The Panic Over Progressive Dems

Summary

---

What A Day – Episode Summary

Episode Title: The Panic Over Progressive Dems

Host: Jane Coaston
Guest: Dan Pfeiffer (Co-host, Pod Save America; author, Message Box newsletter)
Date: August 3, 2026
Theme:
This episode examines anxieties within the Democratic Party regarding progressive and Democratic Socialist candidates gaining ground in key races for the 2026 midterms. Jane Coaston and guest Dan Pfeiffer discuss whether the establishment panic is justified, how Republican and Democratic candidate selection differs, and why media coverage often treats the two parties so differently. Along the way, they consider broader political trends, the role of electability arguments, and what the rise of nontraditional candidates means for the future of Democratic politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Shifting Landscape for Democrats in 2026 (06:12–07:13)

• Democrats’ Odds in the Senate:
  New forecasts (e.g., by G. Eliot Morris) give Democrats a narrow edge, estimating about a 55% chance of winning the Senate. Dan Pfeiffer observes that this is in line with other recent models and says, “Trump’s numbers are in the toilet and getting worse...Democrats have a pretty massive enthusiasm advantage in terms of who’s most likely to vote.”
• Candidate Quality & Overperformance:
  Dan points out that Democrats have a slate of strong candidates with a track record of winning in difficult environments (e.g., Roy Cooper, Mary Peltola, Sherrod Brown) and that a plus 7–8 Democratic environment could enable wins in tough states.

2. Republican vs. Democratic Candidates: The “Electability” Double Standard (09:56–12:58)

• Media Coverage & Candidate Extremism:
  Jane comments on how Republicans have nominated unconventional or extreme candidates like Victor Marks (CO) and Mike Lindell (MN) without much hand-wringing, while Democratic primaries prompt establishment panic:
  “It seems as if when we’re talking about Democrats...they are comparing DSA candidates to, say, generic Republican of 2012, when they’re not talking about how...a lot of these candidates are operating in the same milieu as Victor Marks or Mike Lindell.” (11:50)
• Historic Examples:
  Dan asserts, “Trump is a black swan event...but if you go back...the Democrats held the Senate because Republicans nominated unelectable candidates like Christine O’Donnell...who called herself a witch.” (10:31–11:30)
• Insight:
  Both parties suffer when nominating candidates out-of-step with their electorate, but the spotlight often shines differently; Democrats face more pressure for ideological conformity.

3. The Progressive Primary Surge – Why the Panic? (12:58–14:18)

• Media and Establishment Blindspots:
  Both Jane and Dan note the lack of genuine curiosity—especially in the media—about why voters support Democratic Socialists or progressives like Francesca Hong (WI) or Abdul El-Sayed (MI):
  “There is this lack of curiosity, not just from the media, but from the establishment folks who keep losing these primaries as to why they are losing.” (14:18, Dan)
• Bubble-Tight Thinking:
  Establishment Dems dismiss victories in liberal districts as irrelevant, while ignoring the trends in pivotal swing states where left candidates also gain traction. There’s also an overreliance on outdated models of “electability”—candidates seen as too left or right of the median voter are presumed doomed, but it’s uncertain if this still holds.

4. The Stakes in 2026: A Pivotal Transition (14:18–17:06)

• Why Michigan & Wisconsin Matter:
  Dan breaks down how key states aren’t just about 2026—they set up the administration of future elections and help draw political maps post-census.
  Quote: “Who wins a Wisconsin governorship has massive implications for the administration of the 2028 election...and for drawing the maps after the 2030 census. Like this is incredibly important.” (15:26)
• Change Within the Democratic Party:
  Dan’s analysis:
  “The answer is that this era of the Democratic establishment is over...the voters are done with it. They’re not listening to it. They do not care about it. 2028 will be the transition to a new era.” (16:13)
• Voter Anger & Political Realignment:
  Jane and Dan flag a groundswell of anger from Democratic voters with establishment politics. The current cycle is being shaped as much by anti-incumbent sentiment as by ideological alignment.

