Adam Jentelson (2:35)

Yeah, that's right. That's fair. Our whole thing is breaking free of rigidity and drawing from the best ideas from wherever they come from on the ideological spectrum. So being results driven, focused on policy outcomes, and reflecting the will of the American people, not being locked into any ideological point of view.

Commercial Announcer (2:56)

Yeah.

Charlie Sykes (2:56)

I mean, after the 2024 election, you wrote a widely discussed op ed piece in the New York talking about what had happened with the Kamala Harris campaign and the capture by the elites. Now, other people have made this point as well, but my sense is that Democrats really are resisting engaging in the kind of autopsy introspection that they're talking about. So when you talk about the special interest agendas and the need to break away from that ideological rigidity, can you tell me what you're talking about? There's. And again, for listeners who always hate this tough love. The whole point of this conversation is right. Is right. Is to win elections, to, you know, take the Senate back from Republicans. And so everything we're gonna talk about is in that context. I'm sorry, go ahead, Adam.

Adam Jentelson (3:47)

That's right. No, that's exactly right. I mean, I'll just address that, that point first, which is that this is about getting our own house in order so that we can be more effective at taking on Trump and the Republicans. And, you know, sometimes people have this understandable impulse of saying, oh, you know, let's, let's sort of keep our dirty laundry, you know, out of the public view. But that mindset is what prevents us from fixing some very real problems that exist and that are systematic in the way that they prevent Democrats from doing what they need to do to win elections and to position themselves in stronger positions against Republicans. And so I'll segue. So that's why I think the conversation is necessary. Right. And what that conversation is is there, you know, over the last 10 years or more, there's sort of grown up this cottage industry of special interest groups that, you know, have existed for decades. I mean, they really started to emerge in the 70s as sort of part of the consumer movement and, you know, environmental movement and all these things. But, but they got supercharged in terms of money and power and influence in the decade after the Citizens United decision, which freed up a lot of money in the sort of dark money space that, that gave, you know, not what, what sort of come across as sort of small nonprofit organizations, but actually control budgets in the many millions of dollars and have the capability to run TV ads and deploy volunteers against their, for and against their favored candidates or against their, the candidates they oppose. They have a lot of power. What they've done, though, is that, you know, those groups Each individual group is not primarily interested in helping Democrats win an election. They are primarily interested in advancing a specific issue or an agenda on a narrow set of issues. And what they do is they force Democrats and demand that Democrats take extreme positions on those issues in order to win their support. And over the years, those positions have gotten more and more extreme. I use the ACLU as an example, since people are widely familiar with it. They think of this as a civil liberties organization. But what it does is it sends a questionnaire to Democratic candidates that have these questions that are worded to be as pointed and as extreme as possible. So the question isn't, do you support pardons for people who were wrongly convicted of crimes? It says, do you Commit to releasing 250,000 prisoners in your first year in office? Do you support voting rights for the Boston Marathon bombers? Right. They, they, they word these questions in the most pointed way possible on purpose, and forced Democrats to say, why?

Charlie Sykes (6:17)

Why would they do that?

Adam Jentelson (6:18)

Well, there's, there's, there's a complicated, it's sort of the pervert, perverse incentives within this industry of, you know, the way that you show your funders and your board of directors impact is to sort of say, look, you look, basically look at this crazy position we were able to get Democrats to take that demonstrates our influence, right? And there's this sort of underlying theory that people sort of talk about it as the Overton Window or whatever that, you know, if you push people farther and farther to the left, you know, you may not get the public to accept that left wing position, but you're, you're engaged in pushing people to left in general. But that's a strategic mistake, because just as you can push people to the left, you can also have the opposite effect and push people to the right and chase them away from the Democratic Party by forcing Democrats to take these extreme positions. And that's basically what we saw happen between 2000.

Charlie Sykes (7:14)

So. Well, and what you're talking about, I mean, the elephant in the room here is that 2019 ACLU survey that Kamala Harris filled out. That, and correct me if I get the facts wrong here, said, do you support taxpayer funded gender transition surgery for prisoners? And she checked the box. Yes, the Trump campaign spent something like north of $100 million on that one answer in those ads. And I think people have to be very naive not to think that that did not have an impact on the 2024 election. So this is what you're talking about, right? You trace that back to that one survey. The ACLU Asking Democrats to take a position that was like, really? Why don't you just write the Trump campaign ads for them?

