Neera Tanden: How to Win

(upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to the Board Daily. I'm your host Tim Miller, delighted to welcome back to the show, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. She is domestic policy advisor to Biden. She also served in both the Obama and Clinton administrations. She's in her pearls, which I appreciate. And I've not yet seen her post on x.com so far, which is a little different from how you seem to be spending your days lately. It's near a tendon. - Nice to be with you. - So good to be with you. Welcome back. Oh yeah, it's always gonna be, it's gonna be fun. - That's great, that's great. - You're getting sued by the White House and you are tweeting a lot. So we're gonna get to both of those things. So you might be getting sued. They're threatening to see you. We're gonna get to those. But first we have some news last night in South Carolina. At Darlene Graham, Lindsey sister, who apparently knows nothing and doesn't read the news, was nominated by the Republican Party to be the senator from that state for a six year term. It's free crazy and she beat Ralph Norman as relatively close. Norman had been like one of the key instigators of the insurrection, so not exactly a moderate, but then he did endorse Nikki Haley and that got Trump's eye or Trump spent a bunch of money in that race. And some ways I find Darlene Graham to be the kind of the perfect mega senator, but what was your reaction to the result last night? - Did he find her to be the perfect mega center senator because she seemed to be almost proud of not knowing anything about foreign policy? Look what the job of the senator would be. - Well, because she's an empty vessel for Trump. I just think they should make her Senate majority leader. Like John Thune is not representative of the caucus. Okay, John Thune, it likes to pretend like he has views on things. You know, occasionally he like pretends like he wants to distance himself from Trump and he never actually does it. Like Darlene Graham will just do whatever Mr. Trump says. That's what Trump wants in a senator. That's what mega voters want in a senator. And so I just think that she should lead the, a total no-nothing Trump sycophant should be the Senate majority leader. I would think. - Yeah, I mean, I think that's probably more reflective of where the caucus is. I mean, honestly, she's the natural extension of him. Every single vote they've taken, every way that they're locked up with so much of the Kuku crazy. That's the natural flow here. I don't think it's easy to win in South Carolina for a Democrat, but I think, you know, hopefully this gives a little bit more to any Andrews who's challenging her. - Yeah, I was intrigued. Lakshadjean, who is, you know, not like a kind of lib hype data analyst. He does some stuff with our friends of the argument. And, you know, his, he pointed out that Lindsey Graham actually underperformed the median Republican often in South Carolina because he sort of was in the sour spot where some mega people didn't think that he was mega enough because of immigration and then some moderate study sucked up to Trump too much, right? And so he usually kind of underperformed a little bit. And he was saying that if, if Darlene performed like Lindsey did, and the wave for Democrats was about what they predicted to be right now, that any Andrews would only lose by three. I don't know that the Democrats should be, I really invest a huge amounts of money in a hopeless South Carolina race, but that's, I thought that it was interesting. Nancy Lakshadjean is kind of a moderate. - Great candidate. - That trend. Yeah, she's running in that in Nancy Macy's old district. I think this could really help her. Because, you know, because you can just imagine, I mean, Trump was booed at Ralph Norman's concession speech last night. - Yeah, I saw it. - And you can imagine people like that being excited to vote for Darlene. It could, you know, tamp down turn out. And really, I think, helped Nancy Lakshadjean that first district, and who knows? I don't know. Maybe, Andy Andrews. What do you think? - I mean, this gives to a broader issue, which we might get into later, which is that was actually happening in America today, which is, it's really hard for people to see this, but there are people who voted for Trump three times who voted for him in 2016, in 2020, in 2024. You know, like working class people, particularly working class women who are like getting off the Trump train. And I think you see that in some group of Republicans voting for Tallariko in Texas. And I think Darlene Graham puts a lot of pressure on those Republicans who are not so jazzed up about Donald Trump these days. And they could not vote at all, which would be a big problem for their Republicans. I mean, hopefully they would consider voting for Andy Andrews, but I think there's a real opportunity around the country here. And I think the challenge for Trump is that he obviously had to get Graham over the finish line, but she also, I think, pressures a lot of non-Maga Republicans. And that's like a really important distinction that there are Maduro Republicans, who are kind of lockstep, and they're still the majority of the Republican Party, but there's a sliver of FIFA. You're old compatriots, per se. (laughs) You are not Maduro Republicans. You raise questions about Trump and who actually can vote for a rational Democrat. - Yeah, I think that's right. And I do think there'll be turnout issues for Republicans in some of these places. And then like you said, I think depending on the types of candidates, we will get into this in a minute. But Nancy LaCore is like that type of candidate. She is not a lefty ideologue. You can't like, you know, stereotype her is some kind of like woke socialist or