Propaganda With OUR Money! Young SICKOS in the Chat! GOP Is SCARED of No Kings!

Summary

The Next Level Podcast: “Propaganda With OUR Money! Young SICKOS in the Chat! GOP Is SCARED of No Kings!”

Hosts: Jonathan V. Last (JVL), Sarah Longwell, Tim Miller – The Bulwark
Date: October 15, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the political climate 10 months into Trumpism's resurgence, focusing on government propaganda, the upcoming “No Kings” protests, radicalization among young Republican operatives, and Democratic primary controversies. The hosts use their signature banter and insight to explore how political messaging, generational divides, and the state of democracy are shaping America's future.

---

Main Discussion Points and Insights

1. The “No Kings” Protests and GOP Reaction

• Framing and Government Response

  • The upcoming nationwide “No Kings” protests, designed as peaceful demonstrations by a coalition of concerned citizens, are facing aggressive propaganda from GOP officials, labeling them as “Antifa” or even “terrorists.”
  • The President’s executive order classifying ANTIFA as a domestic terrorist group has escalated the rhetoric, with fears GOP messaging is a pretext for law enforcement crackdown.
  • Sarah: "Mike Johnson wants America to believe that it is terrorists, that it is antifa, that it’s a bunch of young thugs in masks...and we want to make it clear. No, it is Normie adults who want to take their country back...especially people who are on the older side..." [04:18]
  • Emphasis from the hosts that real protesters are older, “salt of the earth” citizens, not the dangerous radicals portrayed by right-wing media.

• On the Impact of Propaganda

  • The hosts discuss “information warfare” and the GOP's desire to sow anxiety and delegitimize opposition.
  • Tim: "Their messaging is backfiring ... there's a backlash effect to this stuff... engaging more people than would have been engaged otherwise." [05:43]
  • The “Streisand effect”: GOP attempts to demonize the protests may actually mobilize more opposition and visibility.

• Security Concerns and the Chicago Factor

  • JVL raises concern about the potential for violence, particularly in Chicago, and whether the administration might use incidents as pretext for crackdown.
  • Tim: "We have a lot of one-off crazy people with easy access to weapons in this country...obviously you have to be vigilant about one-offs, but I don't know what can be done about that really." [10:47]
  • Sarah: No Kings organizers and participants have been consistently nonviolent and disciplined, not falling for state provocations.

• On Sustaining Protest Movements

  • Hosts note the No Kings strategy of spacing out protests to maintain energy and significance.
  • JVL: “We are only ten months into Trumpism ... it’s still a full year until the 2026 elections.” [13:11]
  • Sarah: "No Kings ... gives you a container outside of an election to demonstrate how big the opposition is." [13:43]
  • Debate on optimism (people have agency) vs. fatalism (inevitable slide to authoritarianism).

---

2. Government Propaganda and Misuse of Public Funds

• Innovation—Or Illegality?

  • Administrations have always done some version of government messaging, but soaring federal political ad spending (notably via Kristi Noem) has reached new heights—$51 million—blurred with re-election and partisan propaganda.
  • Sarah: "This is political propaganda that your taxpayers are funding...It should not be legal." [18:02]
  • Hosts strongly distinguish between public service announcements (PSAs) for programs (e.g., ACA rollouts) vs. ads directly boosting politicians.

• Corruption and Cronyism

  • Kristi Noem and allies (notably Corey Lewandowski) are shown to have doled out large ad contracts to connected firms.
  • Tim: "The swamp. It's unimaginably swampy. The amount of money that's sloshing around." [22:00]
  • ICE’s budget explosion cited as an example of federal agencies awash with cash being used not just for policy, but also personnel enrichment and propaganda.

• Will This Endure?

  • JVL: “Is there any reason that this won’t just become standard practice from here on out?” [23:46]
  • Hosts debate whether this is a uniquely Trumpian phenomenon or will become bipartisan “new normal” if not checked by law or future political will.
  • Tim: "The level of shamelessness of Trump...is a superpower. ... But one of the ideas...that’s a path out is that somebody’s like, man, somebody has an actual mandate to clean shit up." [25:34]

---

3. Exposing Extremism Among "Young Sickos" on the Right

• Politico Leak and Culture Analysis

  • A bombshell Politico piece exposes Telegram chats among young GOP functionaries, full of racist, misogynistic, and neo-Nazi rhetoric.
  • JVL: “It’s the kind of thing where ... I would encourage people to go read the piece ... there is so much stuff that you can't forking believe.” [29:50]
  • Rather than fringe outcasts, these are rising party insiders, many employed or seeking offices.

• Generational Trumpism

  • The hosts grapple with what it means that the rising generation in the GOP has only known “the fever” of Trumpism—and has normalized radical rhetoric and beliefs.
  • JVL: “These people ... have never really known anything but the fever. ... This is just like their mother’s milk.” [31:18]

• Equivalency Debates & Political Culture

  • Discussion of current violence, toxic rhetoric, and the distinction between online randos, elected officials, and candidates who indulge such attitudes.
  • Sarah: “These are not, you know, people outside the establishment. This is firmly ... the YRs ... This is their culture.” [32:00]
  • Tim: "The culture of like encouraging it ... it's a sign of weakness to not participate." [40:32]
  • Hosts connect this to broader themes of dehumanization, social media toxicity, and a right-wing feedback loop that now rewards open bigotry.

• Best Case Scenario for the Right?

  • JVL: "Are we going to wind up with an entire generation for whom this stuff is what politics is?" [41:33]
  • Tim: "Yes." [41:45]
  • A sober acknowledgment that, even if the figure of Trump eventually fades, his movement's culture is now thoroughly embedded in the party's next generation.

---

4. Democratic Primaries & The Gerontocracy Debate

• Maine and Michigan Senate Races

  • Maine’s race: Governor Janet Mills, 77, jumps in, promising only one term. "Outsider" Graham Platner, a progressive oysterman focused on rural health care, is challenging from the left.
  • Sarah: “My main take is Democratic primary, good. Let's kick the tires on Platner ... I'm anti-down with the gerontocracy, and I think that the DNC needs to freshen itself up..." [45:24]
  • Michigan: The DSCC’s (Senate committee) attempt to clear the field for Haley Stevens against another high-energy challenger, Mallory McMorrow, disappoints the panel.
  • Tim: "What the DSCC is doing ... is insane and is probably going to backfire." [48:00]

• Lessons from GOP Tea Party Era

  • Tim ties these tactics to past GOP establishment failures to suppress the Tea Party, arguing that party interference hurts credibility and voter enthusiasm.

---

5. The Politics of Affordability, Populism, and the “Socialist” Question

• Platner’s Message in Maine

  • Platner’s rural populism focuses on universal health care, fighting local hospital closures, and taxing tech oligarchs—potentially tapping into an anti-AI elite zeitgeist.
  • JVL: “If the AI bubble bursts ... talking about the AI tech oligarchs is going to be a very politically appealing message." [56:18]
  • Sarah: “Politics right now is ... social moderation to conservatism and economic populism. The number one thing ... is affordability, not income inequality, affordability.” [57:13]
  • Affordability—especially health care costs—is central, and Democrats ignoring it cedes the issue to the socialist left.

