in a moment, we're going to be talking to Rebecca Traister about that very thing. But here is Chuck Schumer and, oh, let me just read this. Reporting from the American Prospect. I've got to go through Ezra Klein saying, why are the Democrats doing this? I'm going to go through Zatteo I to go through every single observer of Politics piece saying, why are Democrats doing this? This one's from Robert Kutner. My reporting finds that at the Thursday meeting of the Senate Democratic Caucus, two days after the election that would have been last Thursday, Democrats nearly capitulated. Once again, here's what occurred. It's been widely assumed that the group of eight mostly centrist Senate Democrats who have been looking to broker a hollow deal on the Republican terms were freelancing. In fact, they were acting with the express approval of Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and were reporting to him daily. At Thursday's meeting, they told their caucus colleagues they now had 10 votes to reopen the government. There was a mutiny. Much of the rest of the caucus went ballistic. And some of the supposed 10 said that in fact they were not willing to vote for such a deal. That must have been Ossif from Georgia is one of them. And maybe the other one was Chuck Schumer. The leaders of the proposed Democratic cave in both then backed down. That would have been Hassan Shaheen and Catherine Cortez Masto Chuck Schumer, if not orchestrated Midwife that and gave him the ability, because he's so terrified of a primary, to cut this 15 second video. For months and months, Democrats have been fighting to get the Senate to address the health care crisis. This bill does nothing to ensure that that crisis is addressed. I am voting no and I will keep fighting. Ready to run through a brick wall for. I'll tell you something that is very inspiring. And he really, like, how did this happen? Like, is he mad at the leadership of the Senate? How could the Senate leadership allow this to happen? He's thinking. And then that's when they had to cut. That's why it's only 15 seconds. Because the next thought was like, and the leader of this. Oh, wait, let's cut. Can we just do 15 seconds? Do we need to do the whole thing? The cut was seven seconds in. Well, that cut, I think is like one of those jump cuts to make it look like he's stronger. I don't think. I think that was actually just a camera move. Okay. Not an actual second. That's why it fired me up so much. Yeah, that cut. Yeah. That's why you're ready to go out there and lay it all on the line. I'm going to fight until I cannot fight anymore. That's the key. If you say we're going to fight as long as you don't get specific. And by fight, I mean usher in a capitulation. Yeah, fight other Democrats. We're fighting over the white flag. Which one of us will get to wave it? In a minute we'll be talking to Rebecca Traister, New York Times bestselling author, writer at large for New York Magazine, on her piece the Propensity for Democrats to Hang On. And by that I mean individual Democrats Refusing to Give up power. First, a couple words from our sponsors. I did this last year and I felt great and I was shocked by it. You may be suffering long work weeks, particularly these days, busy weekends. Maybe you're feeling a little and looking a little depleted. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet works at the cellular level to rejuvenate you from the inside out. It provides real results that include fat focused, sustainable weight loss with no injection needed. And now they're up in their game for the next generation. Five day program in it delivers the same science backed benefits in a cleaner, more convenient and more flavorful format. Prolon is a plant based nutrition program. They got soups, snacks, beverages designed to nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state, triggering cellular rejuvenation and renewal. It's a five day program. It's developed over decades at USC's longevity institute. It's backed by top US medical centers. Prolon has been shown to support biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin appearance, fat loss and energy. Prolon's a science backed nutrition that's been shown to support healthy cardiometabolic markers. Next Gen builds on the original prolon with 100% organic soups and teas, a richer taste and ready to eat meals. Like I said, I did this last year I came into work, I thought I was going to be a wreck and I actually felt good. I mean it wasn't easy, but it wasn't nearly as hard as I thought. And supposedly once you get to like day four or five of this like mimicking a fast, you really start to like regenerate your cells. I don't know exactly how it works, but all the info is there at the site and you can read it at the USC's Longevity Institute. For a limited time, Prolon is offering listener 15% off site wide plus a $40 bonus gift. When you subscribe to their five day program just visit prolon life.com majority that's P R O L O N l I f e.com Majority to claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift. Prolon Life.com Majority also sponsoring the program today. Emma's sad she's missing this one. For whatever reason. This makes it feel uncomfortable. I Guess, but it's, it is really all about comfort and hygiene. Doesn't matter who you're shopping for this Christmas or Hanukkah season or your brother, your sister, an activist, somebody who like Brian lights farts on fire or something like that. Never been able to actually get that to work. Oh, I've done that. Believe me, I've tried. The hello Tushy bidet is the perfect gift to indulge every personality on your list. Tushy bidet is the daily techie luxury that's refreshingly practical and easy to use. I am about to upgrade to the electric one. I'm working on it. I got to get some electricity in my bathroom, but when I started to use a bidet it was life changing. I didn't know what it was at the time, but it was life changing. I mean it makes first of all super easy to install. All you need to be able to do is if you can switch out your, your toilet seat, you can do this. You don't need any extra plumbing, you don't need any extra electricity. Goes right into your existing water supply. It is, it is life altering. If you get dirt on your hands, you don't take a dry piece of paper and wipe it off. Use water. Tushy is the everyday luxury bidet that instantly transforms your bathroom habits and bottom health for life. Tushy Wave instantly modernizes your daily routine of bathroom with a super sleek seat plus two separate front and rear nozzles for the most complete clean. It also features a soft close live and a slam proof for gentle luxurious finish. Every Tushy bidet easily attaches to your existing toilet without the need for additional plumbing. This is daily decadence with practical benefits. Tushy pristinely removes 99% of bacteria while protecting your natural skin barriers thanks to one natural ingredient, water. It's easy to use, sit, cleanse and dry using the built in dryer if you got electricity. That's right. Cleaning yourself after the bathroom is now hands free. Every hello Tushy bidet comes with a 30 day hassle, free return and a 12 month warranty. Want to thank Tushy for sponsoring this episode and changing my life. Remember, a hole is only a dirty word if you wipe for limited time. Our listeners get 10% off there. I didn't write that first bidet order. When you use code TMR, check out it's 10% off your first bidet order at hello tushy.com with promo code TMR. All right, quick break. When we come back, Rebecca Traister, New York Times bestselling author, writer at large for New York Magazine, writing in that same magazine about the Democrats propensity for not letting go. We'll be right back. Foreign we are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Viglin out this week. Want to welcome back to the program Rebecca Traister, New York Times best selling author and writer at large for New York magazine, who has just written a piece in New York magazine about the Democrats inability to let go. In many respects, this has been something that is like been building, Rebecca, as you know, I mean, obviously it came to a head during the Biden administration, but this has been around too. We even saw it with like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and with Breyer, like, we.

[Rebecca Traister]

Certainly saw it with Ginsburg. But also, you know, I wrote, I said to my editors when we first talked about me doing this piece right now, I said, didn't I write this piece about Dianne Feinstein three years ago? I wrote a huge feature in 2022, a long feature about the career of Dianne Feinstein and what it meant for that generation of Democratic politicians to have moved into office and then to have stayed until they literally and at that point she was still alive, but until they were literally that died in office, which is what happened to Feinstein. And so yes, there have. And then, of course, last year there was the Biden debacle, I mean, which has I don't even think it's arguable that it dumped us here. You know, that an inability to step away and make room for another generation, other ideas about how to govern, how to lead, what it means to lead? I mean, it's just, it's chronological and it's also dispositional. What is the difference between people who've had power over decades and how do they view the world and their job in it and their job in Washington versus people who have been out of power for decades in part because that top layer has been reluctant to leave. So there are all these issues and you keep thinking this is gonna be the thing. This is gonna be the thing that lets the party know that we've gotta make room for the next generation. And then the thing happens and they don't seem to learn the lesson.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, the weird thing about saying the party, it seems to me, I mean, but I do wanna compare and contrast like the Democrats to the Republicans, like the Republicans. I mean, granted, a lot of it was scandal ridden, but not all four or five or six leaders in the House during the tenure of Nancy Pelosi and you know, Pelosi, I will give her credit. I mean it's sort of like a mark of where we have to give credit. Like in her 80s, has now said she'll step down. But, but there doesn't seem to be an apparatus. Like there's two questions, like why is it. There's something specifically about the Democrats where broadly speaking, the leadership seems to be unable to concede power and then also like there's no mechanism to sort of like it's a problem among Democrats. But there's no, doesn't feel like there's a HR department of the Democrats that steps in and says hey guys, like.