whatever. Is she working in the-- - Military leader. (laughs) - Yeah, right. (laughs) Moderate. - Good candidate. That's good for that district. Matches the district would be a great upgrade from Nancy Mays. It would be a nice Nancy upgrade from Nancy to Nancy. And like that is a seat that I've been flagging for a while. That I just think that people are now coming around to the fact that, okay, well, you know, maybe not, the South Carolina Senate race, we'll see how bad things get for Trump. But like some of these seats that are Trump 10, 11, 12, you know, that they didn't even have an election really. I mean, Nancy Mays' election wasn't that competitive in 2024. And now that seat could be gone. - Yes, exactly. I mean, I think this is what's interesting about the map expanding of Rulas. He really, in August, you've seen more and more races. Come on sort of that board. Adam Hamilton running in Kansas. Great candidate is running very, very competitive race. I have no idea what to take about, what to learn from polls, but it's hard. But independent polls have shown that it's a close race. And, you know, I think there is kind of given all these elections in the past, there were a lot of Democrats were like, I'm not getting my hopes up about Republican crossover after all of these elections with Trump. But we are seeing some real evidence of it. And I will say, it's not just polls. You were seeing in special elections, Democrats winning districts that have been plus 10 plus 15, plus 16 Republican districts, Trump won by that much in this race, just in Pennsylvania, the last week, which was a general, and there being a special election. So there are a lot of people who are crossing over or just a big problem for them as a lot of Republicans are staying home. And, I mean, I think a central issue here is not to put OK to that's that Republicans are compelled to come out and vote against. - I'm gonna have some more map talk at the end, but I want to talk about your lawsuit. So essentially it's having Trump's personal lawyer to end a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against the Center for American Progress. Interesting, it was not over something that you said, which is surprising. I would have lost that bet. I would have thought if Cap got sued by the Trump administration, it would have been a near issue, but it wasn't. Yeah, it wasn't in this case. You guys, Cap put out a report about the National Guard, concluded that these deployments had little effect on violent crime rates, the cost to taxpayers, 1.7 billion, and that hurt Trump's feelings. And so, is that the just? - Yeah, that's pretty much the just, essentially saw the author of the report, Jenner Hall, who did a great job with the support Trump saw him on C-SPAN. I didn't realize he had time for C-SPAN viewing. - Really? That's really what happened. - It's like, you look at his social media press, his Jewish social post of this, from two weeks ago, and it really does seem like he watched Jenner Hall on C-SPAN. 'Cause the report came out like a month and a half ago, and Chandler was on C-SPAN, and Trump is ramping to C-SPAN, and he didn't like their report. - So either the human printer showed in the C-SPAN clip, or maybe he got mad at Fox one day, and at the club at Mar-a-Lago, he's sitting there eating his well-done hamburger before the golf course or after, and he told them to put on C-SPAN instead. Those are the only two theories I have. - Yes, I mean, it's weird. I don't really think of him as watching, like Washington Journal every morning. (laughing) But he somehow saw this Chandler talk about their report. And I do wanna say, he attacked us early that week. That Friday, August 14th, he was planning, he did a big campaign in NASA County in New York, basically attacking Democrats on crime, talking about the National Guard deployment. So I do think he thinks this report is a problem for him, and that's why he's attacking us. Now, I mean, their report goes through models Analyzes violent crime. crime, gun crime, homicide rates, the rate of violent crime reduction in the cities with deployments versus without who cities that didn't have deployments, it's really a factual analysis of how despite spending, you know, as much as $1.7 billion on the National Guard deployments, we don't have evidence that they are actually reducing crime. And, you know, there's a Reuters story just recently about how in DC, and National Guard have been involved in less 1% or less than 1% of actual, you know, arrests. So, NPR has a story out that, you know, just talking to National Guard in DC saying that they don't think they're doing anything, and it's basically a political ploy. So, you know, I mean, I don't think you liked the fact that we are calling out that this could be, you know, a real waste of a lot of money. So, yeah. And these people's lives, you know, like they have lives in their home states, you know, it gets back to school time, right? It's like, you know, Sunday they've other jobs, you know, who is parent, they're like, they're like real human considerations. These guys just to walk, I know it's DC, I was blown away when I was in DC recently, it's like they're circling, Dupont circle. It's kind of walking around the park. They're like these guys and like a military Humvee outside of LaDroid Park. What is the point of this? Exactly. I mean, that is an issue we raised. And we basically asked the question, which is if it's not actually having an impact on crime rates, then why is he spending this money? And just, you know, it's $1.7 billion, a lot of money, and you could actually, actually feed people with that or give them help here or not take away so many people's help here. You know, that's like real, real money. Feeding people and giving health care is important. It also really