• The Limits of Socialist Messaging

  • Tim notes Maine’s uniqueness (economically populist, socially liberal), warning that Platner’s success shouldn’t be over-generalized for national strategy.
  • Sarah: "If Democrats and centrists ... don’t focus on affordability, then the socialists will win." [62:09]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On GOP Propaganda Backfiring:
  Tim Miller:

  “I think that their messaging is backfiring...there’s a backlash effect to this stuff...I reject the idea that we’re a dictatorship now. He’s trying, he’s trying, but like now is the moment to fight it.” [05:43]

• On Optimism versus Fatalism:
  Sarah Longwell:

  “Naivete is thinking that everything will just work out. Optimism is understanding that people have agency and can make choices and that there is opportunity to win." [14:31]

• On Kristi Noem’s Propaganda Machine:
  Sarah Longwell:

  "This is political propaganda that your taxpayers are funding. It should not be legal. It should not be done." [18:02]

• On Young Right-Wing Radicalism:
  JVL:

  “These people have never really known anything but the fever. They don’t see it as like the temperature. This is just like their mother’s milk. And I don’t know how you get to places where everything goes back to normal when the whole rising generation sees this as normal.” [31:18]

• On DSCC Backing Gerontocracy:
  Sarah Longwell:

  “I'm anti-down with the gerontocracy, and I think that the DNC needs to freshen itself up in terms of what it's allowing through the races.” [45:31]

• On Populism vs. Socialism:
  Sarah Longwell:

  "If Democrats ... don't focus on affordability, then the socialists will win." [62:09]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• No Kings Protest, Propaganda, & Security Concerns: [00:55]–[13:20]
• Sustaining Mobilization and the Value of Protest: [12:57]–[15:15]
• Government Propaganda Discussion (Kristi Noem, ICE): [16:32]–[26:50]
• Young Republican Telegram Leak / Sickos Chat: [28:41]–[41:45]
• Democratic Senate Primaries & Gerontocracy: [43:09]–[51:46]
• Platner, Health Care Populism, & The Socialist Question: [53:57]–[62:09]

---

Tone, Banter, and Final Takeaways

The hosts maintain their trademark witty, analytical banter—oscillating between grave concerns about democracy and bursts of humor (asides about fanny packs, protests, and deodorant sponsors). While they are alarmed by trends in both parties (GOP radicalization, Democratic complacency), they repeatedly circle back to the importance of agency, the power of protest, and the need for political actors to genuinely connect with the anxieties of real people.

Show’s last word — Sarah:

“If Democrats and centrists ... don’t focus on affordability, then the socialists will win. My advice to Democrats is to focus on affordability because this is what voters broadly care about.” [62:09]

---

Summary prepared for listeners seeking a comprehensive, digestible overview of the episode’s content and argumentation.

Transcript

[A]

This is what I think people have trouble grappling with. We are only ten months into Trumpism.

[B]

I don't have any trouble grappling with it. I'm living it one second at a time. But I do some other people watching.

[C]

Take at a time.

[B]

Yes, some people are struggling with that. Yeah.

[A]

Hello, everyone. This is JBL here with my best friends Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller of the Bulwark Guys. We are back together, separated by screens, the way God intended. It was great seeing with you, being in meat space with you. Lovely, thanks.

[B]

So nice.

[A]

Let's do that again.

[B]

I should have got able to hang out afterwards, but, you know, you had to get back home, you know, you had to put the kids to bed. You were just right around the corner from your house in New York. Yep.

[A]

And you were heading out to where.

[B]

I behaved. I behaved. I went. I actually, I went to Nobu with a friend.

[A]

Nobu.

[B]

I got fancy. I got shishi.

[A]

That's very fancy. So we were together in D.C. and New York and we're going to have a lot going on in D.C. new York and all of the rest of the country this Saturday at the Giant no Kings protests. And we've got a little bit of a propaganda war going on about it because on the one hand you have the people who are preparing to go out in all of their best frog costumes and their. Their little inflatable animal things and not Pepe the frog.

[B]

Just to be clear, we're taking back the frog for the pro liberal democracy.

[C]

Real know your meme moment.

[A]

Could we recl.

[B]

Pepe, we're reclaiming the frog.

[A]

Okay. And at the same time you have speaker of the House, the House Majority Whip, the Secretary of Transportation going out and saying that these protests are Antifa, which is kind of a big deal because the President just signed an executive order saying that ANTIFA is a domestic terrorist organization. And so if true, that these protests are going to be run by and featuring Antifa tifa, which is a domestic terrorist organization. Like if it was isis, if somebody said these protests are going to be done by ISIS or Al Qaeda, then I would assume that law enforcement would be there to arrest every single person showing up to them.

[B]

Well, and some of them call said terrorists. I forget who it was. Was it Emmer or Duffy? They're all blending together. But Johnson, one of them literally used the word terrorists.

[A]

I believe that was Emmer. I believe that was Emmer. So, I mean, I guess we don't have to take this seriously in the sense of like they don't really mean that these things are antifa because if they did, then they would be doing something. But we should kind of take it seriously as a propaganda effort. No.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I think that we should take it seriously insofar as it means that they're really nervous about these events. They think Americans are taking it seriously. I mean, you just said it's going to be a giant thing. We don't know that until everybody turns out. But I do suspect based on sort of the pent up desire for people and just my own social circles, like the people I know, people who are training in, I'm getting texts about it. Lots of people are going, obviously we're hearing from our listeners. I'm going. And so I think that their rhetoric is a reflection of how nervous they are about seeing a really big pushback to Donald Trump and they're trying to frame it in a certain way up front. Although I suspect, and one of the things I like about no Kings, you know, if you look at something like the LA protests around ICE or some of them, they get, they're spontaneously driven by kind of a raw angry emotion and that's fine, but that's where you end up setting wayos on fire. Like the no Kings protests are structured. They have places where people are going to go, they're running ads, everybody is emphasizing the peaceful nature of them. I suspect it will be dominated by, you know, people who are of all ages. But I think this, this movement really has been led, as best I can tell, by like the salt of the earth boomers who are out there with their great signs. You know, these, I mean, every time I drive up and down 16th street in D.C. or Connecticut Avenue, it is a 65 year old woman who has been standing there for hours. And I just want to say to you, if you are one of those people, God bless you. Way to go. Where I honk for you every single time. And we'll be out there with you. But you know, I do think it's funny. I think it will present a contrast. Sometimes we get notes from people, you know, people saying, you guys, you know, dismiss us, calling us boomers or talking about us being librarians. And, and I just want you to hear something. Yeah, talking about chapstick, the fanny packs. Hear me when I say this. Part of what we want to explain is the contrast between how they want to frame the people of the protest. Right. Mike Johnson wants America to believe that it is terrorists, that it is antifa, that it's a bunch of young thugs in Masks out there trying to light cities on fire. And, and we want to make it clear. No, it is Normie adults who want to take their country back. Who, especially people who are on the older side because they've lived through long stretches, both, I think a. Because they, they knew the protests of the 60s then lived through a long stretch of normal liberal democracy and the post World War II order, which they appreciate. And so they're the ones, I think, with some of the clearest thoughts focus about what we stand to lose, which is why they're out there and the most free time.