5. What Will (and Won’t) 2026 Results Really Tell Us? (17:06–19:58)

• Reading the Results Cautiously:
  Dan suggests that regardless of outcome, both establishment and progressive factions will claim validation. The real test is whether progressive candidates over- or underperform relative to the top of the ticket and other races:
  "In the Democratic civil war, it’s always heads, I win; tails, you lose, always.” (18:06)
• Dynamic Campaign Factors:
  External factors—economy, spending, news events—may heavily influence outcomes, making it hard to draw simple ideological lessons from the results alone.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Unelectable Candidates:

  "Trump is a black swan event...but if you go back...the Democrats held the Senate because Republicans nominated unelectable candidates like Christine O’Donnell...who called herself a witch."
  (Dan Pfeiffer, 10:31–11:30)

• On Media Double Standards:

  "It seems as if when we’re talking about Democrats...they are comparing DSA candidates to, say, generic Republican of 2012, when they’re not talking about how...a lot of these candidates are operating in the same milieu as Victor Marks or Mike Lindell."
  (Jane Coaston, 11:50)

• On Democratic Voter Mood:

  "I don’t think people in establishment politics are quite aware of how angry Democratic voters are right now. Like, the level of anger coming out of, like, my dad would surprise some people."
  (Jane Coaston, 17:06)

• On Intra-Party Dynamics:

  "In the Democratic civil war, it’s always heads, I win; tails, you lose, always."
  (Dan Pfeiffer, 18:06)

• The Generational Shift:

  "The answer is that this era of the Democratic establishment is over...the voters are done with it. They’re not listening to it...2028 will be the transition to a new era."
  (Dan Pfeiffer, 16:13)

---

Important Timestamps

• 06:12–07:13: Senate forecast, Democrat odds and enthusiasm
• 09:56–12:58: Republican “unelectable” candidates, media framing, and history of party candidate selection
• 12:58–14:18: Panic over progressives, lack of curiosity about their appeal
• 14:18–17:06: Swing states’ importance, change within Democratic Party
• 17:06–19:58: How to interpret 2026 results & party faction infighting

---

Overall Tone & Style

The conversation is sharp, irreverent, and skeptical—Jane Coaston punctuates analysis with humor and pointed asides, while Dan Pfeiffer brings a mix of historical context and tactical insight. Both challenge conventional wisdom, questioning why media and party insiders seem so invested in being alarmed about progressive energy rather than understanding it.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a brisk, insightful look at the 2026 midterm political dynamics. The pairing of Coaston and Pfeiffer deftly unpacks why Democratic establishment panic about progressives may be overblown and how old models of candidate “electability” are being stress-tested in real time. Their critique of media narratives and insistence on understanding actual voter motivation make this a valuable listen (or read) for anyone tracking the shifting tides of American party politics.

Transcript

[A]

I guarantee you that if you knew that we might lose the Michigan race, that chance of winning the Senate would drop well below 55. Because when you do all the paths, you really need Michigan to get there because otherwise, then you have to win three of the four states that were Democrats competitive. Trump won by double digits.

[B]

I'm Jane Coston and this is what a day. A show that says congratulations to former Olympic canoeer David Hearn. You might remember that the Trump administration accused him of vandalizing the reflecting pool and charged him with a felony. Well, on Friday, U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro dropped all charges against Hearn, admitting that the many, many problems with the reflecting pool are the result of, quote, a botched installation and not vandalism. But don't tell that to President Donald Trump, who said today that Pirro choked, folded like an umbrella, because of course he did. On today's show, we talk midterms madness and the weirdest Republican candidates we're ignoring with polite America's Jan Pfeiffer. Before we get into all that, here's what we're following today, Monday, August 3rd place.

[A]

We're talking about the strait. The opening of the strait, having it

[B]

open literally by tomorrow, completely open. My question is, who is he talking to about this? Because Iran is reportedly not picking up. Trump spoke to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday after Iran said that negotiations to end the war aren't restarting. The mixed messaging comes after the president canceled strikes on Iran over the weekend, saying there was another framework for a ceasefire and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to oil and natural gas tankers. Remember the Strait of Hormuz that was open before the war began. President Trump criticized Iran for claiming that its meetings with Oman were focused solely on establishing a temporary route for safe navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The president also said in the Oval Office today, quote, I want to give them every last chance before decapitation. Very tough to do what we have planned. Still planned. We'll see what happens. Sure.

[A]

Mr. President, did you sign off on Todd Blanche?