salts the vibes in the French quarter. I think they're finally leaving the French quarter, but it's like, we don't need dudes in military gear, like walking around Bourbon Street. You know, this is, we're trying to enjoy ourselves here. Yeah. We can't say it's no great for tourism to have National Guard troops deployed in your next year. That necessary. Local, favorite cavern. Yeah. You know, I just want to have my purple drink with things. Yeah. I don't need a guy in a military fatigues and a gun looking at me. Well, I'm trying to have a purple drink. I like, we joke about it. But I do just want to sit for one second on like everything with Trump. It's like there's part of it that's idiocracy and farce. And it's part of it that's really malicious that came in allegedly, you know, talking about free speech. And they had this, you know, there's speak outrage over Biden, you know, ways in which the Biden administration was concerned about misinformation on social media. And they thought that was a infringement on free speech. And now they come in and time and again, they're trying to bully media outlets, activists, like people exercising their free speech rights. And I think it's not precedent. You know, and I do feel like there's been more outrage about it. Just to say what this really is in my mind is, first of all, it's an escalation from like attacking media outlets to a research institution. Of course, I will say we're ideological, you know, we're not, we're progressive. We're center left. But the report itself is all based on data and analysis. And it's, it's really the cornerstone of what research institutions are. I mean, we are looking at a federal government policy and analyzing its impact. If you, if that's subject to a $5 billion defamation suit or if that's not basically protected speech, it's really hard to know what would be. I mean, what is also kind of extraordinary about this is we have a criticism of a Trump administration policy and his personal lawyer is arguing that it's defamation against him, which is like kind of insane to think that saying his policies don't work is defamation against the president. If that's allowed to stand, it's hard to know what could be offered in like the public discourse on federal policy. It would be hard to imagine anything that was that isn't basically the narrative of the Trump administration surviving critique. So, obviously, it's kind of a cuckoo situation, but I do think there's a very serious issue here, which is I'm really trying to bully organizations and get them to self sense where I think this is a whole part of what they do, which is it's, obviously, we are going to stand up and we believe that this is a bullying tactic in the Center for American Progress. A hundred percent stands by their report and will kind of, you know, fight to the nail against this bullying tactic. But other organizations, you know, will think twice about what they say about the president. I'm worried about this. And that is part of their goal. Is this worth the hassle? Yeah, it's worth the hassle. She would just not, you know, maybe we shouldn't mention their name or each talk about a government policy and not have it really be about Trump. And that is like what their goal is. And as I said to my team, you know, I think one of the tactics of this administration is to use fear to get people to self-sensor and we're not going to do that. So, and I think it's also important for us to role model, like, not giving into the ways. And so, it's unpleasant. I will say it's not a pleasant thing to do with, but I think it's important for me with all the lawyers. You got through this, you know, when there's various threats and it's like, it's much from the personal lawyer, the president, it's expensive. Other, at everything tank is, is that well capitalized, right? Yeah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, we're going to end up paying. I mean, we're, we're paying money for this. I mean, we have insurance and other things, but it ensures we uncover everything. So, cap is putting out resources because of this attack. So, but like the choice between standing up and paying something versus, you know, taking, taking our report down as like not a close call for us. You picked the wrong person on the playground to try to pull like on this one. You know, I feel like that goes a mistake strategically, but I appreciate that you guys are fighting it. Speaking of their propaganda efforts, I thought this is just before, you know, we got into kind of democratic, you know, back and forth within the Democratic party, we might just, we might have a little palate cleanser before we start that section of the podcast because there is some crazy propaganda that is happening out there from somebody that you've had some back and forth with on CNN. And that is Scott Jennings. He's currently on, he's auditioning to be the press secretary for some reason, which is interesting. I was skeptical of this at first because it's like, he could make a lot more money on the outside and, you know, it's less busy and whatever, but he seems to really want to be the press secretary based on credible reporting. And here he was in his radio, because when you're press secretary, you're on TV a lot. You're, you're probably on TV even more. I did like the back and forth between him and Caitlin, where he's like, Caitlin, you wouldn't be excited to get to work with me every day. And Caitlin's like, Scott, I see you all the time. And he's like, you'd get to see me more. Caitlin was like, I think I see play. But anyway, here he was in his radio show, new go T, new GLP one, like the shirt is a little baggy. And he's talking about the situation in Iran. I want to play that for you. And I believe this announcement may confirm something that many in