[B]

Yeah, I don't know. The thing is, the thing about this is, you know, I think that their messaging is backfiring for the reason Sarah laid out, but just also for Streisand effect reasons and other. I just don't think it works. Like Donald, Donald Trump thinks he can play bully ball power politics because it's like, mostly worked for him, right? Like, you know, saying the election was stolen, like ended up working for him. Right. Like just calling everybody names, like, works for him. It doesn't work for everybody. Like, it doesn't always work. Right. And we shouldn't just like submit to that or acknowledge it. Sometimes I think that gets me the most frustrated. I've been in a couple of disagreements recently, both on MSNBC and on various podcasts in my private life with people that are like, for some reason I'm being the optimist right now about just election stuff in 2026. Yeah, watch out, Sarah. And these protests coming this weekend, etc. And it's because, like, I think that there's a backlash effect to this stuff, right. And, and I think that there are, you know, and I reject kind of the element of, you know, we're a dictatorship now. It's like, no, he's trying, he's trying, but like now is the moment to fight it. Right. And that's why I think the protests are important on Saturday. So I think that politics, which we're going to talk about a little bit, is going to be important next November and this November, I guess, these governors races. And I think that their strategy just isn't landing this time. And I think that what they're really doing is engaging more people than would have been engaged otherwise. And I think that there is a counter kind of world where they pretend like the no Kings protests aren't happening and like where Trump talk does victory laps about the hostages or does whatever other stuff he does bleats about like the cable news segment that he doesn't like, where there still would be people out there, like the types of people Sarah are talking about, the committed people. Right. But maybe it becomes a little bit more of a blip. And I kind of think the way they've handled this is going to backfire in this instance. Obviously, I think there are other ways in which their bullying power politics is working.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, it's hard for me because I am dispositionally not a protest guy in the same way that I am not a fellowship guy.

[B]

Same.

[A]

Or, you know, like, when I hear churches talk about fellowship, I'm like, where's the exit? I don't know. That's not why I come to church. I don't even really like shaking hands during sign of peace. Tim. That was always a little bit too much for me.

[B]

I do, because I kind of started spacing out before that. And it's nice for me to kind of touch another human mind that I'm still here on earth but do not.

[A]

Care for the sign.

[B]

Sometimes the clammy hands are a little bit too much human contact.

[C]

I always dreaded this part, having to hold hands, not shake hands, but when they would make you hold hands.

[B]

Yeah, the clammy hands. Tough.

[A]

But I feel like these protests are actually really important because the only way out of this is people power. And these are like shows of strength, I think. Right. This is, I mean, the only way to really demonstrate it, aside from the voting and the elections. Are you guys worried about how do I. I don't want to.

[B]

Violence.

[A]

Yes, but not. Not just. I'm like, specifically Chicago. So if I were the administration and I was DHS and I wanted to make no kings look bad, I would fixate on Chicago where. Where tensions are already very, very high. And I would use law enforcement and do a law enforcement action somewhere as a pretext and just kind of hope that things got out of hand. Tim, you interviewed Governor Pritzker yesterday. It was a great, really great interview. Good conversation. And he talked about the importance of no kings and how people are going out. He did not seem concerned at all.

[B]

Well, I think that it's important for him to project positivity. He wants people to be out in protesting. And so I don't think that means that they're not doing due diligence. I didn't ask him about this question, so I'm speculating. I want to get back to some of the Pritzker stuff in a second. But I think to your point about the security, I think there's reason to be concerned. And these things weren't connected. But you should, we should remember that like the morning of the last no Kings protest, like it was the night before that the Minnesota legislation had gotten assassinated or legislator and her husband and, and so that there was fear. Right. Like I, I think the Minnesota no Kings protest got canceled if I'm, if I'm remembering correctly, right. So, you know, and we're at a fraught moment and like, so there could be certainly violence related, there could be certain violence unrelated. That kind of gets like mashed up in all this, particularly in Chicago where there is like, you know, again, it's getting better, but there is violence in Chicago. So I think that that's a legit thing to be concerned about. And I think that the administration obviously is going to be looking for pretenses to crack down more and they're targeting these protests as one of them. But you know, like the flip side to all that is, I don't, how do I put this in a way that seems right? I mean like you can never stop one off crazy people. We have a lot of one off crazy people with easy accesses to weapons in this country. And that's basically a fundament mental problem in the country. The broad groups like the MAGA groups are still kind of riding high, right? Like their violence, a lot of their violence like came at a time when Trump had lost, right? And like there was this feeling of a losing of power. And so like what I am not expecting is like a 2020 era, like oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Verse street, you know, like that. And I think that the administration would want that, honestly. But I don't think we're going to see that on Saturday. And I think that obviously you have to be vigilant about one offs, but I don't know what can be done about that really.

[C]

Let's take what you're talking about seriously though for a second because I do think that the conversation that they're having where they're saying that it's terrorists and saying that it's antifa, they want to go into these protests with a reason to crack down on people. Like what you were saying earlier, we're like, well, wouldn't they arrest everybody if it was? It's like, no, but they might try to crack some skulls, they might try to stir up trouble. And the thing about no Kings and even maybe the fact that it is being led by this older generation has been that there has been and I talked about this a lot at the live shows, people do not want to give them a reason. Nobody Seems to have been tempted so far to bait, like to go for their bait. And I think that's been a really, really strong message. And I would love to see that hold throughout the no Kings protest this weekend. If it can be massive and peaceful. And to the extent that those guys are out there trying to stir some up, if you can show people that you won't go for it, that is an enormously powerful optic.

[A]

And just last question, we'll move on from this. But when you guys look at how you sustain a mass mobilization like this, I actually like the no Kings spacing these protests out by a good distance. I think it's good to, to let. Let the appetite for them increase and not let. Make them be special, you know, special events. But, man, they're still. It's still a full year till the, the 2026 elections. I mean, there's just. This is what I think people have trouble grappling with. We are only ten months into Trumpism.

[B]

I don't have any trouble grappling with it. I'm living it one second at a time. Fair enough. But I do. Some other people are.

[C]

Take at a time.

[B]

Yes. Some people are struggling with that. Yeah.

[C]

What's interesting to me about the no Kings, that's different. Right. That one of the reasons that like the corporate media and the all of these companies, they cave is because they believe there's no energy left on the anti Trump side. Right. They believe the culture and the energy is with Trump. Him winning the popular vote was a huge psychological turning point for the country. And I think part of what the no Kings does is it gives you a container outside of an election to demonstrate how big the opposition is. It is easy to forget that Kamala Harris didn't lose like she lost every swing state, but it wasn't by massive margins. Right. Like the country is not firmly on Trump's side. And so I think that giving opportunities for people to remember that Donald Trump will not be permanently in charge, that there will be an opportunity for backlash, that there will be elections. I want to stomp on something Tim said because I think it's so important. I am hostile, hostile to the idea that we should act like Trump. 2028 is a fatal fait accompli. Like we fight about this amongst each other. But I'll just tell you I'm hostile to that. I am hostile to the idea that we will not have elections in 2026. I am aware that Donald Trump is going to do things to try to stay in power, to try to keep from there being oversight. But there is a difference between naivete and optimism. Naivete is thinking that everything will just work out. Optimism is understanding that people have agency and can make choices and that there is opportunity to win. Right. And I think when you take that away from people, you leave them with a kind of nihilism that says, well, it's all over. But I really agree with this idea that we are in the middle of a fight. And the no Kings protests is a important battle in that fight to demonstrate public opposition to Trump.

[B]

I just want to. Yes. And that. Because, again, sometimes the word authoritarianism kind of flattens everything, Right. And for some people, it's hard to distinguish what is the difference between Hungary and Russia, etc. And it's like you can get to a point of authoritarianism where there is kind of no point in having. Or like, nihilism is the. Right. Is the smart move. Right. Because it's like it is over basically. Right. At least for a period of time. And especially as a regular citizen, it's like, why, you know, engage. You know, why, like, find other areas of life. Like, you see this and in Russia and in other societies, right? And it's like, we're not there. And by acting as if it's a fait accompli, it makes people act like we're there already. And that's the part that I'm in. Particularly, you know, hostile to.

[A]

All right, so what. What you guys are talking about is essentially information warfare, which brings us to. I want to talk about Kristi Noem. The federal government is now spending more money on political ads than anyone else in the country. I think this is new. I don't think I remember the Obama administration, the George W. Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Reagan administration. I don't believe I remember them just going up with propaganda, buying airtime to run propaganda ads on television. And yet here we are, Sarah, there.

