Say what you will about Republicans, but they fight like hell. Yes, they rig the system through gerrymandering, stupid rules (e.g., days don't exist anymore), not allowing a vote on Supreme Court Justices, etc, etc, etc. But they fight! Meanwhile, Democrats use the "when they go low, we go high" mantra to do little more than send "strongly worded letters." So when we see AOC, Crockett, Stansbury, and Booker fight, we go bananas.
Don't forget, Trump gained the most nonwhite voters in the modern era (1960 - 2024). Don't call us racists. I'm one of the many Hispanics who voted for Trump, by the way.
Good point, and a good reminder. I think it makes sense to want the Democratic Party to get its act together and look to the future, but it can go too far.
And when you dig into the polling looking for those “regret-and-would-switch” voters, you find there aren’t all that many.
A University of Massachusetts national poll conducted in mid-April showed that only 2% of Trump voters agreed with this statement: “I regret my vote and would vote differently if I could.”
If the Dems push/nominate a "progressive" candidate in 2028 we will be bombarded by ads showing that person talking about defending the police, supporting trans athletes, etc. and then we will have a president Vance. The AITOW Dems had better..for once..think about that.
Absolutely. I think a major lesson from 2024 is that the Democratic party went too far left. The response should be to bring it back a bit. The party needs to get voters who went for Trump to go for them.
Because they ALL - R's and D's alike - are politicians. Besides fact the two party system is broken beyond repair. Once Trump Trump fails, D's do not win by default. I do not think the 2028 R and D Nominee resides in Washington at the moment or perhaps is even affiliated with one of the two parties.
EXACTLY RIGHT. What Democrats DON’T want are more SQIDs - Status Quo Institutionalist Democrats like Obama, Biden, Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi, Emmanuel, etc., that are committed to maintaining the Establishment just about the way it is. Mustn’t upset the corporate donors with bold proposals for change.
I disagree. Just look at Obama's and Biden's record of accomplishments. They pushed through some of the most progressive legislation in decades. Now realize that neither, especially Obama, were in a situation to do what they campaigned on. And Jeffries, Pelosi, Schumer etc. were in the same boat
Both were handed two of the biggest crises in out history to clean up without any Republican help. And especially with Obama, with total GOP obstruction. I wonder what Obama and Biden could have accomplished had they been given the economies, they gave their Republican predecessors
And Nancy is the reason we got the PP&ACA along with Jeffries, Schumer and Reid,
Democrats have saved us from a Great Depression, saved the Auto Industries, passed the ACA, gave us the best recovery from the global pandemic of any country in the world, record investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, clean energy, the environment, etc.
I agree about the problem of preserving the status quo. I've been complaining about that forever. But I'm not sure chasing policies in the party platform is the way to muster change. I honestly think we need to revisit platforms based on term limits, creating law that nullifies the Citizen United ruling, banning stock ownership among members of congress and their staff, placing age limits on politicians, and reducing the amount of corporate money/lobbying in the system. Many folks on both sides of the aisle know the system is strained within an inch of its life.
Accomplishments?!? Please… if Biden actually accomplished anything meaningful then he or Harris would be President now.
Obama? Had the chance to get us national healthcare, negotiated against himself, and ended up with a half assed health insurance system that is still too expensive/delivers too little.
I yield to no man in my loathing for Trump, but I have to admit that he is putting on a masterclass for what a President can accomplish - for good or evil - when he actually wants to accomplish something. Imagine if Biden or Obama had said “We’re gonna have student loan debt relief, and I don’t give a crap what the courts say. If they don’t like it, they can try to enforce their ruling.” Biden and Obama didn’t WANT to accomplish anything that would result in major change, or inconvenience to their corporate donors.
2.0 has accomplished nothing. He has signed dozens and dozens of Executive Orders, which are not laws, and can easily be reversed by another prez later on.
And many, if not most, of his EO's have been blocked by courts as being unconstitutional, or not allowed by statutes or contracts, or because he does not have the authority to do what he is commanding.
His "accomplishments" are that he keeps himself in the News every single day with new wackiness which diverts attention from his failures, and unconstitutional actions, and his statements like how he does not know if he has to uphold the US Constitution.
Doesn’t matter. The fact is that it looks like he is trying his damnedest to deliver for his voters - hateful racists though they are. He’s putting on a masterclass. No Democrat President will ever be able to blame inaction on Congress or the Courts again.
A master class in signing EO's which the next prez can reverse on day one with a swift signature? Additionally, most of those EO's will have been tossed by the courts by then.
