1101: The WHCD Walked Straight Into Trump’s Trap

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: The Next Level
Episode: 1101: The WHCD Walked Straight Into Trump’s Trap
Date: July 28, 2026
Hosts: Jonathan V. Last (JVL), Sarah Longwell, Catherine Rampell

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, JVL, Sarah, and Catherine dig into three timely political topics:

1. The mystery and controversy surrounding Mitch McConnell’s extended health-related absence.
2. A thorough critique of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD) and its role amid Trump-era politics and media relations.
3. Democratic Party turmoil, focusing on DNC dysfunction, the Michigan Senate race, the future of party power, and changes to the primary calendar.

Their signature banter, skepticism, and insight reveal the deeper implications of each story for American politics.

---

1. The Mitch McConnell Saga

Theories, Transparency, and Accountability

Timestamps: 00:00–12:15

• Proof of Life Photos:

  • The hosts banter about McConnell's recurrent, oddly staged “proof of life” photos and the lack of substantive updates.
  • JVL (02:04): "If you want to prove...after six weeks away, you have to offer more than a picture, maybe something with motion, perhaps hearing a voice."
  • Sarah (04:45): "It shows contempt for voters...you couldn't be on the Appalachian Trail before without getting chased down by reporters. Now politicians seem to count on opacity."

• Conspiracy vs. Occam’s Razor:

  • JVL posits that McConnell's story (no serious health crisis yet hospitalized for weeks, "fine" and mentally sharp) can’t all be true.
  • JVL (07:17): "All three of these can't be true. Am I crazy?"
  • Sarah: Suggests that high-profile politicians might receive more cautious care than average patients.

• Political and Media Failure:

  • Bashir’s (KY Governor) public challenge for proof of McConnell’s fitness illustrates escalating concern even among high officeholders.
  • Sarah (05:17): "We've hit the limit...Why aren't more reporters getting answers? It's wild how locked up this is."

• Notable Banter:

  • JVL & Sarah joke about using AI to “reverse engineer” what McConnell’s diagnosis must be, based on what has been denied in statements.
  • Sarah (11:15): "There's no doubt we're being—if not lied to—then information is being withheld."

---

2. The White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD) Critique

Media Self-Reflection, Public Trust, and Trump’s Playbook

Timestamps: 12:42–23:41

• The Lost Tradition:

  • JVL shares stories of past WHCDs; Catherine and Sarah agree the event now seems unseemly amidst the political crisis.
  • Sarah (14:30): "I hate it, even at the best of times. But it's especially gross in the Trump era...voters see coziness with those in power and distrust the media's warnings."

• Trump and Authoritarian Tactics:

  • Sarah catalogs Trump’s legal assaults on media outlets and individual reporters, emphasizing the increasingly adversarial environment.
  • Sarah (20:19): "Trump’s done billion-dollar defamation suits, sent subpoenas to journalists and their families. This is about chilling the press."
  • Catherine (18:14): Describes the symbolic value of presidents being forced to "sit there and take it" vs. the current threat environment.

• Media Personalities and Strategies:

  • Praise for Kaitlan Collins’ unflappability in interviews with Trump.
  • Sarah (22:05): "She just keeps asking basic, straightforward questions. She doesn’t get ruffled, and I think that’s about as close to what the media should do."

• Meta-Critique:

  • The hosts reflect on whether focusing on Trump’s insults distracts from his substantive attacks on press freedom, like denying Pentagon access.

---

3. Democrats in Disarray: DNC, Party Structure, and Michigan

DNC Drama, Message Control, and the Limits of Party Power

Timestamps: 23:41–42:43

• DNC Dysfunction:

  • Ken Martin, the DNC chair, is under fire for erratic behavior (notably throwing a phone at a staffer) and poor management.
  • Sarah (27:36): "You want the DNC to be able to drop $40 million into Texas in the waning months of an election, but with mismanagement and debt, it’s becoming an anchor."
  • JVL raises if it really matters given money flows directly to candidates now, not through the DNC as much.

• Candidate-Centric vs. Party-Centric Funding:

  • Sarah notes fundraising asymmetry: Democrats are outraising Republicans at the candidate level rather than through party infrastructure, which could be positive or negative depending on race coordination needs.

• Message Coordination Amid Factionalism:

  • Catherine asks if it’s possible to have coordinated messaging with so much internal division.
  • Sarah: Argues a strong DNC chair could bridge factions and settle disputes; the current vacuum fuels the rise of aggressive outsiders.

• Party Gatekeeping & Lessons from the GOP:

  • Debate over whether the party should exert more "backroom" control to prevent extreme or non-viable candidates from winning nominations.
  • JVL (35:03): "I’d prefer smoke-filled rooms."
  • Catherine: Worries about the backlash and distrust such control would breed, especially with a media ecosystem primed for conspiracy.

• Why Democratic Factions Are So Hard to Unite:

  • Sarah analogizes to her book: "The coalition is so unruly—black voters, DSA progressives—what’s 'the base'?"
  • JVL highlights how this makes Democrats harder to hijack, compared to the GOP.

---

4. 2028 Primary Calendar Changes

Will the New Early States Change the Game?

Timestamps: 45:02–54:02

• Proposed Order: South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia.

• Who Benefits?

  • Catherine and Sarah agree: The new mix likely tilts the early contest toward more moderate or black candidates, but it’s “pretty balanced overall.”
  • JVL: Argues it’s right to put black voters (South Carolina) first; it’s essential to win them for the Democratic nomination.

• Risks & Media Narratives:

  • Sarah is skeptical the pundit class will treat a South Carolina win as a true momentum marker for candidates like Kamala Harris.
  • She also worries about state compliance: "I'm not sure New Hampshire or Iowa necessarily accept this...otherwise it's just chaos."

---

5. The Pete Buttigieg (“Precious Pete”) Question

Can Pete Win Over Black Voters?

Timestamps: 54:45–56:59

• Sarah: "If Pete is going to make it, he’d have to win South Carolina or come in a strong second. He has to prove he can win black voters."
• JVL: Notes Pete’s dismal 2020 South Carolina numbers (just 8%), lagging behind even Tom Steyer.

---

6. The Michigan Senate Race: Stevens vs. El-Sayed

Intra-Party Division and Its Risks

Timestamps: 56:59–66:58

• High Profile Endorsements:

  • Big names (Gretchen Whitmer, Gary Peters) are backing Haley Stevens over Abdul El-Sayed due to doubts about his general-election viability and past “nasty” campaign tactics.
  • Sarah (57:17): "They're worried El-Sayed will not do well in a general election, but I think they're also worried that he might win [the primary]."

• Divisiveness and Electability:

  • Concerns El-Sayed’s left-aligned platform and personal baggage would cost Democrats a safe seat.
  • Catherine (60:55): Points out the disconnect between El-Sayed's Medicare-for-all platform and his wife not accepting insurance.

• Potential Fallout:

  • Sarah worries bitter primaries could leave lasting rifts and a weakened general-election effort, specifically referencing Michigan’s “non-committed” protest votes and Texas’s difficult healing post-primary.
  • Sarah (66:58): "My big fear is because this primary is getting so bloody...the loser’s camp could just sit it out, and Democrats could hand over that seat."

---

7. Lessons (Not) Learned

Will Losing Force Change—or Not?