[B]

See something, say something.

[A]

It's a little different.

[B]

Little different. That's more of like, DHS did a few things, like, with the red. With the red and the orange. They did. I mean, nothing like this, but there was some.

[C]

There are.

[B]

There are a few little.

[A]

Weren't they? Like, that wasn't really like, you know, I don't know.

[C]

You guys tell me this is absolutely different.

[B]

I agree it's different. I'm just saying it's not unprecedented, that's all. Let me tell you.

[C]

No, no, no, no, no. This is. This, to me, is a real political innovation on their part that I have got to think is Illegal. If anybody cared about these laws anymore. I can't, I can't like walk you through all of the Hatch act violations, but the idea that like, can't. They used to have to walk out of the White House. Like, if you were on the White House's team, but you know, you were running for reelection, if you were doing something campaign related, you'd have to go and like leave the grounds. And so there was all this performative stuff they did to make sure that they weren't in violation of these rules. Now listen, here's what's different. This is your taxpayer dollars, my taxpayer dollars, 51 million of our taxpayer dollars at a time when they are demanding, they're riffing people left and right. They're getting rid of all of these jobs. They won't help, you know, babies dying of AIDS in Africa anymore. We just shut down USAID. But we've got $51 million for, for Kristi Noem to raise her brand awareness and ID in thanking Donald Trump for securing the border. Okay, this is political propaganda that your taxpayers are funding. It should not be legal. It should not be done. What I think what Tim is talking about, there were like Obama, for example, I was trying to think about what, what would an equivalent have been. So Obama, during the ACA rollout, there was some PSA and advertising like promoting Obamacare. Like, here's how you use it, here's how you get on it. Okay, that is different. And you. But. And Republicans complained about this at the time. There was anger about this at the time. Okay, but. But even then they weren't saying, thank you, Barack Obama for Giving, you know, 50 million people health care. That's not what it was. It was like, here's the tools to use this program from the government which the see something, say something was in the wake of 9, 11 where it was like, if you see something scary getting onto plane or a train or whatever, point that out. Now you can say that those are cute. Like there have been ways for a long time of people to use different kinds of funds for political purposes that stay on the right side of the law.

[B]

Frank Tomao, do you know about. Frank Tomail says that this is a big congressional scam that's been going on forever where like in Congress can send certain types of letters without postage. It's official business. So like you would send a mail to everybody and the other side would have to send a campaign for campaign mail. You would send mail those like, we did a great job. Have you noticed the new park that just Came in your neighborhood congressman. So. And so did that. And it's like that was an official update, you know, not. Anyway, so there, you know, there have been things such as this before.

[C]

Yeah, it's not. I would just say that the scale of it, the innovation and here. And part of it is because Kristi Noem was doing this in South Dakota. Like I went back and looked. Kristi Noem put her face on the side of a NASCAR car like a race car in the state as part of a. Her old word out. Yeah. But she also did weird dental things. She did. They were doing Fox News.

[B]

She was running Fox News ads about South Dakota and how they're standing with Mr. Trump like on primetime Fox using South Dakota taxpayer dollars when she straight.

[C]

Boosting her own name id, brand id, brand awareness using taxpayer dollars. And it would be like just in the context of doge. In the context of cuts, it is especially abhorrent. These, this is, this has me really hot for whatever reason.

[B]

Especially because I'm glad you're hot.

[C]

They dole out the contracts. They do SNAP contracts because acting like there's some kind of an emergency and give all this money to their buddies in Republican world to do these massive ad buys.

[B]

Anyway, sorry, Tim, you go, no, no, no, it's good. And Corey Lewandowski, her maybe, maybe, just maybe love her, maybe not. Who knows. And they were texting onto the table at the Benihana. Well, Corey Lewandowski was drunk and harassing another woman. But the. He's in charge of all that also. So he's like directing the money to like pals. And it's like the swamp. It's unimaginably swampy. The amount of money that's sloshing around. And this is a point that pisses me off. Like, I was joking about how yes, government has done stuff like this before. The scale of it is huge. The, the two other things that are very different for me. I mean, the ads are grotesque. I just like the way the dehumanizing way they talk about immigrants and the way that they treat people in these ads. And just like it's all just, it's. It's very icky. Like just the actual contents of the ads are very icky in a way that this other stuff wasn't. But like the swampiness, like the amount of money that has been allocated to ice. I know we talk about this, but it is hard for people to wrap their mind around the fact that ICE is going to have more money than the Israeli military. And so what do you do with all that money, right? Like so part of it is these stupid ads, right? Like part of it is agents that have no experience harassing people. You know, part of it is the new archipelago of camps that we're creating in the country. Part of is right like you know, they're paying big money to people that are coming to work there. So you're getting people to go from other areas, you know, they're, they're co opting things that was, that previously had been FBI responsibilities, other responsibilities of the government. I mean like and then the corruption and who the hell knows what. Our friend Tom Homan, who he's given stuff to from kava bags, right. All of that is kind of just starting. But they know it's like being in any operation. I don't know if anybody has had this experience. This is a non corrupt version of this. I was once working for a PR firm that was really on the way up and it's all of a sudden they're flush with cash. And so you know, the Christmas vacation that year was like in Vegas. Like everybody's going somewhere. It's like, it's like if you're working for a company that is like I'm sure the Silicon Valley guys deal with this all the time, right? Like that's ice, right? Like right now like the, the, the organization in this country that is flush with cash that is on the come up that can throw, that can throw money at people and bribe people is the fucking Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. And that is really scary and concerning.

[A]

Yeah. Is there any reason that this won't just become standard practice from here on out? Because I mean it'll work, won't it?

[B]

What do you mean? This, what the ads, the propaganda ads.

[A]

This sort of thing, right? Yeah, this sort of using government funds to run property. Because this is, I mean I was trying to think of like a, a way to explain the step change the, the, these ads are to other normal like federal public service ads like the aca. This is how do you get onto the healthcare exchanges? And I see something, say something as Trump Cabinet meetings are to previous cabinet meetings. Right now they're cabinet meetings. Like you know, you'd have the cabinet members sitting around the table and they would like, you know, and this is, we've done X, Y and Z and we are at stages three, four and seven. Thank you. Thank you. And you secretary. And they go around and now it's like the death of Stalin. You know, it's, it's, everybody's sitting around saying oh, great. Trump, you saved 470 million American lives last week, and no one has ever been as healthy as you. That's what this is. And if there isn't a price, and if it does help move public opinion, then why won't we get more of it?

[C]

We might. Although I do think somebody should sue them over it. And I. This, this should. This should be against the law. You should not be allowed to use taxpayer funds to bolster political people who are political candidates and. Or not that Trump is going to be a candidate in 2020, because I told you, I'm hostile to that idea. But it is basically like a boon for his administration. Like, you are promoting the man, not even like a program, and so I hope they're sued for it.

[B]

Yeah. I think that the two ways in which this would not be permanent. One, Trump's like, the level of shamelessness of Trump. It is a superpower. It's like, you know, there's type of stuff that he does that if anybody else does, people would roll their eyes at it. I wish that weren't so, but it is. And so it's possible that other politicians, like, it doesn't work to the same effect it does for Trump, but maybe not, though that would be one way that it would kind of peter out the other, which is what I keep coming back to, is to me, the only path to all of the JVL questions that end every segment, which is, why will we not permanently go into horribleness? It's like, well, maybe we would. But one of the ideas that's a path out is that somebody's like, man, somebody has an actual mandate to clean shit up. And you see that sometimes in these sorts of places where corruption gets overboard. You see it in, in other countries, right. And, and the, the person that defeats it is kind of a. An outside reformer that that is what their mandate is, to not do shit like this. Right. Like, that's possible that could happen. Or it's possible that like an inverse happens, right, where somebody wins and says, okay, well, we're going to do exactly what they do. And I think that both of those are potential outcomes for sure. And obviously, if J.D. vance or whatever, like some other Republican wins, they're going to keep doing this. I. I just. That almost goes without saying.

