Brian Beutler: Time to Pop Off, Dems

Hey, it's Charlie Pooth doing a sound check with the Bic four color pen.

Hear that?

It's the click of four great colors and one long-lasting pen for endless inspiration when writing songs or any kind of notes.

And there are so many styles to choose from, like the Bic Four Color Pen with Smooth Like Gel Ink or the Pastel and Shine Designs.

Check out the latest Bic four color pens wherever you do your back-to-school shopping and find the one that clicks with you.

Oh, watch your step.

Wow, your attic is so dark.

Dark.

I know, right?

It's the perfect place to stream horror movies.

What movie is that?

I haven't pressed play yet.

ATT Fiber with Alpha covers your whole house, even your really, really creepy attic turned home theater.

Jimmy, what have I told you about scaring our guests?

Get ATT Fiber with Al-Fi and live like a gagillionaire.

Limited availability coverage may require extenders at additional charge.

Hello and welcome to the Bowler podcast.

I'm your host, Tim Miller.

Delighted to welcome back, co-host of the Politics with an X podcast with Matt Iglesias.

He also writes the Off-Message Substack newsletter.

Was it Crooked Media before and the New Republic and other lib outlets?

And he has a great article.

Whenever I read a great newsletter from someone that I agree with 100%,

I'm like, they must come on the podcast so I can have my priors affirmed.

It's Brian Boytler.

How are you doing, man?

I'm good, but it makes me think that it's been like a year and a half since I wrote something that you fully agreed with.

And that kind of hurts my feelings.

That is not true.

Actually,

when I texted you about how good it was, I noticed I had done similarly a couple months ago, but it just wasn't a podcast-worthy agreement.

Fair enough.

This agreement was like, I am engorged by how much I agree with this, and we must podcast on it.

All right, I will swing for the apologies.

So I apologize to my mother-in-law for that.

The article is Jeffrey Epstein, Trump Care, and the Influencer Problem.

And I want to get into the Epstein stuff with you and a bunch of other issues in micro.

But first,

the macro point that you're making is something I've been talking about a lot that I just, I think that is hard to just kind of process for like the Democratic strategist class and politicians a little bit is this.

Your subhead is, what if the people Democrats want to reach aren't terribly interested in policy per se?

You go on, we we should talk to a tension, a pretty severe one, between the Democratic Party's desire to contest election on safe ground like healthcare policy and the new consensus that reaching marginal voters will require with engaging the online influencers and pop culture figures those voters admire.

Like this is right.

I think I ask pretty much every Dempal that comes on the show about this.

How to navigate this?

Like, is the problem with reaching these voters policy actually, or is it something else?

So why don't you talk about it at the top level?

Funny enough, it's like

it relates to what we were kind of joking around at the outset about: is that if you're if you're a podcast host, like you are, you have to select your guests.

And part of what you do when you're selecting your guests is like thinking, like, who can talk about a wide range of issues or about the issues that I want to care about?

And if you survey the landscape and

the politicians in the Democratic Party have made clear in all their public statements, what we want to talk about is healthcare.

If you bring up a subject that isn't healthcare, we're going to say, but you know what?

That's a distraction from the issue that really matters, which is healthcare.

They're going to be kind of disinclined to want to bring you on because you can't fill three hours of Joe Rogan's show with, I mean, I guess you could.

It would just be really boring, and people would, you know, would talk about what's in the Trump care bill.

And so reimbursement rates, you don't think you could do 40 minutes on that on Rogan.

Just kind of

chief a blunt, kind of get deep with him on the different reimbursement rate rules,

different states.

Yeah, F map.

Like just, you know,

you have a politician be like, and then the F map, and like they won't even think to explain what F map is.

At which point, like, half the audience is tuned out.

And, you know, I think it would behoove Democrats to like actually think about what they mean when they talk about this problem they have, reaching young voters, reaching the audiences of people who are like consuming lots of new media, almost none of which is about policy, and what it would take for them to like become simpatico with that universe and how that's not a good fit.

It It doesn't really match with their other theory, which is that if we're just normal, turn down the volume, talk about the issues that matter in people's economic lives, then people will realize we're not scary and they'll give us a chance.

And I don't think you can actually square those things.

And I think you can swim in certain situations.

Like I was thinking of that exact example you came up with, right?

Like there's no, you know, I'll just pull back the curtain here a little bit.