Adam Jentelson (8:00)

That's exactly right. And so, you know, that's a really good example because the question wasn't, you know, do you support broad based civil rights protections for trans people? Which of course we all do. It was this extremely niche formulation of a question to sort of, it's like a form of edgelordism, to sort of show that they can get the candidate to take this extreme position. I actually, you know, have talked to the trans rights activist who was on stage with Kamala Harris at this forum, who asked her the question that then Harris gave the answer that became the footage in the ad. And this sort of well known trans rights activist, the question was just, do you support trans rights? And Harris, knowing that she'd given this answer on the ACLU question, was like, well, not only do I support trans rights, but I support this very extreme version that I was pressed on in the ACLU questionnaire. And the activist who was asking the question was sort of like, do you want to walk that back maybe? Because we don't need to have that sort of disappointed extreme formulation to know that you are going to stand up for trans people. And I think that we can all say with great certainty that trans people would be a lot better off right now if Kamala Harris had won and Trump had not. And it didn't require her to give this extreme answer to know that fact and to know that she would be a better champion for trans rights. And, and so that's. That's what I wrote about in this op ed was that there's this. Been this move to use the power and influence of these groups to get Democrats to take positions that are dramatically out of step with where the American people are. And that has had the effect of narrowing our tent and chasing people away from the Democratic Party who otherwise might be persuadable and gettable for us. And that is a big reason why Trump was able to get back in power. And that's the kind of structural factor we need to address. That kind of tough family love conversation we have to have as a party in if we're gonna put ourselves in a stronger position to beat Republicans in these midterms and in 2028.

Charlie Sykes (9:56)

Yeah, I mean, obviously, looking forward. I mean, these are crucial questions for 2026 and 2028. So moving ahead in our timeline, what did you make of Donald Trump's State of the Union address and the Democratic response and the way they responded and by the way, this open ended question, including the heckling, but also the boycotting. So, because we're talking about how to confront Trump, what works, what does not work. So let's encapsulate that one.

Adam Jentelson (10:24)

Yeah, I mean, I think what you saw in Trump's State of the Union was a lot of people playing to a lot of different audiences and, you know, on those narrow terms, being successful in their own right, but not necessarily successful at communicating to the audience that really matters, which is the swing voters who are going to decide these critical races in 2026. Right. So, you know, Trump was playing to his base. I don't think he won over many converts. I don't think many people who came in not supporting Donald Trump and on the fence about him were persuaded to support him. The polling backs that up. He registered some of the lowest approval ratings of any president, lower than his own State of the Union in 2018, lower than Joe Biden's in 2024. So, you know, he didn't do himself any great favors. You know, by the same token, I think Democrats, you know, the moments that will get replayed against Democrats were some, you know, folks on the left playing to their home audiences and being demonstrative against Trump, kind of falling into some of the traps that were easily predictable that Trump laid for them of, you know, not standing up.

Charlie Sykes (11:29)

Well, let's tell you what, let's talk about this one, because this was the viral moment of the campaign and it felt as if the entire. I'm sorry, of the speech, it felt as if, you know, you had two parts of the speech, you had the sort of the upbeat, Reagan esque part of the speech, and then you had this much darker turn and it was very clearly orchestrated. So let's play a little bit of this. This is Donald Trump, who built up to this by telling all the stories of the terrible things that illegal immigrants had done to people, the crimes they had committed. And then he asked for, he asked for applause, he asked everybody to stand up. And this is what happened. This is the way it played out. One of the great things about the State of the Union is how it gives Americans the chance to see clearly what their representatives really believe. So tonight, I'm inviting every legislature to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens. Isn't that ashamed? You should be ashamed of yourself not standing up. You should be ashamed of Yourself. Okay, so the Republicans think this was the ultimate gotcha moment. Stephen Miller says this will live in all eternity. That Democrats basically walked into Donald Trump's trap. What do you think?

Adam Jentelson (13:02)

I think that's a dramatic overstatement. I mean, I think probably this doesn't have a huge impact one way or the other, but, you know, I also sort of, you know, so I think Stephen Miller is wrong. That's.

Charlie Sykes (13:12)

That's silly.

Adam Jentelson (13:13)

And a dramatic overstatement. I mean, but what else is new? But I think, like, on the other hand, for Democrats, it's like, hey, hey, why not avoid that trap next time? You know, how they weren't going to

Charlie Sykes (13:23)

stand up and applaud Donald Trump talking about illegal immigrants. Well, you know, if you had no way to do that. Right?

Adam Jentelson (13:29)

Yeah. But, you know, you might as well just. Just deny it's. You know, there's a saying in poker to, you know, where the strategic imperative is to figure out what your opponent wants you to do and disappoint them. And I think that that applies to politics a lot. You know, if you, if you see your opponent laying a trap, just walk around it. You know, if you stand up and applaud, it doesn't get replayed. The base isn't going to, you know, hammer you for standing up. It's just an easy, you know, you just, you just see the trap in the pathway. You just walk around it. But look, overall, I think it's not a huge deal either way. I don't. I think that the midterms are going to turn on people's fundamental dissatisfaction with Trump. Midterms are almost always a referendum on the incumbent, and in this case, the public is very sour on the incumbent. So, you know, my quibble here is really just that it's a quibble. I don't think that Democrats hurt their chances in the midterms in any material way by doing this. But next time you see a trap coming, especially if it's closer to the midterms, maybe just go around it.

