The Democratic Party's Civil War

Well, I'm going to Potsy in America, I'm Dan Feifer. You're about to hear a great conversation I just had with Amanda Libman, co-founder and president of Run for Something, an organization that has recruited more than 250,000 people to run for office since its founding in 2017, and she's the author of When We're In Charge, the Next Generation's Guide to Leadership. I invited Amanda on because I wanted to hear her perspective on where Democrats are heading into the 2026 midterms, how the fight between establishment and insurgent candidates is playing out in races across the country, especially in a heated Democratic primary in Michigan, and where the party goes from here. I also asked her about how Grand Platinum's decision to drop out of the main Senate race could impact Democrats' chances of taking back the Senate, and what she thinks as someone who has worked with thousands of candidates about the recruitment and vetting process that led him to jump into the race. There's a great conversation, and we'll get to it in a minute. But before we do, if you want more analysis heading into the midterms, consider subscribing to my newsletter of the message box where I pull back from day to day pun to tree to offer deeper analysis on the trends affecting our politics, go to crooked.com. Plus, yes, we Dan, for a 20% discount on your subscription. And as always, consider becoming a paying subscriber to friends of the pod where you'll get this episode in many more ed free, which now includes ed free episodes of Alex Wagner's phenomenal runaway country, head to crooked.com/friends to subscribe today. All right, here's Amanda Lippman. Amanda Lippman, welcome back to Pots of America. Thanks for having me, Dan. I wanted to have you on for so many reasons. I want to talk about the midterms. I want to talk about the battle with the Democratic Party between the insurgents and the establishment, the left, the right, etc. But I feel like the best place to start, and maybe the worst place to start with this conversation is Maine. A topic we've talked a lot about now. I don't think we need to go through our own personal histories with Grand Platinum or who we liked or when we liked them, we've all done that I went deep with Alex Wagner on last week's pod. Are you written about this? You've talked about you've tweeted about it. I want your perspective as someone who has worked with thousands of candidates about how we ended up in the situation. And I want to begin with a candidate recruitment process. Dana Morath and Leanne Fan to progressive activists who did a very, did a very aggressive media tour about their about their plans for recruiting Grand Platinum. They went looking for a candidate in Maine. They looked through FEC records. They looked for a lobster man. Then they looked for an oyster farmer. They looked at then they saw a video of Grand Platinum. They went with Met with them, convinced them to run for office. This is come under a withering critique from lots of people. What did they do right? What did they do wrong? What's your take on this recruitment process? And we'll get to the vetting after this because that's a different topic, but related, obviously. They looked for someone new. I think that's good. I think we should open the door to as many new voices as possible. We should expand our idea of what a good candidate looks like. That's the end of the list of things they did right. What they did wrong is you cannot play Kingmaker. And you really cannot play mad lives with candidate recruitment. You cannot look at a state like Maine or any district and say, you know what? We need X kind of occupation, Y demographic, Z type of politics. We're going to make this person into a candidate. One, we have no idea who the fuck can win. We have no idea. But two, it is leaves open so much space for it to feel like a puppet master is creating the candidate as opposed to the candidate coming up organically. It is possible that he like notwithstanding all this other personal stuff that he might have come up through and you know, seen an ad from run for something or gone to a Maine Democratic Party event and said, you know what? Maybe I do see myself here and then gone through the kind of rigorous thoughtful process you need before you actually get on the ballot. That maybe could have been so. But they did not do that. They said, we're going to make this man into a senator and they try to puppet master it into being. That will backfire any number of ways. I have to agree with all of that. People have to want to run for office. You have to start with that, right? Which is and we'll talk a lot about river something in the course of conversation. But people find you because they want to run for something. Yes. And I think it's I just I think it's really important to say that running for office sucks. Like it is miserable. It is hard. Your life is going to be under a microscope. You need to want to do it anyway. We should not convince people to run. We should open the door to them and then if they say yes, help them walk through it. We shouldn't push them through it. So that's one aspect of this, right? Trying to take someone who doesn't want to for office and get them run for a reason of thought about it, right? It's one thing to you've kind of thought about it for a while. You're, you know, maybe you want to do it. Maybe you don't. You're weighing considerations. And then people try to convince them to do it. The party committees do that all the time. That's not she had it mills ended up in this race, which is she didn't really want to run for office. And I guess you just don't want to turn it off and stop calling her. Yes. But there's another element of this too that is kind of a lot of attention, which is they were looking for a very specific type of person. Now this to me does it seem that different from what the D triple C or other organizations to, right? They just, you know, they look at a district, they look at the political environment. They say, these are the kinds of people who should run who would be good candidates in this district or in this political environment. In the 2006 cycle, Democrat, the D triple C and around the menu and not recruited a whole bunch of Iraq and Afghanistan vets to run for office, you know, in environment where people very anti-warvere upset with rock, won a lot of races that way. D triple C, this cycle is looked at, you know, in the past, we looked at prosecutors, sheriffs, still veterans, you know, fired federal workers or a group here. Is there anything wrong with thinking about like the kind of profession there would be the right people? Like it's like I understand the idea from these people's perspective, which is we want a working class candidate in Maine, right? We can, like there's all kinds of conversation about what whether a group partner is actually working class, but let's just put that aside for a second. And what is a great job in Maine to be a working that is like says, I am Maine in their original conception was lobster ring. Like let's get someone who fishes for lobsters. Is there anything wrong with that approach that's sort of casting call approach to it? I think it assumes that we know who can win, which sometimes we're make a good guess, but like you can come up with dozens of examples of people who would never have been asked to run Barack Obama being another like a top of the list. Who would have asked the the one-term state senator, two-term state senator, a common law professor to run for our office? No, no one. Who would have asked someone like Lauren Underwood, a nurse who was a black woman in a majority white district to run for office? Who would have asked AOC? Who would have asked, you know, Iana Presley, these leaders who are truly amazing public figures in our party who you probably wouldn't have picked if you were going to start from scratch, but who because they care, because they had problems they want to solve and the offices that they saw gave them power to solve it decided to get in the fight. So I think it is so risk averse and we are at a moment where our party can't afford to be risk averse. Yeah, and I want to talk about how the plan don't think affects our risk aversion in a second, but let's pivot to the vetting because there's never been so much talk about vetting in history. And in part, once again, because Morath and Fan did these interviews where they almost getily admitted to barely vetting, Platner. How do you think about the process of candidate vetting? And obviously did not work here, but like what is a, what can one reasonably expect to find out? And like what were the failure points here? So say, Rodden for something has endorsed more than 4,000 candidates over the last 10 years. I believe we've had to rescind fewer than a dozen of those endorsements in the last decade. It's a pretty good track record. And for those incidences, there have been things that have come up like after the campaign has already started. Now, part of us, we work on the local level. The stakes are a little bit different there, but also we do deep background checks. We do social media scripts. We ask local operatives. We dig deeper. We also ask candidates. And this, I think, is the most important part that Platner would have failed here. What are we going to find? Like, what