[Rebecca Traister]

No, but there is. So there is leadership and the leadership that is exerted so much control. Right. So you're looking at Pelosi, you're looking at Schumer, you know, Pelosi chose and sort of groomed as her successor Hakeem Jeffries, who is a younger politician but who like many of the chosen within, you know, the people who were groomed and trained by leadership, sort of dispositionally resembles some of the attitudes, strategies, approaches of that older, of that older generation. I think you can name a couple of the other candidates who are chronologically younger than the elder leaders, but who govern and view the party in the same way, who think about what it means to interact with the opposition party and all that. Is it a kind of political moderation? In part, that's part of it. It is a view of what to do with power or whether you hold power or how you leverage power, all those things. You can see that in certain other younger politicians who've been elevated by leadership in the meantime, younger sort of chronologically younger candidates and electeds who have come into the party have often been treated as the enemy rather than as the. Which is a real key difference I think, between the Democratic and the Republican Party. And I don't wanna overpraise the right here, which has done a lot of what I'm about to describe in service of an ever increasing authoritarian cruelty, demolition of all kinds of social safety networks on which millions of people rely. I mean, we don't have to discuss what the right is doing, but the one thing I will say is that the old guard on the right, and there are plenty of older Republican politicians who still have power, but sort of saw the uprising of in many cases younger candidates or in some cases just a new generation that wanted to do things differently, more radically right wing candidates. And many of the older leaders. And you can look at Mitch McConnell, you can look at Thom Tillis sort of shifted right with that in response to the up. You know, the up and coming generation, whether that's. You mark that as the Tea Party or the sort of Marjorie Taylor Greene caucus. You've seen the Republican Party move right along with its next generation of leaders who want to move ever further right. And what you see in the Democratic Party is treating the generation of Democrats who, again, I'm not sure it's just left and right. I think it's about a stance toward do you fight or do you negotiate? Right. There are all kinds of strategic differences, and it's not just about left or center. But you've seen the generation, the aoc, Ayanna Pressley, the squad generation. You've seen it certainly around Zoran Mamdani. You see it around the antipathy toward a candidate like Graham Platner, toward more just a different approach to how we might do Democratic politics. And you've seen the party actually treat that next generation as a threat to their power, rather than then as the generation that's going to move the party into the future and be the leadership in the future. And that is a really. That's a structural. I think it's an error, and I think it's creating a structural problem that we're seeing playing out all over the place.

[Sam Seder]

All right, let's. Let's put a pin on that structural problem for a second. So. So just to be clear, what we're talking about is, like, there's two. There's sort of like two lenses to look at the younger generation. One is from an ideological perspective. The other is what I call just partisanship, where they understand, like, hey, the report. They have a better sense of who the Republican Party is, and they have a better sense of, like, how to engage with them and that you need to fight them as opposed to sort of, like, constantly sort of seeking the bipartisanship. The bipartisanship was sort of the triangulation of the early 90s. And there's a sense that the politicians who came in at that time, you know, in the same way that I only listened to, like, the. The 10 years of music from, like, when I was 17 to 27, at this point, they learn that 100%.

[Rebecca Traister]

And I would argue it goes back before we're talking in some cases about politicians who are in their mid or even late 80s. Right. And so. And some of them have been in political office since their 20s. You know, Chuck Schumer, by the way, first won office when he was 23 years old. Okay. So you are talking about people who've been in politics for their entire career in some cases. And I would argue that it goes even before the 90s triangulation. Something that's always stuck with me is the Joe Biden line that he used to talk about when he first entered the Senate in 1973, January of 1973, and he was still dealing with a party where there were sort of segregationist Democrats. And he would talk about, oh, we'd fight like cats and dogs on the floor, and then we would go back to and. And have lunch together. There was this sense of the people in power in Washington had fundamentally something in common, by the way, that something was power. And even though they could fight about issues, there was still. This is the valorization of civility. And weirdly, the civility always happens on the top. You go to the gym with your colleagues, you have lunch with your colleagues, you drink with your colleagues, and sure, you fight about the issues. It's a sort of separation of the decision making at the top from the lived realities of what those issues do to the people who are actually, actually living in the world. Right. So. But I would say that this extends well back into earlier, into the, the second half of the 20th century. And what we have seen is a right wing that has actually just. First of all, I think it was wrong to be so conciliatory in the 80s, believe me, like, so much of what we're seeing began with the Reagan era and a Reagan administration and Reagan.

[Sam Seder]

Were buddies and they would. Exactly.

[Rebecca Traister]

Right. So I don't want to pretend like the Republican Party was somehow friendlier at that point. It's just that we were actually offered or friendlier to human beings at that point. You know, they were friendlier to perhaps their Democratic opposition, oppositional peers, you know, on Capitol Hill. But. But I do think that there is, for people raised in that era in which the sort of institutionally obedient thing to do and that was understood as somehow functional, you know, was to negotiate, to go in with good faith, to talk to your opposition, to reach compromise. Now we can talk about whether or not that was bad for millions of people. I believe in many cases it was. But that was held up as a value of being in political leadership in this country. And so that is, when you're talking about people who've been in power again sometimes from the 70s through the 80s through the 90s, you're talking about people who still think that should be a norm, when what you're actually hearing from people on the ground whose lives have been remade by so many of these compromises and conciliations in the past is. And who are now watching the just sort of indescribable damage being done by this administration and by the Republican Party. And that means, you know, certainly the rising costs, the unavailability of health care, the attempts to wrest health care from people, the, you know, sending people onto the street masks to kidnap people from their homes. I mean, we are watching this at every level. And the idea that you would negotiate with the party that is, that is making those choices is like from another planet. For a generation of people who were not raised in the 90s or who came of age in an era where they were watching the Republican Party and specifically the Trump administration this time and the last time take out the absolute underpinnings of our democracy and our safety nets.

[Sam Seder]

How is it though that. And I know that there's been a shift in just Democratic voters opinion about like compromising with the other side, that's changed because I remember during the aughts when, you know.

[Emma Vigelin]

Those of us in.

[Sam Seder]

The blogosphere would be like, why aren't you guys doing anything? And they, you know, we could see the numbers, the Democratic voters were like, this is an important value to them, the compromise. But that's changed, as far as I can tell, at least, you know, to some extent. But why have, why have the Republicans learned that it's a different world and the Democrats have not?