Timestamps: 61:04–65:13

• Should the Party Let a Left Candidate Lose to Prove Its Point?
  • JVL: "Would it be useful for Democrats to see what happens if El-Sayed wins the primary and then loses the seat by 10?"
  • Catherine: "But also potentially control of the Senate, right? Besides, parties rarely learn the right lesson."

---

8. Final Thoughts and Banter

Optimism vs Realism

• JVL tries to end on a sunny note, claiming "my job here is to be the optimist...the ray of sunshine" (65:24).
• The hosts joke about their various allegiances, side projects, and banter about show roles.

---

Notable Quotes

• JVL: "All three of these [McConnell statements] can't be true. Am I crazy?" (07:17)
• Sarah: "The parties are actually there to be this limiting factor: how do we create something that can include all of us?" (42:19)
• Catherine: "You can make bank by having a political operation whose sole job is to run to the left of Democrats...without thinking about general election viability." (35:07)
• Sarah: "If Pete's gonna make it, Pete's gotta win South Carolina...demonstrate he's figured out black voter support." (54:55)
• JVL: "My job here is to be the optimist. I am here to be the ray of sunshine who lifts everyone up." (65:24)
• Sarah: "If Abdul El-Sayed wins, my big fear is the primary’s so bloody we’ll lose the seat anyway, because people just sit it out." (66:58)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• McConnell Absence & Theories: 00:00–12:15
• Critique of WH Correspondents’ Dinner: 12:42–23:41
• DNC & Party Structure: 23:41–42:43
• Primary Calendar Debate: 45:02–54:02
• Pete Buttigieg & Black Voters: 54:45–56:59
• Michigan Senate Race: 56:59–66:58
• Lessons, Party Learning, Closing Banter: 61:04–end

---

Summary

This episode of The Next Level offers incisive analysis and lively debate on the fraught state of American political institutions, journalism, and party mechanics mid-2026. The hosts pull no punches critiquing secrecy, dysfunction, and the media’s reluctance to adapt to the norms that the Trump era has upended. Expect candid, occasionally biting, always insightful banter—perfect for listeners seeking a substantive yet entertaining look at the state of U.S. politics.

Transcript

[A]

Can I. Can I just make the case for a conspiracy theory?

[B]

Yeah, if you must.

[A]

Yes, yes, Catherine, I must. Boy, I know who my favorite co host is. Hello, everyone. This is JVL here with my best friend, Sarah Longwell, and my. This is awkward. My other co host, I was gonna.

[C]

What are you gonna do? What are you gonna.

[A]

My side co host, who's also a very good friend of mine, Catherine Rampel,

[B]

my second tier friend. What tier am I if not. This is.

[C]

No, you're misunderstanding what he's doing right now. What he's saying is you and he have another show together. So it's actually what he's saying is he's trying to set us up, Catherine. To compete for his affection as his two co hosts. But I won't do that. Catherine, you know what?

[A]

This is how you'll feel when we have Weissman sit in for Tim at some point. Anyway, it is great to have you here with us, Katherine, because we get to start out your inaugural appearance on the next level with great news about Mitch McConnell, the former majority Leader of the United States Senate. We got another proof of life photo from him yesterday. Were you excited?

[B]

I was super psyched because lots of people had suggested that our man Mitch McConnell was down and out. But clearly he is as alert and well groomed and well dressed as ever. Nothing suspicious at all about these photos that we have seen of him recently, which all look posed somewhat the same always. He's wearing a hospital chair, he's wearing his oxford shirt or whatever in the hospital as one does unt. There's no newspaper showing today's date, unfortunately in this particular one. But yeah, I'm very relieved because clearly he's doing well.

[A]

Sarah, are you buying all this?

[C]

I mean, I'm not full JVL conspiracy on this where I'm like, Mitch McConnell's never coming back to the Senate, like he'll never take another vote. I'm not sure. I think that I've never quite been there. I do think that he's much sicker than they're letting on. And these are staged photos and that. Look, if you want to prove. After how long has he been gone? I mean, it's been six weeks. Yeah. He's missed 38 votes on the Senate floor. So at that point, I do think you have to offer more than a picture, something with some motion, perhaps hearing a voice. I'm not sure that Scott Jennings, for

[B]

you, that's not sufficient proof.

[C]

It is not. I can't say that I've. I've imbue a lot of my trust into Scott Jennings. And so I would like to see something where he talks to us. He keeps releasing statements along with the photo. And I'm like, you know how you could meld these two things together? You could talk in a camera. You just slide the little thing over one toggle and you got your camera rolling. And then you could say the statement to us and then we would know that you are still with us in a sentient way.

[B]

It's not just Jennings, to be fair, who has had an exactly 20 minute conversation with Mitch McConnell. It's also, I believe Thune and Barrasso have said that they had 20 minute conversations.

[A]

I think they all the same conversation.

[C]

I think it was all the same conversation. And that they talked to each other.

[B]

Maybe. Yeah, maybe it was a prankster who

[A]

was calling on Mitch, drooling in the background. I. So we had a little bit of. So a couple developments. So we got the proof of life photo yesterday. We got a statement from a written statement from Senator McConnell. We got an attending physician, unsigned doctor's note, talking about what strenuous rehab he's been doing and, you know, multiple times a day and all this. And then we got Governor Andy Beshear, who sent a letter to McConnell saying in part, aside from two photos and corresponding statements, you've made no effort to communicate with your Kentucky constituents or the nation. Even the attending physician's writt does not discuss your actual condition, including whether you can speak reason or carry out your duties as senator. I'm calling on you to directly and verbally address the people of Kentucky and provide proof of your capacity to serve or resign. Wow.

[B]

I don't know that that's going to convince him. Yeah, I mean, yes, I agree it's good that Bashir is, is releasing that statement, but he doesn't have any actual authority to force him to. No, but do a little jig on camera. Right.

[A]

I mean, Andy Beshear is the governor, like, in most states, even if they're from opposing parties, the governor and the sitting state senators, like, have a working relationship. They have an ability to get one another on the phone. And if the governor of Kentucky cannot get the senior senator from Kentucky on the phone to hear his voice and he's willing to start saying so publicly like this, like, I don't know, like, is that a tenable position? I mean, I guess it is a tenable position because you can't force it. Right.

[C]

I do think it shows a real contempt for voters the way a lot of these Politicians of late, like, it didn't used to be like this. You couldn't be. If you took a hike on the Appalachian Trail, people noticed you were gone, and they went and found you and, you know, hounded your office. And I, I think that part of it is that there's a human element where people are like, Mitch McConnell's very sick. Like he is. He's clearly suffered a lot of health events. This is a person who many of them have, if not professional respect for exactly a kind of. What is that? Collegiality or like, benefit of collegiality that they offer. But I do think that there's, like, a limit on that. Like, I think it was fair to give him some time and see how he's going. I do think that limit is up now. And that. And I, I am unsure. I've said this in other podcasts, why there's not more reporters who are trying to get, like, it is wild how locked up it is. Nobody's been able to get any answers. And if I was Bashir, I would. And I think if I was Bashir, this is just Mitch McConnell. I think he's given him the professional, like, collegiality, respect. And at this point now, he should be in full opposition mode, especially if Bashir is somebody who wants to run for president. If you are the kind of person who, in one of the times when the spotlight's on you, you can't get answers in a moment like this. Like, you can't push and figure out what's going on, voters are going to hold that against you. Like, he has sort of a political responsibility. I think that is a real work responsibility, but a political responsibility to, like, push harder than a letter. Have you ever seen Little women where she writes a letter and she says, ah, a letter. That'll show them. I feel a little bit like that.

