The Anti-Trump Playbook with Tim Miller

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start?

Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to.

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?

With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro.

You just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.

Download today.

This month on Explain It To Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well: collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes, and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It To Me, presented by Pureleaf.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.

Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Welcome to Raging Moderates.

Jessica and I are thrilled to have a very special guest with us today, the host of the Bulwark podcast, Tim Miller.

Tim's a seasoned communications consultant, a former senior advisor to the Anti-Trump Our Principles PAC, communications director for Jeb Bush, and spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

He's essentially seen the inside of every major Republican political fight over the last decade.

Tim, you've been on the front lines of the anti-Trump Republican movement and have had a front row seat to this wild, weird, and quite frankly, worrisome political era.

Let's bust right into it.

Give us your state of play here.

If you had to sum up the election results in a couple takeaways and what you think the media or the general sort of kind of the collective wisdom or lack thereof is about what happened.

What are the misconceptions?

Where are you a contrarian around what took place here?

Yeah, that's a good question.

First, I'm raging in moderate.

And so you guys, I'm happy.

It's a good brand.

This is a place for you.

And I'm happy that I feel comfortable and I feel warm.

You're home.

I do.

And that's nice.

So hopefully that reflects my freedom in my commentary.

Where am I a contrarian?

That's a good question.

I guess the main area that I don't, I guess you guys can tell me whether you think this is contrarian or not.

But I basically just reject.

every piece of analysis that Democratic insiders obsess over about the tactics of the Harris campaign and whether whether they're whether they had they gone on Joe Rogan or had Kamla done that one thing or another thing better that it would have made any difference I don't really think it would have we saw a completely even

across like almost all demographic groups across red states blue states purple states there was a shift to the right i think that that shift happened actually less in the states where the campaign i i know that the shift happened less in the states where the campaign was uh practiced where there was more tv ads in the swing states.

But black voters, Hispanic voters, Latin, like Asians, white people,

every group shifted, essentially, except for college-educated white people that live around where we all live or where you used to live, Scott, you're in London now.

So

I think that should tell you something, which is that there's something broadly structural that is the problem.

I think the open questions remain to be seen, is that broad structural problem with the Democratic Party itself and their policy positions?

Is it with Joe Biden and his performance as president?

Or was it completely out of everybody's control and it's just geopolitical forces and inflation and we live in the bad timeline and Trump's the luckiest person in the world?

I think that there's probably something to all of those three categories and pretty much nothing to all of the insider-y tactical obsessions.

Yeah, I would largely agree with that.

I also

think Kamala, you know, did the best that she could, but she was a pretty flawed candidate, which I think is why she didn't get out of the 2020 primary, at least on her own, or even collect a single vote and all of that.

But on the global headwinds piece of this, you know, all of these other incumbents got kicked out across the world, but so did their parties.

And that's not really what happened to the Democrats.

It was a pretty decent performance down ballot in the Senate and the House.

So how do you explain that one?

Do we just go to, you know, Trump is the luckiest person on the planet?

I'm basically there and have felt that way for some time.

So I was hopeful.

Trump is the luckiest person in world history.

It's possible that I'm cursed and that everyone else is just living through kind of the shrapnel of my personal curse of like a witch or a warlock because of my distaste for Trump and his luck.

I think that

though

while the Democratic Party brand in the narrow sense might not be be fundamentally flawed, as you point out, you know, the House, you end up gaining a seat, do well in those Senate races in the swing states.

Among the broadest part of the electorate, there is issues with the brand.

And I think this is like really where Trump kind of wins, right?

Like Democrats do well in special elections where you have high-trust people that always turn out to vote, want to turn out.

Like this is, that's a group Democrats do well with.

Low trust people who are not paying that close of attention, like are really, you know, do think that the Democrats are out of touch with them.

I think that Kamala Harris was poorly positioned to reach those people.

And again, I don't think it's really the tactics of the campaign.

It's just more about her.

I agree with you on that.

Like, she is not, she just gave off very much typical kind of politician vibes, typical liberal Democrat politician vibes.

And I think that the identity element of this reps in, right?

Like the original sin of the Democratic Party and all this might have been that Joe Biden felt that he had to pick a black woman and that he had, and that he picked a black woman who was the obvious successor, which kind of trampled dialogue and discussion within the party about what other options are.