[Rebecca Traister]

I think that's a great question and I actually just don't know the answer. I don't know what's happening on the right that makes it. I mean, I think that there is certainly a lot of people would argue that a lot of Democratic leadership did. Naturally, the people who rose within the party during the 90s and the aughts were people who themselves were perhaps more eager to compromise than some of their forebears. Right. Or they became more eager to compromise as they aged. And so perhaps there's some sympathy with the center position. And what is seen as the more combative, pugilistic next generation is also identified as being more left, though again, I think that sort of fails to capture a lot of the generational difference. But yes, in many cases you're talking about a yearning for a more progressive Democratic Party, one that is not so beholden to Wall street, one that is not embedded with corporate interests in quite the same way that the Democratic Party has become and that that is now considered a left position. I think it's a very real. So that there's this sense that it's an attack on them, which in many cases it is at this point, an attack on the choices that Democratic leadership has made. I don't know why the right was more responsive to it. I mean, I certainly remember that the right was not initially. And then they got taken by a Tea Party.

[Sam Seder]

You know, let's remember Cantor gets taken out. Cantor gets taken out by, what was it, David Brat or something like that, and loses. That's the first Tea Party sort of scalp, if you will.

[Rebecca Traister]

Yes. And it was a shock. I remember being shocked.

[Sam Seder]

It was. We were all. Everybody was shocked. I mean, this is like literally, I don't know, six months after Cantor, Ryan and McCarthy are on a, you know, cover young guns of the Republican Party. And they've taken over. And then. And within a couple of years, they're all gone.

[Rebecca Traister]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

But that happens with AOC and Crowley. And then it's. The opposite is. I know. And it's almost. It was a direct mirror. I mean, Cantor, I think, was the. The sort of. Was third, I think, in line to Paul Ryan, and Crowley maybe was two in line, but it worked in a. Just completely different way.

[Rebecca Traister]

So I would say that there's a critique that one could make, which is that people in power may be more likely to side with power. And that part of the project of the left, the very loosely construed left. Right. And I'm just. The Democratic Party goes to its right.

[Sam Seder]

Yes.

[Rebecca Traister]

Okay. Has a pretty hard job in this country, which is fight, theoretically, at its best, fighting against centralized power. So that means via, you know, fighting for labor protections. Right. Fighting on behalf of workers, fighting on behalf of fighting against all kinds of oppressive other structures around gender and race and identity. Right. And it's a combined project. Right. I've always believed that there's no way that the sort of false distinctions between identity, you know, fighting against racism and. And misogyny and homophobia and transphobia and fighting against corporate interests and on behalf of workers and people who require healthcare and food. Those things are completely linked. Right. But it's a really hard project in this country because the whole reason this fight exists is because the country was built around structures that privilege people in corporate power that privilege white people, that privilege men. Right. Like there are all these things that are the old way of doing things and that fundamentally, when you're fighting against those kinds of structures, it's a very uncomfortable place to be in. So for a right to move. Right, right. On a lot of those things is a more comfortable move than for the Democrats to move left, making those fights much harder. Right. We have a natural gravity toward the forces that built this country. And that is why for generations, for centuries, these kinds of linked struggles have been going on, on, again, the very loosely defined left. Right? And so. So, I mean, maybe that's it. Maybe on the right.

[Sam Seder]

On the right, it's sort of like if, you know, you can replace this guy as long as you feel comfortable with, here's the new boss, same as the old boss. The problem is that's not. That is not the way that people who are supplanting power, again, center to the left, are viewing it. It's. They're doing it to fundamentally change how that power operates and to distribute that power, essentially.

[Rebecca Traister]

Yes. And the power, remember that within the Democratic Party structures, within Congress, you have. This is part of how power works, right? Power moves to the top, and then people don't want to relinquish it. That is how you have a country that's so based around corporate power. This is how you have a party that is resistant to, you know, changes in how it works in terms of identity, culture, certain kinds of privilege. Right. Because nobody wants to give up their power. And then you see the meta version of that happening with actual elected officials who have had certain kinds of power. And this is part of what my piece was about this week was the very like, mundane sort of. Aside from these broader philosophical questions about what direction is your party willing or open to turning, you also have the very basics of, like, people who have been very used to having a voice that matters, to being able to cast a vote and feel like they matter, to being able to have staffs and material benefits. Material benefits. Like, it is hard. And by the way, I just want to say, as a human being, it is hard to get old. Okay. I think that that is anybody who's had parents, anybody who themselves is aging. I actually, so far have really enjoyed getting older. But, like, I know that there comes a time it's hard, and it is also hard to give up power, which is very tied to this question of getting older and immortality and reckoning with the fact that you're not going to be around forever. But. And so I. It's not that I'm without sympathy for people who are. Have in many cases spent decades, you know, being used to a certain kind of life and having a certain kind of voice. I am a little bit without sympathy for those people because, you know, one of the things is your job is.

[Sam Seder]

Yes, there's a lot of people's lives who hang in the balance. So on one hand, we have what I think Kevin Drum would call the iron law of institutions, which is, you know, you want to hang on to power, even if that means, you know, you're captain of the team on the JV team, as opposed to riding the bench on the varsity team, essentially. And then the other one is, and this one I found fascinating, you really outlined this in the piece is that material benefits of the thing of like, like, you know, you have one woman, was it Norton Holmes or home? Yes, Eleanor Holmes Norton. The cops just found that she's suffering from Alzheimer's when she got rolled for four grand or something. And she's still, she's still, she's gonna run free election. And okay, so you have, there's like this quality of like, okay, now I'm in my 70s, 80s, and you write, you know, people's grandchildren have gone off to college and maybe their spouse has passed away. Now their staff is like their friend circle. And also. But friends who are really, really helpful, which is, you know, and totally, I.

[Rebecca Traister]

Mean, I'm going to go further than that because they're not friends, they're employees.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[Rebecca Traister]

And you're getting. Right.

[Sam Seder]

Well, then you also have like a Michael Jackson sort of dynamic where it's like, if this guy, you know, goes into rehab, I'm out of a job. And so we're going to keep this, this party going.

[Rebecca Traister]

We know these are the symptoms of, again, what you're talking about with people who have power is you then have people who become dependent on them. They become dependent on, for example, their staffs. And that is what a former congressperson told me observed in their memories of having served with some very elderly colleagues who certainly should have stepped away a long time ago, but refused to. In part, it's like there's nothing else because their lives have been this job. And then they have a staff in place. And as you just recounted, that staff is often, you know, these are the people who are taking care of them in their old age because their families have moved on or grown or spouses have died. But then in turn, that staff becomes dependent on that elected official to maintain their job and their access to power. And these things happen in every industry, right? You have people at the top who have certain kinds of economic and professional power. And then you have a circle that creates this sort of closed circle of, no, no, no, you're still wonderful. You can do this. You can, you know, or in some cases, you know, I'm sure that they're congressional staffers, and I heard from some of them who don't think that their bosses should continue to run, but they're the ones who have the power. All of this is true and it's human. And this is how power works. This is the Democratic Party in a moment. I mean, not just a moment. I believe that the fight in this country to create stability and preserve protections and rights and dignity for more people is an ongoing. We are in an ongoing crisis and have been for most of the history of this country. This is a particularly heated mom moment in that crisis, you know, and you. And so hearing about how, yes, it is hard to move on and hard to give up your staff and your perks and your power and your ability to vote is pretty alarming in the context of who is going to come next. And I want to raise one other point on this. I think that, and this is more of a touchy feely point amongst my peers, amongst the people I know, amongst the people I spoke to for this piece and talked to about, in all my reporting, there is such a yearning to think about the future because the current moment can be deadening. And that's not just. It makes us feel bad. The current moment in which Democrats have not had a lot of power. Why was last week so thrilling? Just, you know, having a few electoral wins. It was like a reminder that there will be something else. There will be a time after this. And so, and young people and young leaders are the most tangible reminder of, look, we're going to have another generation of people. We're going to. We are not going to be stuck with these same people leading us and driving us to hell. Right. And with their punitive cruelty and capitulation. Punitive cruelty on one side and too frequent capitulation on the other. This is not going to be our steady state forever. And so young candidates and this next generation of leadership is also just crucial on a sort of. And I think this is important politically on an emotional level, getting people to stay out there, to stay active, to stay helpful. Because if you give in to the despair of powerlessness and this sense of powerlessness that many of us have in this particular period, then you're not doing the work of building power for the future. And that is, in fact, the path out of this moment.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, for a while I've been feeling like I'll probably be in retirement or semi retirement, but, like, you know, that future looks good as long as it's not suppressed as much.