is, what is the op-o report on you? What is the opposition going to say? If your worst secrets are on the front page of the newspaper, what's that headline going to read? And how are you going to feel about it? I think for us, and this is true of our most vetting reports, the, what the candidate says in their own like self-oppo is the, the nut to crack. And it doesn't seem like Platner was going to be honest about those things. Maybe he didn't think they were flags in the first place, or he didn't remember them, whatever it might be for some of them. I think that is where, like, it really matters that people want to do this, so that they can be very open and honest with the teams and voters more importantly about what they're going to find. I really have been struggling with this because, as you say, the process, you know, for, and it's, it's different levels, right? What you guys would do for a state Senate candidate is different than what theoretically should happen in a high-profile Senate race, and that is light years apart from what would happen in a presidential race. Which is why you don't pluck people from obscurity to run for Senate. Right. Right. Who don't want to, right? Like that is the thing. And so if you look at the Platner thing, like there's, there is the social media post. Now a good vetting should have found that because CNN found it. And I don't know whether he told them that he had been doing a lot of Reddit posting in an earlier stage of his life. I imagine that that would have been something that would have been easier to say than some of the other things have happened. That should have been found. That tattoo is an interesting one. I've thought about this a lot. Like what is the, like, I don't know that in any candidate questionnaire is, well, there will be now, I guess, do you have any Nazi-like tattoos? Do you have any problematic tattoos? Let me ex-- like, disrobes why I can examine your tattoos. His tattoos not showing up in a Luxus nexus or Google search about his history or public record search. But if you who had talked to lots of people around them. Some of them might have said because, this is one of the reasons why you talk to people is, they want to help their friends and family do this right and not get embarrassed. So they will often tell you things like, you know, just one thing I would ask them about is, there's this kind of weird tattoo, you know, that like that could have come up. But you also see how that falls through the cracks in a traditional, particularly if you believe, which I am now very skeptical of, that he did not know until, that it was Nazi-related until the end. Now, I don't believe that he got it to be a Nazi, but I don't think he's been truthful about when he found out. - I do think like it is worth thinking about what are the things good vetting would have found and what are the things that we never could have known. - Yeah, the reddit post stuff should have been found, for sure. And then you get to his relationships with women. The, I mean, I can't believe we're having to have this conversation about this, but the quote unquote, "consensual sexting" that went on was discovered in the vetting process. His wife did what she was supposed to do, which is she told the campaign. She did the exact question that you raised. She answered with, "There was this, and the campaign made a decision not to deal with it in any way she performed, or not to proactively disclose it." You know, that, that came back to bite them. And then the other stuff, like the toxic nature of those relationships, the sexual assault allegation, are things that a campaign can only find out if the candidate tells them. If the candidate is unwilling to tell them, they may never know, 'cause it just doesn't show up in that now. Once again, in a presidential level vetting, or VP level vetting, the campaign would have gone out and talked to all the ex-girlfriends. I don't know that that's a reasonable expectation for a Senate race, but Planner is a failure of vetting on one end, but the things that ended his campaign is a failure of character on his part to be willing to tell them to the campaign, right? I'm not trying to defend Morath and fan, but I just, I have gotten so many questions about vetting in this process. I think it's just worth to help people understand like what is reasonable. And they failed miserably, but ultimately the failure was also Planner's. - I think that's right. And I think his failure to be honest with them, even about some of the things should have been the red flag of the people talking to him. - Yes, yes, that's exactly right. There were clearly red flags that in their interactions with him that should have raised more questions than led to more vetting. So in my conversations with, you know, listeners of this show, Democrats out there, there's a fair amount of defeatism about Maine, post-plateter. The sense that we had this golden opportunity, everything went wrong, wrong candidate, wrong approach from the DSCC to kind of clear the field. So we ended up with this choice between a flawed candidate and a candidate who didn't really want to run and couldn't beat that flawed candidate. How are you feeling about the race going forward? And we're recording this on Thursday, a couple of hours before the first debate that the main Democratic Party is holding for the nomination to replace Platner. - I think the main Democratic Party so far has done a pretty good job of setting up a process that people feel like they can be a part of. 'Cause I think that was the real danger. Was like the party would just pick somebody and then like force it down voters, throats for lack of a better term or done their choice their menu. They seem to have set up a process that gives people a voice. And it seems like all of the candidates were jumping in, at least have some amount of run through the ringer. Whether they ran for governor, they ran for Congress, they are public businessmen. That there's like, there's not as many nobody's. I am still cautiously optimistic. I mean, Maine is a state that voted for Kamala. Susan Collins is deeply unpopular. Trump is even more unpopular. There does seem to be like a deep frustration with Susan Collins among mainers. It's not a foregone conclusion that it's a non-starter. I am curious to see how quickly whoever takes the nomination can raise money. And what Platner does with his money and his infrastructure and how much he really engages with the potential nominee or if he, as his dropout video seemed to indicate, harbors a lot of ill will towards this process. - Yeah, like his money is incredibly useful. Now, he can only give a small amount of it to the nominee, but he could theoretically give it all to the DSCC or the DNC and the DNC event. Now, thank you to the Roberts Court. Use that money in an un in a fully coordinated fashion to spend it and unlimitably on behalf of the nominee. You know, I feel, and maybe this is just cope on my part. I, this is gonna depend on how the process plays out. But if the process plays out like I hope it will, which is I agree, the main Democratic Party is doing so far, a great job. Ideally, you'd have another primer everyone can vote. That is not, obviously logistically feasible on this very tight timeline. This is certainly better than just the party committee voting on one person behind closed doors. This is at least people. It'll happen in a couple of debates. It'll happen, but this convention will be very interesting. A lot of people will watch it. People will get a test. This is kind of what might have helped us better in 2024 if other people had wanted to run against Kamala. They didn't, so we never had that process. But there's like a testing ground here where you'll get to see if some of these people, you know, it's not exactly like a primary campaign, but it's as close as we're gonna get. So I think that's good. I think we are, if the process plays out and we end up with a candidate without a Nazi tattoo or a bunch of other things, we're in a better position than we probably would have been. Had we ended up with either Platner or Mills, Platner in this state, if it's Platner before the sexual assault like a allegation, just Platner as he was on primary day, or Mills is the nominee. Like I think we actually have a chance that this race could God forbid be about Susan Collins, which is what you want it to be, 'cause in that time's poll, there weren't even Platner. After all the stuff was going on with still winning by two points. By, I think it's an 11 point margin, people in Maine want the Democrats to control the Senate. So if you can actually just make this race about a vote for Susan Collins as a vote to let Donald Trump control the Senate, put Supreme Court just this is on, do all these bad things. Like you have a real shot. If you can just have a generic Democrat, who is a, like generic Democrat is the right one. You need a talented generic Democrat, right? Someone who can just, doesn't flawed, can campaign well, but allows the focus to be on the candidate, on Susan Collins, not their own personal foibles, like that, that seems like a, in some ways are like a decent shot. I still think we have a very real shot to win this race. I really do. - I do too. And I think the candidate who takes this nomination forward sort of has an indicator