Nobody.

thinks that I'm not a big fan of Abigail Spamberger.

She's best you as like one of the first politicians that I interviewed when I started doing, you know, sitting on the interview side of the chair.

She's very bulwarky Democrat.

She's running for governor of Virginia.

Frankly, it doesn't behoove either of us to do an hour right now.

Like, what is the, like, she wants to focus on Virginia issues.

She's winning in the polls.

I'm happy to talk about that race.

It's best for her to pivot everything back to what matters to Virginians and to the Commonwealth.

You know, she doesn't want to fucking shoot shit with me about like speculating about who might be, you know, in the Epstein files and right, like get, you know, get into like Democratic infighting talk, you know, Zoron versus her, right?

Like, why?

Right.

So there's certain races and times where that's called for.

But like at the broader like brand level, you also need Democrats who can do, you need people who can do both, I guess is my point.

Yes.

And there are obviously examples.

And I think an increasing number of them.

You know, like it's not that I think that Democrats are cheap talking when they say we got to break into this realm of media.

We've got to meet audiences that don't know anything about us.

They're just in the transition, and so it's awkward.

But, like, even in just the last six months, you've seen real effort on the part of particularly Democrats who have longer-term political ambitions to try to just go out and show up on a podcast that they probably hadn't heard about two or three months ago and shoot the shit with some hosts who don't really care about policy that much.

I read a quote.

I think it was from Tim Walz yesterday.

Am I getting ahead of you?

No, no, no.

You're not getting ahead of me.

No, I just mean I know because who knows?

We could go up at the Tim Waldcodes.

He might be talking about man coding.

No, no, no, no.

This was a much better taken quote,

which is that if you don't do interviews,

I'm going to script the quote now and probably should just Google it.

If you don't do interviews, you really will reduce the risk that you say something that can be used against you or that something comes out of your mouth that you wish you could take back.

But you also lose an opportunity to reach new people.

And I mean, that right there is a cognizance of the problem.

And so I think that it's a problem that is getting better over time, but it's awkward.

We could talk about this in a minute, but I kind of think that the majority of politicians in the Democratic Party just were poorly selected to become the kind of people who are good at freewheeling.

One thing I love about living in New Orleans is like, we have people stopping by all the time, either neighbors or buddies who happen to be in the hood.

And, you know, if it's a weekday afternoon and they're coming over,

you might not want to have an alcoholic beverage.

You want to offer them something that can, you know, help spark the conversation?

We've been turning to Soul and their new out-of-office beverages.

Soul is a wellness brand that believes that feeling good should be fun and easy.

Soul specializes in a delicious hemp-derived THC and CBD product designed to boost your mood and help you unwind.

Their best-selling out-of-office gummies were designed to prove a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation.

The gummies come in four different strengths, so you can find the perfect dose for your vibe: gentle micro dose, perfect buzz, noticeable high, or a fully lit experience.

With wellness at the forefront, you can feel good about what you're putting in your body.

All of Soul's products are made from organically farmed USA-grown hemp.

And if you'd like their out-of-office gummies, as I mentioned, I've been into the out-of-office beverages.

It's a refreshing, alcohol-free alternative, perfect for summer sipping.

Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today.

Right now, Soul is offering my audience 30% off your entire order.

Go to get soul.com and use the code thebulwark.

That's getsoul.com, promo code the bulwark for 30% off.

Yeah, no, let's just talk about it because I'm with you.

Because you wrote, I like this line that politicos love admonishing each other to meet people where they are.

That's a good cliche that you hear in consultant circles.

But what if where they are is at the intersection of pop wellness and the Epstein-Files Venn diagram?

And then you wanted to say who could, how many high-profile Dems could sit with somebody that is a pop wellness Epstein, you know, obsessive and actually talk about it in depth.

And like this to me is like, I have an area of disagreement on what to do next, but this is like our key agreement on this insight, which is like, say what you want about Trump.

Trump could not actually sit down with you and Matt Iglesias on the Politics Podcast and talk about the Medicaid rules for an hour.

No, he couldn't.

He has no idea actually what changed with Medicaid and he doesn't care, right?

Like he can hand, he can bullshit and do talking points for a little bit.

But if you wanted to sit down with him and do, hey, hey, Mr.

President, you want to do an hour on the Hunter Biden laptop?

He could fucking do an hour on the Hunter Biden laptop.

Like he is seeped in that world.

