A New Primary Calendar Changes the Race for the Presidency

Summary

---

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode Summary:

A New Primary Calendar Changes the Race for the Presidency
Release Date: February 8, 2023
Host: Tyler Foggatt
Guest: Benjamin Wallace-Wells, staff writer at The New Yorker

---

Overview

This episode examines the Democratic Party's decision to overhaul the presidential primary calendar for 2024—moving South Carolina to the first position, ahead of the long-standing openers, Iowa and New Hampshire. Host Tyler Foggatt and guest Benjamin Wallace-Wells discuss what this shift reveals about the party’s evolving priorities, its implications for Black and working-class voter influence, and the broader effects on the primary process, regional politics, and candidate platforms.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Significance of Primary Order

• Why Iowa and New Hampshire Came First

  • The traditional primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire has rarely been questioned—seen as natural as "the capital's in D.C., Pluto is a planet" (B: 01:21).
  • Sentimentality exists among political reporters about the unique, intimate campaign environments these small states provide (C: 01:50).

• Why the Change Matters Now

  • Changing the order is "clearly" a move with consequences; it challenges the assumption that tradition alone should dictate the process (B: 01:36).
  • Quote (B):
    "I'm wondering if we could start out by just talking about why that sort of thinking is so naive... why should we not just take it for granted that this has been happening in Iowa for so long?" (01:36)

The Political Dynamics Behind Selecting South Carolina

• South Carolina’s Rising Role

  • Biden’s close alignment with Rep. Jim Clyburn, a central political figure in South Carolina, is a factor but not the sole explanation (C: 03:15).
  • Wallace-Wells: South Carolina’s process is viewed as "top-down," but Biden’s victory required grassroots support, mirroring Buttigieg's and Sanders' campaigns elsewhere (C: 04:10).
  • Quote (C):
    "The reason that voters in South Carolina wanted him may not have been so fleeting or particular... They may have been rooted in the fact that he had a reasonable idea for where the party needed to go." (04:10)

• Is This a 'Reward' for Political Support?

  • There is an element of "quid pro quo" in rewarding states that supported Biden in 2020, but the move also serves broader aims of recalibrating the party's representation (C: 05:45).

Re-centering Party Power: Race, Class, and Geography

• Giving Black Voters More Deciding Power

  • This change is “absolutely” intended to ensure the Democratic nominating process reflects America—diversity, especially Black voters, is at the center (C: 06:16).
  • Michigan’s earlier placement addresses working-class representation, not just race.

• Shift Toward Moderation

  • Moving key primaries to states like South Carolina, Georgia, and Michigan brings centrist, “median voter” issues forward, rather than the “liberal alliance” of California or Massachusetts (C: 06:16).

Impact on Campaign Issues and Tactics

• From Ethanol to Reparations?

  • Iowa’s fixation on ethanol subsidies influenced candidate platforms; Wallace-Wells predicts South Carolina and Georgia will mean more focus on racial justice and policing rather than entrenched local issues (B: 07:41; C: 08:28).
  • The hope is for more flexibility in the process—"it doesn't necessarily institute South Carolina as the kickoff state for all time... it can change things and move things around" (C: 08:28).

• Entrenched Local Politics vs. National Diversity

  • Rotation is suggested as an antidote to stale, place-bound campaigning and ossified “ways to win” (C: 08:28).

The Republican Context

• GOP Sticking With Tradition—For Now
  • Republicans have not signaled changes to their calendar, with Iowa still likely first—a reflection of their current focus on the "Trump-DeSantis dynamic" (B: 10:33; C: 10:42).

Voter Representation and Party Identity

• Debating 'Rural' as a Euphemism

  • The shift challenges the coded language of ‘rural’ and ‘working class’ as synonymous with ‘white’. As Wallace-Wells notes:
    "A ton of the American working class is not white. And as a party, it's essential that the Democrats appeal to those voters and sort of, not to be too jargony, but center them." (C: 13:50)

• Swing State Math

  • South Carolina is unlikely to vote Democratic in general elections, but its selection helps to highlight the fast-changing politics of the broader Southeast, including Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia (C: 15:20).