[Rebecca Traister]

I feel the same way, Sam. I feel the Same way.

[Sam Seder]

But what I also found fascinating was when Nadler. You got a quote from somebody about Nadler where Nadler felt like he still had time to do something else. And he's late 70s. I mean, God bless him, whatever.

[Rebecca Traister]

But.

[Sam Seder]

But I also remember that. And I don't know if it was back, like in the 1860s or 70s or whether it was in different parts of the 20th century, but one of the ways that they got federal judges out was to basically say, we're going to give you a good pension.

[Rebecca Traister]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

And otherwise they would hang on and hang on until they're in. There is this sort of quality of like, okay, Republicans probably have more. There's just so much more money on the sort of, like, ancillary parts of being a former Republican in terms of lobbying, in terms of sinecures at the Heritage foundation or whatever it is you go on to do. And there isn't that necessarily on the center left. I'm sure there's some, but it's not the same.

[Rebecca Traister]

It's funny that, you know, I didn't use this quote in the piece, but I did a lot of reporting on Massachusetts where Ed Markey, who is 79, is being challenged by. And he's. He's sort of a progressive hero for a lot of people. And he's been. So it's an inverse of that idea that the youthful energy runs to the left and the older politicians run to the center. He's being challenged by Seth Moulton, who is, you know, a centrist. And somebody was talking. So I did a lot of reporting in Massachusetts, and one of my sources in Massachusetts said to me, you know, we used to have a saying that there's gotta be a University of Massachusetts campus somewhere to put these guys in charge of when we move them out of political office. Which speaks to exactly what you're saying, this idea that there has to be something on the other side. But actually, a point that somebody made to me in the piece is that in hanging on so long, a lot of these people on the left, they missed their window. They missed the window for having. So maybe it's not some fancy sinecure, though. Plenty of them are doing really well, and I don't even know that they need the money. But in terms of prestige, some kind of power after having served, getting the kind of adulation and having something equivalent in terms of power or authority after their political career, like, a lot of them have hung on so long that they do miss that window. And one of my sources talked about George Mitchell, the. You Know, the former Maine senator who went on to serve as the ambassador of Ireland, and he had retired in his early 60s from the Senate and then was able to have a tremendous career afterwards. And I think that a lot of them sort of can't see that in refusing to retire, they're missing the window of gratitude, celebration of their career. You know, the kind of people would have them come and get. Give speeches and teach courses and teach the young people. There's an enormous amount of gratitude. And one of the. I talked to a bunch of people for this piece who have decided to step aside in part or entirely, because they believe that the next generation should take over. And one of the great ones is Tina Smith, who is retiring at, like, you know, she's basically a child at 67, and she's stepping away because she believes so much in the next generation. And she said to me that people come up to her and thank her for. For understanding that. That, you know, she doesn't have to stay in power forever.

[Sam Seder]

I feel like we could get a GoFundMe just to hire, like, a squad of people to go and take photographs and surround, like, you know, Ed Markey every day and take photographs of him, just as if they're like, press. But so, okay, let's. I mean, this is an interesting sort of, like, juxtaposition because Markey is a senator who I really do appreciate. And. But we have this sort of dilemma where Moulton is not of the same ideology. He is. Seth Moulton is, you know, within the context of the Democratic Party, way to the right of Ed Markey. And there are natural successors to Ed Markey, like Ayanna Pressley.

[Rebecca Traister]

Is that. Yes.

[Sam Seder]

And yet she won't go. She won't jump into the race because there's this sort of frozen thing but isn't like. And I. And on one hand it's like, okay, I appreciate to this extent that she has respect for this guy, but at the other, on the other side, it's like, okay, listen, you're going to have to. You're going to have to jump. The only way he gets out is if you jump in. He may not at that point, and you may split the thing. But. But if Seth Moulton wins, you're not going to have an opportunity ever to take that next step, at least in that seat. You know, maybe you got to wait another cycle for. For Elizabeth Warren or something like that. But this is also incumbent. Like, you know, it's not enough to just simply say he, you know, Markey won't make the decision on his own, like at one point.

[Rebecca Traister]

So yeah, I don't think it's impossible that you see somebody else jump in this race. I think, in fact, in fact it's notable. Ayanna Pressley has not. Is one of the few Massachusetts Democrats who's not yet endorsed Ed Markey. And I don't think it's impossible that she's gonna get in or at least investigate it further. But it does create a difficult situation. If you're talking about splitting that progressive vote. If you come in as a progressive. Are you then. Because I think there's a lot of conventional wisdom in Massachusetts that Markey could probably keep the seat. Seat. And if you're gonna come in and split a progressive vote and then Moulton gets that seat. And Moulton is much, you know, far.

[Sam Seder]

Way to the right.

[Rebecca Traister]

Right. Way to the right. And also just, I mean, he has not exhibited, even if. Even for, you know, a center moderate politician like, you know, hasn't exhibited greatness, I would say.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[Rebecca Traister]

And so. And he is young and could keep that seat for a long time if he won it. Theoretically. But so do you wanna enable it? It's a really bad position. And I agree with you. And I think very possible that somebody else, maybe Pressley herself, will jump in and that will change the dynamics of the race and maybe it will convince Markey to step out. But I also do want to say one of the things that strikes me so much about Markey's insistence on keeping the seat at 79. Again, these are six year terms. Right. And I know he's very healthy right now. A lot of people are healthy in their late 70s. A lot of how we get here is that we've had tremendous medical improvements, at least for people who have access to health care. And so, yeah, I'm sure he's healthy.

[Sam Seder]

Now, but I've witnessed this firsthand. The difference between 79 and 85 is not like the difference between 42 and 48. 49. It is not even remotely close.

[Rebecca Traister]

But also, let's even put a pin in what the actual physical or mental acuity is. Right. He's 79 years old. He's done this job for a really long time. He has been in Democratic politics for all his life. And you know how he won last time? He had a younger challenger six years ago in Joe Kennedy. Right. And who was challenging him and he was a more progressive candidate than Moulton is. And you know who saved Ed Markey is young people. AOC and young progressives came up and Rallied around Ed Markey as an older progressive hero and helped him retain that seat. And he won that seat by like 10 points against a Kennedy, which is hard to do in Massachusetts historically.

[Sam Seder]

Increasingly easier.

[Rebecca Traister]

Increasingly easier. I think it's going to be much easier moving forward. But the idea that young people came out for him, but that he can't even see. What is it that makes somebody think that they're the only person who can do this job, when in fact it's not just Pressley people named a ton. There are a lot of really, really good politicians in Massachusetts who are sort of ready to go for Senate seats. And what is it? Why do you need to have that seat for another six years at 80 years old? It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't track and is a particular repudiation to that younger generation that came and worked for him six years ago.