It has been a masterclass in bluster to con the gullible, period.
In actual accomplishments he has signed all of five bills presented by Congrss, and they consist of things like renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Not one is substantive or fulfilling any of 2.0's agenda he promised while campaigning.
Future dem presidents will never be compared to 2.0 because they will work within the law and the Constitution, and will actually accomplish things, not just give an appearance of having done something like this administration has done. So far, it has been all show, like Cillizza says, a reality TV show stage managed by the prez, but with no actual reality. And shows eventually get old and stale and people will become disillusioned and tired of the same old bluster with no actual accomplishments. His "ratings" have already dropped by a lot.
A master class in how to subvert democracy by an authoritarian, with all tnose lawless actions hidden by boat loads of bluster. But, it is not working, Americans are not all as dumb as 2.0 thinks we are. And so far, the courts are holding the line on following the law. And eventually most people will come to see that the Emperor has no clothes.
Haven’t we learned that appealing to democratic “norms” and subverted democracy cuts absolutely no ice with the American people? Haven’t we learned yet that “It’s the economy, stupid” and ONLY the economy when it comes to voters?
When you live in fear of losing your job (usually immediately after your employer reports record profits), when you struggle to pay bills and put food on the table, you don’t have the luxury of worrying about those things.
Paragraph 1) Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Paragraph 2) Biden admin was creating jobs, as in the Infrastructure Act and the CHIPS Act and other initiatives that helped people and veterans get training for tech jobs etc
Winners??? Did I miss something?? Did Biden get reelected??? Did he leave office with sky high approval ratings?? Is Pelosi the President?? Is Schumer (strongly worded letter!!!) or Jeffries held in high regard by Democrats??
No, the SQIDs are not filling arenas with people waiting in line to listen to what they have to say. They are cowering meekly and collaborating with Trump like Vichy Democrats.
But, the problem with that construct is partially based on how the candidate is perceived. You said that people want a candidate that fights for "people like them". Therein lies the rub. In the GOP, Trump can define people "like them" pretty easily. Their tribe is largely older, white, increasingly male, middle and lower class, some uber wealthy to fund the whole mess, and generally Christian across the board. You can draw some Venn diagram circles around those groups and find a pretty large area of overlap.
Democrats have a diverse tent. It includes young people, older people, increasingly women, those with college degrees, some middle and lower class, LGBTQIA+, and constituencies among every racial group in the country. When Democrats ask who "people like me" are, there are a lot of different answers, and there is less overlap in the Venn diagram. So, a white older woman middle-class, and without a college degree, might not really want to hear about a candidate that fights for trans rights or the importance of protecting migrants. She might not want to have a fight over banned books. A young Hispanic gay man, might care very much about those issues. A young white male with a college degree might very much care about climate change and restrictions on gun ownership, while an urban black woman might care absolutely nothing about those issues -- or the reverse could be true. Not everyone in the Dem coalition, or independents open to it, cares about Medicaid and SNAP benefit protection as a first order of business. The young part of the coalition care a lot less about Medicare and Social Security.
I think the real challenge for Dems is both having the personality of a fighter, but also showing that they share similar values and showing that they care about protecting those facing harm or who can't necessarily protect themselves from the inequities of the system, but also the inequities perpetuated by the government. Within that challenge is the larger problem of making all those base constituencies happy, while still appealing to the independents and moderates who win elections. Too much attention to the moderates and the middle, and each of those Democratic base constituencies that don't have as much overlap in that Venn diagram start feeling that the candidate is no longer fighting for "people like them". They see their group and their needs as distinct from those of the mainstream of America or even from the rest of the Democratic base.
So Bernie and AOC can do their tours, and they can shout their rhetoric, but at some point they are going to have to match policies that are more than just aspirational to those speeches, and I have watched Bernie for 30 years, and he has yet to do it. I have slightly more hope for AOC, but not much.
You keep saying the same thing. But we are not talking about the past 30 years, but the present. Have you not noticed that the moment for Bernie's message is now, as it is for AOC, and they have been getting their message across, as you see from all those in both red states and blue states who have attended their rallies?