So to me, I think that

you can say both those things as once.

There are certain elements within the Democratic Party that are fine and functional, but in huge swaths of the country, they're not competitive.

And among the lowest info voters that turn out in these presidential elections, they have really turned those voters off over the course of the past five, 10 years.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: So this is pure speculation, but I want to put forward a thesis, and that is President Biden's narcissism is what really fucked us.

And that is when you have the primaries are outstanding at producing

oftentimes outstanding candidates.

And they not only produce a person who's the best person, they produce the best person for that moment.

And in this moment, it might have been someone we hadn't heard of that came across as more moderate or conservative.

But to essentially go back on his word about being a transition candidate and then saddle an incumbent with 109 days or whatever it was that

President Biden should be buried in a crypt that says narcissists along with Senator Ian Feinstein and Ruth Bader Gensberg.

Your thoughts.

I agree with that.

Communal grave.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I have a lot of contempt for the way that President Biden has acted.

I would add to that, not only then his decision to run, but then once he finally decided not to run after insane amounts of pressure were expended, he didn't give the vice president the leash that she needed to distance himself for him, right?

Somebody that was not narcissistic would have said, you know, Kamala, I screwed this up.

I dropped the ball.

I thought I could do it.

I had this debate.

I failed.

I failed you.

I failed the voters.

I failed the country.

You do what you need to do, girl.

Like you throw me under the bus if you need to.

You like, if you want me to vouch that you disagreed with the border policy, I'll vouch.

Like we can do a joint interview where I was like, whatever.

I don't know what it is.

But he was the opposite.

He was like hovering over her campaign.

And I know from inside sources that the Biden and his people around him would call journalists to like complain when he felt like he was getting snubbed or whatever by the Harris campaign, et cetera.

So

I absolutely agree with the ego.

The one thing I maybe disagree with in this thesis is if you do this full counterfactual where Biden says in November 2022, I'm not going to run again, and you have a full primary.

Again, I think it's very hard to get past Kamala Harris because of identity issues in the Democratic Party and just how, you know, like the idea of a white guy beating her, I think would have caused a lot of ruptures within Democratic circles.

This is more Jesse's world than mine, so I defer to you.

It's uncomfortable for me calling you Jesse since you're Jessica on the five.

But

we're casual here, outraging moderates.

This is more your world than mine.

So maybe you disagree with that.

And I think it's also very possible that the Democratic Party would have just listened to the activists and most of the people that emerged in that primary would have said the right thing to do is to run to Biden's way left on foreign policy and attacked him over Gaza and that that would have become just a total cluster.

So

I don't know that necessarily it's true that a more electable candidate would have emerged, but the rest of your thesis, I agree with.

Well, it does feel like, and everyone is entitled to their secrets.

And it seems like voters were harboring a lot of secrets going into this election, probably more so even than in 2016.

Like there was scribbles on the wall, but the writing on the wall was not as clear because we kept seeing data coming back about late-breaking voters going for the Harris campaign and all of these moderate voters, a lot of them former Republicans like yourself that were Nikki Haley primary voters, let's say, and just couldn't go home to the Republican Party if Donald Trump was top of the ticket.

And that didn't end up bearing out come election day.

A lot of them did go home.

We never actually ended up building on more than, what is it, like 22% or something like that of the Republican Party that was anti-Trump.

That's essentially what it was in the 2024 exit polls.

And I'm curious/slash obsessed with what happens to people like you.

So I've always felt like you guys are the most high-end rental I've ever had in my life, right?

Like that you're the Bentley of rentals.

And

going forward, like Trump, I mean, if he has his way, I'm sure he'll be on the ballot in 2028, but let's suppose that he's not on the ballot in 2028.

Where do you think that majority of the folks who feel like you do

end up going?

Do they stick with Democrats through this or are people looking for an off-ramp?

If it's a Nikki Haley or even a J.D.

Vance, who might be more palatable to some people, at least on ethical issues, than Donald Trump?

Yeah.

I'm obsessed with this.

So we could have done a full hour on this.

So I will do my best to be brief.

But

in short, to defend my people's honor,

the Nikki Haley voter types pretty much did went for, again, we have to look deeper into the data and all this, but based on my eyeing it on exit polls and just demographics, how she did in counties where they're disproportionate of my people,

Nikki,

Kamala did about as well as Biden did.