[A]

All right, before we move on from this, can I. Can I just make the case for a conspiracy theory?

[B]

Yeah, if you must.

[A]

Yes. Yes, Catherine, I must. Boy, I know who my favorite co host is. So the, the McConnell camp is insisting three things, and I propose to you that it is not possible that all three things of these are true. The first thing they are insisting is that, and this was his statement immediately when he was hospitalized, he said he fell. I did not break any bones or suffer a concussion. I didn't have a heart attack or a stroke. I don't have any t. Or hemorrhages. He was then hospitalized for a full month. I don't know if you guys Know people who've been hospitalized for a full month, but you've got to be in really bad shape for them to keep you in a hospital for a month. Like the doctors, the insurance companies, your family. Nobody wants you to be in a hospital that long. That's an opportunity to get sicker. They want to push you to a lower burden of care as quickly as possible. He was discharged to a rehab facility. He's been at this rehab facility for two weeks. And they are. Now, the second thing they're insisting on is that he is fine, he's good, and he's totally together mentally, and there are no problems. All three of these can't be true. Like, it's. Am I crazy?

[B]

One thing that I think is interesting is that list of problems he doesn't have is fairly specific. Like, it's this laundry list of he doesn't have a tumor, he doesn't have a concussion, whatever. Whatever, whatever. I kind of want to use AI to reverse engineer what are the major complications that are common that were left out of this laundry list because it seems so specific and kind of legalistic. Right? Like, he can say he didn't break a bone, but maybe. I don't know. Was a stroke on there? I don't remember what was on there. So he didn't have a stroke, but

[A]

no bones broken, no concussions, no heart attacks, no strokes, no tumors, no hemorrhages.

[B]

But, like, that's very specific. When someone asks what is wrong with a public official who has been missing for many months or many weeks or whatever. Like with the guy from New Jersey, Keen. You know, I don't recall his office saying he doesn't have xyz. It's kind of like one of those, you know, my T shirt saying that I didn't have a stroke, a hemorrhage, concussion, whatever. Whatever raises questions that are already answered by my T shirt, it feels like it's drawing more attention to whatever it is he left out. So maybe there is some very legalistic technical way in which all three of those things that you laid out could be true because they're leaving out some other. Again, not a physician, but some other

[A]

thing which is serious enough to keep you in an institutional setting for six weeks, but not serious enough to impede your cognitive function or prevent you from ever returning to work. Like, this is what I'm saying. Like, I don't. Yes, I didn't get through that year of medical school, but. Or any.

[C]

Catherine, you're missing the bit where this is JVL as being 1/16th of a doctor. So he can say like, this is how it normally works in a hospital.

[A]

Okay, okay, but I, you know, like, I don't know, like I can't come up with, maybe our doctors, our doctor friends who are listening can reply in the comments as to what, what it could be.

[C]

That is we now we have a lot of doctors we know because one time JVL told me not to get the shingles vaccine and boy, did the doctors come out of the world.

[A]

I didn't say that. I just said be careful because it's, it packs a wallop. That's all I said. That's all it was.

[C]

Jvl I, I, I, I think that there's no doubt we're being, if not lied to with information as being withheld from us. Isn't it possible though, in terms of them keeping him in there, that the answer is a little more simple, which is he's a high profile senator and therefore they're taking extra good care of him. Like the kind of care that he gets is different from what the average person may get. He's also, look, he's also really old. Your point though about how he, he said the things he didn't say. It's not dementia. Didn't say it's not, you know, like there's a million things that could.

[A]

But if it's dementia, then he can't return to office. You know what I'm saying? Like that's not a, because he's saying, I mean, anybody, right? Like you can't, you lose your driver's license. You right? I mean, he is saying like, hey, I'm going to be ready to pick up my full. I'm doing, I'm doing intense physical. The, it just doesn't make sense.

[C]

Imagine that. I'm saying Trump can't run for a third term. He just can't.

[A]

Fair.

[C]

Yeah, Check.

[A]

You got me. You got me. All right, we're going to talk about the White House correspondence dinner in a minute, but first we have to hear a word from our sponsor. This show is sponsored by upwork. Scaling a business takes the right expertise at the right time. Upwork helps growing teams quickly bring in specialized freelancers so you can move faster and take the business to the next level.

[C]

Yep.

[A]

Get it.

[C]

I see what you did there.

[A]

Upwork is a one stop platform to find, hire and pay expert freelancers across web and software development, data and analytics, marketing, business operations and more. Upwork helps grow your business by giving you fast access to specialized talent across more than 125 categories so you can fill skill gaps, launch projects faster and scale support up or down without committing to full time headcount. You can browse profiles, review past work and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place so you can spend more time running the business. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's upwork.com upwork.com so we had a White House Correspondents Dinner. I don't know about you guys. I have like very fond memories of my being a young, a young man and a young boy in Washington and, and you know, like going to these White House correspondence dinners and then impersonating Bill Crystal to get into the Vanity Fair after party and that sort of stuff. Did you guys ever do that or was it all passe and silly by the time you guys were in Washington?

[B]

Because I'm older than you, I've been to the Correspondent's dinner once and I found the whole thing kind of icky and have been invited by various media institutions that I work for to go back but did not particularly enjoy it. So my experience, I guess has been different than yours. Sarah, have you been?

[C]

I have not. And I do think it's funny, you know, Catherine, those of us from the the never Trump, right? One of the accusations that got hurled at us early on was that we were opposing Trump because we wanted to, you know, curry favor with the Georgetown cocktail party set and get invited to things like this. And I was like, well then you've never met me because I will literally go to nothing that requires me to not be in jeans and like loafers. And also I hate shit like this. Excuse me if you've got kids listening. But more importantly, I hate it like at the best of times. I really hate that it exists at the time of like in the time of Trump. And I've seen a lot of after actions like I wasn't paying attention. I actually didn't realize they'd rescheduled it. The whole affair ended up being a much smaller deal than before. But you Trump sort of lays bare. I hadn't thought about it that much right when it was Obama or whatever, you're like, okay, this is some tradition that they do. But watching Trump, it does lay bare the sort of the need to be cozy with the administration when you are supposed to be doing accountability journalism, because all journalism should be. Accountability journalism is gross. And it's, like, especially gross when it's somebody who is behaving like an authoritarian who relentlessly attacks the media, has no respect for any of the institutions, and like them. And look, I understand that. That, you know, there's something that people derive pleasure from seeing people get awards for their reporting on Trump and Epstein, and, you know, them, while Trump has to sit there and hear them get the awards. I don't think that's the flex people think it is, though. I just think the existence of this thing. And this is why jbl, I hadn't thought about it till just now, but this is one of those things where when I try to explain to people like you who are really skeptical of the voters, right, you're, like, mad at them for not understanding how bad Trump is. And one of the reasons they don't understand is because of stuff like this, because voters say to themselves, and it makes perfect sense if you think about it, they're like, well, if he was really doing all of these things that they say, the media wouldn't, like, go to dinner with him. Like, an average person looks at this and thinks, this is. This is why they don't take the authoritarian talk seriously. Because Kristen Welker is just like, you know, chumming it up with Stephen Miller. And as JBL knows, in my book, I have similar scenarios that I point to where I've watched this happen and find it really disgusting. Like the need to have. We're gonna have a panel, and everybody's just gonna treat it like everything's normal politics. So, yeah, I found the whole thing revolting.