And you keep living in a fantasy world. Bernie and AOC can hold all the rallies they want in Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Florida, Wyoming, Utah, etc., and those States will still vote Republican. Getting thousands of angry people who are usually ignored is all well and good, but it doesn’t win elections. Here is a secret for you: moderates and independents don’t generally go to rallies, but they are the ones who decide elections. I’m glad their “message” hits your tickle spots and gives you that nice dopamine kick of righteous indignation, but none of that actually matters. What helps you win, and what can you actually accomplish when you do? That is it. The whole ballgame. *You* like their message. 50+1 percent of America does not. That is the only thing that actually matters. I keep saying the same thing, because what I am saying is true, and what you keep saying is how you feel. Bernie is far too old, and AOC would lose in a landslide to almost anyone the Republicans put up. Take your pick: too young, too inexperienced, too unrealistic, no foreign policy experience, little governing experience, has never managed anything larger than a 25-30 person Congressional staff, no private sector experience, easy to caricature by the right, latent misogyny and racism in the electorate, no practical policy proposals, lack of support within the Democratic Caucus. The list lis loooong…. She is relatable to you, but for most of America she simply is not.
Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang were trying to tackle the fundamental issues: the wealthy are purposely keeping you poor.
Rich Democrats should get together and create a UBI fund.
At least it will raise living standards for real, if only temporarily. Maybe some of those recipients can acquire real assets during that time, because the already-wealthy sure did with those COVID checks.
Because prices will keep rising
and high-paying/low-education jobs are never coming back.
Interesting points about Missouri. But I recommend you speak with Jess Piper, who is on the ground in Missouri working to turn the state at least purple. She has some really compelling ideas about what Dems need to do in rural America.
Someone needs to explain to people the future and that it is NOT manufacturing in the sense of pre-1980s. It is also not entirely knowledge work either.
Well yes, but American companies outsource manufacturing and other jobs to countries where they can do this cheaply, which results in job losses for American workers.
Say what you will about Republicans, but they fight like hell. Yes, they rig the system through gerrymandering, stupid rules (e.g., days don't exist anymore), not allowing a vote on Supreme Court Justices, etc, etc, etc. But they fight! Meanwhile, Democrats use the "when they go low, we go high" mantra to do little more than send "strongly worded letters." So when we see AOC, Crockett, Stansbury, and Booker fight, we go bananas.
Guess what I've been asking for years? 🤔
I want a Democratic Party that fights as hard for us as Trump fights for maga racists.. Is that too hard an ask? 🤔"
Don't forget, Trump gained the most nonwhite voters in the modern era (1960 - 2024). Don't call us racists. I'm one of the many Hispanics who voted for Trump, by the way.
"The average person is not thinking about 2028 — like, at all — right now.)"
True that. And if you're concerned about who will be the Presidential nominee in 2028, you're not an informed voter, you're an obsessed voter.
Good point, and a good reminder. I think it makes sense to want the Democratic Party to get its act together and look to the future, but it can go too far.
And when you dig into the polling looking for those “regret-and-would-switch” voters, you find there aren’t all that many.
A University of Massachusetts national poll conducted in mid-April showed that only 2% of Trump voters agreed with this statement: “I regret my vote and would vote differently if I could.”
Rahm Emanuel. He’s a fighter, more of a centrist and he takes no prisoners.
I definitely agree that someone of his brand would be great for politics and policy. Combative centrism is pretty great.
If the Dems push/nominate a "progressive" candidate in 2028 we will be bombarded by ads showing that person talking about defending the police, supporting trans athletes, etc. and then we will have a president Vance. The AITOW Dems had better..for once..think about that.
Absolutely. I think a major lesson from 2024 is that the Democratic party went too far left. The response should be to bring it back a bit. The party needs to get voters who went for Trump to go for them.
Because they ALL - R's and D's alike - are politicians. Besides fact the two party system is broken beyond repair. Once Trump Trump fails, D's do not win by default. I do not think the 2028 R and D Nominee resides in Washington at the moment or perhaps is even affiliated with one of the two parties.
EXACTLY RIGHT. What Democrats DON’T want are more SQIDs - Status Quo Institutionalist Democrats like Obama, Biden, Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi, Emmanuel, etc., that are committed to maintaining the Establishment just about the way it is. Mustn’t upset the corporate donors with bold proposals for change.
I disagree. Just look at Obama's and Biden's record of accomplishments. They pushed through some of the most progressive legislation in decades. Now realize that neither, especially Obama, were in a situation to do what they campaigned on. And Jeffries, Pelosi, Schumer etc. were in the same boat
Both were handed two of the biggest crises in out history to clean up without any Republican help. And especially with Obama, with total GOP obstruction. I wonder what Obama and Biden could have accomplished had they been given the economies, they gave their Republican predecessors
And Nancy is the reason we got the PP&ACA along with Jeffries, Schumer and Reid,
Democrats have saved us from a Great Depression, saved the Auto Industries, passed the ACA, gave us the best recovery from the global pandemic of any country in the world, record investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, clean energy, the environment, etc.