[A]

All right, time to hear from our first sponsor, Tim.

[B]

This show is sponsored by Mando new sponsor. You know that feeling. Been working hard all week. You know, you've been going to your ladies weights class, and you might be smelling a little bit dank. And let's be honest, regular deodorant just doesn't cut it. Things are getting pretty ripe. But we've got a product that's a real game changer. Mando deodorant plus sweat control. This isn't just another cover up. Mando is one stick, two jobs. Powerful odor and sweat control. You know, the gays, we like kind of powerful odor and sweat control sometimes. So it's, you know, it's. You want to use the mando but in the right setting. I don't know, Sarah, Is that how things go in lesbian world?

[C]

I don't know. But I will say this. When I, I went to the gym the other day and I was, I was, unlike Tim, lifting, you know, little weights. I was doing big bench, you know, squats and stuff. And so I came back and JBL was in my office and I was like, I need to put on deodorant. And there was a mando box in there. And I was like, ooh, this is a new sponsor. And I was like, this looks like it's for dudes. But you know what? I'm gonna use it because I need it right now. And JBL was around me all day. Did I smell great or what?

[A]

Fantastic.

[B]

Clinical strength Sweat control is what you call that. It's two times better at controlling sweat than the standard, even if you're doing lesbian weightlifting. And it controls the sweat notor for 72 hours. The starter pack is perfect for new customers. It comes with a solid stick deodorant, cream tube deodorant, and some other stuff. Two free products of your choice. And as a special offer for our listeners, new customers get 20% off site wide with our exclusive code. Use code [e-mail] for 20% off site wide plus free shipping. That's S-H-O-P M A N D O.com with the code thenextlevel. Please support our show and tell them we sent you.

[A]

So a big story in Politico yesterday about a bunch of young Republicans who had their telegram chats. Something like.

[B]

And let me guess, what were they talking about? How much they secretly don't like Trump and how they like free markets and free people.

[A]

A lot of it was about marginal tax rates. They really, it was very policy in depth, very wonky. Lots of talk about health care exchanges and interstate insurance rates and how they could. Do you think infrastructure also very, very concerned about infrastructure and government spending? No, it's mostly about, mostly about saying very, very racist things about black People.

[B]

And Indians and Asians, homosexuals as well.

[A]

So there's, there's one moment in when some, somebody says something about like, you know, having sex with women and another member says sex is gay and then another one says it wasn't sex, it was rape. And then the response to that is like, oh, well that's awesome.

[B]

Based, I think is what they're using.

[A]

Based. Right. Based.

[C]

I think Mike Lee was in this chat. Based.

[A]

Was not in this chat.

[C]

I'm just joking, Just joking.

[A]

There is a, I'd say it's the kind of thing where I, I really, I would encourage people to go and read the piece because this is one of those things where, you know, like the way Long form magazine works is in the first two graphs you try to give your readers a summary of what happens. And often like in a newspaper story, the newspaper version of it all the best stuff is in those first two paragraphs. This is like a 5,000 word, 6,000 word piece and there's so much stuff that you can't forking believe that those, that summary at the top does not do it justice. Anyway, I, I just wanted us to bat this around a little bit. There is, there is one part where a, one of them says I love Hitler. There's a lot of joking about gas chambers and Jews and swatching, you know, swapping, turning showers into secret gas chambers. And there's an amazing line in there from a White House spokeswoman who, who, who says, oh, this is just like the media, you know, always, always, always try and compare people to Nazis. It's like the, the guys in it say they love Nazis. Like, I don't know what the problem is. I mean, I weep for the country, but I mean I, I also have a serious question about like, isn't, isn't this the future? This is, these are youngish people, by which I mean they're under the age of 40. These are not college kids. These were all grown professionals with, with jobs in politics, mostly in their 30s.

[B]

As a state senator, state senator, people.

[A]

Who work for elected Republicans. But also these are people whose entire adult frame of reference is Trumpism. And so for them, like when we, we, we, many people tend to talk about Trumpism as a fever that will break. And these people have never really known anything but the fever. They don't see it as like the temperature. This is just like their mother's milk. And I don't know how you get to places where everything kind of suddenly goes back to normal when the whole rising generation sees this as Normal.

[C]

Well, not the whole rising generation, but I do think, I do think when there's a. This is the culture on the right. And I, you know, I've been, I'm trying to answer this without getting into like discourse on the discourse, but right now, in the wake of the Charlie Kirk murder, there's been a lot of discussion over which side is violent, who isn't, you know, and, and so then you, you have the Charlie Kirk murder, but then you've got Brian Kilme saying let's just euthanize homeless people on Fox for which he then apologizes. And then you go into Jay Jones, the guy running for Attorney General in Virginia who was texting one of his Republican colleagues, insanely talking about how that, you know, his, someone in the, one of the Republicans should be shot, as should his children, in which, you know, and every. And then now you've got these text messages from the entire, you know, Republican, Young Republican establishment. These are not, you know, people outside the establishment. This is firmly. These are like young, like the yrs. Which Tim, were you in yrs. Did you ever butt up against them?

[B]

You know, I attended a single YR meeting during which there was some discussion of a new politics board game that people were creating. And I found out that at age, I guess I was such super nervous, I was probably 17. At age 17 I was thinking that like I was going to meet other young 17 year olds and to JBL's point about how these people are young. It was like actually like really sad. 30 year olds in frumpy suits and who kind of smelled bad. And after that meeting I was like, you know, I don't know if this group is for me. So I think that was my own. And then occasionally I'd have candidates who'd have to speak to them or whatever. So I'd go, whatever. But that was the only time I came on my own. Foolish.

[C]

Yeah. So I also was very not interested in these people, but I still bumped up against them. And the thing to understand about them is that they're the strivers. They want to be in charge of the party. Like they sort of, it's sort of like if you, if the F1 is the real race, the F2 is like the Junior League, right? This is triple A ball where they're all cutting their teeth on how they, you know, get ahead.

[B]

Networking. A lot of networking.

[C]

Yeah, it's all about networking, but it's also. There's power struggles. Right. These leaked emails are a product of a power struggle within the yrs. And who was up and who was down, but this is their culture. And I think that the idea that randos on Twitter criticizing Charlie Kirk are saying that they're not gonna, you know, that. That he's bad or celebrating his death, that was awful. We hated it. We condemned it. That is different from Jay Jones, who's running for ag, who's an elected official who I think should have to drop out. I think Abigail Spanberger should tell him, if you win, we're not seating you. You got to resign. I thought what he did was abhorrent, but in both those cases, the right jumped to say, the left is the party of violence. The left is the party of extreme rhetoric. But right now, we see exactly what the culture of the upcoming young people are, which, by the way, mirrors the culture of the president and vice president of the United States. Okay? This idea that you try to take the randos and the Charlie Kirk situation or the AG in Virginia and compare it to the president, the vice president, how they talk, and the entire now culture of the right that is coming up, those are somewhat different things. That being said, this is clearly a problem in the way Americans talk about things like too many people. And this is a product, I think, of social media, where we are too detached from the humanity of others. Like when I saw that shower gas chamber joke. I don't know about you, but I remember sitting in a movie theater and watching Schindler's List and watching. There was a moment where they shepherded people into showers, but of course, that was the big thing. They told people they were going to get a shower, and then they gassed them to death. And there's this moment where the water hits them and it's actually water that is this massive moment of relief. And in the movie, and I'm like, are these kids just too young to have that sit with them in any kind of way? Where everything's about being subversive and nihilistic and diminishing people's humanity. I understand it's a backlash to Wokeism, but, man, it is. It's a tough take on humanity.