[B]

I didn't look at it. All I know is that Todd Blanche is great. He's going to do a great job. Everybody knows it. And I understand there's been a sign

[A]

off, but I didn't, I don't know what they agreed. I think Todd Blanch agree reconfirmed things

[B]

that he's already said and what he said was okay. President Trump maintained his support of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in the Oval Office today, despite news that Blanche had committed in writing to killing the president's beloved anti weaponization slush fund. Blanche's commitment came after days of impasse between the Trump administration and two outgoing Republican senators who no longer give a shit, Texas's John Cornyn and North Carolina's Thom Tillis. Tillis and Cornyn threatened to block Blanche's bid to lead the Justice Department unless they got written assurance that Trump's $1.8 billion anti weaponization fund was officially dead. Which it turns out worked. The two senators said Monday they will now vote to advance Blanche's nomination. But don't worry, Trump and his family still get protections from IRS audits of past tax returns because I suppose that's fine Two people have died in the Cyclospora outbreak the Michigan Department of Health announced the first confirmed deaths in the US Related to the microscopic parasite on Monday. Officials said underlying health conditions in both people may have impacted the intestinal illness and dehydration. Since May 1, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have received reports of more than 4,100 confirmed cases related to the foodborne illness, which causes explosive diarrhea. More than 7,000 other likely cases are being investigated across 41 states. The CDC has warned that the total number of people sickened by the outbreak is likely higher than the official tally because not all cases are reported.

[A]

So ask yourself if I had assaulted her, would she had offered to cook me dinner six days later? Would she have invited me to spend an afternoon at the playground with her and our daughter?

[B]

That was gross human Ohio Republican Representative Max Miller, in a video posted on his Twitter account on Sunday, attempting to explain away the horrifying allegations made by his former wife, Emily Moreno. In court filings, Moreno accused him of putting a gun to her head and shoving her repeatedly in addition to physically abusing their young daughter. In response, Miller has denied the allegations and said his former wife has, quote, significant mental health challenges. Their divorce was finalized in 2025, but the legal battling hasn't stopped. Last week, Emily Moreno's attorney filed a restraining order against Miller alleging harassment. Emily's father, Bernie Moreno, is a Republican senator from Ohio, and on Sunday he finally said something about the alleged abuse, senator Moreno wrote on Twitter in part, quote, as he has admitted privately, Max Miller needs serious psychological help. He is a danger to my daughter and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter. He continued saying, quote, he should not serve in the House of Representatives. And that's the news. Let's talk about the midterms. You've probably heard a lot about the Democratic socialists and progressives running for office nationwide and maybe even more about how establishment Democrats are terrified of them. Like in Michigan, where former Wayne County Health Director Abdul EL Sayed is running for Senate on his support for Medicare for All and opposition to funding Israel. A lot of that concern is because establishment Democrats think that progressives will lose to their Republican counterparts. But how much have you heard about the Republican candidates running for statewide office this cycle? Candidates like Victor Marks, who is running for the Governor's Mansion in Colorado and who also claims to have committed murder as a child. Or Mike Lindell. You might remember him as the MyPillow CEO who bolstered 2020 election conspiracy theories. Well, now he's running to be Minnesota's next governor and he has Trump's support. So are establishment Democrats right? Will progressive candidates push voters to Republicans? Even the least qualified people around? To find out, I talked to Dan Pfeiffer. He's the co host of Pod Save America and the author of the Message Box newsletter on Substack. Dan, welcome back to what a Day.

[A]

It's great to be here.

[B]

So we've been hearing for months that Democrats have a good shot at winning back the House, but a new election forecast from G. Eliot Morris at Strength in Numbers out today says Democrats also have a 55% chance to win the Senate in November. Does that line up with what you're seeing or are we just getting really high on Hopium again?

[A]

Well, it's interesting. I've always sort of thought that we were basically a coin flip and maybe Republicans had a slight advantage. But G. Eliot Morris is not the only forecast that has Democrats slightly favored. Laksha Jane at the argument has it at 53% chance. It kind of makes sense if you believe the fundamentals of politics still work. Trump's numbers are in the toilet and getting worse. People are very unhappy with the economy. Democrats have a pretty massive enthusiasm advantage in terms of who's most likely to vote. And Democrats have great candidates running in these Senate races. So if this really is a plus 7 plus 8 democratic environment and you have candidates like Roy Cooper, Mary Paltola and Sherrod Brown who have a history of over performing in their states, you can see how you can get some wins in some pretty hard states.