our political class refuse to acknowledge the United States has won the war against Iran. Wars are one when one side achieves its strategic objectives and the other loses the ability to achieve its own with the American flag and everything like this could be a spoof movie. And if you saw this in a spoof movie, you'd be like, okay, okay, it's sure. But like that is real. Like he's doing North Korea propaganda behind a fake American flag backdrop, talking about how we won in Iran. What? Yeah. I have to say, I have had the great, the great. Displeasure. Displeasure to be on a newsnight happy film show with Scott. And, you know, I think the thing that drives Scott Jennings is defending Donald Trump at all costs. He will pervert any fact, create any fiction, draw any insane picture to rationalize, justify, excuse the President of the United States, which makes him actually a perfect candidate for pro-sectary. To me, Scott Jennings has been like auditioning to be the next pro-sectary for the last year and a half. And as someone who's definitely sparred with Scott Jennings, like the first time I did, Abby Phillips, happy happened to criticize him about his wild outrage and anger about the Tesla per test while kind of excusing the January 6th thing. And I swear to God, he was going to call me a bitch on TV, but health itself back. It was really angry. And so since then, we haven't been particularly close in the green room or anything, but my take on him is, you know, he is out for fame, book sales. He loves traveling around the country, makes him really happy to talk to the White House on the phone. And so he'll be excited. You know, I'm not surprised at all that he's being seriously considered. A little dignity, though. I honestly, honestly, and everybody, you've had to spend near everyone's side to sit. We've all been in the game before, not me any. I get to do radical candor, I'm a podcaster, but I, you know, I used to be a flak. You have to spend I to go on and be like, we have won the war in Iran. I mean, it's, it's Baghdad Bob style. I've been on the show with him for months now. I mean, I'm not on as much as he is, but I've been on since the Rennwar every week. I am on saying, look, what's happening? We are losing the war and he will say, no, we are winning the war. So it is obviously an added dramatic effect to have the full North Korea, flat waving back, but it's not different than what he's been saying for months. And, you know, I mean, what is interesting is to be serious, we are coming up. August 28th will be the six month anniversary of this war where people like scotch onings and everyone else has been saying we are winning this war. And we are obviously not winning this war. So they have been lying to the American people for months about a war. And I think that's reprehensible, but not unexpected from scotch atings. I watched an old cook van from May, March, I don't know where he's talking about. I'll come on that this is going to be over soon. Give us a little bit more time. Like here we are coming up on Labor Day. This is an unconfirmed report. I don't usually like to share these, but I think it's interesting because, you know, there's stuffing bandied around about this. And the CIA director, Reckliffe went to Moscow. My guy, Michael Weiss and Mark Palomaropoulos, if you guys have missed this, they're doing a series for us now on YouTube. So people can check that out and make kind of bad at around the various reasons why Reckliffe could have gone there. But one report we have is that he was essentially asking Moscow to press Iran into reopening the straight of four moves because of, you know, the issues to the oil market and basically threatening Russia and saying, hey, we're going to put the sanctions back on the Trump took off because he liked you. I'm like, you might think you like should more than put the sanctions back on. If you don't press your Iran on the straight of four moves and Russia have said no. So I don't like regardless of like if that is true, you know, like a humiliating, if true, I guess, but like the fact that we are here and that it could be, right? Like that, like I think one boat went through the straight of four moves on Monday. I haven't seen the Tuesdays numbers, but like that's where we're at six months in. Yeah. I mean, with or without this Russia story, you know, let's just dip back and say the Iranians are dictating terms on the straight of four moves today. They are dictating terms to Donald Trump on how to seize hostilities. If you had said to me a year ago or eight months ago that somehow Donald Trump would manage to strengthen Iran, the Iranian regime, I would have said that's really hard to imagine, but here we are. And the United States is in a more and a run, just as a reminder, Donald Trump decided to get kind of do this one on his own. And we are all paying for it. We're paying more for gas or paying more for a whole range of things. Things are pretty expensive. And he is at the point where he is sort of begging other countries to ally. Let's ally with us against Iran to put pressure on Iran. And you know, it's also, it was happening. Are European allies were like, Hey, you're on your own. Other countries are like, Hey, you're on your own because this guy told them to kind of screw off over the last year and a half. So you look around around the world and I mean, it sounds insane. But somehow Iran is a more sympathetic actor around the world that's insane. They're a terrible regime, horrible regime. But he's, he's screwed this up so badly that we don't have an open spread of our moves. Gas prices are pretty high and he can't make a deal. This is my analysis. I said this before, but the real reason why he can't make a deal because it will be clear that he's lost as soon as he makes that deal. Like