Political Stakes for Biden

• Solidifying Biden’s Position

  • With Democratic success in the midterms and Biden’s unchallenged primacy, the calendar change raises fewer concerns about favoritism or strategy for Biden.
  • "To me, the stakes are a little lower... Does this calendar kind of weight the presidential nominating contest towards Biden? Probably a little bit. Will that matter now? Probably not, because he probably won't have serious opposition..." (C: 17:20)

• Setting Up for Other Leaders?

  • Speculation about helping Kamala Harris’s prospects if Biden steps aside is dismissed; changes are more about long-term coalition building than individual benefit (B: 18:14; C: 20:06).
  • New generation leaders such as Raphael Warnock are seen as likely future central figures (C: 20:06).

Effects on State and Local Politics

• Media, Narrative, and Storytelling

  • The biggest effect may be on what places and people campaign coverage focuses on, and thus whose stories shape the national political conversation (B: 21:35; C: 21:50).
  • More time in Detroit, Flint, Atlanta, and rural Georgia will change the issues candidates address.
  • "There will be a subtle but interesting change in what stories are told at the outset of the presidential campaign..." (C: 21:50)

• Early Primaries as the Most Dynamic Phase

  • Early, localized campaign events are the "most hopeful, but also the most dynamic parts" of any cycle. Changing the scene is seen as refreshing for the process (C: 23:34).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Tradition and Naivety:
  • "The first primary’s in Iowa, the capital's in D.C., Pluto is a planet—like, you know, next." (B: 01:21)
• On Clyburn and Biden:
  • "Clyburn has sort of gotten Biden to do a lot. This might be, like, an extension of that." (B: 03:47)
• On the Need for Change:
  • "It's good for the party. It would be good for the Republican Party, too, to shake it up a little bit." (C: 08:28)
• On Rural Voters and Racial Politics:
  • "'I represent rural voters, too.' Which to me, sort of implied... pushing against this idea of rural almost as a euphemism for white working class voters." (B: 13:26)
• On Shifting Narratives:
  • "The basic importance of this choice is just its narrative. It's just what we see, what we talk about at the beginning..." (C: 21:50)
• On Refreshing the Process:
  • "At least, you know, we won’t have all these videos of candidates crowding together at the same inn in Iowa City drinking those pie milkshakes. Yeah, I'm ready to see what South Carolina has to offer." (B: 24:17)
• On Local Color:
  • "Let's do some barbecue." (C: 24:35)

---

Important Timestamps

• [01:21] – Opening discussion on the "naturalness" of Iowa as the first primary state.
• [02:47] – The significance of South Carolina being moved to first.
• [03:15] – Discussion of Biden's relationship with Jim Clyburn and South Carolina.
• [05:45] – The broader attempt within the Democratic Party to rethink who its "kingmakers" are.
• [06:16] – Shifting the party toward greater racial and working-class representation.
• [08:28] – Hope for party nomination processes to stay flexible rather than ossified.
• [13:50] – On how the Democratic party is "centering" nonwhite working-class voters.
• [15:20] – Analysis of swing states and the implications for Democratic victories.
• [17:20] – Assessment of Biden’s strong position and the stakes of calendar changes.
• [20:06] – Discussion of Kamala Harris and generational leadership transitions.
• [21:50] – The narrative impact and local focus of the new primary order.
• [23:34] – Reflection on the hopefulness and dynamism of early campaign phases.
• [24:35] – Light-hearted anticipation of the new South Carolina campaign setting.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a nuanced breakdown of the Democratic Party's move to reorder the presidential primary calendar, highlighting both its short-term political calculations and its long-term signals about demographic priorities. The conversation underscores how central questions of race, working-class identity, and regional politics are to the evolving face of the party, while noting that these changes—while important—are less likely to affect the 2024 outcome due to Biden’s strong standing. The episode paints a vivid picture of how a seemingly procedural calendar decision can reshape American political storytelling at the outset of the presidential campaign.

---

Transcript

[A]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school. Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw. Dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker. That's. That's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[B]

So obviously, you know, Iowa has kicked off the primary process for like the last 50 years.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And as someone who was born in the 90s, like, I've just never really thought that much about the order and whether it's right or whether it could be changed. I mean, it was always just sort of like, okay, the first primaries in Iowa, the capital's in D.C. pluto is a planet, like, you know, next.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And I guess I'm wondering if we could start out by just talking about why that sort of thinking is so naive. I mean, clearly the order is so important. You know, why should we not just take it for granted that this has been happening in Iowa for so long and, you know, it's now going to be happening in South Carolina.