where voters are now. Like can really speak to the anger that, you know, Platner for all of his fuck-ups, and there are many, like keep caught fire. Something like 1% of Maine was volunteering for his campaign. He spoke to the anger and the frustration that people feel. He put forward some real, like clarity of positions. And the nominee who had moved forward should be able to tap into that, even if they weren't able to capture it in the primary themselves. - You know, I, I got served a TikTok video with Platner, 'cause you know, obviously nothing on TikTok is connecting to the calendar. So it actually was posted weeks and weeks ago. And it's Platner talking about how we have to stop making this between left and right. We got to point fingers up, not down. That's not pointing each other. It's about the billionaires. So like that is a legitimately good message that someone else could also have. And it also is a reminder of, it does remind you, 'cause I think some of the discourse is, you know, it's all because, you know, positive markets, they can a lot of slinks and arrows over this, but it's all because these dumb podcasts, and the other people like Platner that he wanted. Every people forget, he actually got 70% of the vote in the primary and blew the doors off the two-term incumbent governor, like he was doing something. He was the wrong vessel, but he was doing something that people have made very much wanted. And they were all very well aware of everything up until this last, until the sexual assault obligation, very aware of his things, and they still wanted him. And that's, there's something in there that Democrats have to take from that. - And I would add, 'cause I have also taken some heat here, and I share the frustration of like, this was at no point ever a clearly moral right or wrong, because at every point, up until he dropped out, it was either him or Susan Collins and a Trump-chalked Supreme Court. Like, those were the choices, which is better for women, Graham Platner in the United States Senate, or Trump Supreme Court justices. Ah, you know, like, it was bad, it was all bad. And I am so glad that he ultimately did the right thing and stepped aside, and I am glad that we get a chance, so that those are not our only two choices. - What do you think about outside of me? And we'll talk about some of the other races coming in the House and Senate map, but, you know, you and I have both argued, you've done this very eloquently, that Democrats need to be willing to take bigger risks, we have to change the way we're doing things, we have to change the way we communicate, the way we campaign, the kind of candidates we think about, that the way the establishment is doing things has been not as effective as we would like it to be. It does, and the Platner debate prior to the most recent stuff. But even up into the Red Post and the Nazi tattoo, was a little bit of a proxy for this battle between, it's in some ways it's between the left and the middle, but in some ways it's also between people who want real change and people who want less change within the party. And it does, like, my worry with this is, and where I'm gonna get to Michigan, 'cause I think these things are tied together in some ways, but I worry that people take this as an argument against taking risks, against candidates, and why did the aperture and the kind of candidates that were open to? Because Platner was obviously a very unique candidate with a unique background, but he blew up in our face, so therefore, ergo, the conclusion is, we gotta be more traditional. Like, what's your take on that? Are you seeing that too? I find that to be such a an empty argument because it's not like Janet Mills was the right choice either. She was the establishment school. She was Schumer's pick. Schumer cleared the field for her as we have seen notice and others do very in depth reporting on. Like they kicked, they got candidates to leave that race so that Janet Mills would run for the United States in it and then they begged and pleaded her to get in. And then not only did they leave her hanging out to dry when she was stopping able to raise money, but it is telling that she's not throwing her hat in the ring to win the nomination now. She doesn't want to do this. She is not the path forward. So like to say that, you know, this proves that the establishment always gets a right and the new people always get wrong. No, this is villains on all sides here. Everyone got this wrong. Yeah, I think it's exactly right. And I just like I just I don't want people to think that this means that outside our candidates who knew the right outside our cans, but outside we shouldn't have outside our candidates. You know, and the conversation around this is so like stupid basically because the thing people keep saying like you have Federman and you have Platter. And I'm just like Federman was the a prominent mayor for 10 years and years and years and years. Yeah. And then he was a lieutenant governor. He was not like he dresses like an outsider. He has some prior to his most recent ideological shift, but he was a progressive Democrat who endorsed Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama. And I mean, he was campaign, he was a mayor in 2008 campaigning with Obama. And so this idea that it just no one wants to have the real conversation about this and like just that this is either this is all about Platter or there's a specific type of candidate you want. And that can be on both sides of us, right? Like everyone's got to reckon with with what you know, with the reality here, but this I just we we need some we need outsider candidates. They don't have to be Grand Platter. They should be better than Grand Platter or insider candidates should be better than Eric Swallwell. Yep. And Andrew Cuomo like I mean, that was when it was like well, the establishment does a good job betting. Do we do we have proof of that? I just I do think that like some of the emotion around this race both comes to the stakes of it where people like obviously if we do not win main or state like it, we will not hold the Senate, it will be devastating for generations. And the sense that especially for people who really believed in him, it's a sense of a trail of grief of like I thought I I had a politician I could get excited about and he disappointed me and broke my heart. And so I I have some amount of empathy for the for the high feelings on all sides of this, but also the task now is to win and to make sure we don't make this mistake again. Pod Save America is brought to you by Act Blue. If you've been listening to the pod, you already know the stakes Act Blue is the platform that's been pairing Democratic campaigns for over two decades, giving candidates up and down the ballot the tools they need to fundraise, organize, build websites and win. And this year they've launched an organizing platform built specifically for the people doing the work, Act Blue Field Tools. Winning elections doesn't start in October, it happens now. Act Blue Field Tools mobilizes volunteer energy at scale by bringing texting, phone banking and canvassing into one platform, already powering over 350,000 volunteers across all 50 states, Act Blue handles logistics so your team can focus on what actually moves voters, meaningful real conversations. Act Blue never sells your data or personal information, so you can stay focused on what matters most, donating, organizing and helping Democrats win. This November, the elections could come down to just a few hundred votes. The work that wins those races starts this summer and it starts with you, get started at Act Blue dot com slash crooked. Pod Save America is brought to you by fast growing trees. Fast growing trees is America's largest online nursery. With thousands of trees and plants for every space and climate and they make it easy to get plants that actually work for your yard to live right to your door. Fast growing trees has shipping plants down to a literal science. Every plant is hand picked and carefully inspected and their packaging is designed specifically to keep them secure and transit so they don't get damaged. They even have a lab where they test the best packaging material to protect against cold, heat, humidity and much more. So when your plants arrive, they look like you just bought them at the local nursery. Plus every order is backed by their alive and thrive guarantee. So in the off-chance, you do have any issues with your delivery. You are covered. We have tons of fast growing trees plants here at the office. They look great. They showed up looking perfect. They give you advice on the layout and what will do well in the climate in your area. They tell you how to keep them alive and healthy, which for a lot of us is the hard part. All the soil remained in place. There's no big mess when they open the box. So highly recommended. Right now they have great deals on summer planting essentials and listeners get an additional 20% off your first order with a code crooked at checkout. That's 20% off at fastgrowingtrees.com with the code crooked terms and conditions apply. All right. Let's pivot to your hometown of New York City, which has been ground zero for the rise of democratic socialism and beginning first with Bambani and then the races that happened in the New York primary. Two incumbents