[Sam Seder]

And there also feels like there's a failure because then I want to jump up to Maine. You know, like, who is the person who's not having that conversation with Markey? Like, you know, like, you know, there is a. There is a universe out there where the leader of the Democrats in the Senate is not Chuck Schumer. Schumer, who is not, you know, sort of like just enmeshed in this constant. I mean, I don't know what it is about Schumer's, like, sort of compulsion to. To not do politics in many respects. I mean, and we're seeing it in this shutdown. It was reported in the prospect that he was sort of orchestrating this group of eight. In fact, he may have been 10. He. And I would suspect Ossif. But Ossif realized, like, like, no, this does not make sense. But he's out there sort of like mentoring Gillibrand as she moves like, further and further to the. To the. I don't even know what to call it. Ideological. If it's right, if it's corporate capture.

[Rebecca Traister]

If it's crypto, it's not exactly left. Right. It's just. It's like a center. Money.

[Sam Seder]

It's big time.

[Rebecca Traister]

It's money and it's power. It's money and it's power and, and it's. And it's status quo.

[Sam Seder]

That's a. Theoretically, those two are the ones within the context of the, you know, Democrats Inc. As it were. Those two should be going up to Boston and go to Markey. Like, look, we will help you choose your successor, but you should, like, if you want to keep the ideological fights that you have, like, that's what should be happening. And they're clearly not doing that. And they clearly also didn't. They ignored the same dynamic in Maine, which is. I mean, just tell us about that. You're living in Maine. You've been in Maine for a couple of years now. You have long roots in Maine. Give me your perspective on what's happened with Mills and Platinum.

[Rebecca Traister]

We would have to take an entire other. I know that story.

[Sam Seder]

We have a little bit of time.

[Rebecca Traister]

The bare bones, generationally, is that it's been pretty well, you know, it's been amply reported and documented that, you know, Susan Collins is up for reelection. Susan Collins is a really fascinating. Actually, in the 2020 election, I wrote a really long feature on Susan Collins, and I think she was. She was pretty beatable in 2020. People were livid about her Kavanaugh vote. She's held this seat for five terms. Originally went in as a moderate. Right. She and Olympia Snowe, for a while, were the two moderate Republican senators from Maine, New England. Right. And she's gotten increasingly conservative, and Maine voters have become increasingly dissatisfied with her. And there was a real wave of Fury in 2020 after her Kavanaugh vote and the way she behaved in the first Trump administration, where people who trusted her to be a sort of voice of practical moderation felt really let down and were very angry. Now, the Democratic Party in 2020 sort of handpicked a candidate who was young, Sarah Gideon. But she ran very much in line with the national party, and she lost. And Susan Collins was not unseated in 2020. And so for this cycle, it was going to be a lot harder. Always is going to be harder.

[Sam Seder]

What does that mean to run in line with the national party?

[Rebecca Traister]

Well, she was the top pick of the dscc. First of all, Gideon was somebody who Schumer and et al, really wanted to be the candidate. She did not stand out as a candidate in terms of how she communicated. She was exceedingly careful. I mean, this thing about. Is it. What does it mean to be aligned with the party that we were just talking about Money? Is it combativeness? Is it what is. Is it. Is it tenor? What's that thing? She was that thing, which I think was kind of careful in Status quo. Right, right.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, like, they pick. It seems to me they pick. Chuck Schumer's out there picking somebody who he thinks is not gonna cause him problems in the Senate.

[Rebecca Traister]

Exactly. No drama. Which means not just no bad drama, but also no excitement, no electricity, no, like, here is who I am. No fight, no pugilism, no sense of.

[Sam Seder]

No ability to coalesce, power, no leadership skills.

[Rebecca Traister]

In many respects, Schumer wants it. Well, you know, look, it's not to say that the big explosive fireworks, it doesn't always work out, right? We have like, there are risks. Life, politics, leadership are risks. We take bets, right? We take bets. I took a bet on John Fetterman. It was a really bad one, right? These things happen, you know, a lot of people, a lot of progressives did with Fetterman and that like that's, it worked out very, very badly. So let's not pretend that just because somebody, you know, fits one kind of profile, we know what they're going to be like. But by the same token, playing careful just gets us the same as what we've had. So these are real questions and questions that I think voters ask themselves all the time. Certainly journalists who are covering these people ask ourselves these questions all the time. But yes, the idea is that Schumer picked a candidate in 2020 that was, and she was a very Schumer candidate. She kept it just 100% buttoned up, safe, didn't go out on any limbs, didn't capture the imaginat of Maine voters. It was a very nationalized campaign. Maine doesn't tend to like that. You know, tons of people coming in from out of state. It just, it wasn't, it didn't go well. And Susan Collins won. And so this year it was going to be even harder to unseat her because she is the head of the Appropriations Committee. And the big argument on, you know, that the party, the Republican Party has orchestrated, they're very canny on behalf of this vulnerable Senate seat that keeps them, you know, one additional vote in the Senate is that they have sort of enabled her to bring money back into the state via the implementations process. And that is the thing she promises all the time. And there are signs all over the state this, you know, this project, these jobs brought to you by Susan Collins. She is a very tough candidate to beat. Chuck Schumer decided that the candidate that he wanted to run against her is the second term sitting Governor, Janet Mills, who is a very popular governor. She's hated by Republicans, but she is widely beloved by a lot of Democrats. She is a moderate, sort of really good on a couple issues, not so great on other issues, by my lights, but she is very well liked. She is 78 years old and if she ran and won, she would be the oldest freshman senator in history. And this is who Chuck Schumer decided should be the candidate. And he decided based on his own metrics. And those metrics have some historical merit. He likes candidates that have won statewide in Maine. One of the things that one of the big talking points about Mills is that she's the only Democrat who has won statewide in a long time. Now, that is in part because Angus King is an independent and he basically reads as a Democrat and he caucuses with the Democrats. Democrats, but he is certainly one statewide. And because a lot of the other statewide officials are appointed by the legislature, voted on by the legislature, not by. So. So it's a little tricky to say she's the only Democrat who's won statewide in a long time. But it's also, you know, it's true.

[Sam Seder]

Yep.

[Rebecca Traister]

And that is a metric that historically, if you've, if you won statewide, there's a greater chance you're going to win statewide again. But that really changes when you're talking about somebody who is coming up on their 80s when you're talking about a state that I want to say something about the voters in the state. They're really sophisticated voters in part because as a small state that does require robust representation in order to bring money in, you know, to get equal representation. Maine voters are pretty well versed in terms of how the Senate works around seniority. That's one of the things Susan Collins has always had going for her, is that she can talk about what it means to be senior in the Senate and have it resonate with voters. Voters and voters understand also what it means to send a 78 year old to a Senate seat who says up front she's only going to hold it for one term and isn't going to be able to have that level of.

[Sam Seder]

She'S going to be a freshman senator, even though she's not going to necessarily have the freshman sort of energy per se.

[Rebecca Traister]

Right. Well. And that puts you back at ground zero. And that's going to happen with whoever comes in to fill that Senate seat after Collins. Whether it's this time, whether it's next time, that that happens when you elect a new senator. But I think that there is a sort of awareness that in part born of Collins career that like what it means to gain seniority in the Senate for the state that you represent is actually meaningful. And so I think that's a real question that's being had around the Mills candidacy.

[Sam Seder]

That's interesting.