Like she didn't lose ground with those former Republican voters.

No, but we didn't gain.

Yeah, no, no, you didn't.

I thought that we would.

Yeah, there was not a lot of gain.

And there was then offsetting loss among traditional Democratic groups.

And by the way, I keep telling this to Democrats: this is a bad trade.

Like trading away working-class black and brown people for college-educated, like Atlanta suburb, like Wall Street Journal reading guys.

Like, there are way more of them than there are of us.

So don't make that trade.

Okay.

It's not a good trade.

But I don't think that you have to because my answer to your question is, I think among actual voters out there, if the democratic party does not go off the deep end

like the trade is made it's over like i just like when i think of people my life i grew up in the denver suburbs my high school friend group went you know um everybody went for bush except for one person

we have totally inverted every everybody in my high school friend group went for kamala except for the person the other person the one person flipped over to trump right so like we like that is i'd have it all of my friends wives um are like rat, like, were

not, they, they weren't all Republicans.

Some of them, they were, it was mixed, but among the ones who were Republicans, they are like rabid Democrats now.

Like this, just among regular people that live in America, that are in the suburbs, that aren't obsessed with politics, that are, that are college-educated, like

white voters that Democrats are doing better with, the types of people that show up to school board meetings and are high trust, et cetera.

I just, I think the trade has been made.

Like, those people are Democrats now, unless the Democrats nominate AOC and the Republicans.

You know what I mean?

Like, unless there's another shift, and like the Republicans nominate Nikki Haley.

I just, I don't see that happening, but I don't have a crystal ball.

I think the Republicans have now permanently shifted into this more working-class MAGA nationalist party, and their gains are all with working-class voters.

And Democrats have to figure out how to offset those gains, and that's Democrats' main priority.

And I think that as long as they don't do so in a manner that just totally alienates the voters that came over over the last six years.

Like most of those voters are Democrats now.

And the ones who are like George Will or whatever, like there's a disproportionate number of like people who are deeply, deep conservatives who just hate Trump.

You're going to lose those people.

But those people mostly exist in like the commentariat, not out in, not out among real Americans.

Tim, looking at the nominees or the cabinet nominees here, specifically, let's look at Hegseth, Gabbard, RFK Jr.

What are your thoughts on who gets confirmed and who doesn't?

Yeah, I just, I have to, I like to admit when I'm wrong about things.

So

I thought they were all going to get confirmed.

I thought Gates was going to get through.

And so the question that I have is...

It's a dark place, yeah.

The question that I have is, was my priors wrong about that because

the fact that Trump can't run again, supposedly, is going to give some Republican senators, particularly the older guard senators, are going to retire a little more spine than they had last time?

Or was my prior wrong on that because they just hate Matt Gates so much on a personal level that he was the exception that proves the rule.

I think that remains to be seen.

I expect them to get through.

I think that I was just in Iowa, for example, over the weekend.

I was at a funeral for a former Republican coworker's wife.

So there's a lot of Republican operative types there.

And so I was asking all of them about this.

And there wasn't a single person.

They're all more Republican in good standing than I am these days.

There wasn't a single person there who thought Joni Ernst, who's the Iowa senator, who's been the key person kind of threatening to tank Heg Seth because of

her advocacy for sexual assault and his comments about women in the military and his alleged sexual assault.

And there wasn't a single person there that thought that Joni Ernst, when push came to shove, would tank him.

Now, could other things come out in the next month that make any of

those three nominees just unacceptable because it's just such a bad fact that emerges?

Sure.

Like something else could happen.

Like Trump nominated these guys really early.

There usually isn't a two-month runway of controversy.

So I think that could happen.

But I think if anyone that actually makes it to a floor vote will get confirmed, I guess would be the way I would put it.

Yeah.

Wow.

And I did.

I felt that way when I saw Ernst's statement after her last round of meetings with Pete, where she basically inferred that he said he would stop talking shit about women in combat roles.

I was like, okay, well, she got what she wanted out of this.

And everyone keeps beating their chest.

Like, Trump has a right to his nominees.

And yeah, that is completely true, but I can't remember someone who picked so many people that were unqualified for these jobs.

Scott and I have a particular B in our proverbial bonnet about Tulsi Gabbard.

Why isn't your B in your bonnet about your colleague, Pete Hakes?