[B]

A lot there. I'm doing my best.

[C]

I know I went on a ranch.

[B]

I had, like, five different. I had responses to five different parts of what you said. So I'm going to try to remember them, and I'll try to be brief. I. You did discourse on the discourse. I wasn't going to do this, but you did discourse in the discourse. So now I have to do discourse on the discourse on the discourse. Because I'll get to these little Nazis in a second. But it wasn't really randos on Twitter actually only that was saying really nasty things about Charlie Kirk. There's a lot of people on the left that were saying nasty things about Charlie Kirk after he died. And when those of us that spoke out about that, people got really mad at us and we're like, don't lecture them. And I only bring this up just to say, like this did spiral out of control on the right. Like we did see this coming for a long time and a culture was created on the right where people not only accepted it, but encouraged people that were being their nastiest and worst selves up to and including the now President of the United States. And, and it is incumbent on people to self police their own side to prevent this from happening or any. Or can spiral out of control. There's nothing like inherently beautiful about believing in big government versus small government that makes you less susceptible to being attracted to tribal violent thinking. And I think that some people on the left think that there is. And, and you've seen very violent political movements as JVL wrote, I think very well earlier this week, coming from basically every ideology imaginable so that like it is incumbent among people to, to resist it with a no side. I'm not, I was not accusing. I know you're. I know you agree with me on this, Sarah.

[C]

I do agree with you on it. I only meant I, I'm trying to distinguish between elected Democratic officials. Right. Who were sort of uniformly behaved appropriately, which I appreciated.

[B]

And the elected. And to the funny part, while you get to the elected Democratic officials, the Jay Jones thing is funny because Andrew Iger pointed this out on Twitter, which I thought was funny. JD Vance posted our vice president about the young Nazis. To your point about bad, about vice signaling and bad incentives within an organization and coalition. The Vice President United States posted saying, meh, bunch of college kids. Boys will be boys. And he said the real problem is Jay Jones, who's an actual elected official, saying what he said. And Egger points out he's like, Jay Jones was in the state legislature when he sent those texts. There's a state senator on these texts. It's like the same. It's the same.

[A]

J. Jones is the same age as them.

[B]

Yeah. And they're 36.

[A]

They're like 32.

[B]

Two. Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

It's a parallel thing. So it's bad. It's bad. And so like it's important to say to your point also, Sarah, about the yrs and who these people are, it's not like random grassroots people. It's the head of the New York yr, it's the person who allegedly leaked this, Gavin Wax. I got to know pretty well because I was kind of down the path on doing kind of a long form thing on Young Maga that just never came to fruition. And so I was spending a lot of time with the Young Magus for a little while. And like Gavin Wax, who was like in the power struggle with the guy that's doing the monkey jokes and all the horrible nasty jokes, is like now a very senior person at the State Department, right? And it's like had a guy, had he lost the power struggle to the other guy, that guy could, you know what I mean? People that are gonna, that are, are now and on the way to becoming very prominent. And to me that is like the deeply alarming part about all this. To back to your original question, jvl, about where this is headed. Like again, it wasn't as if there weren't racist jokes and young Republican groups in 1996 or 1976. Like there were obviously like there, there was an element of this always, but like the culture of like encouraging it and almost like if you don't participate, that means you're the bad one. It's a sign of weakness. Right. The culture of drawing people in to this based on that. Right. Like that they're like the thing that they're leading with on the front of the pamphlet is like, we hate Mexicans and we're gonna make nasty, cruel racist jokes. And like we, you know, believe in America first and white Christian nationalism or whatever. Like that being the first page of the pamphlet versus, you know, like the first page of the pamphlet being free markets and free people. And like we also have some people here that write in the letters to the editor. That's right. That stuff like that's not good either. Like, you know what I mean? But like it's difference. It is a, it is a huge difference. And when you look at poll numbers, the 20 to the 18 to 34 Magas have much more radical views on cultural and race issues than the 60 to 75 Magus. And that is just reality and where we're going.

[A]

Am I right in concluding that in our best case scenario, Trumpism, not Donald Trump, but Trumpism remains the dominant strain of Republican politics for at least the next seven years?

[B]

Oh, seven, yeah. Yeah.

[A]

I'm doing the most conservative estimate ever. So I guess what I'm trying to look at it, what I'm trying to say is we are going to wind up with an entire generation for whom this stuff is what politics is.

[B]

Yes, that's great.

[C]

Sarah.

[A]

Want to talk to us about quints?

[C]

This show is sponsored by Quince. Cooler days call for layers that last. And Quince is my go to for quality essentials that feel cozy, look refined and won't blow your budget. Think $50 Mongolian cashmere, premium denim that fits like a dream and luxe outerwear you'll wear year after year. These are the pieces that turn into your fall uniform. And I love a fall uniform. You may be wondering what kind of uniform? Are you on a sports team? Sarah? Yes, the fall is the super bowl for lesbians. I'm getting one of their coats. They look designer level but cost a fraction of the price. And the quality honestly just as good, if not better. Because Quince partners with top tier ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen. They deliver luxury quality pieces at half the price of similar brands. It's the kind of wardrobe upgrade that feels smart, stylish and effortless. And if you know my style, you know I like effortless. Find your fall staples at quince. Go to quince.com thenextlevel for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too, which is awesome. We love Canada. That's Q U I n c e.com thenextlevel to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com thenextlevel thanks, Quince.

[A]

So this week up in the great state of Maine, Governor Janet Mills said that she's going to run for Senate. Somebody else who's in the challenging Susan Collins. Somebody else who had already declared, then backed out. Mills is 77 right now, says she would only serve one term. She'd be the oldest freshman senator in history. Our colleague Lauren Egan has a great piece coming out later this week. She went up to Maine and sat down with Graham Platner, who is the oysterman. Is that a thing? Are you an oysterman who is already in the race and is kind of like Bernie in the Sheets, Fetterman in the streets? Can I say that?

[B]

Yeah, because it's actually as well put because I'm not sure people know. Well, we'll get to it. Keep going.

[A]

I have so many questions about Democrats and whether, like, this is the sensible thing to do or the not sensible thing to do. And Sarah, I sense that you have a great many thoughts on this.

[C]

I do. But I'll just give you the top line so that I don't go on as long as I did last time, which is.

[B]

You can go on as long as you want. I'm just.

[A]

Your show.

[B]

I'm just saying. I'm just saying that I kept being like, oh, I need to. I need to say another thing on that. But I don't. I'm not going to interrupt. And so then. And then you said another thing. I was like, oh, I have something to say on that. And so, you know, a lot of different.

[C]

We all have lots of thoughts, that's all. I just want to make sure you get in here, too. We can have a healthy back and forth. But I just want to give you quickly. Look, the bull case for Janet Mills is that she. There are a lot of, you know, sort of Collins Mills voters out there. Mills has been on the ballot. She's governor. She wins by large margins. There's a reason that they think that she's going to be a good candidate. And I would say the bear case on Platner is that he's super untested. You know, I, I'm not even. I'm not objecting to his progressivism or he's just. He's an untested candidate kind of out of nowhere, and he could have all kinds of crazy things in his past. He, you know, and so I think my main take is pun intended. Pun intended. Pun intended. Good. My main take is Democratic primary.

[A]

Good.