[Rebecca Traister]

And her argument that she made to me, I went and I talked to Janet Mills. You know, your thing about who says these, who says these things to these people. A lot of people are actually saying to Janet Mills, you know, tell me why you're doing this. And I had that conversation with her directly, and to her credit, she was very willing to have the conversation and make the case as to why she was making this choice. And she views this moment as a particular emergency. Right. And she says it's just six years. It's just six years. And we know I can do this in the state. We know I can win this. I don't think it's settled that she can win it. I think in part some of the polling that happened so that, you know, the other thing that happened is that a candidate came up this summer, Graham Plattner and Oysterman from the mid coast with a very left populist message and the enthusiasm for him here in the state. And I say this both as somebody who lives in the left or leaning downstate region and whose family is from the more conservative rural region up north. And I spend a lot of time there and have many, many connections there. The sort of fever for Graham Platner was pretty extraordinary through this fall. And in fact, he was polling in the first poll that was done. He was polling 34 points against Janet Mills. And Janet Mills has a, is like a well liked politician.

[Sam Seder]

We should say, like with Mills in terms of that, like I've seen polls at the beginning of the year, it was 5050 on her likability or I should say approval. Maybe it was like, you know, was in with the margin error. Maybe it was a point down. And then I think after her confrontation with Trump, it seemed to be closer to like 50 to 40 in terms of her popularity. Where is like, like, I mean, it's interesting because I hadn't heard anything about the, the sophistication around seniority.

[Rebecca Traister]

And we should say that's my perception based on having reported on Collins in the past and talking to just, I.

[Sam Seder]

Mean, I think that makes a lot of sense. And then I think like, you know, the idea that like you're going to do one term means you don't even begin to build seniority for six years, right? Like, like that's, you're still six years out from like, essentially it's like almost like refining your mortgage every, like you're only paying interest essentially for the first, like, you know, going to do that two times in a row.

[Rebecca Traister]

Well.

[Sam Seder]

What is how much of what Platner is doing now that she has entered the race? Because he had basically the floor for, you know, himself for four or Five months. A, how much has the sort of like controversy around the Reddit and the tattoo and that, that how much does that dampen the enthusiasm from your perspective? And how much is he leaning into that concept of like A, her age, she's going to be the oldest person to ever enter the Senate as a freshman, and B, the implications of that in terms of seniority and delivering from Maine, you know, 12 years out or so, and see, like, just how much is that and where's his enthusiasm at at this point?

[Rebecca Traister]

Okay, so a bunch of different questions there in terms of what. So there have been, as soon as Mills got in the race, like within 48 hours, there were a lot of stories that dropped about his history of bad comments on Reddit, sexist, racist, homophobic comments on Reddit, and then, you know, a story that he actually wound up telling himself, but because it was being shopped by somebody to other media outlets about the fact that he had a tattoo that looked like a Totenkamp, a Nazi symbol that he got when he was in the Marines, which he says was never the intention of the tattoo. And you know, it's not worth delving into all of that right now, except to say we've talked about it.

[Sam Seder]

Odd nauseam. I will tell you that we have talked about it quite a bit on this program.

[Rebecca Traister]

Everybody has. And it's like, it's endlessly fascinating to me because I'm living here in the midst of it and have a lot of opinions about it. But also I feel like every time everybody's just talking about it so much that I'm like, like I just need to not talk about it for a few minutes. But anyway, I can't say there hasn't been super recent polling. There's only polling from right around the time of that of the scandal. So I can't say with a kind of polled authority what the impact of that has been. I can only say it. And this is literally about like looking out my, on my, in my neighborhood and talking to my friends who are further up north. And having been to the coast, I've now, I have not yet observed any measurable dampening of enthusiasm for platform. Which is not to say that people are happy to take on a little racism, sexism and Nazism with their progressive politics. It's that they do not believe that those stories reflect who this person is right now. And again, I haven't seen the polls. Maybe we're going to see a huge dip, I have no idea. But I can tell you anecdotally and this is pretty like my everyday lived life, anecdotally, that I have not heard from people here in any significant numbers that they have changed their view of Platner or what he stands for, which in their mind is not only a sort of economic progressivism, but an anti racism, you know, protection of LGBTQIA people, feminism. Right. Like, I mean, I'm hearing from people who are activists, and so far that it has not yet altered their. Their vision of who he is. That is anecdotal. It is not polled. Okay.

[Sam Seder]

And I would presume you're in, you know, to the area that you're primarily, you know, as opposed to a reporting getting that anecdotes, you're probably in the part of Maine that would be theoretically most sensitive to those questions.

[Rebecca Traister]

Yeah, And I'm talking to a lot of people who are activists on these issues. You know, again, and it's. I'm living here. I am also a reporter. I expect at some point I will write on this race at length. I am not currently writing on it at length. And so I've been in a sort of half human being, half reporter mode where I am talking to everybody all the time. I did when I was writing this generational story, I was reporting it thinking that Maine was going to be a bigger part of it. And I was doing reporting with voters for several weeks through the. Through those scandals. And then it became clear that that was going to blot out the rest of the piece. And so we brought it back to just Mills. But so I have actually been working as a reporter here too, talking to people about this. And yeah, again, I don't want to say there are no defectors. There certainly are. I've talked to a few, but the vast majority of people who I have spoken to so far up to this point, and we don't know what else is going to come out about Platner. I mean, one of the things I write, and I think this is really important, I think there was some hope from Platner supporters that Mills wouldn't even enter the race because he had gained so much traction. He did so many town halls. He met so many people in person in the period between his entering and her entering. And there are platinum signs everywhere in this state. And it's very more than a year before the election. That's very rare to see this level of excitement. Hundreds of people gathering for these town halls. And I think there was hope that maybe Mills wouldn't even get in. I write in the piece and I really believe this I'm so grateful, no matter what your politics are, that actually she did, because this stuff that came out about him, whatever you think of it, was really important to get out there. Right. This is one of the things about a new generation. Yes. And it is absolutely true and fair to say that with a but generation of new candidates coming into the public space, there are. We've talked about it before. There are big risks, and you need to like. And these people aren't necessarily tested. They aren't necessarily vetted. And I don't think that should be disqualifying. I don't think that means that you can't have them run. I just think that it's good when they do run. You gotta get some. You gotta get some practice. And this is gonna put Platner through his paces. And better now than a year from now, if you are somehow, who cares about Graham Platner's prospects? So I think it's good that Mills is in the race. And I just don't know. We'll see what we don't know if there's more out there. Again, we don't. You know, there may be more oppo. We just don't know. But as of now, based on what's out there now, what I have heard is that there is still a view of Platner as a candidate who a lot of people who care very much not only about the economic issues, but also about the very issues that the oppo would seem to undermine. They still are excited about this guy. And I want to say something about the other question you asked. He's not really. He's doing something really smart and interesting. He's not really going after Mills directly. He's going after Schumer. I'm not saying he's not being critical of Mills. He is here and there, but. And I think is very smart because she is well liked by a lot of the same people who are supporting him. Him. He is not making her yet that I've seen his opponent. He is making Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party establishment his. His opponent. And, you know, you can tell Mills was very eager to me to emphasize that Schumer had not talked her into getting into the race. She says this was not about Chuck Schumer. This was my decision in part because I think she knows that that Schumer party establishment brand may not be very winning with a lot of main voters. And, you know, and I think question.