I agree about the problem of preserving the status quo. I've been complaining about that forever. But I'm not sure chasing policies in the party platform is the way to muster change. I honestly think we need to revisit platforms based on term limits, creating law that nullifies the Citizen United ruling, banning stock ownership among members of congress and their staff, placing age limits on politicians, and reducing the amount of corporate money/lobbying in the system. Many folks on both sides of the aisle know the system is strained within an inch of its life.
Accomplishments?!? Please… if Biden actually accomplished anything meaningful then he or Harris would be President now.
Obama? Had the chance to get us national healthcare, negotiated against himself, and ended up with a half assed health insurance system that is still too expensive/delivers too little.
I yield to no man in my loathing for Trump, but I have to admit that he is putting on a masterclass for what a President can accomplish - for good or evil - when he actually wants to accomplish something. Imagine if Biden or Obama had said “We’re gonna have student loan debt relief, and I don’t give a crap what the courts say. If they don’t like it, they can try to enforce their ruling.” Biden and Obama didn’t WANT to accomplish anything that would result in major change, or inconvenience to their corporate donors.
And THAT’S why we now have Trump…
2.0 has accomplished nothing. He has signed dozens and dozens of Executive Orders, which are not laws, and can easily be reversed by another prez later on.
And many, if not most, of his EO's have been blocked by courts as being unconstitutional, or not allowed by statutes or contracts, or because he does not have the authority to do what he is commanding.
His "accomplishments" are that he keeps himself in the News every single day with new wackiness which diverts attention from his failures, and unconstitutional actions, and his statements like how he does not know if he has to uphold the US Constitution.
A masterclass in non-stop bluster.
Doesn’t matter. The fact is that it looks like he is trying his damnedest to deliver for his voters - hateful racists though they are. He’s putting on a masterclass. No Democrat President will ever be able to blame inaction on Congress or the Courts again.
A master class in signing EO's which the next prez can reverse on day one with a swift signature? Additionally, most of those EO's will have been tossed by the courts by then.
It has been a masterclass in bluster to con the gullible, period.
In actual accomplishments he has signed all of five bills presented by Congrss, and they consist of things like renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Not one is substantive or fulfilling any of 2.0's agenda he promised while campaigning.
Future dem presidents will never be compared to 2.0 because they will work within the law and the Constitution, and will actually accomplish things, not just give an appearance of having done something like this administration has done. So far, it has been all show, like Cillizza says, a reality TV show stage managed by the prez, but with no actual reality. And shows eventually get old and stale and people will become disillusioned and tired of the same old bluster with no actual accomplishments. His "ratings" have already dropped by a lot.
A master class in how to subvert democracy by an authoritarian, with all tnose lawless actions hidden by boat loads of bluster. But, it is not working, Americans are not all as dumb as 2.0 thinks we are. And so far, the courts are holding the line on following the law. And eventually most people will come to see that the Emperor has no clothes.
Haven’t we learned that appealing to democratic “norms” and subverted democracy cuts absolutely no ice with the American people? Haven’t we learned yet that “It’s the economy, stupid” and ONLY the economy when it comes to voters?
When you live in fear of losing your job (usually immediately after your employer reports record profits), when you struggle to pay bills and put food on the table, you don’t have the luxury of worrying about those things.
Paragraph 1) Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.
Paragraph 2) Biden admin was creating jobs, as in the Infrastructure Act and the CHIPS Act and other initiatives that helped people and veterans get training for tech jobs etc
Actually, that's exactly what most Dems want. Please note that the people that you listed are all winners, politically.
Winners??? Did I miss something?? Did Biden get reelected??? Did he leave office with sky high approval ratings?? Is Pelosi the President?? Is Schumer (strongly worded letter!!!) or Jeffries held in high regard by Democrats??
No, the SQIDs are not filling arenas with people waiting in line to listen to what they have to say. They are cowering meekly and collaborating with Trump like Vichy Democrats.
But, the problem with that construct is partially based on how the candidate is perceived. You said that people want a candidate that fights for "people like them". Therein lies the rub. In the GOP, Trump can define people "like them" pretty easily. Their tribe is largely older, white, increasingly male, middle and lower class, some uber wealthy to fund the whole mess, and generally Christian across the board. You can draw some Venn diagram circles around those groups and find a pretty large area of overlap.