[B]

If you're also dazzled by the idea of big Democratic wins in tough states, stay tuned. We'll get back to my conversation with Jan Pfeiffer in a moment. In the meantime, make sure to subscribe. Leave a five star review on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Watch us on YouTube and share with your friends. More to come after some ants what a Day is brought to you by Delete Me. Have you ever thought I should really be doing something to protect myself from stalkers, scammers, and hackers, but you're not sure what? Here's what you do. Go to www.joindeleteme.com wad and enter code WAD. You'll get 20% off DeleteMe. DeleteMe removes your personal information that's being sold online. In the age of AI, we're all especially vulnerable to scammers using your personal data that's floating around on the Internet against you. Have you ever googled yourself and found your home address, phone number, or the name of a family member? It's unsettling, but the good news is DeleteMe can help. That's why Deleteme was named the top pick for data removal services by Wirecutter. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. That's why I'm so glad DeleteMe is there to help 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com wad and use promo code wad at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to www.joindeleteme.com wad and enter code wad at checkout. That's www.joindeleteme dot com waad code wod. What a day is brought to you by Zebiotics. Let's face it, after a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is, until I found Pre Alcohol Zebiotics. Pre Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration. That's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. Just remember to make Pre Alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. Every time I have pre alcohol before drinks. I do notice a difference the next day. Even after a night out, I can confidently plan on working out without worry. Mondays don't move for anyone. Pre alcohol works overnight so you can have a real weekend and still show up. Sharp sebiotics.com wad code waad for 15%

[A]

off hey, it's Tommy from Pod Save America and Pot Save the World. Last year, 2,500 people joined us at CrookedCon for conversations with some of the smartest organizers, least annoying politicians, and most interesting voices in politics to talk about how to fix this mess. Even President Obama made a surprise appearance. We're doing it all again November 5th to 7th in Washington, D.C. with even more podcasts, panels and workshops. Plus there'll be drinks, which we'll need after the midterms. No matter which way they go, get tickets at CrookedCon. If you're a friend of the pod, you get a discount too. See you there.

[B]

Let's get back to my conversation with Dan Pfeiffer. Republicans have a noted track record of electing people who were once thought to be unelectable, namely President Donald Trump. I think Democrats thought that this is kind of what they were doing with Graham Platner in Maine. They ran an untraditional candidate with a complicated past who they thought in some ways made them a better candidate. But they weren't. He had to drop out. So depending on why can Republicans do this successfully and Democrats can't? Why do Republicans get to nominate? To me, crazy people and Democrats can't do that.

[A]

I think the history show Republican cannot do it either.

[B]

Well, besides Trump. Again, besides Trump.

[A]

Trump is a he is a black swan event. He is a unicorn. So let's take Trump out of it for a second. Okay, if you go back to the years that should have been great, there are three examples of cycles that should have been good for Republicans in the Senate 2010 in a huge Republican landslide year 2012, even though it was a good year for Obama, it was a terrible map for Democrats. We had defense seats in Missouri and Indiana and Ohio. And then you have 2022. Biden's very unpopular his first year. In all of those examples, the Democrats held the Senate because Republicans nominated unelectable

[B]

candidates like Blake Masters in Blake masters,

[A]

Herschel Walker, Dr. Oz in 2010. In the 2010 Senate race to replace Joe Biden, who had just become the vice president, Mike Castle, who was the incredibly popular congressman from Delaware, lost in a primary to Christine o', Donnell, a Tea Party candidate who called herself a witch.

[B]

Ah who famously had to explain that she was not a witch.

[A]

She claims to have dabbled in witchery, but she was not electable and lost and gave a seat that Republicans would have walked into. So for both sides have suffered from this, and so you do have to nominate candidates who can win.

[B]

I think, though, that maybe this is actually a complaint about how the media covers Democrats specifically.