Pete Hakeseth.

Or is it because you're hoping that a Democrat might appoint you based on your experience as a television host?

Like you could be a cabinet official in the future, Jesse.

That's the way we're going.

I have no bronze stars to speak of.

You also don't have a rape test.

Anyways, charming guys.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sorry.

Couldn't resist.

Try.

I've been begging you to resist, my man.

There you go.

No, Tulsi, and

I've had an issue about her

since Russia today or whatever called her our girlfriend.

I was like, this is obviously a problem.

And watching what's going on in Syria, where she had been effusive about

the, you know, the misunderstandings that we have about Bashar al-Assad and talking about how the people in Syria actually like him, et cetera.

The idea that we could have someone as DNI that is not going to engender information sharing amongst allies

is deeply frightening to me.

And Scott and I have been saying that she's

the most, besides Gates, and that one pretty quickly.

And now I guess we'll be able to watch him on One American News.

But she was the most troubling in all of this.

And you really don't think that there's going to be any problem for her getting through with her record on security issues?

I just want to say, personally, I think cash is the most troubling.

So maybe if you want to get to that, we can.

I'm also deeply worried about Tulsi.

I'll say this, though.

Tom Cotton came out and said that Trump should have his choices.

If someone is going to stop.

You know, if you could imagine a person that would say, no, sorry, this is too far for me.

This goes against my worldview.

It would be Cotton.

I mean, he is a hawk.

He's a hawks hawk and is anti-Russia, anti-Assad.

Like, like, the idea that he would want her to be there to me seems absurd.

And so, I just think that shows you where the wind is blowing on this stuff.

And I guess there's some rumor, some buzz that Bernie might even

support her, which would give another vote of, you know, buffer.

I also agree.

I mean, I think I had Michael Weiss on the blog podcast the other day, and he's talking about talking to, you know, he reports in the intelligence world.

He's talking to foreign intelligence officials.

They're like, we might not like be cautious about sharing stuff for a little while with America because we don't know where that's going to go.

It is a ridiculous choice, alarming for sure.

But like, where is the outrage?

I mean, not to you, that's your show, but turning it back on you, like you would think that Fox, like there'd be people at Fox that would be outraged by this, right?

I mean, like, she isn't, she is hostile to Hannity's worldview, to my old friend Dana Perino's worldview, to all the, like, anyone that is a strong national security, you know, pro-freedom agenda type Republican, you would think would be horrified by her.

I'm not seeing it.

So I don't know if that's just because behind the scenes, she has just won folks over, or if it's they know that Trump is going to fight for her and so it's not worth the political capital or if people have just been so beaten down by the Trump era.

But to me, I don't see where the resistance to her would even come from at this point.

Bundle and safe with Expedia.

You were made to follow your favorite band and from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are adult protected.

Recently, we asked some people about sharing their New York Times accounts.

I would be very interested in having separate logins for a shared subscription.

I'm 35 years old.

I still share my parents' New York Times subscription.

I think if my teenagers were to have their own logins, we could share articles.

It doesn't let us play the same game, says each other.

I do the crossword.

I do the spelling bee.

I do the wordle.

Please help.

Having our own accounts would be amazing.

My mom could save her own recipes.

My friends could save their recipes.

I want to get the weekly newsletter, but they seem to always go to my husband and then he doesn't forward them to me.

We both love cooking.

I'm a 30-minute and under-dinner girly.

My boyfriend is very elaborate.

I think him having his own profile would be great.

We love the New York Times and we would love to love it individually.

We heard you.

Introducing the New York Times family subscription.

One subscription, up to to four separate logins for anyone in your life.

Find out more at nytimes.com/slash family.

Hello, Daisy speaking.

Hello, Daisy.

This is Phoebe Judge from the IRS.

Oh, bless, that does sound serious.

I wouldn't want to end up in any sort of trouble.

This September on Criminal, we've been thinking a lot about scams.

Over the next couple of weeks, we're releasing episodes about a surprising way to stop scammers.

The people you didn't know were on the other end of the line.

And we have a special bonus episode on Criminal Plus with tips to protect yourself.

Listen to Criminal wherever you get your podcasts and sign up for Criminal Plus at thisiscriminal.com slash plus.

So some of this, this might not be as much optimism as the desire for a kind of

a blood offering, a revenge.