Charlie Sykes (14:33)

What's interesting is there's such a huge divide between the pundit class and average normal people. The pundit class will say, all eyes are on the State of the Union address. No, they're not. People are not paying attention. And people forget what happens at the State of the Union Address or almost immediately two weeks from now. Nobody remembers anything about these speeches. I cannot remember any State of the Union address. Well, you correct me because you've been doing this for so long. Any State of the Union address that ever changed the trajectory of politics or moved the needle in any substantive way. And I'm thinking, you know, back, you know, into the Carter years and before that into the Reagan years, everybody always treats these as great moments and they never are.

Adam Jentelson (15:15)

Yeah, I won't correct you because I think you're right. I mean, I've been through many of these myself and doing this for nearly 20 years now. And, yeah, I think it's hard to know. I mean, Interestingly, I think 2024 in some ways had an impact because Biden did very well and that convinced a lot of people that he could run for reelection. But that's more about. That's not the direct impact of the speech or the message that's conveyed. You know, the audiences of these things aren't very big in our era of social media. Our memories are extremely short. We will be talking about something else within days, and this will be a distant memory.

Charlie Sykes (15:52)

So let's dive into some specific issues here in terms of, like ice, for example, because I know you've been talking about this as well. So Democrats have to decide how do you deal with this immigration issue? How do you come out for strong borders and the enforcement of laws against criminals without necessarily endorsing. Without necessarily. Without endorsing the brute squad tactics of ISO. Where do you come down on the debate between Democrats who are increasingly tempted to say abolish ICE as opposed to some other form, because abolish ICE plays extremely well with the base you've been talking about, doesn't it?

Adam Jentelson (16:31)

It does. And this is, this is exactly the kind of issue where in the past Democrats have let the, you know, some, I won't say the base in general, because I think the base is mostly made up of normies who just want Democrats to be Republicans.

Charlie Sykes (16:45)

Yes.

Adam Jentelson (16:46)

But, you know, a lot of the interest groups sort of press Democrats to do policy by slogan. And, you know, we saw this with Defund the Police, where there was tremendous pressure for Democrats to advocate for that position in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. And what it did was it alienated a lot of people who were otherwise open to being in support to supporting Democrats, and more importantly, from a policy perspective, completely sucked all the oxygen out of the room and took away the opportunity to do historic reform on police reform. And here we are six years later, and there hasn't been any major action on police reform. So I think there's a similar dynamic at play here now where, you know, Americans are rightly appalled and outraged at the tactics that they're seeing deployed by ice. Agents, this is not, you know, what Americans want is they want, you know, enforcement of our immigration laws, including in the interior, but they want it to be in accordance with law and order and good law enforcement practices, including humane treatment of people who are targeted in law enforcement actions, and the officers themselves being held to high standards of professionalism and, you know, standard good practices there. And so the right position for Democrats is basically what they are doing now. I think they're actually doing quite a good job in using their leverage over the funding of the Department of Homeland Security, which ICE is a part of.

Charlie Sykes (18:05)

I was going to ask you about it.

Adam Jentelson (18:06)

Yeah. And so I think they're right to play hardball and to deny funding for DHS and demand the kind of reforms that would reign in these extreme tactics without going so far as to saying that, you know, ICE should be abolished entirely.

Charlie Sykes (18:21)

So, I mean, again, so is ice. I'm sorry, is Abolish ICE as toxic as Defund police? Because, I mean, I recognize at the time Defund police was one of the worst slogans ever. Do you agree? I mean, first of all, is Abolish ice, does it play the same way?

Adam Jentelson (18:37)

Defund the police might be on its own special tier in terms of how toxic it is, but, you know, abolish ICE is still quite toxic, and I think could be very damaging to Democrats in these competitive races that we're going to have to win to take back the majority in the House and the Senate. And I think, actually that's. That's a point I kind of want to drive home to your, to your listeners, which is that, you know, this isn't just about sort of what you can get away with in a blue state or a blue district, you know, if we really want to build the power that we're going to need to defeat Trump and this rising tide of authoritarianism that's that we're facing on the right, we. We need to win in swing districts and red districts. And so that's. Right. Polished ICE could play perfectly well in a place like my home district of Takoma Park, Maryland. Our representative is Jimmy Raskin, one of the farthest left members of Congress, who I love dearly, you know, fine in Takoma park, but if you're talking about winning races in states like Michigan and Ohio and Texas, and even deeper red states like Iowa, Louisiana, Kansas, where we could be competitive again, where we used to be competitive when I worked in the Senate, we have to think about how a slogan like Abolish ICE plays in those places, too. And that's going to be absolutely radioactive in those races. And so even when you have members of our party who can get away with it because they represent blue and red and blue and districts and states, you know, that's affecting the brand that we and we need that democratic trend to be competitive in states like Nebraska or states like Iowa and Louisiana.