[A]

That's a fair point, as always, which

[B]

is that, you know, this year we have Mike Lindell, the My Pillow guy, who is has Trump's backing to run for the gubernatorial nomination in Minnesota. You have Victor Marks, who has claimed to have killed multiple people, including as a child, and have rescued 45,000 people from slavery, which I don't think happened. And he's the GOP nominee in Colorado. Now, these are both states where the Minnesota GOP and the Colorado GOP are kind of not doing very well. But it seems as if when we're talking about Democrats and we're talking about the dsa, for example, which we'll get more into when you read media outlets, they are comparing DSA candidates to, say, generic Republican of 2012, when they're not talking about how, you know, these. A lot of these candidates are operating in the same milieu as someone like Victor Marks or Mike Lindell. So why does that keep happening? Why is it that Democrats need to have this sturm and drang about establishment versus progressive and who can win, and Republicans just keep nominating people who say they killed people?

[A]

You know, it's interesting because in one sense, you're asking me, why does the media hold Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans? I do not have an answer for that question, but it has been a problem for a very, very long time, and particularly in the Trump era. One of the reasons why we are having the electability debate on the Democratic side is there are a bunch of very powerful Democrats who want to have the electability debate and have argued in Michigan in particular that Abdul El Sayed is not electable. And so they are forcing the debate upon themselves.

[B]

And there's also been a lot of hoopla about Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, a Democratic socialist who looks poised to win the state's Democratic primary for. For governor. But I've also noticed there's a lot of concern about how she's unelectable and how this is terrible. But there seems to be a lack of curiosity as to why she's doing so well. I think back to 2016, 2017, Dan. And there was that meme about sending journalists to diners to talk about why they voted for Trump. No one is really doing that with why voters support Hong or other DSA candidates in races both in New York and elsewhere. Beyond the kind of, oh, you know, they're downwardly mobile and they're dumb, why is that not happening? What are we missing about why these voters are supporting any number of DSA linked candidates?

[A]

Yeah, it's interesting because the DSA conversation is kind of, I think, becomes overly specific because Abdul Syed, not a DSA candidate, but falls into this category. And you're 100% right, that there is this lack of curiosity, not just from the media, but from the establishment folks who keep losing these primaries as to why they are losing. And I think in New York and in Colorado, they could, in their own minds, chalk it up to, these are incredibly, some of the most liberal districts in the country. Kamala Harris won all those districts by more than 50 points. Even Colorado won. And ultimately, while it may cause Hakeem Jeffries some challenges in terms of how he manages his caucus, because people all kind of ran against him, who the Democratic nominee is winning those races no matter what. Now we get to Michigan and Wisconsin statewide races. These are quintessential swing states that Trump has won in two of the last three elections. Wisconsin is such a swing state that it's been decided by one point in five of the last seven presidential elections and with huge consequences for the party in both races. I guarantee you that if you knew that we were going to, we might lose the Michigan race, that chance of winning the Senate would drop well below 55. Because when you do all the paths, you really need Michigan to get there, because otherwise then you have to win three of the four states that were Democrats competitive, Trump won by double digits. Who wins a Wisconsin governorship has massive implications for the administration of the 2028 election. And if that person is reelected, that person will be in charge of drawing the maps after the 2030 census. Like this is incredibly important. So the stakes are very high here. Democrat establishment books are applying to this electability question. An old model where you look at it and you say candidates further to the left or the right of the electorate in whatever state or district you're in, do less well than ones who are more aligned with it. That's what the political science research. That's what history says. Is that still true in this environment? That's a really open question. Will it matter in an environment that is plus 6, 7 or 8 points Democratic, where Francesca Hong or Abdul said, who could outperform Democrats, but if they were to Underperform Democrats by 5 points are still the next senator and governor of those states. To get to your original question, the reason why people are not exploring this question is because they don't want to know the answers. Because the answer is that this era of the Democratic establishment is over. The people in charge of it may still be in charge of it at the end, but the voters are done with it. They're not listening to it. They do not care about it. The 2028 will be the transition to a new era. We went from the Clinton era to the Obama era. We've been struggling to figure out what comes next. After the Obama era, we went back to a Clinton era for a while. The Biden era was kind of a mix of both. And voters are looking for something very different. And the people who in charge don't really want to know the answers to those questions because the answers are not good for them.