And like, I said, that was my advice to Biden people before the horrible debate is I was like, understand that like,

he knows more about some of the stuff than Joe does.

Like, you've got to brief him about this.

Like, he'll be like, in those first 2016 debates, he was able to go deep on random shit that like Jeb didn't even know about, right?

Because he wasn't reading, like, they weren't consuming the same material, right?

And to this point, it's like, okay, step one is: all right, we need to engage on Epstein.

And we can do a tweet or two about how, oh, Trump is, you know, protecting the rich again, just like he did with the tax cuts.

That's a good tweet.

And you should send Democrats should send that.

But like, can you actually go and sit down with somebody who's been following this story for eight years and bullshit about it and know things and like seem like a normal guy that's like hanging out at the bar talking about Epstein?

That or gal, that's a tougher task.

And like, and it takes actual like work.

For any Democrats who are, who are like our age, and unfortunately, we're getting old enough that that's like an increasing number of them now.

Yeah, I know.

Like, they should think a little bit about what would grab their interest as regular people if they had not made whatever turns in life brought them into politics, right?

Because I, you know, I, I, I, I am interested in the Jeffrey Epstein story, and I'm actually even a little bit interested in like health, fitness, internet, you know, completely detached from politics.

And I think that if I didn't have a political career of some kind, like I'd just be deeper into those worlds.

And I might even be susceptible to like going into some conspiratorial rabbit holes with a CrossFit cult.

Maybe.

I mean, for example,

but like, for example, yes, like

CrossFit comes with benefits.

It comes with some risk.

And it also comes with the possibility, like the risk of making people really kind of weird and cult-like.

And like, I've built up, you know, defense mechanisms against that over time.

But, but, like, if I hadn't, that's probably where I would have ended up.

And I think that like a lot of Democrats have kind of convinced themselves that like rectitude and also political strategy should make them like when

the news or the buzz online veers into

areas that don't really intersect with policy very much, that they should kind of be like, that is distraction stuff or that is like Republicans doing weird.

propaganda and disinformation stuff and we should just like shut our brains off to it almost.

And so now, you you know, we're 10 or 11 days into like Epstein scandal round three.

And you get the impression that a lot of the Democrats who are starting to comment on this have only kind of wrapped their heads around why this was a gripping conspiracy theory in the first place.

And I don't think it necessarily even has to be like this, right?

Like when I was first writing about politics in the mid-2000s, Democrats ran the 2006 midterm campaigns on a bunch of stuff, but like they were running against the Bush culture of corruption.

Like that was the tagline for the.

And they were using whatever powers they could to they had to unearth examples of like basically favor for money trading that was happening on K-Street.

People went to jail.

This is Abramoff.

This is Mark.

I was working on a campaign that year.

The Mark Foley Page scandal was like honestly what crushed our campaign.

Yep.

Like we were, it was a very close race against an Iowa 3.

Another penetrate story.

So those were important issues, but there's very little policy content to them.

And then they come to power, they pass a bunch of good bills.

And I think that they internalize this idea that if we just nail the governing, then all this other stuff is going to melt away and people are going to be appreciative of the good things we have brought to them.

Right.

And it turns out it doesn't really work that way because, A, nothing's ever right perfect in America, right?

Like there's a lot of ruin in a nation.

But then, like, I remember in 2014 that the generic ballot for the midterms that year was like really close and all the way through to like September.

And it was kind of like, ah, Dems might lose the Senate.

Maybe Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have retired.

But it's kind of a toss-up.

And they ended up getting wiped out.

And they got wiped out because like that August or September and then into October, there was an Ebola outbreak in East Africa.

And Republicans led by actually Donald Trump started demagoguing on this issue.

And then they were going to bring scientists back.

And they, no, and, you know, there was a nativism thing where terrorists were going to cross the border, bringing Ebola with them.

And they got crushed on this issue that was just kind of made up.

I mean, like, there was actually an Ebola outbreak, but it was being addressed, right?

And then Hillary Clinton goes on to lose the next election, not because of policy content, but because of her emails, right?

And at some point, like, it started dawning on me that the theory that Democrats were operating on, that like govern well and like you will reap the political rewards was just not correct.

And that they really did need to engage on these hysterias, basically.

And the polity stuff.

Yeah.

And just know how to talk about it.

Yeah.

I agree with you.

I think that the Democrat, and this goes to the Chris Arnaid stuff where he's like the front of the class, back of the class stuff.