[C]

Yeah. I mean, you know, there is a. There's a lot of kind of interesting sentimentality among political reporters for the specific experience of Iowa and New Hampshire. And it is especially for reporters and for the very few voters who are there. Nice. You are in a country of 350 million people cloistered in little rooms with a few dozen people listening to and in some cases, sort of challenging people who aspire to run the world.

[B]

That's my colleague, Benjamin Wallace Wells. I'm Tyler Foggatt, and you're listening to the political scene from the New Yorker. The Democratic Party upended their primary schedule for 2024 this week. South Carolina will now go first, giving more deciding power to black voters. Is this an attempt to realign the Democratic Party's priorities or a reward for the state that pushed Biden to the presidency in 2020?

[D]

Thank you.

[C]

Thank you. Thank you, South Carolina.

[D]

My Jim Clyburn.

[C]

You brought me back.

[B]

Benjamin Wallace. Wallace has spent a lot of time doing deep coverage of presidential primaries for the New Yorker. I'm interested in this idea of these candidates being able to sort of, like, personally charm individual voters in Iowa. Do you think that's going to be harder to do in a state like South Carolina?

[C]

I mean, you know, no is the broad answer. South Carolina is not that much bigger. It's warmer. So you can have longer, longer and more pleasant events, you know, and chat with more people after them. But, you know, I think that in case the very few signs of sort of resistance to this proposal, and I think it's interesting that there have been so few are about how closely Joe Biden is identified with the. With the political leadership in South Carolina and where, you know, Jim Clyburn, the central political figure in Democratic politics in the state, is probably his most important ally.

[B]

I mean, I feel like Clyburn, I mean, he's just such an. Sometimes I just get the impression that he, like, has almost more political power than. Than anyone else. I mean, I think that in order for Biden to get Clyburn's nomination, he had to agree to, you know, nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Clyburn has sort of gotten Biden to do a lot. This might be, like, an extension of that.

[C]

I mean. I mean, I'm sure it didn't escape Biden's notice that this is something that would make Jim Clyburn very happy. But I also think it's worth keeping in mind that, like, you know, we're not really in the. In the old machine days of politics from earlier this century, from earlier in the last century. And, you know, George, Joe Biden had to win the support of voters in South Carolina in exactly the same way that Pete Buttigieg had to win the support of voters in Iowa and Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire for various reasons, because the black church in South Carolina is seen as such a key part of the coalition There, South Carolina's process can be described as if it's sort of top down. But I think that as we're now seeing, Biden is turning out to be a pretty formidable political figure as president. And the reason that voters in South Carolina wanted him may not have been so fleeting or particular. They may have been rooted in the fact that he had a reasonable idea for where the party needed to go. So there's almost no question in my mind that there's some element of kind of favor doing or quid pro quo that has pushed South Carolina to the front of the line. I also think that we can tend to describe the politics of South Carolina as if they're more top down than they actually are, and in ways that underserves both the voters there, but also Biden himself, whose victory in the primaries was not just the consequence of his being Obama's vice president or having a lot of relationships, but also a kind of endorsement of his vision for governing.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, this change also seems like, at least in some way, like it's sort of in part of a larger attempt for the Democratic Party to redefine itself or sort of redefine who the kingmakers are in in the party. Like, I mean, looking at South Carolina and also Georgia and Michigan, which have been moved up on the primary calendar, it seems like this is part of a larger effort to give black voters more voting power or more deciding power in terms of who the candidates are.

[C]

I think that's absolutely true. I mean, there's no question that the main way that this has been discussed in the public and among Democratic operatives and politicians is that we need our nominating process to look more like America. And I think in the case of Michigan, it's not quite as stark. And the difference isn't really racial as it is with South Carolina and Georgia, but I think there's a recognition there that working class voters need to be the future of the party, that the party can't be just a kind of operation of coastal, college educated voters. And so a little bit of a nudge to a very slightly blue state in Michigan kind of makes sense. There is also a way in which a kind of more moderate politics sort of begins to come to the fore. If you think about traditionally Democrats from Michigan, from South Carolina, from Georgia, you know, this is not California or New York or Massachusetts. It's not the party's sort of liberal alliance. There is a very Bidenish sensitivity that's built in here and may outlast him that says even if we're moving away from these highly specific nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. We want to be sure that we have our eye on the median voter.