But talk a little bit about 2026.

It feels to me like all the moons are lining up for Democrats Democrats to score pretty big gains in the House and the Senate.

Your thoughts?

Senate map is tough.

So I guess that's one thing that I would throw out there.

I do think that the Senate map is tough for Democrats in 2026.

The House, I agree.

I mean, I think I just thought it was Dave Wasserman.

I don't have it in front of me, but it was something like 7,000 votes

swung the House.

Like, you know, it's three districts, you know, that were all just super, super close.

And if you look at the districts, one of them is the kind of Colorado, but exurbs that I was talking about earlier.

One of them is Iowa, a district that I know quite well.

One of them is California, exurbs.

Like they're all the types of things that you would think would swing.

I think a lot of this will depend on like what Trump actually does, right?

There are two theories of the incoming Trump presidency.

One is kind of that,

you know,

it's the Trump wall presidency where he wants to golf.

He builds a couple miles of it, puts out some press releases and bleats and talks about how great the things are, the deportations are and the tariffs are, but he doesn't actually really enforce them in a way that would that would affect people's day-to-day lives.

And if that is the way we go, you know, maybe the things don't line up quite as well for the Democrats.

If we go down the path of mass deportations, you know, we have we have people in camps, we have a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico that's going to impact prices of the grocery store, go down the list.

Then, yeah, I mean, I think that there, again, Democrats do well in midterms because the types of people that turn out in midterms are more aligned with Democrats.

And two, there'll be that category of Trump voter that didn't really sign up for all of that, that just was unhappy with inflation that you would assume would either then not vote or swing back.

So I think that, sure, it could go well for Democrats, but I don't, I don't think that's like guaranteed.

Navigating a Trump presidency that I feel was chosen more than 2016, like 2016 was like taking a flyer on him.

This was intentional, right?

That people were like, I know what this is and I am choosing it again brings with it new challenges for Democrats.

And you see a lot of the big name governors having pretty open struggles with what should we do.

Like the Gavin Newsoms of the World, who's on a tour of all the counties that voted for Trump.

And he's talking about

Trump-proofing his state, but also trying to figure out ways that you can work with the administration.

And we have the Doge caucus and people saying, All right, well, we've got to at least show the people that we represent who voted for this guy that we have some sort of interest in building these bridges.

How much bipartisan activity do you think there actually will be?

And what will the implications be for future elections?

Because that's something that concerns me.

Because I think, yes, you should always do what's best for the constituent, but also I'm a partisan that wants to win.

I think Democrats do governance better.

I think the economy performs better under Democrats.

And I'm deeply frightened of an an election where he gets to stand up there and say,

look at all my stuff.

Look at the things that I did.

And it will have been off of Democrats' backs that made all this possible.

And they'll think that he's the second coming again.

So I guess he's the third coming.

We are aligned.

I'm deeply.

We're the same person.

No, we're aligned on this issue for sure.

I'm deeply concerned about the, I saw, look, I interviewed Mikey Sherrill, who's a great Congresswoman.

I'm so excited about her run.

She's awesome.

She's a moderate congressman.

She's running for governor of New Jersey.

I like her.

But I asked her about that.

So I was like, how much do you plan on working with these guys?

Like, are you going to help them fund the government?

Are you going to help them?

And she kind of implied that like, yeah, we're going to work.

You know, we have obligations to our constituents.

And I look at this and it's like,

they want everything.

Make them govern.

Show people what it really looks like.

And I don't get why you would do, you know, why you would, you know, partner with that.

I mean, sure.

I guess you're going to partner with them on Doge to try to

work on some niche thing that you care about that could bring efficiencies or bring something to your district, okay.

But on the big ticket items, their deportation plans, like their fund, like the tax cuts, the funding, let them try to do it.

I need a narrow House majority.

And I think one thing that makes me different culturally from my new allies in the Democratic Party is just the agreeableness scale among Democrats is way higher.

Democrats are way like we're all kind of drugs.

Yeah, Democrats are just agreeable.

I think maybe that's there's some natural selection to this.

Like to do well in elite environs, you need to be kind of agreeable and go along and find solutions.

And like a lot of Republicans were like, no, F this, burn it down.

And I'm, and that's so culturally, I come from that side.

And so I don't, less agreeableness, I think would be helpful for Democrats in Washington.