[Sam Seder]

As to whether Chuck Schumer was able to sell her on running, which is. I Mean, I don't have faith that Chuck Schumer could sell, you know, could sell much, but I'm sure part of her equation was I'm going to have the backing of Gillibrand and the DSCC and Schumer and whatnot. And that's. And I would be surprised if there wasn't sort of also this notion of like, in the same way, like, you know, there may be somebody in Massachusetts doesn't want to run against Markey and be. And allow Moulton to win and then have to go back to their. The progressive community and be seen as a, A spoiler. I would imagine there's also sort of like, apparatus in Maine who are part of the Democratic mechanism, who also are like, I've got a, you know, way 10 years from now am I going to have a job in Maine politics. If I go with Platner, you know, versus go with Mills, she still loses. I still, you know, probably my prospects are better. I mean, I mean, that calculation has to happen, I would imagine.

[Rebecca Traister]

The calculation does have to happen. It's interesting though. The calculation has to happen. And I want to be really clear that she does have mechanisms already in place for her. And her argument to me, which is that the party didn't have anything to do with her decision to run, is really compromised by the actual choices Schumer made. And Gillibrand and the dscc, by the day after Mills gets into the race, they announce a joint pact with her. Right. On her behalf.

[Sam Seder]

I find so amazing about this. There's another part of this story which is these guys are incompetent.

[Rebecca Traister]

It would have been so much better for her prospects for them to just stay out of it. And also the stuff about.

[Sam Seder]

Or how is it that there is not another. Like, how do they not find. I know there's another candidate in the race. There is.

[Rebecca Traister]

There are others. Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Jordan Wood is associated with one of the biggest scandals that obviously we don't have too much time to cover. We, although we did interview someone from, from the mothership, which was like this sort of scam PAC thing and he was associated with Citizens United pac, which, you know, it's unclear where, where that money went down a hole. But with all that said, like, how is it that the DSCC who is charged with finding, like, even on their own terms, I wouldn't necessarily like their candidate. They can't find somebody who, in this unique moment, your whole piece is about this. Like, there couldn't be a more sensitive time than to run the world's oldest freshman Senators.

[Rebecca Traister]

Well, I think this is a lot about. I mean, it goes back to this thing you and I keep circling back to, which is power and the centers of power and that it, you know, you may be near all that authority, money, whatever it is that's, you know, so addictive there, but you're really separated from that. Like, the longer that you're at the center, the more distance you have from the margins. But the margins happen to be your voters in a lot of cases. Right. And so I don't. I don't get the feeling that there is, like a great national. Understand, I'm sure this is true in states all across the country. I just happen to be living in this one. Right. I don't get the feeling that there is a great view of this state coming from the national party. I don't think that there's, like, a real sensitive feel for what it's like on the ground here. I do want to speak slightly to the idea that they could just get somebody else in there. I want to say that they. The excitement around Platner is really unusual, and he's a very unusual candidate. It is not. You know, and this is something Michelle Goldberg wrote in her piece about Platner a week or so ago. Like, the fantasy that you could just bring in another candidate like Anat Mills, who could knock out Platner is its own kind of fantasy, too, because. And again, oh, I don't think they could find somebody.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, I think he's a unique. He's a talent.

[Rebecca Traister]

He's a very unique talent. Now, that doesn't mean. Again, we don't know. There's a lot of things we don't know. And I don't wanna. But the excitement he's creating here is not anything I could have predicted. When I saw his first video getting into the race in August, I had no idea what it was gonna feel like to have this guy on the ground and to watch everybody I know, like asking questions, going to town halls, you know, more than a year out from election. That is not something that a party apparatus can produce on command. Those are the kinds of. Those are. Those are candidates. And again, I don't wanna say this with some prediction that he's gon. I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know what else we're going to learn about him. I don't know how he's going to fare as a candidate going against Mills or Wood or anybody or against Collins. So I'm not making some kind of Prediction of victory. But what I am saying is that you have candidates sometimes who come out of nowhere and they are truly, you know, it's an aoc. It's a Mamdani people. You know, you can't make that. You can't, you know, and I think that that's, that's true. And that doesn't mean those, those candidates are always going to win. They're always going to be on the side of good. I'm really not trying to do like a Graham Platner ad here, but I am saying that there is an unusual thing about this particular candidate who Mills and Schumer find themselves up against in Maine, and that it's not something that the party itself could have simply produced on command.

[Sam Seder]

And I am of the mind as someone who is, you know, spoken in support of his campaign. And again, you know, we don't know everything about him. And there's times you get burnt, of course, but this primary is going to have, I mean, I think on some level, Mamdani inspired his campaign. Probably also, like some people may be associated also went up there and worked a little bit on it. I mean, not in maybe a determinative way, but just the existence of somebody who wasn't expected to win win to be able to win and to knock off someone like Cuomo empowers other people to realize, like, you know, think broader about their possibilities. I think the implications of Platner, if it goes this way, beating Mills and then beating Collins and I, you know, from this distance, it really looks like he has a better opportunity to be Collins than Mills does, because I don't, I don't understand what the value proposition of Mills versus Collins is beyond, like, you know, in terms of how they've distinguished themselves as, you know, it's really just like, I'm a Democrat, I will vote, you know. But it's also associated with Schumer, who I don't think is terribly popular amongst Democrats. The implications of him winning, I think will reverberate in a much greater way across the country because a guy like Platner undercuts sort of like Schumer and Gillibrand's perspective on what's going to win. And we're already seeing that cracks. We're seeing it even in Michigan on some level. We're seeing it with senators, you know, come out Heinrich supporting Platner, Schiff going to Michigan and sort of like looking into the non DSCC candidates. I think it's going to be a big deal. Rebecca, I really appreciate you Coming on and talking about this piece, I think it's been something that, you know, everybody has been feeling and it's fascinating to see it all sort of like wrapped up in that, that bow you having me.

[Rebecca Traister]

And I just wanted to tie your last comment about Platinum Amdani AOC together. You know, this piece that I wrote is about the older generation. It's looking specifically at that older layer. And I think one of the things that, that maybe we're coming to is that there's a lot of waiting for them to do the right thing. And in fact, some of the people from Jerry Nadler to Tina Smith are stepping aside in part to make room for young people. But I think we're also looking at to go back to the beginning of our conversation. It's gonna be the young people who come and knock it down. And I don't mean just chronologically young. I mean the next generation that understands democratic leadership in a different way and strategy in a different way is actually gonna come and force the issue. And it's not always gonna be a matter of the older generation acknow that it's time to move aside. And you know, regardless of what happens in Maine, I think we're seeing that in lots of instances around the country.

[Sam Seder]

Yep, power does not give itself up willingly. Rebecca Traister, we will put a link to your piece in New York magazine. Thanks again, really appreciate it.

[Rebecca Traister]

Thank you so much for having me.

[Sam Seder]

All right folks, we're gonna head into the second half half of the program aptly named the fun half and we'll have some fun. Just a reminder, it's your support that keeps this show trucking along. You can become a member by going to jointhemajorityreport.com when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, you get the fun half. We have over 17. Oh you can go to join themjorityreport.com for that. We have over 17,000 people in our district. Discord. It is I one of the most active left leaning like discords out there. Center left. It is big time. You can join that fun for absolute free. It is a great place to learn about organizing. It's a great place to learn about what movies might want to watch. It's a great place to just hang out and chat that also we're trying to figure out maybe there's ways we can have it function as like to help when we get the next wave of ice attacks that I anticipate coming. We'll of course play a bunch of footage From Chicago. Chicagoans are really impressively organized, and it's also just a great place also to start to organize. Like, people ask me, like, what. What can we do to prepare for ice? Like, what. What do we. Should we be handing out pamphlets and this and that? The big thing is, is develop networks. That's the hardest thing to do, is to develop networks and develop those networks maybe around, I don't know, some. It doesn't have to be about ice. Develop networks. That could be about anything, really. But usually what helps is it's a problem that you share with your neighbors, with your apartment building tenants, with your folks at work, and you organize around trying to fix one thing and then those bonds. Hopefully you're building those relationships and it can be activated to do other things. That's basically like, what to do right now if you're preparing for this. The folks in Chicago, my understanding, it's, you know, even. It's just like everybody sort of bonded around these whistles. As soon as they start hearing the whistles, they come out of their houses and. But we'll talk more about that in the.