[B]

Yeah, I think that something I keep getting just from anecdotal conversations with people I know, family, things like that. I don't think people in establishment politics are quite aware of how angry Democratic voters are right now. Like, the level of anger coming out of, like, my dad would surprise some people. But that's right. The challenging thing about a primary is that it is not the end of the race. Eventually, these candidates will go on to face Republican candidates in the general electorate. So if Democrats do sweep the midterms, take both the Senate and the House, is it going to be because people are responding to their messages, or will it have to do with that D +8, D +7 environment? And kind of this idea of like, sure, you wouldn't normally vote for someone like this, but they're running against a complete maniac, or they're running against Stephen Miller existing, or they're running against Trump writ large.

[A]

I think no matter how it ends, the people who are in boat on either side of the faction or the Democratic Party will try to weaponize those results to explain why their side did not lose. Because in the, in this, in the Democratic civil war, it's always heads, I win, tails, you lose, always. And so you're trying to have an, like a true assessment of the race. Like, how did they do? If you're trying to actually see the results in 2026 and apply them to what it says about 2028 and the types of candidates that appeal in a state, you have to like, look at it and say, let's say, let's say Abdul wins the Michigan primary tomorrow night. Let's say he beats Mike Rogers. Does he beat Mike Rogers by a lot more? By the same amount that Jocelyn Benson wins the governor's race? Does he do it by a lot less? Does he do it by more? You need a baseline to work with. Are Democrats winning governor's races across the country by six points and then Francesca Hong wins by eight points? That tells us something about her message. Elections are dynamic. A million things are happening. Spending decisions will matter. What happens on the ground will matter. The state of the economy. If a plant closes in the last week, two weeks of the election, that can affect things. Wisconsin's really going to be really hard to analyze because not only is Francesca Hong a Democratic socialist running in a state that is certainly more moderate than she is, she's also running to succeed a two term Democratic governor. And those are always the hardest. That third term is always really, really hard. So it could be she could lose a close race. And it tells us almost nothing about her message and it says more about this is a change electorate and she had to happen to be she was a Democratic socialist running on this very progressive platform and stopping data centers, yet was also the status quo candidate in a change election.

[B]

Dan, as always, thank you so much for joining me.

[A]

Happy to be here and to chew over these unanswerable questions.

[B]

I love an unanswerable question.

[A]

Well, you're in the right line of work for that.

[B]

That was my conversation with Dan Pfeiffer, co host of Pod Save America and author of the Message Box newsletter on Substack. We'll put a link to it in the show notes before we go. In case you missed it, Crooked Media has an exciting new limited series to share with you just in time for the midterms. It's called Long Play. For both major parties, the path to winning America runs to the south. But to win it, we have to understand it. Today they're heading to North Carolina to learn about the issues driving voters, the assumptions that no longer hold, and what the rest of the country is missing about a region that could shape the future of our politics and our country. It's really excellent work from Emmy nominated host and Southerner Jennifer Palmeri, former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu, and award winning journalist Aaron Haynes. Listen now every Monday wherever you get your podcasts. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, contemplate the continued grossness of Republican men and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading, I'm not just about GOP Representative Chuck Edwards, whose behavior towards young female staffers, including personalized handguns and creepy poems, has gotten so bad that the House Ethics Committee recommended he be censured today. Like me, what a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and [e-mail] subscribe I'm Jane Coston. And again, personalized handguns and creepy poems. Why what a Day Is a production of Crooked Media. Our show is produced by Caitlin Plummer, Emily For Erica Morrison and Adrienne Hill. Our team includes Haley Jones, Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Joseph Dutra, Johanna Case and Desmond Taylor. Our music is by Kyle Murdoch and Jordan Kanter. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

[C]

Hi, I'm Alex Wagner. I do not need to tell you that being an American right now is a wild ride. But as a longtime journalist, I am not interested in the noise or the fear mongering. I'm interested in the stories at the heart of the headlines. That is why every week on my show Runaway Country, I'm joined by folks in the middle of the crossfire. From disillusioned Maha moms to newly fired immigration judges to Epstein victims themselves to understand what it means to live through this political chaos as an actual human being. And now I'm excited to tell you that Runaway country is available ad free to Friends of the POD subscribers. Friends of the Pod is a subscription that supports the work Crooked does as an independent media company and gives you a ton of great bonus and ad free content. With the midterms approaching, you are going to need more content to keep you sane. And now you can find Runaway country right there. Subscribe [e-mail] backslash friends.