we are losing this war. It's just a question of the finality of that, how clear the loss will be. And, you know, Contra or Scott Jennings, if you are in a situation where the Iranians have control of the straighter for moves, then we are losing this war. Deep breath. Now we get to the section I have titled bones to pick with Nira. Okay, here we go. Look, one reason we love each other is because we're both posters at heart. You know, we both just want to express our views. And I was your number, defender when those just cowardly Republican senators were like, Nira was mean to me on Twitter. I can't confirm where I were mad at Nira. Doesn't it seem funny now? Like given everything that's ever like everywhere. And the Trump is said about everybody. Yeah, this happened. This was something to happen. Republican senators were whining about Nira's. The Nira was too mean to them on Twitter. I did say that Susan Collins was the worst and I stand by that. And I think vindicated by time. So that was six years ago, your Twitter energy, though lately has been a little bit off of Susan Collins for my taste. I counted this morning, 15 tweets about Hassan Piker since Sunday. You and Ryan Grimm seem like Peter Twinkwich posted this that I do think it's kind of charming that Ryan Grimm and Nira Tanden don't block each other and keep lashing at each other's throats every day. You rarely see that manner of a grade wagyu beef anymore. I don't really. I respect, I want to say, I think I respond. I'm not the one tweeting it, Ryan, most of the time. I would say the same thing to Ryan if he was on. I'm sorry. This is a lot of attacking the left right now from you on the Twitter account. When we have a big challenge ahead of us November. And so what's talked to me about? Yeah. So I think this is a really important thing to discuss. So I actually appreciate the opportunity to talk about this because I want to make a distinction. And I've said this publicly. I said this to New York Times like a month or two ago, which is where DSA candidates win in blue cities, like that's everything for a party. It's okay for a democratic broad tent to have very liberal candidates and very liberal parts of the country. And when people complain about this, I say to them, there are like some really cuckoo members in like mega parts of the country. And you know, like it's a big tent and we should be growing that might concern. And it's a genuine concern is that Hassan Piker is noxious to the brand of the Democratic Party in swing states and swing districts. And I'm always for a big tent, but big tents have tent poles. And tent all for me is we should be against racism, sexism homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism. You and I have talked in the past about past Senate races and how some of them have implicated some of those issues. And I just I try to be consistent and say, I don't think it's great to do those things at a moral level. And then to be honest about it, I also think it's a terrible political strategy. Now I know a lot of Democrats were like, Trump is so terrible. Why can't we be as terrible? Like we need our own people. That's not my position. No, I know it's not your position. I'm talking about strategy. Yeah. I'm dual one. 15 tweets about Piker this week feels like a lot like a dual one. And he's got I've got things that I could nitpick up dual about, but like he's not campaigning with the Sun anymore. Like that was in the past. Exactly. And again, so like why keep talking about it? It's like not that helpful. Oh, I see where I said I was I feel like I have tried to be clear that it's good. It's a good thing that he's moved off of Piker. And I've said multiple times I would support a dual seat. I think this is a good step. A lot of people looked at a statement and said, Oh, it's not enough. A dual seat. It's a good statement. It's not enough. You know, you can't, like it's good when people do stuff you want them to do. That's great. But I'll treat less if you'd like. No, I like your tweeting. I just, I'm just trying to like, I'm trying to like an 80, 20, or just I also want to hear your real thoughts. Right? Like look, I've said this before too. Like, this is all there's balance in all things. You know, I think at some level, you don't have to comment on this until you're in the White House. Like we could use a few more people talking about how we have concerns about Biden's electability going ahead to 2024. Like sometimes when you circle the wagons too much, you actually do self harm, right? And so I agree with that. Like flagging issues within the coalition of flagging things that people are doing that are hurting the chances of victory. Like I'm, I'm for all that. But I'm not for is just like death, fight to the death between like the factions from the party and having that be the main focus. And like I am seeing a little bit of that. Yeah. I hear what you're saying. I guess what I'd say is like, you know, I knew back and forth to this. I'll just be really honest. You know, you know, why do I need to talk about any of this? I just get yelled at a lot. You can see I get yelled at a lot. But I do have people come up to me and say, you are scared of like maybe an online mob or something and say, it's really important that your voice is out there, standing up for things like it's wrong to have any anti-Semitism or any Islam if we were any of these issues. And so, you know, I think part of the challenge is that now there will be a kind of narrative saying anyone who criticizes them is they're fighting Gaston Piker more than Republicans, which is like, I really think, genuinely, we should all focus on defeating microadgers. And I thought it was a good step that I feel I'll say it took the step he took and it's a good thing to focus on. And this is an