[Emma Vigelin]

And it's fascinating. What was that guy from, like, the food truck or something?

[Sam Seder]

Taco. The Taco. What is it?

[Angus King]

La Taco.

[Sam Seder]

La Taco.

[Emma Vigelin]

And, you know, we played a video from a run club like the. The Exist. This is why it's good to just get out into organizations in general because. Because they quickly. That social fabric, you know, becomes useful outside of, like, a run club or wanting, you know, a taco.

[Sam Seder]

Totally. Noel from San Francisco says the discord was on the Senate vote. Like white on rice, as it were. Check it out. Also, don't forget, we got merch. We have the new Trump slump stickers. We've just introduced those. Great for Christmas. Great stocking stuffer for your children. For your kids. Honestly. Honestly, like, you could get, like, Trump slump stickers. Kids are gonna love that. Like, listen, give them permission to vandalize. If you're. If your kid. Your kid. This is. I mean, you're. You're more sort of like advanced children. If they get a bad grade on their report card, they slap a Trump slump sticker on there. It points to the report card, you bring it home to your folks, and your folks, like, wait, you got a D. Oh, but look at the Trump slump sticker. Politically aware. Yeah. Like the kids. Kids. Completely. Now, I know there's not a lot of kids who are watching this, but maybe you're at college, maybe you're in high school, maybe you get in bad Grades. How do you deal with it? You make your parents laugh. You make your parents laugh so you give them the. Give the thing with the, the pointing to the bad grade. Bingo. How am I supposed to study in this economy? Exactly. I can't do this. It's Trump slump. This is not even me. It's Trump slump. Let's see.

[Emma Vigelin]

I forgot. I could have, I could have blamed the Iraq war on my grades back in high school.

[Sam Seder]

I would. For anybody involved in any type of measurement situation that you're going to disappoint, somebody slap one of these stickers on there. Give, get a smile. It's the best way to do it. Also, just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate, use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. And a reminder to all our friends watching on Twitch, both poggers and if you, you can donate your subscription to us for the month if you're a prime member. Very easy to do. Just like a little click on a toggle in your profile and bingo, bango, there it is.

[Emma Vigelin]

Thousands of people watching.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah, we got a good number on Twitch today. Sweet. Matt.

[Emma Vigelin]

Yeah. Patreon.com left reckoning. David Griscom and I released another Sunday show for our patrons yesterday where we back asked in Zoran's victory and looked at the PBD crew and these guys, they come into here like we're the business experts and then they say, do you think he's actually going to freeze all rents in New York? And it's like he's, there's certain like 2 million units that he statutorily has the authority to.

[Sam Seder]

And it's happened in the past.

[Emma Vigelin]

Exactly. And it's happened in the past. And in a Blasio, like, yes, he's going to be able to do it. And they think like, you know, it's, it's up in the air.

[Sam Seder]

They don't do any work.

[Emma Vigelin]

They think he's going to freeze like any sort of rent increase across the board.

[Sam Seder]

They don't understand. That's like where Mr. Wonderful, I saw a clip of him on Fox News. Like he's not talking to people. Why am I going to build a building in New York City if I can't get the, I mean, dude, like do just five minutes of homework.

[Emma Vigelin]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

And it's hard to know whether they lie.

[Emma Vigelin]

It's just the dumb lie they can get away with.

[Sam Seder]

I just remember Sean Hannity back in the day, like would dance around what Monica Lewinsky's age was and you could hear him every time he kept like he would say, 19 year old girl. And then I'm like, he knows that's a lie. And then another time he'd be like, 18 year old girl, 20 year old girl. And it's like, wait a second, this dude just must be lying. Somebody must have corrected him. It's not like this is hidden information. It's hard to know whether they lie or they're just. Just so stupid and lazy and they just think that their audience is stupid and lazy. I think on the stupid side, Dave Portnoy from Barstool said that he's threatening to move his headquarters to Jersey. Who is he threatening, by the way? Mamdani. But also Mamdani wants to raise corporate tax rates to match New Jersey. New Jersey. Yes, exactly. Enjoy your commute. Enjoy your commute into the city at 5pm when you don't feel like going out to the TGIF or Olive Garden.

[Emma Vigelin]

Didn't he get in trouble with the NLRB for union sort of intimidation or something like that?

[Sam Seder]

I'm sure he's not a good guy. I just love these threats like, who are you threatening your own employees? Like, hey, guys, I'm going to ruin this if, like, go ahead, buy honestly. Bye. See you. I remember New York before Barstool. It was nothing. It was nothing. There was no. All right, quick break. Fun. Half, three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're gonna look back and go like, wow.

[Rebecca Traister]

What?

[Sam Seder]

What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma. Welcome to the program.

[Rebecca Traister]

Matt.

[Sam Seder]

What is up, everyone? Fun hack. No. Me. Keen.

[Rebecca Traister]

You did it.

[Sam Seder]

Fun Crap.

[Rebecca Traister]

Let's go, Brandon.

[Sam Seder]

Let's go, Brandon. Fun.

[Rebecca Traister]

Pat.

[Sam Seder]

Bradley. You want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

[Rebecca Traister]

Fundamentally false.

[Jean Shaheen]

No. I'm sorry.

[Rebecca Traister]

Women.

[Sam Seder]

Stop talking for a second.

[Rebecca Traister]

Let me finish. Where is this coming from? Dude?

[Sam Seder]

But. Dude, you want to smoke this?

[Rebecca Traister]

7A. Yes.

[Sam Seder]

Hi. Me.

[Rebecca Traister]

Is me.

[Sam Seder]

Yes.

[Rebecca Traister]

Is this me?

[Sam Seder]

Is it me? It is you.

[Rebecca Traister]

Is this me?

[Sam Seder]

Hello, Is this me? I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[Rebecca Traister]

Sports.

[Sam Seder]

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm gonna go Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says. Of course.

[Rebecca Traister]

Gobbledygook.

[Sam Seder]

We nailed him.

[Rebecca Traister]

So what's 79 plus 21?

[Sam Seder]

Challenge. Matt, I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 10-355-011. 3, 8, 9, 11. For instance.

[Jean Shaheen]

$3,400.

[Rebecca Traister]

$1900.

[Sam Seder]

5, 4, $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.

[Rebecca Traister]

Actually. You're making me think less.

[Sam Seder]

But let me say this.

[Rebecca Traister]

Satire on top of it all. My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do.

[Sam Seder]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy, we see you. All right, folks, 12. Folks, folks.

[Rebecca Traister]

It'S just the week being weeded out, obviously.

[Angus King]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know.

[Rebecca Traister]

But you should know, people just don't.

[Emma Vigelin]

Like to entertain ideas anymore.

[Sam Seder]

I have a question. Who cares?

[Emma Vigelin]

Our chat is enabled, folks.

[Sam Seder]

I love it.

[Rebecca Traister]

I do love, love that.

[Sam Seder]

Gotta jump, gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. Two o', clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.

[Rebecca Traister]

Outrageous.

[Sam Seder]

Like, what is wrong with you? Love you.

[Emma Vigelin]

Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Love you. Bye. Bye.