[B]

I will say that I think at one point, the noble aspect of the meeting, the. The dinner. I don't know if noble is the right word. The. The noteworthy aspect of this tradition was supposed to be that the president had to sit there and take it. And as people made jokes about him. And maybe there was value in that, that this was an illustration of the robustness of the First Amendment, that the president had to sit there, whether it was George W. Bush and who was it? Stephen Colbert making jokes about him to his face or Obama or others.

[A]

Bill Clinton and Don Imus. Yes, that was a whole thing.

[B]

And so maybe there was something symbolically valuable in that aspect of it, that in the United States, our leader is not an authoritarian. Our leader has to sit there and listen to people, you know, make jokes at his expense, celebrate the freedom of the press and kind of grit his teeth and bear it. Meanwhile, of course, the flip side of this was, you know, journalists dancing on the dance floor with Karl Rove or whoever at the time. And that was the. The icky part of it, at least for me. But maybe there was something useful in having that moment. A very public antagonism, you know, sort of good natured antagonism, I guess, and the President being unable to exact revenge or shut down that speech. Of course, it's a very different setting today where, first of all, there's no comedian anymore. There's no tradition of that. You do have journalists who are, as you point out, winning awards for things that have been unflattering, for reportings that are unflattering about the President. But meanwhile, the President is, of course, exerting his power to try to punish people for that speech and for that journalism. So whatever virtue we may have been able to spin out of this event in the past, it's just gone. Like, forget the schmoozing piece of it. The idea that the President just had to withstand speech that was critical of him, that he did not like, that's just obviated by everything that happened at this event where one of those Wall street journalists who won an award got doxxed and had to move because the President sent out her address to the public. So, I don't know. I mean, there's a part of me that thinks that there could be something valuable in a setting like this that just isn't in the current moment.

[C]

Yeah, Catherine makes a good point that, like, maybe in a different time, you could have sold me on the framing that she just put there. But when you've got Trump just in the last few years, has done a $10 billion defamation suit against the publisher of Wall Street Journal over the Epstein birthday book, which was, of course, was real. A $15 billion defamation suit against the New York Times over several articles during election season, and a book about a $10 million lawsuit against CBS for its editing of a 60 Minutes episode about Kamala Harris, a lawsuit against ABC over George Stephanopoulos saying he'd been found liable for rape and sexual abuse, and a $475 million lawsuit against CNN over their coverage of his election interference. Like, he is doing everything he can to chill the press to attack them. He literally just sent subpoenas to New York Times reporters and their spouses and one of their moms. And also when they did it, it was a. It was like. It was like sheer incompetence. And so, like, they should be hostile toward him. They should be adversarial toward him. And the only thing I saw that made me feel slightly better about any of it was I did see Kaitlin Collins on Jon Stewart. And there is something about the way that she approaches this that I'm like, it's about as close to what I think I want the media to do is Caitlin Collins being unruffled by him trying to, he, he, he took her face and like aied it onto Dylan Mulvaney. He constantly comments on her appearance and the fact that she doesn't smile and she never reacts. And she just keeps asking very basic, straightforward questions. Now, look, I don't know whether behind the scenes she's ever chummy with them, but like, the way she does it publicly, to me, feels about right.

[B]

Yeah, I'm with you on that. And Caitlyn mentioned in that interview with Jon Stewart that she doesn't want to be the story. And I think that's how she handles herself, that she doesn't take the bait and try to make it about a personal thing as much as the President tries to make it personal towards her. And I think that's the right approach. I also feel a little bit icky in general talking about Donald Trump being mean to the media. Like, every time he calls a female journalist piggy or says that Caitlin Collins should smile more or things like that, I'm like, I don't know these kinds of things, they're loathsome, but they're not the most important things. And the actual restrictions that he's placing on the press, denying access at the Pentagon, for example, those to me seem much more significant than his saying, than his insulting journalists. And I think the right way to handle it if you are a journalist, is as Caitlin Collins has. But in general, I just feel like there's too much taking of the bait from the commentariat in general about these kinds of stories. It becomes its own news cycle, you know, and I, I'm a little wary of feeding into that.

[C]

This next segment is sponsored by the New York Times because we're going to talk about Ken Martin. There's obviously a lot of drama unfolding at the Democratic National Committee, from their financial struggles to Ken Martin throwing his phone either or at a young staffer, as Reed Epstein and Shane Goldmacher reported this week, and a shout out to our own Lauren Egan, who had some of her own great color on the DNC turmoil. So we're obviously going to do our pundit conversation here, but, you know, it always has to be undergirded as all the Conversations we have here do by real reporting. That takes a long time to do, right? To do that story. They've been sleuthing around the DNC for a couple of months. From all the hand wringing about the party's autopsy to all the dreary staff meetings that have to come with all of this. This isn't just true at the New York Times. Whether it's the Wall Street Journal, ProPublica or even US here at the Bulwark, reporters gather all the facts, find the story and distill it all down so you can learn what matters most in minutes. It can take a week, months or even years of work to put a story together. And that's what journalists do to keep us informed. Wherever you seek it out nationally, locally, support fact based reporting. So thanks New York Times.

[A]

All right, so just a couple scenes from the Ken Martin DNC meltdown here from. From our friends the New York Times. In a peak of frustration in early July, he he hear Ken Martin threw his phone at the desk of a junior aide while upbraiding the person. The phone tossing incident resulted in a formal complaint to the DNC's human resources department. There was some dispute over how aggressively the phone was tossed. Mr. Martin was said to have thrown the phone at the desk rather than at the aid. I guess this somehow makes it better. Around the office and beyond, Mr. Martin has taken to making macabre jokes to colleagues about how long he will remain in his post, even though his term does not end until 2029. Here's from our colleague Lauren Egan. There's this overall progression of deterioration with Ken that I think people are noticing and starting to watch his mood, his behavior, how he acts with people. This is according to a DNC member. Sarah, does this actually matter?

[C]

I don't know that I think his phone throwing matters that much.

[A]

No, but I mean like the dnc, like does the competency of the DNC as an organization matter at this point in the 2026 cycle?

[C]

I mean, it matters insofar as these organizations are meant to be fundraising juggernauts institutionally for capacity building purposes and like you want for if there's a close race in Texas, like we just saw, tell Rico whether or not this polling is right. A new poll just came out that has tel Rico up five points over Ken Paxton. You want to be able to go to the DNC in the waning months of an election and say, hey, let's put $40 million more dollars into Texas because it's really important and you want the DNC to be like, yes, that's what we're here for. And instead to have an institution that is perpetually in debt. The other thing about the DNC is that they're supposed to sort of set an agenda of the conversation. Like Ken Martin, if he were a better communicator, would be like, let's say Ben Wickler was in this role. My buddy Ben Wickler, he'd be on TV all the time hammering the overall sort of top level narrative that Democrats want to see. And so I understand, I don't, I don't know if your question is leading or not, whether you're, we want to say like the DNC doesn't matter that much, but I just think functionally, as a place where you are supposed to be able to collect money and deploy it smartly and help build infrastructure, like it's mismanagement and then it becoming the story, it is both not fulfilling its purpose and in fact is becoming an anchor. Right. Because it's a story in itself.

[A]

What I meant to say is that like, do we live in an age where the money is just flowing to alternative institutions and alternative. Do you see what I'm saying? It's not a question of like, if the DNC doesn't raise this money, nobody will.

[C]

Right?