area where I will also come to your defense group, a point of thought. I was like, near has been in the fucking trenches fighting this guy for 10 years. A lot of people who had near his job in the Obama White House or equivalent moved to Seattle or San Francisco did very well for themselves in the private sector and while the country burned. So, I have nothing but love for you on that. One other strategic point that I do, I just think that like, sometimes I feel like both sides have a little blinders on this, both sides within the Democratic faction, which is like, this is a madaglacious point about Sayab that I totally agree with. It is like really important right now for Abdul to be focused on reaching out to a list of slotkin voters who are moderate, people that voted for a list of slotkin when she won in 2024, when Kamala lost and saying to them, "Hey, I am closer to your interest, goals, needs, desires, and microadgers for this reason," right? Like, that's important for him to do-- 100%. 100%. So, I know we are good at that. We are good at that. We are good at that. Yes. Exactly. And this is where I come in. And this is my issue about Piker. And like, the Piker thing is kind of a stand, and for this point, if people have personal issues with him, I get it. He said some things that I obviously find, you know, wrong. But I think that bothers me to signal to the Bernie Trump voters who are going to be also important swing voters in this cycle. You mentioned at the beginning, like, "Hey, I hear you about the wars, by the way. You know what? Like, maybe we're a little bit, you know, maybe we went along a little bit too much. With these kind of wars that both parties support it." I hear you about corporate influence. Yeah. You know? And like, I think we need to be more aggressive in fighting corporate influence in our elections. And so sometimes, I just-- I feel like I see more energy from the moderate faction talking about why the lefties are bad than I do see them saying, "Hey, I disagree with you in some things, but I hear you." Yeah. And these other things. And I'm actually going to fight for that. Yeah. So we've even figured this is what you're saying, okay? Right. I think where the left is really right is that things are really bad in the country. So I think where, you know, you have moderates kind of talking about incrementalism and the left talking about more radical change. I think that's going to actually push people towards the left because, you know, they are-- The left is right that it's insane that we do have a trillionaire dictating election outcomes by the level of spending he's doing. And like, that is oligarchy. And they are right. I mean, the fundamental analysis that things are really broken in the country is actually very right. And I actually think center left people or, you know, kind of normies, you know, it's our job to compete on ideas. That's why I don't think it makes sense to launch a campaign against DSA or things. I think like the thing is, like, if you think DSA is wrong, offer better ideas. Like, I spend a lot of my time thinking about how it is a big problem that the bottom, you know, 60, 65, maybe 70% of Americans are really stuck, you know, like, we have less upward mobility. There, incomes have not kept up with costs. Like, that is a legitimate and accurate fight. And I do think there are big issues around affordability that actually unite, moderates in the middle and left, and the left is really right about a lot of issues. So I'm not, like, fighting off, like, the left per se. My concern, genuinely, is how to win-- I mean, you know this as well as I do. Most 20, 30 Democrats have to win in states. The blue wall is not enough. They have to start-- you know, they have to win in states like Iowa or Ohio or-- Right. You know, places like that, North Carolina for sure. And so to me, I think the real question in front of us is, how do you build a big enough tent? And then how do you ensure that you're doing that in a way where you embrace, like, your base and the left or whoever abroad, the broad tent and the Democratic Party without doing things that alienate, like, kind of Republicans who can come on border independence. And I think Bernie Sanders is a great example of that. Yeah. And that's what I point about both sides. Like, I do think the lefties have some crazy candidates who do who say things that alienate moderate voters. I also just-- this is just anecdotal. But in my social life, I just-- I don't think that, you know, because obviously more people that I talk to are more aligned with more moderate or center candidates, and I don't think that they have just internalized how much they have an alienated, gettable voters, like, particularly on, you know, our relationship with Israel and the wars in Middle East, but also on my corporate capture and stuff like that. And like, it just works both ways, right? Like, it just does. Yeah, right. And I think that, like, unfortunately, you know, in Georgia-- and some-- in Georgia, the coalition is probably big enough to-- you know, now because of the way things go to win with kind of black voters and never Trump, college educated, never Trumpers, Atlanta suburbs, like, that's a big enough coalition to win Georgia. But to win in these states like Iowa and Ohio, like, you got to go back to the Obama Trump Bernie voters. And that's a different kettle of fish. Yeah. But, I mean, let's be honest about this, OK? I mean, there's like a lot of data behind this. And I think we should be really, really, like, genuinely honest. And I think-- All right. So that group of people-- let's not look backwards. Let's look forwards. Donald Trump is losing people who voted for him as we talked about. People voted for him three times. That group of people that he's losing now, and