Charlie Sykes (20:14)

I want to talk to you about one of our sponsors because this is something that we talk about all the time. How do you avoid getting caught in an echo chamber? How do you avoid blind spots? How do you not get stuck in a bias bubble? Well, that's what Ground News is all about. This is what they do. Take this story I found on their homepage, Donald Trump posts a racist video. Or this one, Ghislaine Maxwell refuses to testify before Congress, for example. Now, how did the left cover those stories? How did the center cover it? How did the right cover it? They'll tell you the bias rating for each source worldwide, as well as how factual they are and who funds them. Plus, thanks to their blind spot feed, you'll see stories that are being ignored by the left or the right, like this one, the story about Kristi Noem, who fired and reinstated a Coast Guard pilot over a missing blanket. So if you want access to stories you may otherwise never see in the necessary context to make up your own mind, visit groundnews.com tc to subscribe to the Vantage subscription for 40% off, which will grant you unlimited access for just $5 a month. You don't have to take my word for it. The Nobel Peace center called Ground News an excellent way to stay informed, avoid echo chambers and expand your worldview. I recommend that you visit groundnews.com tc today.

Commercial Announcer (21:38)

That new thing? Yeah, we've got it. The Drop by GNC bringing you all the newness that matters hand picked by the pros who actually know what's up and what's proven to work. We keep you on top of the trends and dialed into what's next. Whether you're crushing it at the gym, leveling up your game, or thriving every day, the drop by GNC is where the latest solutions in health and wellness land first. Non stop innovation and fresh finds daily explore what's new and what's next on the Drop by GNC

Charlie Sykes (22:10)

so I was looking at that Washington Post poll that came out recently and it is interesting how public opinion is actually surprisingly nuanced on all this issue. When you ask people, do you favor deporting illegal immigrants who've been accused of committing violent crimes, it's 89%, 89% of voters been accused of committing nonviolent crimes. 62%. But then when you get down to do you favor deporting illegal immigrants or undocumented immigrants who arrived in the US as children? Only 26% parents of children who are US citizens by birth. Only 30% have lived in the United States more than 10 years. Only 30% have not broken laws in the United States except for immigration laws. Only 39%. So there is clearly, I mean, that's why Trump, I think, had winded his back when he said, I'm gonna get the worst of the worst out. Right. But then clearly what you're seeing coming out of Minneapolis is no, you're arresting and rousting and deporting the kinds of people that something like 60, 70% of Americans do not think should be deported.

Adam Jentelson (23:16)

Yeah, the American people in general are pretty rational and humane in their views of these issues. And you know, where Democrats have gone astray is like, look, you know, Americans want strong border security. They want to know that our laws are being enforced. And yeah, they want people who come here illegally and commit crimes to be deported. And you know, even saying those positions has become toxic among Democrats. That's a bad thing because, you know, those are things that I believe in. I believe in all of those principles and I think most Democrats do too. But then, you know, if, you know, if we strongly embrace those principles which are squarely in line with where the mainstream of the American people are, then we can say, but people who've come here as children should be allowed to stay. People who've become parts of their communities, law abiding citizen who've been paying taxes in various forms and have had become productive members of their communities, these people should be allowed to stay and be given a pathway to citizenship. That's what people want. But we completely miss our ability to tap into the American people's genuinely humane and rational and just attitudes towards issues like immigration when we don't meet them where they are on the enforcement parts that Democrats have gotten shy about embracing more recently. But that's where we have to be because that's the kind of, you know, we need that policy that has both pieces that has enforcement, but also has humane treatment of people who are here who've been law abiding citizens who've come here as kids. Those people need our support and protection and an immigration system that honors them and gives them fair treatment and a path to citizenship. And we can't get that for them if we don't meet The American people, where they are on things like border security and enforcement.

Charlie Sykes (25:04)

You know what's interesting? I heard somewhere, I can't remember where I heard a soundbite from Barack Obama. And it may have been from 2008, 2009, where he talked about this and said almost exactly what you just said. So there was one time when the Democratic Party actually knew what the message was and how to sell it. And as I was listening to that, I was thinking, would a Democratic candidate be able to say what Barack Obama said back then? Do you know what I'm talking about here?

Adam Jentelson (25:30)

100%, no. I was there and I wrote speeches not for President Obama, but for other Democrats at the time, using a lot of that similar language. This was standard democratic positioning circa 2010, 2012, when we were winning elections in red states and we were winning Senate seats in states like Arkansas, West Virginia, the white Louisiana, Nebraska, the Dakotas. All places where we had Democrats held Senate seats when I was working in the Senate for Harry Reid. And this is an ancient history. And I'll further add that I actually was going back and looking at some of the polling from that time. I think it was 2013, the poll I was looking at. But it was broadly representative of public opinion at the time. We had an advantage on immigration. The public trusted Democrats more on immigration because we represented both sides of what they wanted. We represented enforcement and fairness, and we represented humane treatment and an embrace of the concept that we are a nation of immigrants. And we do welcome people from other countries and we embrace them as part of our society. But we have to represent both pieces of the American mind on this if we want to get their support. But if we do that, we can actually. This can be a winning issue for us again.