Though I will say one quick thing about the governors.

Sure, Trump proving their state is fine.

You should try to do that to the extent possible.

But these governors should focus on making their state places that people want to live.

And like, this is my number one complaint with my new friends on the Democratic side.

It's like people are fleeing blue states because it's too expensive to live there.

And like the 2030 census is going to make the electoral map even worse for Democrats if they don't make.

their states places that people want to come to where that are economically dynamic.

So if I was Gavin Newsome or Mikey Sherrill or any of these people, assuming Mikey Sheryl wins, that is what I would be focused on if I was them.

So just as we wrap up, Tim, predictions on who you think the 2028 Republican and Democratic nominees for president will be.

That's funny.

I had a gag when I got this question up before the election where my answer was always Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Figuring that Trump would run again at 82.

But since Trump has won, you know, I think that it's JD's to lose.

You know, I think that he's really kind of navigated that well.

But that said,

you know, Republicans want outsiders.

And so

if somebody like Tucker or some compelling outsider ran, I think that that would be compelling to the Republicans.

So I would worry about that.

I do not think it's a Nikki Haley, Glenn Young type.

It is not.

The Republican voters want a populist type candidate.

So it'll either be Bance, a Trump family member, some outsider.

The Democrat one is tougher, man, because I just

Democrats have been voting for the most electable candidate and trying to do that and being strategic about it in a lot of elections.

Like their left wing has not been as successful in primary people and stuff as the Republicans' right wing has.

Does that change after this election is something that I feel unsuited to really judge, since that's kind of not exactly my people.

Because I think that

the Democrats are really going to want to look for somebody.

that presents themselves as a winner, but as a fighter, somebody can fight and take down the right.

And if, and, and if they can find a centrist type person, if Josh Shapiro or whatever, Gretchen Whitmer can position themselves like that, then they can win.

If they can't, and they look too much like a weenie establishment type,

then somebody like somebody from the left is going to win the primary.

And so I just, so I would look to Democratic moderates to be inspired by the Raging Moderates podcast.

I think a raging moderate has a good chance of winning next time.

A mealy-mouthed moderate does not.

Yeah,

I always feel like we get a bad rap for like five really loud people on the left.

Like, oh my God, you guys are a bunch of communists.

And then we're like, please meet Joe Biden.

Or like, you guys, you know, it's like being in Cuba over here and we're like, meet Hillary Clinton or whatever.

And I feel like the biggest impediment to success on the left is

this hatred of wealth and capitalism that becomes this huge talking point.

And I'll be interested to see if like a Mark Cuban or someone throws their hat into the ring and if we can, you know, pick our own billionaire type who can definitely talk, you know, as loudly as a Donald Trump and he, you know, hopefully won't be on the ballot.

But I think that that could shake it up.

I mean, I used to work for Mike Bloomberg's pollster.

And when he was in the 2020 primary, I get it, you know, Elizabeth Warren nuked him or whatever, and it was unpalatable.

But I'm like, that guy is winning.

He's going to win the presidency if you send him out.

He's a very compelling communicator, though, in this day and age.

That was, that was Bloomberg's problem.

Like, you need to, like, while I don't think that Cumlin not going on Rogan mattered, I do think the ability to be able to go into places like Rogan and talk like a normal human is critical.

Like, I, for example, I really like Wes more,

but sometimes he sounds very politician-y.

Look, if there's any Democrat listening that wants to run in 2027, the thing that they should practice the most is how to sound like a normal person and how to sound like a not a politician and how to talk to regular people.

And so, I like Wes would be in the old world, I think, the prime person for the Democrats to run.

And in this environment, it's tough.

Cuban does talk like a regular person.

Bloomberg does not.

You have to be able to be good at managing things.

You're right.

We need to go to school for talking like normal people, which probably says something bad about us.

I'm waiting for the time when people will listen.

to Bill Clinton's advice in broad strokes because every election cycle, he seems to have had advice that was directly ignored from the campaign that could have helped.

I'm not saying necessarily would have won, but

slick willie.

Tim, this has been really interesting.

Really appreciate your time, and I get the sense

we're going to hear and see more of you over the next four years.

Yeah, I got you.

We're going to flip the gikes around.

Both of you got to come over to my house soon.

All right.

All right.

Sounds good, Tim.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.