[A]

Like the money's out there. Look, this is what I was going to ask you, okay.

[B]

My impression is that people like Talarico are raising a lot of money for their own race. And so the money is being raised and helping the close races. It's just not funneling through the DNC first. Is that correct? And does, does that aspect of it matter, Sarah?

[C]

Okay, so right now, if you look at the actual fundraising totals in the major Senate races, the Democrats are wildly outraising the Republicans. And I suspect that has to do with some of the asymmetry where the Republicans are putting money into their, you know, the nrc, the rnc, whatever, and the Democrats aren't putting it into its institutions, they're giving it directly to candidates. I'll probably wait until this cycle before I sort of render an entire like whether I will look back because it's an interesting new wrinkle in how people are doing this. And it's possible that just going directly to the candidates who get more favorable buying power in the media space, which is one of the reasons it could be seen as a positive. Here's where I think it can be a negative again. I think that each of the races can become and should become like, very unique to its State. It can often be helpful to have somebody that is taking a global look at things, though, and saying, hey, this is what's working over here. Hey, we see that if we invest money in this race, it'll cause Republicans to spend money in this race that then will take away from this race. I just think that that stuff can still be important. And also it would be better to have a good, thriving ecosystem for Democrats than to have a deleterious one. But, yeah, I mean, I take your point that it might not be, like, the biggest infrastructure issue in the world. I still think. I, I still think Ken Martin, if he cares about the Democratic Party, he should step down. And, and it's. This is one of those where, like, the establishment was, right. The establishment lined up behind Ben Wickler, who was. And, and a lot of the donors were behind Ben Wickler. And so the Democrats were like, you know what? We don't want. We don't want somebody that's universally liked by all the party's leadership and by the donor community. No, we want to take this other guy who's, like, just buddies with everyone. And I've met Ken Martin. I just, I don't, I wouldn't give him any money. And he's not, he's not a bad person. He's a nice guy. But, like, this is a moment where everybody in the Democratic Party, like, you need strong leadership somewhere. And the fact that it is, like, just there's. None of it, is frustrating.

[B]

So I have another question, mostly for Sarah, which is on your point about the second main job of the DNC chair. Number one is fundraising. Number two is about message coordination. Does it make it a lot harder, slash impossible to coordinate messages when the party is undergoing sort of a. A civil war? Because a lot of the messaging seems to be more internal, factionalist fighting. How do we, you know, avoid pissing off such and such a faction of our party? The, you know, the, the faction that, you know is Ride or Die, Medicare for All or Ride or Die on Israel stuff. You know, APAC stuff versus figuring out messaging that will position the party well for the general.

[A]

Sarah, let me, let me add a, Let me add a qualification to that question. Isn't it helpful to not have a single overall message so that these candidates who are running in really competitive states can have their own message that's distinct from some national Democratic. Right.

[C]

I mean, ideally they. I do, I do. But ideally, they'd be complimentary and they'd be working together again, like where the national party can do Some high level narrative setting like the Democrats are here to, you know, affordability is obviously like the umbrella issue that Democrats are talking about. And then each state could sort of approach some of these things however they wanted to. But to me, Catherine, it's the, the opposite is true of what you're, of what you're saying. Let me. Or, or it's not the opposite. Let me, let me reverse it though. I think if you had really strong leadership at the dnc, let's say somebody like Wickler, who I think is somebody who could have really taken, who would have earned the trust both of like the really progressive left and the more establishment types and figured out how to sort of settle these factions down, who could have been somebody who brought people to the table, like that kind of leadership actually at a moment when people are really fractured, could be enormously valuable. And I actually think that one of the reasons that we see again, because people are so angry. I've written a bunch of pieces about this. The voters are so, so mad that they are open to more aggressive candidates. They're open to new ideas. They're saying maybe to some DSA stuff. I actually think that if you had something that looked more like an establishment that was adjusting to the moment that showed that it had eyes on it and was thinking about it like a Ben Wickler that was fresh, like, I don't know that you, that, that that DSA stuff is happening because there's a leadership vacuum when everybody's like, well, it's moderate versus progressive. I'm like, but what is the moderate thing? Like, we're not seeing somebody sort of lead on that front. And I think somebody like Wickler or a better leader there who were out there sort of setting the tone. Instead there's this vacuum where everyone's just fighting each other.

[A]

So I preface my question to Sarah with does this matter for 2026? Because I'm not sure it does. Maybe it does, but I'm not sure. But I think it could matter a lot for 2028. And I, I say for the following reason, it strikes me that as our political parties have lost power as an institution that has diminished their gatekeeping ability. And then it does seem to me over the last 10 years that it turns out that a party's ability to gatekeep is really important.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Is that wrong, though? I mean, maybe this is wrong. Like, maybe, maybe the Democratic Party brand is so bad that the Democratic Party shouldn't be allowed to gatekeep and all they'll wind up doing is keeping out young, fresh, blah, blah. If the Democratic Party had been gatekeeping in 2008, they would have gotten Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama. I don't know. So this is my, my genuine question to you is, where are you on the gatekeeping function of parties? Is it good or bad?

[B]

You want to go back to the smoke back room deals with the cigars where they're choosing their primary?

[A]

That's what I would prefer.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

I'm 100% serious.

[B]

Yeah. I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, I think part of the problem with the current system is that if you really want to take a very cynical view, it is actually, it can be actually quite profitable. I mean, in the literal term, you can make a lot of money. You can make bank by having a political operation whose sole job is to run, to be to the left of Democrats running against Democratic incumbents. Right. That you can raise a lot of money. You can put all of your money into Facebook ads for, like, the super liberal, more engaged part of the wing, the Democratic Party wing, get them to raise a bunch of money, spend it on more ads, take a cut of those ads without ever really having to think about whether someone is viable in a general election or even trying to win a general election. And I worry that that's kind of the, the situation we're in right now, that the incentives are not particularly aligned for the party to actually win and win the election and then govern post winning if they do win. And I don't know what the solution is for that.

[A]

I mean, I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, Republicans did this. They got the least electable candidate, he won anyway, and they have no ability to govern, and yet he's breaking the entire country. You know what I'm saying? Like, like life finds a way, you know, like, this is.

[B]

Yeah, but I definitely care about governing. And I do, too.

[A]

And what he's doing is governing of a sort. Right. This is, this is what I'm trying to get at is like, you know, we think like, God, if you give to Trump, he's not electable, but turns out he is electable. And they, they do.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. You know what I mean? I'm not. I guess my question is I find the current system objectionable, but I don't know what the solution is at this point. Because if you do go back to the backroom deal type setup, first of all, all of that distrust that voters have toward the establishment becomes validated in a way, right. That you are like, overriding the will of the people. And again, there are a lot of financial incentives for people to exploit that distrust, raise money off of that distrust, and, you know, demand donation or collect donations, collect subscriptions. Like, there's, there's this whole business model that is built on distrust of the elite or distrust of the establishment. And some of that distrust is earned, some of it is not earned, but you make it more earned when you try to, like, have a backroom deal, if that makes sense. But I don't. I genuinely don't know what the solution is to that problem. Maybe it is, to Sarah's point, stronger institutions within a political party so that they rebuild the trust. And when they do make the backroom deal, then people buy into it and

[A]

they say, I'll never get my smoke filled rooms. Catherine. I'm reconciled to that. I know we're not getting it, but for instance, we might get a, A party strong enough to move the primary calendar around, which is something we're gonna get to so that it, like, makes more sense in terms of finding nominees who represent the whole party. Right. Instead of parking, you know, things in, like, Iowa and New Hampshire, which is a little weird. Makes sense for Republicans. Don't really make sense for Democrats anymore. Like South Carolina. Makes a lot of sense for Democrats. I don't. Sarah, where are you on this stuff?