Charlie Sykes (26:42)

Okay, so who gets that? Which Democratic. And I'm thinking of, like, possible 2028 candidate who, who. Who understands that and is saying these sorts of things.

Adam Jentelson (26:50)

The candidate who comes to mind most of all is Ruben Gallego. I think, you know, partially. I mean, partially by representing a border state in Arizona. He's been a really strong leader on the issue of ICE from the get go. He is, you know, does not hesitate to forcefully condemn ICE and their tactics. You know, he has a military background, so he sort of gives no quarter when it comes to issues of toughness and security and enforcement. But he, besides being Hispanic himself and a child of immigrants, also forcefully advocates for the fairness aspect of this and the humanity in our treatment of people from other countries. I think far and away on this issue in particular, he has been Democrats best leader and really does get where we need to be on this issue.

Charlie Sykes (27:35)

Interesting you should mention him because I have frequently quoted him.

Adam Jentelson (27:39)

I don't know what his 2028 plans are. I'm not breaking any.

Charlie Sykes (27:41)

No, no, I know. Well, I've been quoting him on because I think for a lot of voters it comes down to they want safety and they want prosperity. And you have to convince people that you're going to keep them safe and you're going to give them a shot. Or as Ruben Gallego says, give them a shot to buy the big ass truck. Now, I understand in some constituencies if you said the big ass truck, they go, oh, my God, no, no, no. We want environmentally friendly, you know, no plastic and everything. But this is a good segue into the issue of affordability because I think that there's kind of a sense among, among some of these swing voters that Democrats don't want you to have the good stuff. So when a guy like Ruben Gallego comes out and says, I want people to be able to afford the big ass truck, that's an oddly populist line now, isn't it?

Adam Jentelson (28:29)

Yeah, it is. And it gets to what I think is the most American version of populism, which I think that Democrats are sort of circling, but could do a better job of articulating, which is Americans want to get rich. They don't hate rich people as a class. They don't hate billionaires per se. They hate people who exploit the system. They hate people who treat workers unfairly. They hate corporations that break the law, pollute our rivers, pollute our air, you know, release unsafe products into the world. They hate bad behavior, basically, but they don't hate prosperity. And that is something that we could do that I think Gallego does an extremely good job of articulating in the sort of vision you described. They want prosperity. They want to be successful. They want to own a big ass truck, you know, and that vision of growth and prosperity and upward mobility is something Democrats have historically stood for. And we could do a better job of articulating in a lot of ways these days.

Charlie Sykes (29:33)

I think Republicans, though, got that, though. I mean, I think at least for a while, they got that sense that class warfare was not as powerful as people's drive to get better. And so they would see many of these policies as the impediment what stands between me and getting what I want. Well, maybe higher tech. I wonder if that's changing, though, because given the rise of the oligarch class, the oligarch Billionaires, the incredible disparities of, of wealth. At some point, is there a way to straddle that? To say, I want you to be able to be prosperous, I want your children to be able to be prosperous. But you know, the system is in fact rigged in favor of the big corporations and the millionaires and billionaires. I'm asking that because, you know, you've worked in the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party, you know, the pre. Whatever happened to John Fetterman wing of the party, the progressives? I mean, can they balance that out? How do you, how do you do that?

Adam Jentelson (30:35)

It's a tricky balancing act because I think that there are, you know, it is 100% true that there are, there's overly concentrated sources of corporate, like corporate power is too concentrated in America today and we need to break it up. Corporations have too much control over people's lives. They need to be reined in, they need to be regulated, they need to have their taxes raised. You know, all these things that Democrats have certain squarely stood for and that date back to the proudest Democratic traditions all the way back to the New Deal, right? This is meat and potatoes Democratic stuff. And so we should forcefully lean into all of those aspects of populism because that is where we win. Right. But those are also positions that every winning Democrat for the last 20, 30 years has taken. Bill Clinton in 1992 ran on raising the taxes on wealthy Americans and expanding the social safety net and imposing stricter regulations on businesses. And so this, this is meat and potatoes stuff where sometimes we lose the plot a little bit, is thinking that people reflexively hate corporations and billionaires for existing. And that's where we start to lose people. And so as long as we're talking about fairness, making corporations obey the law, reining in bad behavior, I.e. exploiting people, exploiting workers, exploiting our air and water, making them pay their fair share, holding them accountable when they do bad things. These are all things where we are 100% in the right on policy and in touch with the American people. So I think holding that focus on fairness and accountability and anti corruption, that's where we need to be without veering into sort of reflexive hatred of the business community.