Democrats have a diverse tent. It includes young people, older people, increasingly women, those with college degrees, some middle and lower class, LGBTQIA+, and constituencies among every racial group in the country. When Democrats ask who "people like me" are, there are a lot of different answers, and there is less overlap in the Venn diagram. So, a white older woman middle-class, and without a college degree, might not really want to hear about a candidate that fights for trans rights or the importance of protecting migrants. She might not want to have a fight over banned books. A young Hispanic gay man, might care very much about those issues. A young white male with a college degree might very much care about climate change and restrictions on gun ownership, while an urban black woman might care absolutely nothing about those issues -- or the reverse could be true. Not everyone in the Dem coalition, or independents open to it, cares about Medicaid and SNAP benefit protection as a first order of business. The young part of the coalition care a lot less about Medicare and Social Security.
I think the real challenge for Dems is both having the personality of a fighter, but also showing that they share similar values and showing that they care about protecting those facing harm or who can't necessarily protect themselves from the inequities of the system, but also the inequities perpetuated by the government. Within that challenge is the larger problem of making all those base constituencies happy, while still appealing to the independents and moderates who win elections. Too much attention to the moderates and the middle, and each of those Democratic base constituencies that don't have as much overlap in that Venn diagram start feeling that the candidate is no longer fighting for "people like them". They see their group and their needs as distinct from those of the mainstream of America or even from the rest of the Democratic base.
So Bernie and AOC can do their tours, and they can shout their rhetoric, but at some point they are going to have to match policies that are more than just aspirational to those speeches, and I have watched Bernie for 30 years, and he has yet to do it. I have slightly more hope for AOC, but not much.
You keep saying the same thing. But we are not talking about the past 30 years, but the present. Have you not noticed that the moment for Bernie's message is now, as it is for AOC, and they have been getting their message across, as you see from all those in both red states and blue states who have attended their rallies?
And you keep living in a fantasy world. Bernie and AOC can hold all the rallies they want in Indiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Florida, Wyoming, Utah, etc., and those States will still vote Republican. Getting thousands of angry people who are usually ignored is all well and good, but it doesn’t win elections. Here is a secret for you: moderates and independents don’t generally go to rallies, but they are the ones who decide elections. I’m glad their “message” hits your tickle spots and gives you that nice dopamine kick of righteous indignation, but none of that actually matters. What helps you win, and what can you actually accomplish when you do? That is it. The whole ballgame. *You* like their message. 50+1 percent of America does not. That is the only thing that actually matters. I keep saying the same thing, because what I am saying is true, and what you keep saying is how you feel. Bernie is far too old, and AOC would lose in a landslide to almost anyone the Republicans put up. Take your pick: too young, too inexperienced, too unrealistic, no foreign policy experience, little governing experience, has never managed anything larger than a 25-30 person Congressional staff, no private sector experience, easy to caricature by the right, latent misogyny and racism in the electorate, no practical policy proposals, lack of support within the Democratic Caucus. The list lis loooong…. She is relatable to you, but for most of America she simply is not.
Hmm, that’s an interesting take. I personally don’t have any interest in being “represented”. Maybe that’s why Democratic messaging turns me off.
What are Democrats supposed to fight for?
Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang were trying to tackle the fundamental issues: the wealthy are purposely keeping you poor.
Rich Democrats should get together and create a UBI fund.
At least it will raise living standards for real, if only temporarily. Maybe some of those recipients can acquire real assets during that time, because the already-wealthy sure did with those COVID checks.
Because prices will keep rising
and high-paying/low-education jobs are never coming back.
Great episode!
Interesting points about Missouri. But I recommend you speak with Jess Piper, who is on the ground in Missouri working to turn the state at least purple. She has some really compelling ideas about what Dems need to do in rural America.
Someone needs to explain to people the future and that it is NOT manufacturing in the sense of pre-1980s. It is also not entirely knowledge work either.
Well yes, but American companies outsource manufacturing and other jobs to countries where they can do this cheaply, which results in job losses for American workers.
They do that so that consumers can afford their goods.
But this also results in unemployment in America, where companies would have to spend more to hire American workers.
China is a huge producer of outsourced goods. I am no Trumper, but it is true what he says about our dependence on goods made in China.
China is the biggest player, but Southeast Asia and India are also big players in that arena as well.
Good session Chris. Do more like this please. Perhaps it could have been a touch shorter in length... is my one piece of feedback.
It's NOT a deal. It is the concept of the concept of a deal. 😉🤦♂️😞💩