[C]

On the primary calendar or on.

[A]

No structure? Don't jump the gun just on, just on the, the power of the parties. Would it be generally good for the, for the Democratic National Committee to be a stronger institution able to exert more control over the Democratic Party itself as an organism? Or does that wind up being, like, a barrier to change? And you just, I mean, like, it is a barrier to change.

[C]

I do.

[A]

A barrier to, like, both good change and bad change.

[C]

Yeah. I think that parties, I mean, I've got a whole thing on parties where I think that we do need stronger parties. You know, they have been. Parties have been, like, insufficiently strong to avoid being hijacked by outsiders, but they are too strong to be really disrupted by outside forces. Right. Like, they still have two major parties. Yeah, you got two major parties. And so, like, they can be taken over. Which is, I think, what you're seeing from the far left. Like, they watched what the far right did or what Trump did. Right. And they're like, he didn't say, I'm going to work outside of this party. He said, I'm going to take this bad boy over. And I think that the far left right now is saying the. What they Call the establishment or the moderates are too timid. We need big bold solutions and like, let's just take over the apparatus of the Democratic Party. And you know, I, I, and there, I mean, there's so much to talk about within there because I, the Democrats are so much different than the Republicans. There's a whole chapter in my book, Republicans are from Venus, Democrats are from Mars, where I talk about all the institutional way around differences.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

If I recall from editing your Republicans

[C]

are from Mars, Democrats are from Venus. That's my title. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. My editor, they are so different and like they have such different Democratic coalition is so unruly and it requires and is so many different things like the DSA left and black voters. When people are like the Democratic base, I'm always like, tell me about the base. Which one is your base? Which is the Democratic base? Is it the Warrenistas, the young progressives, the white progressives who are lining up hard behind like an Abdul El Sayed? Or is the base the black voters, who, which is one of the reasons they're moving it to South Carolina because they say, look, black voters are a big part of the base of our party and so we should be more representative. Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire. Anyway, I just, Whereas Republicans, Republicans are so much more, it is identity politics irony. Republicans are so much more like just in one identity that Donald Trump could take over the party, basically. Transport. Transport.

[A]

All you have to do is win high school educated white men, males. Right. I mean, this is the thing. The Democratic Party is really hard.

[C]

So many of them. There's so many of them.

[A]

The Democratic Party is really hard to organize because it is, as you said, so unruly because it's got, I mean, the base of it is so many very, very different groups. On the other hand, I think that also makes it harder to take over. Right. I mean, it does make it harder for a single faction to like dominate the party because like you, that's good.

[C]

Because that's what parties are for. Like the parties are actually there to be this limiting factor around. Okay. How do we create something that can include all of us? And I think that. Okay, well, so I think a stronger Democratic Party with strong leadership that figures out how to, to give all of its factions something and not everybody, everything is a, is a positive force.

[B]

I will say that I think one thing that I've, that I observe in the Democratic Party that in, in a way that they are trying to copy the Republican model is that to the extent that the Republican Party Is this more homogenized group, not just demographically, but ideologically. To the extent that there is an ADL ideology, it's because the Republican Party is really about one guy. Right? It's, it's not about a set of beliefs now it is. It's about one guy. And it does feel a little bit like some of the missteps that the Democratic Party has make has made in this current cycle have to do with trying to find their own savior, trying to find the one messianic figure in a way that unites the party. And there's been a bunch of reporting about Graham Platner that, that there were all of these political consultants who basically said like you're the guy who's going to save us. You're the guy who's going to bring us together and unite the party. And you know, it's like the search for the charismatic cult leader type figure that really did become the glue for the Republican Party that has not become the glue for the Democratic Party, but they're seeking for and as. Because that's what at least a contingent of the political operative class has been looking for, has been willing to overlook other liabilities. And I don't know if that strategy has been abandoned, but to the extent that has been or will be, I do think the party is going to be struggle to figure out what is the glue that holds these very disparate bases together, who think about the world in different ways, who have different political beliefs. You know, the, the worldview of the war anistas versus the elderly black ladies in South Carolina is pretty different. And how do you find the connective tissue between those, those groups when you're not just uniting them under the umbrella of like here's the really charismatic leader. Because I think if that's your strategy to find the charismatic leader, it's a real crapshoot. Rather than coming up with like the message or something else that is the connective tissue between those two groups. But it feels like they're trying to copy that.

[A]

So let's just do the primary schedule stuff now then. So the new proposed order for the first six states for 2028 in the Democratic Party are South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan, Virginia. That's interesting to me. South Carolina and Nevada, I mean Nevada gives you a bunch of Latino voters plus a lot of service worker, service industry workers. New Hampshire has to be there because of their state law about being the first primary. New Mexico, kind of interesting. Michigan, Virginia. What do you guys make of this? And is it A good idea? Is it a bad idea? How will it change the selection process? Who does it advantage or disadvantage?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I think this speaks to what we were just talking about, choosing a different Democratic base, that the Democratic base in South Carolina is going to be, you know, more old black people essentially, rather than young white Warrenista types. And I think that that is going to certainly shade the politics or shade the chances for which which political faction is more likely to win the primary. And the same thing with Nevada. A lot of Hispanic voters in Nevada who tend to not be as socially liberal as young white voters. And then you go back to New Hampshire and the others. But I imagine that this is going to select for a more moderate candidate than might otherwise have been the case. What do you think, Sarah?

[C]

I agree that it actually does, I think tilt it ever so slightly in favor of a more moderate candidate or a black candidate. And those two things not necessarily having to be the same. But let's just go, I want to tell you so in South Carolina, which is 61% white, but it's almost 25% African American. And in 2016 they elected, they, they went with Clinton. In 2020 they went with Biden. Nevada is interesting because in 2016 it went with Clinton and then went with Sanders in 2020. And I think because it is a very working class, unionized town, this is why Trump also sort of outperformed there with his no tax on tips, which was basically cooked up to help him in a place like Nevada, New Hampshire, you know, which is like 87% white. Went for Sanders and Sanders hardcore in 2016 and 2020 because these progressive movements like the DSA movement is fueled by college educated.

[A]

Well, it's also like his home state. I mean, don't forget Hillary Clinton.

[C]

That's true. You're right. I mean that's, you're, you're making great points. And then New Mexico was a Biden state, Michigan was a Biden, although in 2016 it was Sanders, which is an interesting. I had looked back just to see and I thought, well, that's an interesting.

[A]

I wouldn't have guessed that or remember

[C]

even in light of the Abdul El Sayed and the Haley Stevens race. Just knowing that, that that's what it did in 2016 was interesting. And then Virginia was also a Biden Clinton state. So it seems to me that like to get momentum, you would need to, if you're a progressive, like a DSA super, let's say you're aoc, you would have to survive South Carolina and Nevada and then would need to win New Hampshire to regain that sense of momentum, survive New Mexico and then head into Michigan and Virginia, which are probably more like even playing grounds for those races. And so it would like theoretically be possible that you end up three and three coming out of those early states. So I, I do think it's like pretty balanced overall. And it's weird. I think the one thing that I can't quite think through, I was thinking about Obama came out of Iowa so strong, not because black voters voted for him, but because white voters voted for him. And so I do wonder how starting with South Carolina, like what does that do to how people think about the psychology of it do. They're like, let's just say Kamala Harris comes out of, comes out of South Carolina first. And everybody's like, yeah, we're not even thinking that's, that's not real because you know, South Carolina voted for the black candidate. But like we don't think she's going to do well everybody anywhere else. Like I just see it's going to change the machinations for what do you think?