you're probably because of this war, tend to be working class white voters, predominantly women. Hey, guys are still hanging on. But the women, there are a lot of women who have questions about Trump. Those voters are economically populist. They don't think the political system works very well. They do think both political parties kind of are corrupt. And they-- like, I think there are many ways that they are, like, kind of Sanders family. And that's, like, really-- that's important. They are very moderate on crime and immigration. And on some cultural issues as well. And so that's why you see a Rod Sand in a Telleriko take some of the positions they have. And my only plea to everyone is to give, like, grace to candidates running in states like Iowa, Texas, Ohio, Alaska to take on issues for really more security-related issues that are going to be very different and don't call them cell outs and jerks for doing that. And now I'm going to outflank you, because I think that's right. And I think that right now what I'm seeing from a lot of Democratic candidates is it's easy and comfortable within the coalition to say, hey, we should be more economically populist right now, because everybody supports that. Like you said, even moderate supports, they don't get much trouble for saying that, really, maybe with some donors. But for the most part, they don't get much trouble for that. And then they kind of do this kind of vague lip service to, like, you know, we also should move to the middle on immigration or crime or, like, we respond-- you know, we want to keep people safe. But there's nothing-- like, when you then, when you ask them about where their policies are different from Harris policies or whoever, there's nothing there. And you know what I mean? And it's like, this is going to require a little bit of, like, meeting people in the middle on some of those issues, particularly around-- Yeah. And then I mean, I'm, like, John Lennon open borders on immigration. So this is-- like, in both of these issues, this is an omission against interest. I'm not really that economically populist. And the painful taxation on the rich I'm fine for now, I've come around, and that Bernie's won me over. I've met too many rich people. But I also, like, am pretty liberal on immigration, extremely liberal on immigration. But, like, you just have to be real. Yeah, I mean, and I will say, like, Cap has put forward papers and ideas on immigration. And those ideas on immigration would secure the border reform asylum, which is a key component to securing the border, but also expand legal immigration, give people a path to citizenship. And my whole-- our whole argument about this is we can tell the country you don't have to have this, like, terrorizing ICE organization to secure the border. Right. And that's, like, a position that most people have. But you do have to tell people-- just kidding, these states-- how you're going to secure the border. We also put forward a crime plan that is focused on what's reduced crime coming back to our topic, what is reduced crime in cities like Baltimore. And that is, you know, prevention, but it's also additional police and detectives, and also, you know, ensuring that you're having swift punishments for lawbreakers. And so, you know, I mean, I-- but I also think those are just conversations, like, working for people are pretty moderate on those issues. And I don't think-- you know, and I guess I'd say, I would hope that there is a big ten for everybody, and for candidates in more conservative leaning states to be able to take those positions, and then candidates in very liberal cities to be able to take their positions. You mentioned Rob Sand. I don't talk about him in particular. He doesn't understand how there's this video going viral. Do you see this? Talking about how to treat his opponent, Zach Lane. Yeah. This is-- Rob Sand is doing some things that are totally outside of the conversation at all. Yeah. Like, the way that he is veering is not on this kind of moderate leftist-- Yeah. This is very important. It's very important. You know, he's just like doing things very differently. And so, I want to just give two examples of that, that these are not policy issues at all. It's just he's sounding totally different. I want to play one video of him in a town hall talking about his opponent. Who's awful? All dicks is oftentimes pretty simple. stupid. I think that we can acknowledge that me and my opponent are human beings and that everyone who runs for office should be willing to do that because it's important. All right now I still think that I'm the better choice and I'll tell you why but I'm not going to do it without asking you first to keep in mind that this is a debate between two human beings. We don't need to demonize people we don't need to lie about them either. That is going against the conventional wisdom and dem circles that are like we need to go lower. Michelle Obama was not wrong and I don't I watched Rob Sand give a speech to a Democratic audience where he was talking a lot about his you know dads or Republican friend and now they wait for coffee and our Republicans have good ideas and like look this is state Trump won by 11 or 12 and he's modeling like how to like really signal to people like not pay lip service like really signal like no like you can be comfortable with me if you voted for Trump. Yeah I mean this is a really crucial element of all of this which is I think something to lose sight of the fact that in order to take the have a Democratic Senate or to win these the House back you actually have to compete for people who voted for Trump and how do you do that? I mean there's issues are a part of that but there's also what kind of message you're sending in general and like I think I think people should really