[C]

Democratic primary, Good. Here, let's. Let's kick the tires on Platner. I do think I do want to burn down, though, and I use that metaphorically, the DNC and the Democratic Senatorial Committee that has decided to do, like, joint ads with her. Okay. Now, Tim wants to get in. I just want to make my take clear, which is I'm pro the new candidates, barring anything insane jumping out in the bio that we don't know about. And I'm anti. I'm down with the gerontocracy. And I think that the DNC needs to freshen itself up in terms of what it's allowing through the races. Go ahead, Tim.

[B]

Thank you. I'm with you on all of that. And it's funny. Like, people get very attached and passionate. I got to an argument with somebody recently about the Glatner thing where I'm like, I'm like, I. They're like, you. This is your crypto Republican showing. And I'm like, I genuinely, if Graham Platner is the right path and if he's a good, strong, outsider, populist candidate, I disagree with him on some economic issues. I'm fine. Like great. Like whatever. Like this is what we need. It's laboratories of democracy. We need to figure out how to beat the Republicans. I'm for all that. My point was just like a lot of people seem to have gotten attached to him based on like three video clips. And lots of people can do good. Three, three good video clips, you know, who don't turn out to be that great otherwise. And you know JVL has the tattoo above John Fetterman that he has to up now which is why he's always wearing long sleeve shirts.

[A]

It'll be with me for forever.

[B]

So like all I'm, all I was saying to this person who's very excited about Grim Platner is like, let's just see. Let's just like chill out. That's. It's a long campaign to chill out. Like maybe he's going to be awesome and the next coming and maybe it turns out he's got skeletons in his closet or he's Federman or whatever. I don't, I'm not saying, I don't know, like, let's just see. So in that sense I was, it's fine. The Jamil's getting the ways that's. I was a little kind of disappointed. There's another guy, Dan Cleveland, who's an outsider, more kind of a normie, mainstream outsider that was running, running but he dropped out and is endorsing Mills. I don't know enough about the race to know whether that was smart or not. But just as an outsider, it's kind of like would have been nice to have a few options and, and so we'll kind of see how that all shakes out. The Sarah's point though, the thing where I'm like the most on the side of the Platner partisans and I think that this is also kind of on the side of people that just want to have good candidates, even more mainstream candidates. It's like what the DSC is doing and this rate and race and in Michigan is insane and is probably going to backfire. And I just, I want to go, I'm going to go deeper on this with Peter Hamby, my buddy on Friday because we both lived on both sides. Him as a journalist, me as an operative on like in the Republican Party as the Tea Party rose. Right. And there are some weaknesses to that parallel between the Platinum and the Tea Party. But just like from a strategic standpoint, all those Tea Party candidates like were succeeding early. Your friend Christine o' Donnell and Sharon Engel like they were winning all these prizes primaries, right. And, and, and then like the establishment responded and they were like we're going to put our thumb on the scale for people and we're going to get in there. And that ended up hurting those candidates. Like it ended up backfiring because people don't want the establishment coming in and telling them who to vote for. Like, you know, and then eventually they kind of came up with a strategy that quasi worked until Trump came around where it was like they were co opting the smart craziest and then like using cutouts to defeat the crazy crazies was basically the system. So I'm forced strategically, if you're the Democrats trying to make sure you're backing the best candidates but like to just at the beginning of the race in Michigan, like picking Haley Stevens and Maine picking Janet Mills, when both of them have their own issues, including one of them being the oldest possible first term center ever and Stevens is not exactly the most dynamic candidate. It's like, what are you doing? I, to me, I just think that it is gonna, that it is both bad optics and it might end up harming their stated goals of getting the strongest person in. So I, I don't. Maybe somebody from DSCC will call me and explain to me what their strategy is and maybe there's something I'm missing, but it seems pretty dumb to me and it seems like they should learn a little bit more from what McConnell World did in the 2010s.

[C]

Can I just, I just want to like weigh out on the Michigan. I'm angry. I'm even angrier about the Michigan one because it's this one. At least in the case of Platner versus Janet Mills, there's a question of, I don't know, does this guy turn out to be like a psycho? Like, yeah, he looks like he'd be good at like slugging 12 beers and he could probably like, you know, he could fix your carburetor. Like that's how he looks.

[B]

Which is great.

[C]

Which is great. Maine does love its moderates, right? It's got an independent and then an apostate Republican as its two senators. And so can a progressive firebrand like him win? I don't know. It's good. It's good to test them out. That's not the case in Michigan. In Michigan they're just backing Haley Stevens just cuz like Mallory McMorrow is out fundraising out into like she's an excellent candidate. There's nothing about her that says I'm a big threat to the establishment other than she looks like a good candidate. I don't know. And so like I, I just, just I don't know what these guys in the Democratic Party are doing and I really don't understand. So here's the other thing. Kamala Harris just lost to Donald Trump in part by being just kind of like a safe Democrat at a moment when people are ready for change. Like what is the like what is one term of Janet Mills? A. I don't know why they think that's going to win in an environment that is right. Remember Susan Collins pulled it out back in 2020 in a much in what I think was a more difficult environment for her and like she won handily. It's like a one term of Janet Mills doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Also then Democrats still find themselves with only a one term senator. Right. They're giving up incumbency. Like there's a bunch of the strategy around this that doesn't make any sense. But let them run it out. Let him cut his teeth in a real race against somebody meaningful and let whoever wins, fine. The big guy should stay out of it. The ds what is it?

[B]

The Denigran? Dscc? Yeah, like I don't know, Schumer, Gillibrand.

[C]

They have the political. Their political instincts are a nightmare.

[B]

All right, I want to talk about.

[A]

Platinum in a minute, but first a word from Green Chef, our sponsor. Fall is my favorite season. The crisp air, cozy sweaters, the biggest baseball games of the year on TV which are keeping me up on too late every night. It's the perfect time to reset and bring healthy habits back into focus. And with Green Chef, the number one meal kit for clean eating, you can do just that. Green Chef makes it easy to spend less time in the kitchen and more time enjoying fall and with their new heat and eat meals. Enjoy a delicious wholesome meal in just three minutes. It's the best part. Three minutes. Perfect for supporting your wellness journey. Green Chef recipes feature fresh organic seasonal produce and and 100% responsibly sourced proteins to help you feel your best. Green Chef's real clean ingredients help you build lasting healthy habits without the hassle. Enjoy salads ready in just five minutes. Protein filled breakfasts or nutrient rich smoothies to fuel your day. Green Chef is ready to nurture your nutritional needs with 80 plus dietitian approved weekly meal options. Green Chef makes it easy to find meals that fit your lifestyle. Pick from Mediterranean, gluten free, plant based and protein heavy, even gut and brain health and calorie smart choices too. The recipes change every week and with week to week flexibility, you can adjust your plan to match your mood and your schedule. I've been doing a lot of the heat neat Green Chef meals and they're amazing because the normal green Chef meals are really low prep time. The heat and eat are zero prep time, which for me is, I mean it's, it's the greatest thing ever. Make this fall your healthiest yet with Green chef. Head to greenchef.com 50next level and use code 50next level to get 50% off your first month. Then 20% off for two months with free shipping. That's code 50next [e-mail] 50next. I would like to talk to you guys a little bit about Platner because I have sneak previewed Lauren Egan's interview with him.

[B]

Oh, really? Did you like it? Did you like what you read?

[A]

I did, I did. It's a great interview. Lauren Egan, good reporter like that Lauren Egan, she's going places. People should subscribe to her, to her newsletter, the Opposition over@the bulwark.com Ding, ding, ding. Platner focus his singular focus is universal health care. And he frames it all as a rural guy. Like, I live in a county. I live in a town with a thousand people in a county out on the water. All of my friends are three time Trump voters. And our, you know, access to health care in our rural community is getting devastated and places are shutting down and people's premiums keep going up for the ones who can even get health insurance. And we need to do something about this to affect the cost of living and help people. And we need to fund it by taxing the billionaire tech oligarchs. Is that going to work? Which is separate from. Do you like it?