[B]

What issues do you expect this median voter that you mentioned to care most about? I feel like over the years, the Iowa caucus kicking things off has resulted in candidates having to sort of put certain things on their platforms or answer certain questions that they might not have to in another state. Like, I remember, you know, when Ted Cruz was running, it was such a big deal that he was, you know, anti ethanol subsidies. And I think he was like maybe one of the first candidates ever to be anti those subsidies and still win in Iowa. I was wondering if maybe the new version of that in South Carolina and also just given Georgia and Michigan also being bumped up on the list is more candidates potentially bringing up reparations as part of their platform or other, more specifically, racial justice type measures.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, I don't know about reparations. That is, things have been quiet on that front for a little bit. But I do think that as we've seen over the last couple of weeks, the questions of policing, of racial justice in policing don't feel resolved and are, I think, going to continue to be significant. And I think, yeah, I think that elevating South Carolina and Georgia does suggest that racial issues will continue to be central. I don't know. I think that one thing that happened with Iowa is that it became entrenched and there became an entrenched politics to it. And everybody from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton on down the line had been told what was needed to do to appeal to Iowa voters. I think my hope for this change in the presidential nominating calendar is that it doesn't necessarily institute South Carolina as the kickoff state for all time, but that it gives the party a little bit more of a sense of freedom, that it can change things and move things around should be on rotation. Yeah, I think that South Carolina at some level reflects just this desire to keep some element of sort of in person, sort of rural kind of campaigning. But there's no reason it has to be South Carolina. The party changed it with a simple vote. There's no reason it couldn't do that again in four years. So I do think that one thing that became sort of apparent over the last decade, and that ethanol issue in particular, was striking, even as every time you drove out to Iowa, you saw these huge windmills going up. It's a big center for wind energy. It was just that things can get stale. Political ideas about how to win in a place can get stale. It's good for the party. It would be good for the Republican Party, too, to shake it up a little bit.

[B]

And right now, the Republicans have not announced any changes. Have they even announced that they were like, you know, sort of looking into making changes, or does it seem like they're gonna stick with their schedule?

[C]

As far as I know, they're sticking with their schedule.

[B]

They're not changing the first state to Florida.

[C]

Not yet, though. Maybe soon. That will be interesting, though, because on the Republican side, Ted Cruz was a guy who played very well in Iowa. Iowa had for several decades a very, very strong evangelical conservative component to its politics. And I remember in 2016 seeing Cruz go from little church to little church, really whip up crowds and have people lining up long, long lines of cars waiting to get in to see Ted Cruz. Now, Ted Cruz would have been a disastrous nominee for the Republican Party in 2016. There's plenty of reasons he couldn't build on Iowa and turn that into a national victory. But I do think that the Republican Party could also take a look at the way it structures its calendar and the kinds of politics that that amplifies and ask whether that's good for the party. But no, I think that the Republican Party right now is so caught up in the Trump DeSantis dynamic that I think that any bigger structural changes will probably wait for a different cycle.

[B]

We'll have more with Benjamin Wallace Wells in just a moment. Next week, the New Yorker is publishing our second online only interviews issue featuring conversations with leading figures in politics, literature and the arts. Check it out. Starting February 13th on new yorker.com.

[C]

Right.

[D]

Now, we are living through some of the most tumultuous political times our country has ever known. I'm David Remnick, and each week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, I'll try to make sense of what's happening alongside politicians and thinkers like Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Tim Waltz, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Newt Gingrich, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Charlamagne, tha God, and so many more. That's all in the New Yorker Radio Hour. Wherever you listen to podcasts.

[B]

You mentioned the word rural. Earlier, you were saying that these changes will sort of give more power to rural voters in South Carolina. And it's interesting. So New Hampshire is very, it seems very opposed to the changes, changes that are being made. And I read something, it was some politician in New Hampshire who was saying, well, it's important to have the first primary be here because we represent rural voters. And I think it was Clyburn who said, what are you talking about? I represent rural voters, too. Which to me, sort of implied that. It seemed like Clyburn was sort of pushing against this idea of rural almost as a euphemism for white working class voters.