study Ron Sins race because in everything he does he's trying to communicate that he would be a governor for everybody not just one fact at one side one party he'd be a governor for everybody and look I am a hard fighter okay like on the fighter fold dynamic kind of deadly in the fighting but I also recognize that we're not you for Senate Iowa I would like this nightmare of Trump to be over and the only way I can figure out how to make it over is to have people win in kind of Republican leaning say states so Republicans wonder like what they are doing and maybe that won't happen either but it's better than just sitting here going in 50 50 elections and like let looking at this like general degradation of our country. Here's something else Rob sanded yesterday Jay Martin my friend Jonathan Martin interviewed him. This is the part that you're gonna start with. Yeah I'm going here. Whatever you think about these answers he doesn't sound like a politician. Here's Jonathan Martin. Would you want to have Joe Biden here campaign for you? Sand no can he even do that right now? Jay-Mart how about Kamala Harris no thanks let's move on we need some new leadership Jay-Mart you don't think Harris should run in 2028. Sand no Jay-Mart who do you think is good for 2028 and he goes off to say I'm focused on this race and hear the things really matter future etc. Would everything about those answers those are real answers not politician answers radical candor yeah I mean to me I think this is like an important lesson for all of us like we're all gonna give Grace to Rob Santa say like be to say what he needs to say or say what he believes or say you know like I just think that's I'm gonna give him Grace to do that you know like I think it's like really important that he wins that race and I think he believes everything he's saying and I think is I do think the way he just says yes or no is really important you know like I think people are done with politician's big Rob San 48 exact Lane 44 in the poll at this morning Zach is the sex toy magnate that lives in Kansas and I saw a video of him the other day talking about how he's concerned about the call to prayer in Michigan so it's a Kansas candidate that's invested in in cockerings there's campaigning in Iowa about people praying in Michigan. Those are your birds. Do you disagree with any of them? No I don't I don't disagree with any of them that I'm just saying. That's pretty crazy. I'm just saying. We spend a lot of time clutching our pearls over here me and near talking about things we're concerned that some of the we do some cookie candidates on our side but it's like we don't got anything like that. It's too interesting because like I criticize Republicans all the time and then people are like you don't criticize Republicans enough and I was like look not you you don't do that. I felt like the people said it to me and I was like the real problem in the Republican party is that they go along with you know kind of running the country. So it's really bad and they should stop doing that. Sam Stein has forced me to ask you one last question are you ready for it? Oh God. I'm not going to answer any Sam Stein. And you're right probably can answer this. What do you think about how Ken Martin is doing? Do I I feel like I'm so good at pre-butting that I'm not going to answer this question. Okay Sam's follow up question to you. Would you consider taking his role if I asked? No. Is that a Sherman-esque denial? I just had a percent Sherman-esque denial and I don't think people who who claim to like me should want me to take their job. That is something that we agree on. Anything else you need to get off your chest? Anybody you want to yell about? Anything that cap is doing that you want people to know about? Oh yes yes well I would say and you were grateful for all the support against our lawsuit. It is expensive so go to our website center for American progress at americanprogress.org and check out all the things we're doing. When I will say we have a lot of ideas and I have a lower cost for Americans and I'm really grateful of all the leaders across the country who are using those ideas to go burn and also you know in some of their races. The corruption tracker that you're doing is also really useful and something that I turn to a lot and I actually feel now I'm I'm chastising myself now because I should have we should have brought this up before we got to before we got to you know Michigan Senate discourse because I mean that is related to affordability. Yeah. Democrats got to talk about both this and I was doing sand sering others are doing the people that are doing really well are doing a really good job to Rico of like Ty knows two issues together. Yeah and I think a really important thing to remember about corruption or the $1.7 billion National Guard deployments is it's really important for us to remind people these are the choices the president's making. He's he's like finding $100 billion for the Iran war while he's cutting people's health care. He's spending $1.7 billion on National Guard deployments while he's cutting snap payments and like basically food payments for people hungry. That is the kind of choices that we're dealing with and why change is unnecessary. We'll leave it there. It's Nira Tanden. We'll see you on x.com and we'll have you back on. I don't know probably before the midterms all right. Okay great. Thanks for having me. I'll see you then. Everybody else we back here tomorrow for another edition of the pod. See you all then peace. Just stand back and work this part. The board daily is brought to you thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper associate producer Anzali Skipper and with video editing by Dante DeCicco and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.