Charlie Sykes (32:20)

Am I remembering correctly? Bill Clinton had this formulation that if you work hard and you play by the rules, that you can have the American, American dream. Okay. Which is a great formulation of that. So, you know, you were talking before about what the map, the Senate map used to look like and to remember that, you know, in the distant mists of time. You had Republicans in all these districts or these states that are not competitive as well. But I'm also thinking of just the demographics. I am old enough to remember when the Democratic Party hadn't was the party of the working class. How did. I don't know if we have the time to go through this, but how did the Democrats manage to lose its core constituency? It used to be that if you went into a blue collar working class neighborhood, you knew that these people were gonna be voting Democrat. You go into a blue collar working class neighborhood today and it's probably maga. How did that flip occur? Well, in a short period of time, or are we talking about decades? How did it happen?

Adam Jentelson (33:19)

You know, a political scientist would tell you that these are trends that have been developing since, you know, the civil rights movement and, you know, realignments that you can date back to the 1960s and the 70s and the 80s. I think that, you know, that that looks true in retrospect, you know, whereas I think the reality is a lot more malleable and things could have gone differently if Democrats had made different choices along the way.

Charlie Sykes (33:46)

Is it part of what you were talking about before? The elites, these special interest groups that sense that the Democrats were taken over by who actually looked down on working people. They became kind of that cultural, economic, educational elite.

Adam Jentelson (33:59)

Right. Democrats, we've never stopped being the party that wants to make the wealthy pay their fair share and increase wages for working people. But we have become the party that seems like our focus is elsewhere and that we are more focused on concerns of the elites, of college educated liberals, of people who can afford to fly on private jets and send their kids to private schools. Right. And so an issue like climate change. Right. Which obviously is a major issue that needs to be addressed. We absolutely have to lower our carbon emissions and we have to get nations around the world to lower theirs. There's no question this is a pressing issue. However, it is not a top of mind concern for working class Americans in the kinds of communities that you are describing, Charlie. And so when you go. But Democrats have allowed themselves to come across as a party that is more concerned with fighting climate change than with the kitchen table issues that people in those communities are concerned about. And so that's a balance that we have to get better at. Striking as Democrats is not just saying we care about this issue, we're going to make progress on it, but we've made it a central part of our focus. And that has driven apart, that has driven away voters in those communities who Say, look, I hear you. It seems bad, but it's not a top of mind concern to me. And so I want to know, how are you going to raise my wages, how are you going to lower my costs? How are you going to, going to get me health care? Right. And you know, if you meet me where I want and tell me, you know, what I want to hear on those issues, I'll put you in power. And then once you're in power, you can work on climate change. But we got to focus on recapturing our identity as the party that is squarely focused on raising your wages, lowering your costs and delivering on those kitchen table issues. And that's when we'll get back in power.

Charlie Sykes (35:41)

And I think it also began to translate to a lot of working class voters is these folks might take away my job. These folks might support policies that are going to make it impossible for me to have my big ass truck, but also might shut down. I remember having a conversation actually on MSNBC and I think it was probably the last time this subject came up where we were talking about the working class voters in places like Wisconsin, Michigan and Michigan who really thought that Democrats were talking about completely different things. And I know that, for example, student loan forgiveness is very, very popular among the Democratic base. You try that out with working class people and they think, well, you're concerned about other people. And I remember the one conversation was that the problem, I was making the case, the problem with the Democratic focus on things like trans, you know, trans access to bathrooms. This was back in the time when various states were considering legislation, you know, do you allow a trans person to use, you know, different bathroom? Was that. But for the working class voters in Michigan and Wisconsin, that became kind of a symbol that you were concerned about other things. You were not thinking about people like me. And in fact, you were using words like white privilege. And if you are a blue collar worker in Michigan and your town has been absolutely wiped out, is a ghost town, you do not think of yourself as privileged. So you basically had, unfortunately talking over their heads in a way that I think created this disconnect that's 100% right.

Adam Jentelson (37:12)

I mean, when we talk about this issue, this broader dynamic that you're describing, at Searchlight, we use the term crowding out, right? Because what it really does is our focus on these other issues crowds out the issues that voters are more concerned with. And I think we need to get better at prioritizing what we want to go to the voters with. Right. There's no question that the cause of climate change is going to be better served if Democrats are in office. The same goes for trans rights, for immigration, for all these issues. Right. Look at what's happening now to all these issues that we care deeply about. There's no question that if those are the issues you care about, then it'll be better off with Democrats in power. That doesn't mean that that's what we should be centering in the political debate as we try to appeal to voters in these swing states and in these swing districts, you have a limited amount of bandwidth in a political campaign. In this crowded communications environment, we have to think in a disciplined way. You know, if we have 15 seconds of a voter's attention, what do we want them to hear, and what do we want them to associate with the Democratic Party? And there's no question that the answer to that is we are squarely focused on raising your wages, bringing down your costs, and making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share.