[C]

Sure.

[B]

And so I'm wondering about this. This question of whether the Democratic Party is seemingly trying to align itself with its black voter base versus potential white working class voters. When the parties are looking at how to order the primaries, it seems like they're almost in a position where they're picking specific cohorts or figuring out who they want to prioritize in a way.

[C]

Yeah, maybe. I mean, I find it a little hard. As somebody who lives in Boston and has been to so many political events in New Hampshire over the years and often feel like I'm seeing so many of the same faces in the crowds, I find it a little hard to have a ton of sympathy for New Hampshire here. It's had a great run. I do think the Democratic Party is trying to make a point about what image we conjure when we talk about working class voters, what image we conjure when we talk about rural voters. And to say, doesn't look the same as it did on campaign billboards in 1954. A ton of the American working class is not white. And as a party, it's essential that the Democrats appeal to those voters and sort of, not to be too jargony, but center them. I think that the party is very cognizant of the way in which, you know, cities in the south are growing, are becoming more progressive, and give it a chance to sort of begin to tip the map a little bit.

[B]

Do you think that's what's happening here? Cause I was wondering about, you know, South Carolina, which, although it's, you know, sort of, it's more diverse and it's more blue than Iowa, I mean.

[C]

Yeah, it's not gonna vote for a Democrat.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. And I mean, even Georgia to some extent, although it's, you know, it's becoming more blue as we speak. These aren't like, you know, just sort of ironclad blue states.

[C]

Yeah. I think that Georgia, North Carolina, and certainly Virginia are all states that President Biden would think he has a decent chance in next time. He won Georgia and Virginia last time. Virginia pretty handily. So. Yeah. I think that, like, South Carolina is like a, you know, makes sense as a way to marry the kind of growing political importance of and the growing flippability of the Southeast with this kind of local ideal. I also just want to underscore here what a different context we're talking about all this in than we might have talked about a year ago. We're in a Democratic Party where Biden is all of a sudden coming out of the midterms virtually unchallenged. And there are articles that will appear in the Washington Post or the New York Times every now and then, quoting Democratic operatives and aides worrying about a Biden candidacy. But now it's all about his age. And a year ago it was about his performance, whether he was too centrist, his perceived ineffectiveness. And so we are heading into a presidential nominating contest, or we will be relatively soon, in which Biden is in just an extraordinarily strong position and one that very few political observers would have expected him to be in a year or two ago. And so, to me, the stakes are a little lower for these questions. Does this calendar kind of weight the presidential nominating contest towards Biden? Probably a little bit. Will that matter now? Probably not, because he probably won't have serious opposition, or at least it doesn't look that way right now. And so there is a way in which some of the critiques that we've heard about South Carolina kind of coming to the fore just have a little bit less in the way of teeth or stakes than they might have in a slightly different environment in which the Democrats had performed more poorly in the midterms, in which the economy was not recovering as well as it has recently, and in which Biden's, you know, just general political position was more degraded. But, you know, for, you know, a man who will be, you know, into his 80s when he's running for reelection and who was thought to have a politics that were sort of out of touch with where the Democratic Party was headed not very long ago, this is just a pretty formidable place for Biden to be in. And, you know, the comparative ease with which these changes in the calendar have been sort of foisted on the party, I think, reflects that.

[B]

You know, there's been a lot of discussion about whether this is, like, sort of personally strategic for Biden in some way. And, you know, I'm trying to think about, like, the ways in which that could be possible because, you know, as we as we discussed, it doesn't look like the primary is going to be contested. And it also seems like, you know, he already got Clyburn's endorsement. Clyburn's also very old, kind of on his on his way out, it seems like. So I'm not sure what else he has sort of left to gain from that continued association. And so one thing that I was thinking about was this Biden helping sort of set the stage for a potential run from Kamala if he himself decides not to run. Is there something else that could be going on here? I'm just curious about sort of what theories you might have or you think might actually be sort of viable.

[C]

I'm laughing a little because I remember, you know, being in South Carolina and talking with Biden campaign officials there who were absolutely confident that they were just going to eat Kamala's lunch among voters there, and they absolutely did. You know, she's still clearly. No, no, no. She dropped out before. Before we got this was just like.