[A]

So, I mean, I disagree about that. I think this putting South Carolina first is important because I just don't think you can win a Democratic primary for president without winning black voters. Like, I mean just number wise, I don't think now you don't have to, you don't have to wind up having like the same numbers that Obama did over Hillary Clinton. But you can't, you can't lose black voters and wind up as the Democratic nominee. I think just unless it's like a crazy 17 person field and you know, you're only behind by two points or something. So I think it's, it's really important to test a candidate's viability with the Democratic blacks early. And I think that can only be helpful. It's always been a little weird to have to, to make them wait and to, to give like, you know, I was in a very progressive state, just sort of ideologically not woke. But in terms of, you know, like the dick part view of the, of economics, I don't know, I, like, I look at this and I see, you know, Virginia is a state of like the new suburban professional Democratic base. Michigan, you have like the auto worker Democratic base plus Dearborn and a bunch of Muslims and Arabs. You know, Nevada, New Mexico gets you a lot of Hispanic voters. South Carolina gets you a lot of. I feel like this is a pretty good. What we were just talking about how the Democratic coalition is this giant unruly mess. Like this map is a pretty good representation of most of the most of the centers of the base. Like yeah, it just seems like it's okay.

[C]

Well I've got two pushbacks to that. First of all is I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying about South Carolina because I agree with you. I think South Carolina is not a bad place start. My point is though is that the commentary will focus on the fact that if a black candidate like Kamala. I really I think Kamala Harris is my specific example of this. Let's say she wins South Carolina. I'm not sure the pundit class even her coming out of South Carolina makes people be like yeah she's likely to be the nominee. Like I think that there would be a rejection of that and and depend on the margins.

[A]

Right. Like I mean if it was a, if it was a one on one race and she ran up I'd have to Connor, maybe you can look at this for me. What, what margin did Obama beat Clinton by? I think it was like 60 points or 50 points or something. Right. And when that happened like people were like holy like black because and it was not I don't know if you remember this but people that was after Iowa was gonna do but she then different.

[C]

My point is when it's first my point is like IO. It's like maybe a lot of times

[A]

I just don't think people would discount

[C]

I will became the place where people would say yeah okay, it's nice everybody exercised their first idea there but nobody stuck with that person. I'm not sure that that couldn't happen with South Carolina. Potentially possible.

[B]

Okay but, but, but just to hone in on something you said Sarah, you said that your analysis applies to Kamala Harris who obviously has the baggage of having already lost a national election and so therefore might be written off because of that. Like it's like oh well this is. She won here but only because of these demographics in the case of South Carolina. But we know she's not a.

[C]

That is the argument I'm making.

[B]

Yeah she we know she's not a viable candidate in a general because she's actually been through that ringer and failed. And I wonder if this is really like I guess I don't know. You know, if you were if we're talking about Wes Moore or another candidate who is expected to be to have presidential ambitions who is also black. If the same logic would apply.

[C]

I think you're right about that. I think I, I, I that's why I was Saying I think maybe I just think this about Kamala Harris and I'm not sure I think it about other candidates. Let me just say the second thing though on this unruly piece. I'm not sure that New Hampshire or Iowa necessarily accept this. I'm not sure these other states don't go rogue in this and be like, no, we're still first and we're going to set our own thing. Which again goes to my why you need strong parties and not weak ones because then otherwise it's just chaos.

[A]

Let me propose a solution. What if everybody has their own non binding primary or caucus and then we get a room where some people have some cigarettes and cigars in it way in the back of the DNC and they take all of these non binding elections and caucuses and use that to inform their selection of a nominee. Just one man's opinion.

[B]

But again we have a political environment and a media environment that thrives on conspiracies, right. Conspiracy theorizing.

[A]

And they're going to make them up no matter what. So why not just say yeah you know what, we know better than you do you. Mouth breathing I don't know.

[B]

I. I just think.

[A]

Last question before we move off of this one. Is all of this bad for our precious the Pete? That's all I really care about. Right. No kidding.

[C]

So that's, that's an interesting question. Here's the thing. I think if Pete's gonna make it, Pete's gonna have to win South Carolina like Pete's gonna have. Pete would have to demonstrate prowess or come in second. Like he would have to show that he had real really figured out how to bring black voters along. Because if you talk to. I was just, I was having lunch with a friend of mine, like a good old D.C. friend who was from the labor movement. She was telling how she just joined the dsa. We were having a great time, you know getting into. Get going into a back and forth about it and you know, she repeated what I think is taken as gospel now, which is that Pete cannot win black voters and he will either have to, he will have to disprove that to move forward in the race. And I think he's working on that hard now the question is whether or not he could, he can get there.

[B]

Can. Can I ask a follow up on that? So why would he not be able to win black voters? Is it because black voters are less open to gay candidates?

[A]

Because he didn't in 20s, 2020. His. It was just, it's just the past performance in the South Carolina.

[B]

But what's the theory of the case for why he does so badly?

[A]

I don't know the answer to why. Right. And no, nobody knows the answer to why. But I've just for point of comparison, in 2020 in South Carolina, Pete got 8%. Elizabeth Warren, who's never performed well with Black voters, got 7%. So he finished 1%. He finished 3 points behind Tom Steyer. This again, just as a benchmark. Like, Tom Steyer had no constituency anywhere and like beat finish below him. So he just, he's got to figure out how to connect with that coalition. Okay, final topic. Michigan Big Gretch has chosen to weigh in on the side of Haley Stevens. Sarah, tell me what's happening there.

[C]

Oh, well, I think it's pretty clear that all of the. I mean, because Gary Peters did too. Basically every political star except for Alyssa Slotkin has weighed in on this race.

[A]

Is it because they're afraid or because they think she's going to win?

[C]

Oh, that's a good question. I think maybe it's a little bit of both. But it's really hard to know who's going to win this race. Honestly, the polling has been so noisy. You've got. And they're the swings are wild. You know, Syed's campaign keeps releasing internals that show him way ahead. Then you'll get some of these, like uni labor polls that show Stevens up and you're just like, I don't know who to believe. We're sort of waiting on a good outside like an Emerson or somebody to so we could get like an actual beat on the race. There was a new poll that came out today that had the matchup with Rogers in the general, and it had Haley beating him ever so slightly. I think it was like by 08 versus El Sayed, who they had losing by 10, like 9 or 10. It was something enormous that even I like, even with that, I kind of don't believe that that, that level of margin. I do think they're worried that Abdul El Sayad will not do well in a general election, that, that he will lose that seat for Democrats and they think that Haley Stevens will win. But I do think they're worried that Haley Stevens I would actually your question of. Because they definitely think she's going to win. I don't think it's that. I think they're worried that he, he might win because I think it's a pretty even race right now.

[B]

Isn't there another theory of the case for Gretchen Whitmer at The very least, which is that Abdul Al Sayed ran against Gretchen Whitmer for governor and said a bunch of nasty, untrue things about her, like accused her of money laundering or something to that effect, which when there was no evidence for it. So if you are Gretchen Whitmer, you might have other reasons to not want to support El Sayed in the race. Like, you don't trust him. You're pissed off about how he campaigned before and you think that he wouldn't be a good steward of, you know, your, your party in general. Like, I. That seems totally plausible to me, at least for her.