were incited and two DSA candidates, one race is one in seating, a long-term incumbent, one winning, an open seat. These are and then in Colorado where we had a 30 year democratic incumbent candidate to get unseated by a democratic socialist. What do you make of the rise of democratic socialism? Is this something that is about socialism? Is it about the fact that these are all districts that come here as one by more than 50 points? What's your take on what's happening here? I think voters are hungry for someone offering them a solution to their problems, especially young people who cannot afford to buy a house, cannot afford childcare, or stuck with student loan debt, feel like they have no agency in their lives. They are looking to gambling or crypto or whatever it is because at the very least that feels like something you might have some control over. They are pissed. They are frustrated with this status quo and DSA candidates are saying here's the solution. They are offering an alternative. The establishment or the center or the old guard could also do the same and I think it is telling to me that they are not putting forward like a vision for what else could be possible. The fact that Mamdani was able to speak to the not just the anxiety that people feel about their economic situation but also how they feel about what their life might hold. It wasn't just afford to live. It was afford to dream. It was a afford to be able to imagine a better future for yourself. I think also DSA has built some organizing muscle in a lot of these places which should not be underrated and their candidates are selling something that matters. If you look at the polling there is just absolutely no question that socialism has grown in favor with Democratic voters over the last many years here. In the New York Times Santa Paul, every single Democratic, every single age cohort cohort of Democrats, a plurality of Democrats have a favorable opinion of Socialism. Interestingly enough I find this to be so fascinating, the group with the highest approval rating of, or the highest availability rate of socialism is not 18 to 29 year olds. It's 30 to 44. That's millennial, baby. I was telling this with ever I think but it does make sense. If you are of an age where you came of age in the Great Recession, you really have been through the ringer in a way that is where capitalism has really fucked you like it every turn. And you're also at the age where you want to be buying a house. They can't afford to do it or sports, but if you can, you have kids. You're at it. But Socialism has grown in favor in capitalism has lost support across the board with everyone in recent years also understandably so. I think there is something to like it was easy to dismiss mom Donnie as a generational talent. Just like that guy could he could have been Democratic Socialist, he could have whatever he could he was so good. He's so good. But these other candidates are, they're good, but there's it's not generational talent that's winning. And so they are people want big change. And the left is more comfortable offering big change than the center. It doesn't mean there can't be a moderate version of something that addresses in a compelling understandable credible way. The cost of healthcare, housing, food, whatever else like you can do that just have been unwilling to do it. And there is just something in there's a passion in how that is different with not every, but with a lot of leftist for center candidates that comes through that reads his authenticity and that you'll fight for them, right? Like I was struck. I remember there's a clip from the Diana to get me like Kiro's debate where Diana to get is making an argument about a public option, which in a different era, we mean that was a that was a that was a mission to liberal for the Democratic Senate and the Obama era era when Obama was trying to do it. And it's like a, you know, is she's sort of living in the world of legislatively possible. And Kiro's makes this very passionate argument for medical, the morality behind Medicare for all. And why it's the right thing to do. And it's just like the difference there. Part of it's be is generational. Part of it is inside or outside of a part of it also is that's an easier argument to make in the moment. Now we can talk about how hard it is to make maybe in a general election, but in the moment, there's just they're offering something that is different. Now, do you there, there is real concern among even well-meaning. I think people in the establishment, the people who are trying to win the House and the Senate that this rise of democracy. And I should say thus far, Democrats have not nominated any any DSA candidates in races that were that aren't guaranteed Democratic races. So it's not we're not in a situation where a bunch of these candidates are knocking off more, you know, they're not knocking off. They're not running. They're not winning nomination. in a district where they would be very, very far to the left of the district that's happening in the blue stations in the country, which is probably how the primary process is supposed to work. But, you know, you do have an upcoming race with Democratic Socialists in Wisconsin running for governor. But I think a lot of Democrats have this fear that this could cost us the House in the Senate, either in, by DSA candidates, winning primaries where they are to the left of the district, or the, just being, it, tarnishing the, already tarnished brand of the Democrats. What's your take? Uh, the Democratic brand can't get much worse. What are we, what are we doing here, guys? We're gonna try. I'll tell you that. You know, I do think that, just as we do that particular point, we're like, if a candidate can't comfortably say, you know what, I don't agree with my future colleague on XYZ issue, but I look forward to working together to find a way to bring everyone affordable health care. Like, you're not a good politician. You don't have to agree with all of your colleagues and everything. You, you can respectfully dismiss them and look forward to working together. To the point of like, how are you thinking about the bigger picture here? You know, these candidates, where they're running and winning, they are getting people excited. Shouldn't we want people to be excited about this process? Like, these DSA meetings like them or not, and like, I'm not a DSA member, I'm, that's not where I sit ideologically, but I look at those meetings and there's young people showing up. They are volunteering, they are donating, they are participating in very boring conversations about process. Like, that is what building a political party looks like, we should want that, and we should try to make the broader Democratic Party a place where that is possible. Now, I will say, run for something last year had nearly over the last 18 months of about a hundred thousand people raised their hands to run for office, that is more than we had in the entirety of Trump's first term. The thing that we have heard different over this year and the last than we had didn't hear in Trump 1.0 was frustration with the Democratic Party. Was people explicitly saying, I am running for office because they are not going to fight for me, they have not delivered for me, they do not see me, they do not care about me. So the DSA is giving those people a home. The Democratic Party, like, you know, big D could do the same. Yeah, I mean, it's, there's no question. You know, I'm not overly worried about, I mean, they called Barack Obama Socialist and they were, they called Joe Biden as Socialist, like, what are we doing here? Well, we can elect no DSA candidates and they would call swing state Democratic member candidates Socialists. Like, that would, that would happen. I mean, you know, this from all the races run is you would need candidates who are ideologically fit their district. These DSA candidates obviously fit their district that the voters said that. That's what they declared and, you know, in bulls that maybe, you know, in so far, like, we, there have been some non DSA candidates who have won some primaries that some people believe were against, you know, you, I'm thinking about main two, Randy Villegas were like, were that not the, the establishment had a view on who was the best candidate to win. They more progressive candidate won. We'll find out in a few months, who was right. Anyway, actually, I think they're back. We'll never find out who was right because it's always a counterfactual. We don't know if the other person would have won. The DSA thing is, I think, it's become, it's a little bit like the Platinum thing where it's become a proxy for something else where it's, it's the easiest boogeyman for some of the center groups to say, to fight something else or something broader because Democrats are becoming more liberal like that is true on almost every issue. It is true that the number of Democrats who describe themselves as very liberal has gone up significantly since Trump was elected. The number, how Democrats feel about a whole bunch of issues, particularly Israel, which we'll get to, has changed dramatically. And so, but that's not like that, that is contributed to the rise of DSA, but it's not because of the rise of DSA. I also struggle a lot with like, what is the, who is the target for that argument? That like, DSA candidate shouldn't win these races. Like, I'm a New York City voter. You're telling me that I should pick my mayor based on who might cause tarnish to the Democratic Party brand as a mythical voter in Wisconsin? Like, what an insane thing to, to suppose or to suggest. I really, I struggle with this because it assumes much like the left assumes that there is some secret cabal in charge who can, you know, control how elections are run or control what candidates say. If anybody was in charge, do you think this is how it would go? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. It is voters making their voices heard on who they want to represent them. And we should be grateful that they are participating and that there are candidates that get them excited to show up. We should learn from that. There are exceptions. I am someone who generally believe like I am, I've gotten more progressive in my personal views as I've gotten older, I've also live in California now, so maybe those two things are related. But I still, you know, I grew up working on races in red states and red districts like that. That's my background. So I'm very cognizant that you need people who meet the district and that you're going to need candidates who are often to the right of the median Democrat nationally to win. And especially we want to expand the Senate map. We want to get back to a place where we can win Ohio, Iowa, the Dakotas, you know, places in the South. We have to do that. But I think, and there is, and I think more Democrats should generally be aware of the challenges, like just how, you know, how the Republican bias in the Senate map, the Republican bias in the electoral college and the reality of winning these districts that you can't, you're what, like what exists in your bubble is not what exists out there in a lot of places we have to win. Having said that, I think one of the great mistakes of the people making that argument is that they never offer, it's always to tear down a, it's where anti-DSA, where anti-Zoran, like Zoran getting elected was like, this is the third way argument, Zoran getting elected to be like the end of the world, especially when the other option was Cuomo. Cuomo. I would just say there's a great irony between the most vehemently anti-plattern people being the most vehemently pro Cuomo people, just as a point. I mean, just to like really hammer this one, if you were so afraid of DSA, there was a multitude of other options in that primary, you could have galvanized around. Even right now, and I'm sure we'll talk about Michigan in a moment, like if you are so afraid of how dual I'll say it, there was other options besides Haley Stevens, who they are currently having to spend $53 million to try and get over the finish line. It didn't have to be her. Mallory Mithmore, who you and I both know and it supported and like a run for something alone, was right there. Now, I'm actually glad that she did not get the establishment support, I think that would have tartished her campaign further, but putting aside for that for a moment, you have to put something forward. We talk, I mean, this is literally run for something. You have to have a vision, a solution. You have to talk to the problems that people are experiencing because voters are actually not progressive or conservative or moderate or centrist. They have problems. They won't solve and they want politicians who will do that so that they don't have to care anymore. The center could pose, could pose that. They could put forward candidates who do that. It is so telling and frustrating that instead they choose to punch left. And also, they are punching left instead of possibly creating space for Republicans to come in, for other Democrats to come in, like they are doing the thing that drives me crazy, which is yelling at the enemy who can hear them as opposed to yelling at the enemy who can solve their problems. PodSafe America is brought to you by AG1. Summer is always a perfect time to unwind to throw your schedule out the window and prioritize adventure with AG1 that doesn't have to mean letting your health fall by the wayside. AG1 is a daily health drink with a multi-vitie and pre-improbiotic superfoods and antioxidants. The easy delivery system means you get high quality nutritional support every single day and no matter where or when you start your morning. AG1 helps to maintain energy, support gut health, and support immune health. The next gen formula delivers 75 ingredients clinically shown to support gut health, fill common nutrition gaps, and improve key nutrient levels within three months. When you are traveling, it is great to throw something like AG1 into your bag so you know that you are in your hotel, maybe you are getting something quick on your way out the door, maybe you are eating at the airport, whatever, and if you have it with you, you know that no matter how badly you are going to eat on the road, or maybe you want to eat badly on the road because you are going to Texas or something, you are just going to barbecue the whole f*** time. Bring AG1 with you. I love it. I had something this morning. Visit drinkag1.com/cricket to get a free AG1 travel case with 7 free AG1 travel packs. In your welcome kit, with your first AG1 subscription order while supplies last, that's drinkag1.com/cricket. Hey everyone, my name is Elijah Cone, and I have been a producer here at Cricket Media for a decade. I love making our shows with the smart creative people who work here and hearing from all of you who us in every week, but the thing that I am proudest of is that video we made of you vegramas while me grunting while hitting baseballs. No wait, sorry. The thing I am proudest of is the work we do through votes of America. See, we don't want our shows to only leave you feeling anxious about the state of the world. We want to give you something you can actually do about it. Once this year, our listeners have raised millions of dollars and filled thousands of volunteerships to help candidates and causes in the 2026 midterms, and we have no plans to slow down as we head into 2028. As far as I know, there's no other media company that does what Cricket does. We make entertaining, thoughtful content that brings people into politics, and then we give them a direct way to get involved. And if you believe in that mission, one of the best ways to support us is by becoming a paid subscriber. Our subscription helps us keep making the shows you love in building a media company that doesn't just talk about politics, but helps people change them. And if the mission sounds great, but you feel like you need some sweet subscriber benefits to get you over the finish line, we ve got you covered. Subscribers get ad-free shows, plus excellent exclusive podcasts, newsletters, and much much more. So thank you for listening and supporting what we do. Head to Cricket.com/FriendsToday to learn more and become a subscriber. Which is the race that has supplanted Maine as the center of the Democratic Party Civil War. We haven't talked about it a ton on this show in part because Abdul work. for Cricut, did a hot podcast for Cricut. John and Tommy have supported his campaign. I supported Mallory McMurray. It's the one race where he actually had actually supported Candidate, it actually donated money to primary candidates, like that's not something that happened with Platner, or anything like that, just this is one where they knew Abdul, I know Abdul, I like Abdul. I know Mallory, I thought I think Mallory's great, so I wanted to support Mallory. But so this race is now Mallory dropped out a couple weeks ago. It's now down to Haley Stevens, a moderate establishment back Congresswoman and Abdul Saeed, but it's become the center of the Democratic Party Civil War. There is just the amount of attention it's getting, particularly online from the most online Democratic activists and pundits is huge. It is really established, it's everything, right? It's establishment first outsider. It's Bernie versus establishment, I guess, or Senate leadership. It's anti-Israel versus APAC, all of the above. Do you have a take on this race? - I think it is a preview of the 2028 presidential primary that makes me want to throw my phone into the sea. I know, it's just, I think it's interesting. It's hard, I don't envy Michiganders who have to make this choice. And I really hope that whoever wins this primary can build some bridges, men's and fences because I think it's getting people really, really, really angry in a way that will be hard to fix. - It reminds me a lot of the 2016 presidential primary where it just feels very similar. And no matter who wins this, they're gonna have to work very hard. It's a long road back to you today. - Yes. - Yes. - I struggle with several things in this race, which is, my original beef in Maine was the DSTC endorsing Janet Mills. Like I was kind of interested in Platner about main thing was like, let's just let the people remain to side and I was very concerned. I thought, I've talked about this many times, but I just thought that the Mills decision was sort of a political mistake. I thought the decision to back Haley Stevens over Mallory Ann Abdul, I thought was also a crazy decision. I thought you should stay out of it. But where we are now is this has become a lot about a