Charlie Sykes (38:32)

So let's talk about you for a moment. Did you have a Road to Damascus moment? Was there any moment when you thought, okay, this is just not working. So you worked for Harry Reid, pragmatist. Then you were working with Elizabeth Warren, who was out there, and John Fetterman was there any moment, or development. You said, you know what? We are getting this wrong. I have to make these points, otherwise Democrats will continue to be in the wilderness.

Adam Jentelson (39:00)

Yeah, I mean, I had sort of a roundabout to Damascus is how I would describe it. You know, look, I mean, my own personal views, from the very moment I got involved in politics, my own personal political views have always been to the left of the people that I've worked for, the candidates and the elected officials. You know, even Elizabeth Warren.

Charlie Sykes (39:20)

You were to the left of Elizabeth Warren.

Adam Jentelson (39:21)

Well, the funny thing about Warren is. So, just for the record, I should say I was an informal advisor to her. I was never paid by her, but I. But I definitely supported her in the. In the 2020 primary. So, you know, as a. As a referendum on sort of where my allegiances were, that's 100% accurate. But, you know, like, I got motivated to get involved in politics in 2003 when I just graduated from college and I was against the Iraq War, right? And then my first job was working for John Kerry, who supported the Iraq war, you know, but I thought to myself, well, this guy's trying to win an election, you know, and the war was still popular at the time. And it made sense to me that he would take a position that was more in line with the voters and probably was what he actually believed. Anyway. Don't want to relitigate that whole debate, but my point is that for most of my career, I was just sort of took it for granted that I would work for people whose views were to the right of mine. After 2016, when Trump was elected, it felt to me like everything I learned about politics had perhaps been incorrect. Trump had taken all these extreme positions and won. So maybe way forward for Democrats was that they could throw caution to the wind too, and just say everything they believed, even if they were crazy left wingers like myself and, you know, so there was sort of a period where we experimented with that as a party and it didn't work. And so when I say roundabout to Damascus, it sort of brought me back around to where I'd been originally, which is like, look, you know, we live in a democracy. We have to respect the American people. You know, if you're trying to win in Takoma Park, Maryland, it's one issue, but if you're trying to win over blue collar workers in Ohio or Texas, you know, we gotta meet them where they are. And so we need to stop demanding purity out of all of our candidates, that they adhere to left wing views that play in Takoma park. If you're trying to win in Texas. Knock knock.

Commercial Announcer (41:12)

Ooh, who's there?

Adam Jentelson (41:12)

A boost Mobile expert here to deliver and set up Your all new iPhone 17 Pro.

Commercial Announcer (41:17)

Designed to be the most powerful iPhone ever.

Adam Jentelson (41:19)

You called that a knock knock joke?

Commercial Announcer (41:20)

This isn't a joke.

Adam Jentelson (41:21)

Boost mobile really sends experts to deliver and set up your phone at home or work. Okay.

Commercial Announcer (41:25)

It's just that when people say knock

Adam Jentelson (41:27)

knock, there's usually a joke to go with it. Like I said, this isn't a joke. So the knock knock was just you knocking? Yeah, that's how doors work.

Commercial Announcer (41:34)

Get the new iPhone 17 Pro delivered

Adam Jentelson (41:36)

and set up by an expert wherever you are.

Commercial Announcer (41:37)

Delivery available for select devices purchased@boostmobile.com terms apply. That new thing? Yeah, we've got it. The drop by GNC bringing you all the newness that matters. Hand picked by the pros who actually know what's up and what's proven to work. We keep you on top of the trends and dialed into what's next. Whether you're crushing it at the gym, leveling up your game or thriving every day, the drop by GNC is where the latest solutions in health and wellness land first. Non stop innovation and fresh finds daily explore what's new and what's next on the drop by gnc.

Charlie Sykes (42:14)

So I probably, if I had more time, would phrase this question more diplomatically. You helped John Fetterman get elected to the Senate. You were his chief of staff. So, Adam, what the fuck is going on with John Fetterman?

Adam Jentelson (42:30)

Listen, you probably have to ask him that. We don't talk very much anymore, or at all.

Charlie Sykes (42:38)

I wish you saw it up close.

Adam Jentelson (42:41)

I did. Look, all I will say is that. Look, what I think is fair to say is that in ways that were understandable and justifiable for a period of time, Senator Fetterman responded to a lot of the extremely harsh criticism he got from the left by positioning himself against them, and it alienated him from a lot of the folks in the left wing base. What I would say has happened is that that's become the main frame by which he approaches issues now. And he basically just sort of positions himself political sciences would describe as negative polarization, where he just sort of decides what his position is going to be based on the opposite of whatever the left wing is saying and what will piss off the left wing of the base, the left wing of the party, the most. So it's a funny way of sort of determining your position taking. And that's just what I've observed.