[C]

Yeah, I, I do think there's some real bad blood there. And, you know, he has a history of. Yeah. Saying some pretty nasty things. And this is one of those where, like, you know, until you sort of get into the race and you start looking at it, you're like, oh, wait, actually, that was awful the way he ran last time. And I think there's some narratives about him congealing, just as like the ones around Haley Stevens where it's like AIPAC is supporting her, which is kind of. And like. And she's the corporate establishment. Like, that is the sort of negative way that they are trying to frame her. The negative frame on Abdul Al Sayed is that he is like a fraud who lied about practicing medicine. He is a misogynist and somebody who has been sort of like, very nasty to the women that he has run against and Gretchen Whitmer being one of them. And so. But I do think overall they're just pretty worried that he's not gonna, that he's gonna lose that seat for them.

[B]

I mean, on the fraud point, there's also the fact that, that he's a supporter of Medicare for all, and his wife doesn't take Medicare as insurance or doesn't take any insurance. Right. So it's like there's a little bit of living your values that I think also. Or not living your values that may be held against him and may not play so well with voters either.

[C]

I just want this race to be over, though. My God, do I want this race to be over. Why does it take so long to get these primaries done?

[A]

But let me, let me ask a glass half full question. If it's true that Abdul Elsa would lose by 10 to Mike Rogers,

[C]

wouldn't

[A]

that be kind of useful information for the Democratic Party to find out, like, have him win the nomination, lose by 10? That would be instructive. Going into 2028, and all it did was cost you one sentence he.

[B]

But also potentially control of the Senate. Right.

[A]

You're not going to get control of the Senate, Catherine. Okay. They would need 52 seats because otherwise Federman's going to flip.

[B]

Well, it would, it would suck for them to lose a Democratic Senate seat, I'll put it that way. Right, sure.

[C]

But that Michigan Senate seat has been held by a Democrat for so long. Like losing that Michigan Senate seat like that has implications Michigan in general. The Michigan starts getting redder. That's a really, really scary prospect.

[A]

There's a silver lining there. That's all

[B]

I hear saying that people actually draw the right lesson away. And I think the problem with elections is you have so few data points that people can impose whatever narrative they want to on it. And maybe it'll be a narrative of he only lost because there was some, you know, racist attack ads against him for being Muslim or maybe it was the establishment, the establishment Democrats were undermining him. Like, I don't know necessarily that the, the pain for, for the Democratic Party of losing that seat will be worth whatever the lesson is because I, I don't know that the lesson will actually be learned. And that, that is, I think one of the fundamental problems with the Democratic Party, which is that they don't learn lessons about.

[C]

Yeah. Or they tell you that the lesson is something exactly the opposite of what the lesson was. Like this idea that they have decided that Kamala Harris was a great centrist and ran as a great centrist and that's why she lost is the most preposterous political analysis I've ever heard. And. But it is like an article of faith on the progressive left that that is what happened. It's not that the democrats ran an 82 year old who. Have you seen Biden lately? Like the idea that he could still be president now is insane. And then on top of that. Well, that was after then Biden spent the four years in office making sure Kamala Harris was completely denigrated. And then she wasn't a particularly good political athlete. It had nothing to do with this insane retroactive idea that she was somehow a centrist. And it's because she campaigned with Liz Cheney.

[B]

What?

[C]

Jvl I mean, I mean, I have

[A]

so many things to say to that. First of all, you know what? If Joe Biden was president today, he might not look great, but we would not be at war with Iran, would we? We would still have transit passage controlling the international law in the Strait of Hormuz if Joe Biden was president, no matter how bad he was. Actually a pretty, A better. I think it's revisionist history to go back and say she wasn't a good political athlete because I think at the time most of us, including you and me, thought, oh, she's performing better than we thought she would.

[C]

She's performing better than we thought she would. That's different. That's different than being a great political athlete. That's beating expectations of you, which were incredibly low.

[A]

Well, what, whatever they were like, you know, she was, she, she did better than expected. The lessons that people learn. I hate to do this, but the lessons the Republican party took from 2012 was that we've got to get right on immigration and Hispanic voters and voters refused to take that lesson. They elected Donald Trump, who was a racist and they keep winning. So, you know, like these. The right lesson meaning, like the good lesson is not always the true lesson. And I don't know.

[B]

Right, but you just said that if Abdullah said loses that, you know, wins the primary, loses the general, that maybe that will improve the chances.

[A]

Just trying to be optimistic. Catherine, you don't listen to this show often, but my job here is to be the optimist. I am here to be the ray of sunshine who lifts everyone up.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

That's what I do. That's my role.

[B]

This is news to me. In our other co hosting space, I, I feel like you're maybe a little bit more glass empty.

[A]

You know what different roles you contain.

[B]

Multitudes. Yes.

[A]

Different roles for different. I'm a role player. I'm a utility infielder. You just drop me in where you need me and I, I do what is needed. You have one more thing to say.

[C]

Yeah, sorry. Sorry, my. And another thing, a lot of when it comes to what lessons we take, like one of the reasons I'm so. Look, if you, like I said, I have like a nominal preference for Haley Stevens, I think she's probably the more likely to hold that seat than in the general. On the other hand, like, okay, like I don't. Whatever. Like I just want to beat Mike Rogers. I would like there to be as much friction between Donald Trump and everything he wants to do and the Senate and Congress. Okay. That's all I want. So if Abdul El Sayed wins. All right, whatever. My big fear actually is that because this primary is going on so long and is getting so bloody that at the end of it, we already saw this. Michigan is one of those place where the non committed vote where they decide if Haley Steven wins, they're like, I'm so mad. This is because, you know, the establishment, you know, and they say we're going to sit it out and they give up that seat. They already. That's what they did to Kamala Harris.

[B]

Right?

[C]

Is that, you know, refused to. We're so mad about Joe Biden, about the war in Gaza that we're going to set it out and great, Trump won. Don't do that again. But I see it going that way. And honestly, I'm a little worried it could go the other way, too, where El Sayed wins. And I actually think like a bunch of. I don't know, I don't know. I guess I don't know of this for sure, but I could see some moderate attempts, like the bad feelings just being so bad. Like the benefit of the Texas primary being as early as it was. Tyreko won. Jasmine Crockett, you know, basically isn't endorsing him, but is doing the down ballot stuff. But, like, they're not healed. And I wish that she was out vigorously campaigning for him. But, like, it's kind of chill or it's getting more chill as time goes on. And it gives everybody time to like, take a breath, heal, come back to the party. Man, Michigan is not going to have that much time for that.

[A]

Well, we had a lot of time for this show. How about that for transition? Good show, long show. Katherine, thank you for sitting in with us. Everybody else, I will be with Katherine on Friday after. I'm also with Sarah on Friday, so that's a weird thing I didn't put together until just now. I also do shows with both of you on Fridays. Huh. Lucky me, Cat.

[C]

Everybody else have her own show together.

[B]

I was just thinking that we can just trash talk JBL the whole time. How's that?

[C]

I would never.

[A]

This is like finding out Sarah and Shannon have their own text thread.

[C]

That's true.

[A]

Guys, it was great being with you. Everybody. Hit like, hit. Subscribe. Follow the channel. Good luck, America.