quote unquote, electability. And the argument of the Stevens people and Stevens campaign fairly directly is that Abdul cannot win or is at least much less likely to win than Haley Stevens. What's your take on electability in this context? - We have no idea. And I think the establishment quote unquote has lost all credibility on that argument. They thought they thought Joe Biden could win another term. Like they don't have the proof points anymore to make the case that they know what voters want. Like can Haley Stevens win? I don't know. It seems like they've had to spend a lot of money to get her through the Democratic primary if she does eke this out. She's that spending Abdul, what 10 to 1? It's not even. - And it's 90% of that money or 90% of that money is from not the Haley Stevens. I mean, they actually what Haley Stevens came up with their first ad today as a recording this. Hey package spent tens of millions of dollars and I think North of 30 million dollars at least on Haley Stevens's behalf. And then you have some other super PACs. It, I, the thing that there's many things that anchor me about this and like it's very possible. I, you could make a case that Haley Stevens as a quote unquote moderate and who will certainly appear more moderate if she wins a primary against Abdul. Like that is one of the things that when, you come off looking quite moderate when you win a primary against a progressive because you're positioned in that moderate place, maybe more electable. I don't know that like you can make that case. It's, it's possible. The, you can make the case that because Abdul is to the left. You know, Michigan is the quintessential swing state now Trump's won in two of the last three elections. It's a 50/50 state. We assume it's probably three to four, you know, five, maybe five points to the left this time with the generic ballot looks the way we think it does. That, you know, I can't get that far to the left. You know, if you look at political science research it's less likely to win like that. Like you can make that case too. But as your point is, no one knows. The thing that angers me about the Abdul electability question is, no one is willing to just say what they mean by it. It is, like, is your argument that he's too far left. And what positions is it he's too far left on? Is it his position in Israel? The polling would suggest that. - That's right, where the American people are. - He's right there. The, is it Medicare for all? - Super popular. - It is popular. Now, if you look, if you did, like Medicare for all can become much less popular over time if it's advertising it's right. Like that, that could be essentially a vulnerability. But no one wants to say that because the Democratic Basel is very understandably supports Medicare for all. Is it because he campaign with Hassan Piker? Maybe, like do you wanna make that argument? Like in the data for progress, main may poll, only 20% of Democratic primary voters knew who Hassan Piker was. But you can put it, you can put it in ads. You can put what Hassan said. You don't have to know who he is. Is it because his name is Abdul El-Said? Is that what it, is that what the reason is? No one wants, like, that's the subtext of a lot of this. And no one wants, but no one wants you to say that. And that, I always say coming this from a very personal view because that was always the argument. You know, that when you say he hasn't invented, he hasn't invented, he hasn't invented, he hasn't invented. That's what they said about Barack Hussein Obama too. I'll often write after they call him Barack Hussein Obama. And like, I don't know who's more electable. I always wish people would just be honest about what they actually think about why he's less electable. Haley Stevens did flip a Republican district in 2018. She performed exactly like a generic Democrat in 2024. I think I use the split ticket, wins over replacement rating, but I think she's like at point, she's like point three. I think that's what I'm going to say. Like, it's not a proven winner. And like, it's to your point is we don't know. - And I, I don't want to defend Haley Stevens, Eric. 'Cause I do not think she is the right candidate for this moment in any number of ways. But I will say a lot of the criticism of her about being electable or like being a bad candidate. - Yes. - So, it's so sexist, so, so sexist. And like, we should, we should also say that because this is going to be a challenge, especially as women keep running, which they will. Like, it is very hard in this modern information ecosystem for women to run, 'cause you have to be telegenic. You have to speak a certain way, you have to sound a certain way. Where do you perform your authenticity as a woman? Like, if she did some of the videos, or even if Mallory had done some of the videos that Abdul has done, they would have been mocked endlessly. It never would have been on the table. So, she is not the right candidate for this moment. I think for any number of reasons, but the criticism of her has been deeply sexist. - There's this video that's been circulating that has been gotten, I think 10 million views of her. And she's at an organizing rally and she is, in a very emphatic Michigan accent, is talking about how she's gonna fight for the Michigan. And that, like, that's become, like, this become a thing. But my guess is, most people see that and have no reaction to it. You know, it's a rather online thing. And, you know, I've actually had biocers in Sport Mallory, but Mallory made some of those videos that are not dissimilar to the ones that Abdul has made. - And that torrentous smithereens. - Yeah, on the internet, for sure. Like, whether, how actual voter would have tried, but I have no idea, but it was just absolutely. And so, like, that's why this one is so complicated. And then, sitting over top of it is Israel and Gaza, where Abdul has been incredibly outspoken, has supposed eight Israel's called it genocide. Haley Stevens has been a big, has been supported by APEC. She, when she won her primary in 2022. She was a, she got a ton of funding from APEC. APEC, as I said, spent all this money in here. There is, how do you think about APEC's role in this and the role Israel's playing? Let's start with Michigan, then I'm gonna expand it out to everything else. When this campaign is all said and done, it seems like 80% of the funding, at least, of her campaign, at least on-air funding, TV ads, is going to be paid for by one specific interest group. I don't know that I've ever seen it before. I've seen super PACs put a lot of money in races, like in the Iowa primary, Josh Turk, got a whole bunch of money from vote vets, that money really seemed to have come from, the DSC's, from the Senate majority super PAC world. And it's like a mix of different, different groups. But here you have one specific group with a specific policy agenda, spending this much money on a candidate. Have you ever seen anything like this before? It seems concerning. - The only thing that maybe comes close is the way that AI was spending money in the New York congressional races. - Yeah, I think I know it. - Even though it's Alex Boris, yeah. - Yeah, but even that was like not to the same extent. And I saw some really interesting polling in particular about the Michigan Democratic primary voters. APEC has a net negative 46 favorability rate, 78% of Michigan Democratic primary voters said they'd be less likely to vote for a Senate candidate back to my APEC. 86% they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports continued funding for Israel's war in Gaza. This is toxic for them. I think it's telling that most of their ads do not talk about Israel, they do not talk about that. - Never, never mentioned, it's, yeah. - This is both a question of policy, but it's also a question of morals. I think we have seen now that the way that candidates engage on what's happening in Gaza has become a moral litmus test. of do you have the the sense of conscience to call what's happening to genocide and to want to push policy away from enabling it. We just saw the vote earlier this week where House Democrats, a record number of them, including a number of sorts, like I did not expect Nancy Pelosi. - Nancy Pelosi, Katherine Clark, the whip, yes. - Yeah, like things are changing and they are good because that is where voters are. Voters see this as a crisis of conscience and they know that they want their leaders to push back. I also think that the way that APAC is spending in this speaks to the larger, very negative feelings people have about the role of money in politics. And it has become the ultimate bogeyman for someone is trying to buy the election and drown out your votes. Not great. - Back on Michigan for a second. The one question I have is, is APAC gonna support Haley Stephenson in the general, against Mike Rogers? Because right now, she has raised, she has struggled to raise money. You know, you have James Teleriko raising, you know, record numbers. You have John Osloff raising record numbers. I have dual raised, I think, more than $4 million this last quarter. They're Democratic candidates who are raising lots of money. Haley Stephenson has struggled to raise grassroots money, which really matters because big dollar democratic donations are down in the, you have more people willing to give five, 