Charlie Sykes (43:41)

Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out is how much of this is political and how much of this is. Is he okay? I mean, how much of this is a political calculation or political reaction. How much of it is. You know, we've seen this before, and this is sort of the. Everybody's always uncomfortable talking about this with Joe Biden or with Donald Trump in terms of like, is he okay? Adam, you were his chief of staff.

Adam Jentelson (44:04)

Have. I can't vouch for that for sure. You know, I. I think he's been transparent somewhat about his health struggles. You know, from what I understood when I worked for him, you know, they were very real. I think they continue to be very real. And you know, how he's doing on a day to day basis is something I have no visibility into.

Charlie Sykes (44:32)

I mean, it is so strange. I mean, he was the bright, shiny object when he was first elected. There were a lot of people who thought he was just the cool. He was the cool kid because he wore the hoodies and the shorts and everything, but he was very clearly a progressive Democrat. Now, to watch him on a regular basis basically spouting MAGA talking points, it feels as if I understand the whole negative polarization issue. Is he running for reelection? Is there any way that John Fetterman can be reelected in Pennsylvania next year. This year. I'm sorry, when is he up?

Adam Jentelson (45:03)

He will be up in 2028.

Charlie Sykes (45:05)

Yeah. Is there any way he can be reelected in 2028?

Adam Jentelson (45:09)

I would never say never. It doesn't seem like he enjoys the job very much. That's certainly something that I witnessed. So I'm not sure that he wants it. But Pennsylvania is a state where Democrats have a deep bench of very promising talent. So I think there will be for sure a very competitive race for that seat. And, you know, we're just gonna have to see whether he. Whether he wants it or not.

Charlie Sykes (45:35)

Yeah, I mean, you know, this is a good point because there are a lot of, you know, young, rising Democrats. And, you know, this is, and this is a state, obviously, you know, Pennsylvania reminds me a little bit of Wisconsin from sort of the mirror point of view because you've had so many, you know, high stakes, high profile elections. The voters and the activists are pretty locked in there, aren't they? I mean, this is a very politically savvy state.

Adam Jentelson (46:00)

Very politically savvy state. People pay very close attention to politics there and they have high expectations of their elected leaders. So I think there's going to be, I think it's going to be an interesting race, but it is several years away.

Charlie Sykes (46:15)

Well, what do you see for 2028? I know you probably want to stay out of the horse race business, but there is obviously a very lively debate going on whether the Democrats should sort of double down, as you mentioned before, on going for the base, the AOC style politics versus those who are trying to carve out more of this center lane. I mean, you have some clear centrists out there. And by the way, feel free to disagree with me. Andy Bashir from Kentucky, you have Josh Shapiro from, from, from Pennsylvania, Mark Kelly from, from Arizona. But there is that temptation, you know, if Trump was gets elected by throwing everything up against the wall, we should as well. You have thoughts on that?

Adam Jentelson (47:04)

I guess, yeah, I think we should go with whatever candidate can build the biggest tent and win the biggest, broadest super majority possible. Because for a bunch of different reasons, I mean, one, you know, it's winning by a very narrow margin, as Biden did, really limits how much you're able to do in office, especially if you come in with narrow majorities in Congress. We don't have to get into the weeds there. But your listeners understand what we're talking about there, and it means that you probably will lose control of one chamber of Congress in the first midterms you've only got 18 months basically to get things done. I want to.

Charlie Sykes (47:39)

You got to win big.

Adam Jentelson (47:40)

Yeah. Plus there's this whole issue of the Supreme Court and altering the balance of power there, which is going to require Democrats to win power and then hold it for an extended period of time. So, you know, it's not just about, you know, can we sort of be super pure and maybe eke out a victory with like barely above 50% of the vote? I want to see a candidate who's got a big vision for winning, not just a majority, but a super majority, because that power is going to be what allows us to defeat the rise of fascism in this country. So I want a candidate who's got that big vision. I don't know who it is yet. I'm excited about the really deep bench that we have, but that's what I'm going to be looking for in terms of who I personally will support in 2028.

Charlie Sykes (48:23)

Adam Jentelson, thank you so much for all your time. Adam is of course, the president of the Searchlight Institute. Long, long time. Well, you've been around a long time, haven't you, in Democratic politics going back into the dark ages. Well, actually the ages when Democrats used to win all these elections and used to control the Senate. Thank you, Adam, for all of your time today.

Adam Jentelson (48:42)

Wonderful to be here, Charlie, Great to talk with you.

Charlie Sykes (48:44)

And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. You know why we do this, why we will continue to remind you for the duration that we are not the crazy ones. Thank you.

Commercial Announcer (49:10)

That new thing. Yeah, we've got it. The drop by GNC bringing you all the newness that matters hand picked by the pros who actually know what's up and what's proven to work. We keep you on top of the trends and dialed into what's next. Whether you're crushing it at the gym, leveling up your game or thriving every day, the drop by GNC is where the latest solutions in health and wellness land first non stop innovation and and fresh finds daily explore what's new and what's next on the drop by GNC.