[B]

You keep talking. What do you mean? I don't understand the inflection of your question. What do you mean? Is that going to work? Like, does the policy work or like.

[A]

No, does it do? The politics of it at work. And this is where I, I just don't know. And I mean, I think the politics of this could depend in large part on the AI bubble. Most observers seem to believe that we are in an enormous economic bubble right now created by the AI boom, which has just brought insane amounts of spending without a whole lot of income on AI. Many people, including people in AI, kind of expect it to burst. People are already, Tim, you talked about this. Casey Newton. People already hate the AIs, right? I mean, there was in the way that tech has always loved its tech founders, and it really liked Steve Jobs and it liked Sergey and Larry, and people don't like AI.

[B]

Yeah, like on its launch, MySpace, Facebook, going all the way back. The iPhone, MySpace, the iPod, Facebook, like, on their launch, they all had like 90% approval ratings. There was like 10% of Luddite opposition at all times. And it's like, it's much more a mixed bag with AI starting from a much lower baseline of support.

[A]

So if the AI bubble bursts and it pulls the broader economy into recession with it, I think that talking about the AI tech oligarchs is going to be a very politically appealing message. And if the universal acts, universal health care is paired with, and we're doing this as a way to punish the people we hate. That's a very different proposition politically from the utopian, hey, we ought to make, you know, healthcare is a human right. Because that feels like the people that.

[B]

You don't think are working hard enough.

[A]

Yeah. Whereas we're going to fuck these AI nerds who made hundreds of billions of dollars off of us. And I guess with that money, we'll. We'll do better health care. I think that can appeal to a wider swath, but who knows? I don't know. I think it's interesting.

[C]

I mean, look, there's a clear formula in terms of what people, what voters want. I will lay this all out at a later date for everybody. But like, it is to me, politics right now is kind of simple. And it is not my preferred, but it is social moderation to conservatism and economic populism. And the number one thing that the massive voters across the political spectrum care about right now is affordability, not income inequality, affordability. It is not just, hey, these guys make a lot and we don't make enough. Right. It's not that's. It's actually a different frame. It's like everything's too expensive. And what I like about Platner, Platner's onto something here. He's decided what voters mean is they mean health care's too expensive. They mean groceries are too expensive, gas is too expensive. Like, everything is too expensive. And if you talk about affordability, broadly, including with health care, and rather than talking about income inequality, you say, but these tech billionaires don't care about us being able to afford things. Right. They are trying to distract us with their garbage, hijack our brains while everything just gets more expensive around us. Because I agree. Creating a certain, like, I think these.

[B]

Guys, including energy Very directly, actually. There's a direct. Energy prices. Yeah. Electricity prices.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And so I think that. I think that you don't want it to get narrow. I think that Democrats needed to widen this aperture around affordability broadly. And I think that's a good message for them. I think that's a politically salient one for them.

[B]

My short answer, jbl, is I don't know. I think it could work. I don't know, though. I think it's more likely to be able to work in Maine for some reasons that are distinct to Maine. And it's important to remember that Maine is like a. Maine's a pretty weird state. I mean, it's a state. Kamala Harris 1. And that is also very white and that is also very blue collar. Like, they're just like, isn't. So I do worry a little bit about, like, people taking if, like, I think Platter totally could win. I think maybe he's totally the right candidate for Maine. Maybe. I don't want then everybody to be like, oh, we need to do exactly this campaign everywhere. Because, like, I think Platner, if you listen to him, is like pretty socially liberal and like, pretty student. Like a lot of the social justice language that I think is not going to fly as much in. Down in my neck of the woods, you know, or even. And, you know, Ohio, some of these other places. The Democrats seem to win. But that said, I agree. I agree with basically everything. Everything Sarah said. I just. I do think the main thing is a little unique.

[A]

It's the future socialist. I mean, I.

[B]

Aren't we in socialism? I don't.

[A]

We basically are. Yes.

[B]

I am like, die. I like, can we just make a new rule that when the clock hits one hour, we no longer ask questions like, how is society going to turn out in the next 100 years? I'm sorry, you're killing me. Smalls is the future socialist. I don't fucking know. I don't know. We're in a socialist back and forth right now. We have socialist Republicans. Right.

[A]

We have Republicans who are buying governmental stakes and shares in American companies. We have the. The most exciting politician on the Democratic side is aoc. Mamdani is doing very well in New York. It just seems like the. The appetite in America for somebody who is just a very normal.

[B]

Okay, if we're going to do this, though, now, like, look at politicians in the country. No, I want to do it. Our governors are free market. Our governors, like, what state? Where. Where are the most dynamic parts of the country right now? Places that are being run by pretty pro capitalist governors of both parties, Colorado, Utah, Georgia. So no, I guess would be my answer.

[C]

Okay, so here I do a great focus group pod this week with this guy, Harry Siegel, who, who is like this nonprofit journalist in New York. He's like one of my favorite people to talk to about New York politics. And he will tell you something that I think people really need to understand as they think about Mamdani, which is that Mamdani can give people lessons around hey, communications. But in terms of taking New York, the New York City as a model for what kind of candidates you run broadly, nobody should do that. It is an incredibly weird place. It is incredibly specific. And the idea that socialism is the future. No, but here is what I do think will happen. It's a little bit like, you know, I've heard David Frumsea and I say this on the pod. He says something, he has a line about if sort of the, the liberals. And by liberals he means, you know, liberal Democrats, not just political Democrats, everybody in a liberal democracy. If they don't control borders, then the authoritarians will. And I think that is a true thing that has happened like in. And don't, don't send me emails about Joe Biden's last minute legislation that was going. If I get one more Pearson being Sarah always forgets that Joe Biden put up this legislation. Not before there was an enormous amount of damage done around the border. Okay, so just spare me that piece. But it's similar to if Democrats and centrists or if, or basically just everybody in liberal Democratically doesn't focus on affordability, then the so and the socialists will win. Like, like if, if people who are part of the DSA are the only ones talking about voters feeling squeezed on prices in a tremendous way, then they will start to attract Democratic voters. And so my advice to Democrats is to focus on affordability because this is what voters broadly care about.

[A]

That is fantastic. That's a great last word. It's been a good show.

[B]

That's the last word. It's a long show.

[A]

I mean it's. I, I think it was the perfect thing to end on, Tim.

[B]

But if you have something that's great. I did want to talk about Pritzker. You complimented the Pritzker interview. So that's fine. People should just go check it out. I just want to leave it as. While we're nitpicking the Democrats, I do want to leave the show. My last word for the show is I don't think that the DCCC should be getting their hands involved in primaries right now at least in the way that they're doing it. I think that's a mistake. I do think national Democrats should be pressuring the governors of these other blue states to do what Gavin Newsom's doing and I don't understand why that's not happening. And I thought Governor Pritzker was really strong in our interview on his messaging. I think the Democrats could learn a lot from him about how to talk about the authoritarian threat. But I was unsatisfied with the discussion around redistricting in Illinois and I think that, that, that this is a very important issue and I just wanted to take an opportunity to, to have a final word on that.

[A]

Maybe Sarah and I will talk about that on the secret pod on Friday.

[B]

I love that you guys should do that.

[A]

Good show. Long show everybody. We'll be back next week. We'll bring you a little tidbit taste of the secret pod on Friday. Good luck, America.

[B]

Bye Bye.