10, 50, 100 bucks and fewer people willing to write $7,000 per couple maxed out checks. And so, if you can't raise grassroots money and APAC is not going, maybe they will be there, but is she better than Mike Rogers for them? I don't know, I don't know, but that's a question. And obviously, if she's nominated the Senate, Super PACs, 10 Democrats, Super PACs can supplement, but that's money's coming out of somewhere else. That's money that's not going to Iowa or Alaska or Texas or somewhere else. - I think it's a really good question and I also think APAC has shown not the smartest of strategies. - No, they've elected a lot of anti-Israel Democrats for the strategy. - Yeah, and even if you think beyond this, they have not created space for a political home for people who maybe aren't as far left as where DSA is, but also aren't where APAC is in a way that they're not thinking beyond the next three months. And I think it is really dangerous for the future of our democracy in many ways, because of how much money they're able to spend and how threatening it has become. The vote of the House, for many people may not have been tracking this over the years, but the idea that 100 Democrats would vote, the idea that 10 Democrats would vote against eight Israel, the idea that Nancy Pelosi and the member of the House leadership would vote against eight Israel is would have been impossible to imagine. Impossible, you maybe get one, Thomas Massey and what the Democratic equivalent of Thomas Massey or a Rand Paul, like the idea that people would do this in masses and possible to imagine. It does speak, and this is the downside of APACs and the Israeli government's legions sort of alliance with Republicans in most cases, is if Democrats take the majority, how would a speaker who keep Jeffreys even be able to get, like it seems like that's the end of the ballgame? I don't know how he could even bring that bill forward. - I do not envy his job. - Yes, there's very big challenges. - It does not seem fun. I do think like one of the things that the broader activist movement needs to really think about is like how do you welcome these newcomers in? How do you, you know, better late to the party than not coming to this party at all when it comes to this issue? The point of persuasion is to get people to agree with you and I do think there's still some stickiness around like, well, you didn't say genocide early enough. You didn't, you know, you didn't like call it out two years ago. It's like, if I do it now, that is better than never. And that is the point of this work. And so I do want to like just plant that seed of, as we keep growing this coalition, like how do we make sure it feels like one that can continue in a way that is welcoming? The way this issue is going to hang of the 20, 28 Democratic primary and the amount of people who are going to come maybe lately to be against funding or to call it a genocide or all those things is going, it's just, I mentioned this to February last week or two weeks ago that we were one year away from the, what's likely the first Democratic primary debate? - Yep, I was like, so horrifying. - No, lie down, I'd never get up. - I know, I know. (upbeat music) - Hey, Dan Tabersky here. I'm a podcast host, a journalist, and now with my newest project, the author of my own manifesto. Well, it's a manifesto about manifestos. My search for inspiration in a world that feels more infuriating, more out of its freaking mind with each passing hour. Manifestos are a call to action, an artful screen. They capture our anger and they try to do something with it. This is my attempt to take the manifesto back from mass shooters and nihilists and return it to its rightful place with the warriors, the visionaries, the regular folks with just the right amount of crazy. I compare notes with radicals, secessionists, internet trolls out for a laugh and punk singers screaming their guts out, all trying to turn their anger into the world they want to see. Listen to Manifesto wherever you get your podcasts. Audible subscribers can binge all episodes of Manifesto early and ad-free right now. Join Audible in the Audible app or by subscribing on Apple podcasts. Hey everyone, my name is Elijah Cohn and I've been a producer here at Cricket Media for a decade. I love making our shows with the smart creative people who work here and hearing from all of you who was in every week. But the thing that I'm proudest of is that video we've made of you vegramas while me grunting while hitting baseballs. No wait, sorry. The thing I'm proudest of is the work we do through Votes Abe America. Just this year, our listeners have raised millions of dollars and filled thousands of volunteer shifts to help candidates and causes into 2026 midterms. And we have no plans to slow down as we head into 2028. We make entertaining, thoughtful content that brings people into politics and then we give them a direct way to get involved. Your subscription helps us keep making the shows you love and building a media company that doesn't just talk about politics, but helps people change them. And if the mission sounds great, but you feel like you need some sweet subscriber benefits to get you over the finish line, we've got you covered. Subscribers get ad-free shows, plus excellent exclusive podcasts, newsletters, and much, much more. (upbeat music) - Let's talk about run for something. Right, and we'll talk about 'cause it run for something is what you started after Trump won in 2016. It is always the example I use of how really smart, committed people can make a real change about ever asking anyone for permission to do so. You've had a tremendous impact over the last, I mean, you've never been doing this for a long time. We are eight. - Nine and a half to be 10 years from January. - Just it all, 'cause it'll also be, I mean, you started an organization that got thousands of people to run. I started a podcast, you know, teach the run, I guess, 'cause we're on year nine of Puzzle American now. You hit it at this earlier, but I wanna put a finer point on it. After Trump won this time, there were much digital ink was spilled around the idea that the resistance was dead. And so there was some anecdotal evidence for that. There was no women's march. There was, you know, you saw, you know, you know, you know, no one had protests as a new brunch signs out. There was less protesting. No one rushed to the airports when the next version of the Muslim ban was signed, but run for something was a bit different. Like you guys had a different experience after Trump won. Talk to me a little bit about the enthusiasm you've seen. - So right after Trump won, we started seeing thousands of people raise their hands to run for office. You know, 18 months later, it's over 100,000 people who signed up to run for office like since then. More than we had in the, since 2024, more than we had in the entirety of Trump's first term. As I said earlier, last year, we had I think a 60% wind rate on election day. We had a night where we elected both a DSA affiliated candidate to the Atlanta City Council and a former Republican who left the party after January 6th to a rural county commission in Pennsylvania. We have built the tent that is tight on values and flexible on policy and has now elected more than just about 1,700 young people across 49 states plus D.C., including many that are now running for higher office. Like James Tallerico, like Mallory McBarrill, but also like Francesca Hong. It was constant like Sarah McBride in Delaware and so many others who are, I think, the future of the Democratic Party. And that's not ideologically pure however you want to define it. It is people who love their communities, who want to solve problems, who want to speak to their neighbors and who are willing to do so in a way that is authentic and genuine and connected and fun. And it makes me so hopeful and excited at a moment where like most of the Democratic Party does not. But I really do believe like we are on the brink of a tipping point where the party is going to be more run for something alone than not. It is going to be more leaders who look like our folks than not. And that's a good thing, I think. - For sure. It's what's encouraging about it is we are parties as you're inocracy, we didn't, you know, and there are so many reasons for this, you know, it is, you know, we went, you know, Democrats often picked the next person in line and then Obama skipped the line. and then we went back to the back of the line and then went further back to the line with Hillary and Biden and And then we also had the 2010 elections which gutted like a big chunk of the party because we lost so many seats in the post in the in the redistrict day after and then first in 2010 in that election and then and there so many of our state legislative candidates and save legislative state legislators were redistricted out in that redistricting and then we lost again and we love you just like we've lost a lot of the middle um and so you guys have helped bring up the like we missed a middle generation and now we have a younger generation coming up. Are there some particular candidates this cycle that you're excited about that people should know about? Oh, there's so many um Caitlin Dre is running for Iowa State Senate. She won a special election in 2025. She broke