[B]

In the polls.

[C]

Yeah, just in the polls and in, you know, the size of her crowds. And, you know, I think there's no question that if Kamala Harris had been able to win stronger support in South Carolina, she would have stayed in the race, at least through that state. That was, for her campaign, a real marker from the beginning.

[B]

Maybe it'd be different now, though. I think that you could argue that part of the reason why Biden was so popular in South Carolina was because of his association with Obama. And now that Harris is associated with Biden, it's almost like by transitive property. Maybe she'd do better there.

[C]

Maybe. And it's possible that Kamala has an act in her that the national press is not seeing. But my instinct, without having reported on this a ton directly, my instinct is that the commitments that Biden's trying to show here are more general. It is to, yes, absolutely, Southern voters and black Southern voters in particular, as a crucial part of the Democratic coalition. It is to the politicians who organize those voters as big figures in the party going forward. But I'm not so sure that I would draw a direct line from this decision to a Kamala Harris candidacy. If he really wanted to boost Harris, he would have made the first primary state California, where she's from, where she still enjoys a big network and so on. I think that one thing that's been interesting in Democratic politics over the last couple years is, is that we are seeing a new generation of leaders come up. I think Raphael Warnock is going to be a big figure in the party going forward. He's from right next door. Atlanta is increasingly just the center of Democratic political activity. Part of South Carolina is in the Atlanta media market. So my instinct would be, yes, this has a lot to do with Clyburn. It has a lot to do with 2020. But there are also more general commitments that Biden has and a kind of more general loyalty that I think he's trying to show here.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, how do you see sort of the newfound emphasis on South Carolina and Michigan and Georgia changing just sort of local politics within those individual states?

[C]

That's an interesting question. I don't know that I have an answer to it. I think the bigger change is just what cities and places the political country sort of starts thinking about at the outset of this. It will be interesting to see Atlanta up close for a few weeks and to see rural Georgia as well. It will be interesting to see Detroit, to see Flint up close for a few weeks, to ask questions about what happened to the supposed drift in Michigan of kind of allegedly left behind post industrial cities to Trumpy Republicans. Why is it that Democrats have captured both houses of the legislature in that state this year and reelected their governor, Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, by a wide margin? There will be a subtle but interesting change in what stories are told at the outset of the presidential campaign, what issues the candidates get asked about again and again, what kinds of people and what people specifically they're compelled to, to interact with and confront. I do think that the basic importance of this choice is just its narrative. It's just what we see, what we talk about at the beginning of this incredibly exhausting, draining, convoluted campaign. One thing we haven't talked about so far, but these are for me, I think for a lot of political reporters, the most interesting parts of the campaign. You know, for operatives too, you know, everything is kind of wide open.

[B]

Everyone's still full of hope. Yeah.

[C]

Still some optimism left in the process. You know, and the scenery does matter. You know, the candidates do interact with people, with issues, with local reporters and the concerns they raise. And, you know, the beginnings of these campaigns are often. Yeah, like the most hopeful, but also the most dynamic parts of them. And by the time you get to the conventions, to the debates, you kind of know where everybody stands. And at the outset you're sort of seeing it fresh. And so to be seeing that in a different context, maybe it won't make a difference, but it does seem to me not unlikely that it will.

[B]

Yeah, no, it's something to look forward to. I mean, at the very least, at least, you know, we won't have all these videos of candidates crowding together at the same inn in Iowa City drinking those pie milkshakes. Yeah, I'm ready to see what South Carolina has to offer.

[C]

Let's do some barbecue.

[B]

Yeah. All right. Well, thank you so much.

[C]

Sure. Yeah. Anytime.

[B]

Benjamin Wallace Wells is a staff writer at the New Yorker, where he covers American politics. This has been the political scene. I'm Tyler Foggatt. The show was produced by Michelle Moses with help from Sidney Cobb. Our executive producer is Steven Valentino. Our theme music is by Alison Layton Brown. Thank you so much for listening, and we'll see you next week.

[E]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director.

[C]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of consumer, tech and Culture.

[B]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Val, is all about the people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley.

[E]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.

[C]

Right. So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.

[E]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[B]

From prx.