the Iowa Republican supermajority. She flipped the seat Trump had carried by 10 points. She is now defending that seat this November. So excited about her. Julio Salinas who is running for Texas State House. This is like probably the Genuine toss-up in the Texas House district. He's the grandson of migrant farm workers He came from behind in a three-way March primary and then won the May runoff by 11 points against a more establishment back to Kansas it This isn't the Rio Grande Valley. It's in a seat that Trump carried by Jess. I think like a point in a half in 2024. So exciting Chris Thomas in Pennsylvania State Senate. He is a former public school teacher. He's a volunteer firefighter He's up against a first-term Republican Senator. We're trying to flip that chamber there. So he is phenomenal Michael Ferguson who's running for Florida State House in like Broward County He's an active duty Air Force judge advocate He was served as one of the youngest special trial councils in Air Force history. He's an attorney This is the only legislative district in Broward County, which is very democratic that is still held by Republicans So it is a top target to pick up in the Florida State House. You know, I could go on and on Hundreds of candidates up this year, as you said It's good to be good guys. It's it's gonna be good So The party when we did a lot of thinking after Trump won in 2016 one of the things is sort of everyone came you know to the Too late conclusion was it's the Democrats had did not pay enough attention to down ballot races I do really to think that that focus shifted In the first Trump era, you know, obviously there's you guys there was sister district that you know swing left Indivisible everyone is like really you know working hard to win on these races lots of focus on secretary of states and In governs races in the wake of January 6th and trying to project election integrity Do you feel like there is the party apparatus the donor world the activist world the people with platforms are Have maintained that focus at trump 2.0 or if we lost a little bit because we're sort of obsessed with trump again We have lost a little bit I would say in particular the donor world and like I will be very honest like Everyone who's not running for house or senate this year that can't like if you're not a house or senate candidate You are probably struggling like wrong or something. We're doing okay But we have to be really careful stewards of our resources and like just to put a really fine point on this You know running for something's budget is eight million dollars a year just about The republican counterpart to run for something is called the leadership and so do It has been around for 30 some odd years. It has a 50 million dollar a year annual budget I I think I could Have candidate recruitment offices in every state and be doing year-round like I cannot imagine what I would do with 50 million dollars a year It is the kind of abundance mindset around we can do it all that a democratic party just does not seem to operate from So is that a scarcity of People want to rate those checks or those just checks go into the wrong place Little bit of coffee a little bit of coffee. So some of it is it like we don't have enough rich people or You know, we our grassroots donors are very excited about some of the senate races and not as excited about some of the infrastructure because it's not as flashy and not as exciting And really big checks still go to places that run TV ads or you know this right now It's like creator stuff and that's not to say that's not important But that stuff ceases to exist after election day run for something and so many of other partners on the ground We're doing this real locally driven work that is that happens like candidate recruitment for 2026 Happened in 2025 the recruitment that we are doing now for say the Louisiana and Mississippi state legislative races Which are going to be critical because of how they've redistricted these states and blowing up the Voting Rights Act that recruitment happens now So if you are not funding things year round and sustaining this work with multi-year giving multi-month giving It it is impossible to do in the way that it's the most effective and efficient You know, it's just so fascinating because I spent a lot of time over the last Nine years now, I guess talking to donors about like my big thing has always been investing in media infrastructure Right that demo that we need to do law medium and long-term investments in Content creation media pro-democracy media, you know I have my newsletter cricket has you know crickets all these things, but just beyond our stuff just generally Republicans have invested in the software like as we don't and You're talking to very smart people who have made a lot of money in their life making good investments And it's just I've never been able to figure out why When you talk to them about Investments that pay out over time is less appealing than the short-term one-time Use of money on largely television ads Like think about how much money was spent like you want your 50 million dollars your 50 million dollars You can find in two weeks of super PAC ads. Yep 100% if I think about it too much. I will I won't get out of bed in the morning. Oh, I want so I'm saying I know I don't want you to be able to continue to get out of bed You have a very important job, and you have children. So I think it's important that you get out of bed But I want anyone listening who has those sort of resources to think About even if you could get let's say you could double for me to 16 or get the half of that 50 It's just one Truly one week of television ads in Texas Is my entire budget is your entire budget, right? And you know to the kids at the beginning of the conversation We talked about like candidate recruitment is stage zero of winning an election If you want better TV ads if you want the megaphone that we're building around media and creators to have something good to amplify Like it starts with getting really good people to run in as many places as possible We work in all 50 states We also have a long-term vision for what we think the battlegrounds could be and might be in 2030 and 2032 We're doing intensive recruitment in these places. We're providing candidates with the skills and tools they need to win their races like Why don't why don't I have 50 million dollars? I don't know ask the billionaires. I do know that the work is working that there's such demand for our work And that I am so proud of what we have built and I think it's going to keep paying off because the nice thing about candidate recruitment in particular Is when one person wins that like against the odds race and when one person makes history Dozens and dozens or hundreds or thousands more like them say you know what maybe I can do this too That is very hopeful place to end this but before I let you go Just in case we have a billionaire or someone who maybe works for one of these AI companies going public who's about to be a billionaire And they would like to help you get to your well-deserved 50 million dollar budget. Where can they give you money? Run for something.net You can look at look us up You can also find any of our other entities and I should say if any of your listeners want to run for office It is probably too late for 2026 It is definitely not too early for 2027 or 2028 You can go to run for what data you can look up where you might want to run I made a litman always great to talk to you. I always leave his conversations smarter and a little bit more optimistic So this was great. Thanks for having me Dan Thanks to a made a litman for coming on John John and Tommy will be back in your feed on Tuesday. Bye everyone America East Hey everyone. My name is Elijah Cone and I've been a producer here at Cricket Media for a decade I love making our shows with the smart creative people who work here and hearing from all of you who was in every week But the thing that I'm proudest of is that video we made of you vegramas while me grunting while hitting baseball No wait, sorry. The thing I'm proudest of is the work we do through votes of America See we don't want our shows to only leave you feeling anxious about the state of the world We want to give you something you can actually do about it Just this year our listeners have raised millions of dollars and filled thousands of volunteer shifts to help candidates and causes into 2026 midterms And we have no plans to slow down as we head into 2028 As far as I know there's no other media company that does what Cricket does We make entertaining thoughtful content that brings people into politics And then we give them a direct way to get involved And if you believe in that mission one of the best ways to support us is by becoming a paid subscriber Your subscription helps us keep making the shows you love in building a media company that doesn't just talk about politics But helps people change that And if the mission sounds great But you feel like you need some sweet subscriber benefits to get you over the finish line. We've got you covered Subscribers get ad free shows Plus excellent exclusive podcasts newsletters and much much more So thank you for listening and supporting what we do Head to crooked.com slash friends today to learn more and become a subscriber