And like all the Democrats are front of the class people.

And there's something to be said for being a front of the class person.

But, you know, you need to be able to talk to back of the class people too.

And like, as you said, the like Democrats are self-selecting for the types of people to run.

We're all front-of-the-class people.

And so they weren't capable of talking to back-of-the-class people.

Obama was an exception to that because he was in the choom gang, you know, so he was able to cross over.

He could code switch between the front and the back of the class.

Yeah, no, it's true.

And so I think that's like almost the easy solve to this, like the thing that we really agree on.

Like, you just have to accept that this is a truth and try it, right?

And like, actually try and engage and recruit people that can do against this.

And then there are front-of-the-class people who can learn how to talk about Epstein.

You just got to like read some new york post and whatever like you know like follow the right people on social media and like do a little you know i could give you some briefings if you want and we hire chimp yeah no no please don't hire me i'll i'll pro bono i'm retired but um

but like that that was the easy part the harder part that i want to get at with you is like

is like they're a cultural bridge beyond the tabloid stuff that like the democrats need to really reckon with and like this gets you into the more of the you know your co-host the Matt Aglesia space, right?

Like, where it's like, yeah, sure, you can do some things.

So you can start talking about Epstein.

You can engage in tabloid politics better, like in a way that Trump does.

You know, you can not whatever, only do white paper politics.

But like, aren't there actual substantive either issues or the manner in which you speak or, you know, aren't there other cultural barriers that are like hurting the Democrats that are a little harder to bridge than just like, you should talk about Epstein now instead of pretending like it doesn't exist.

Yes.

And, you know, I think part of the reason Matt focuses on policy so much is that that's where the streetlight is shining down, right?

Like if you're a politician, you really do control entirely what issues you run on and like how you sell them to voters.

And so if you're not connecting with people, one way to try to change that is to like turn the policy toggles a little bit.

And I'm like, depending on the policy, I think that that's totally fine.

But I think that what you were alluding to about the front row kids versus the back row kids, the way people in the biz talk about it is high education attainment and low education attainment.

And Democrats are increasingly becoming a party of college-educated,

you know, middle to higher income people

who will become more and more culturally distant from the party that is becoming increasingly lower education, right?

You know, so what do you do about that?

I mean,

you like purge the party and recruit a bunch of blue-collar workers, give them a little bit of media media training, and throw them.

You know, they don't even

know.

Like this, what I'm trying to tease out, right?

Because you ask that question.

It's like, you know, if you ask anybody in like the squad, like Bernie world, right?

Like, their answer will be, well, policy, like, which is, but their policy answer is we need some socialism, right?

Like, whatever.

Like, we need more economically populist, whatever word you want to put on it, like, you know, bigger social safety net.

Like, that's the answer to this question.

If you ask your co-host, Matt Iglesias, he'll be like, well, no, it's policy, but it's more like we should, Democrats should should be for drill, baby, drill and like guns, like, or whatever.

Like, there should be cultural policy.

And then you and I think you and me agree that, like, there's also just like a performance part of it.

Like, Democrats should actually recruit more working-class people who can talk, who are more comfortable talking with other working-class people in fucking language that they use and with references they use.

It's like in that triangle of options, like, do they need to do all three?

Do you think?

Could you get away with just doing one of them?

I think you definitely need some mixture of all three.

I think that what you first need to do is, because there's this weird synthesis between the left and the center, where they seem to agree that if the main thing is just to make people who are from the lower and middle classes feel like government is working in their material interests.

And if you solve that problem, you will win back all the blue-collar voters because they'll be grateful for the improved conditions.

And I kind of think that like the 2024 election is

like a.

Yeah, or at least

it's a strong strong mark against it.

So I have a yeah, I think that's wrong.

What it's worth.

I agree that the Democrats should do that because that is good.

It's just it's a net good and to help people improve their material lives, but I don't think that that's the skeleton key to beating the mega.

Right.

So put that out of your mind or at least downweight how much you think that that is the skeleton key to politics, right?

And then, you know, when something outrageous happens, you know,

Trump corruption scandal is exposed or he's, you know,

basically is pushing California to the brink of secession, whatever.

Like, actually, get mad about it.

Because, like, when you talk to Democrats, particularly younger ones who are

feeling their way in the direction that we're talking about, privately,

they let their real emotions about what's happening come out.

And a lot of the times when I'm having those conversations, like, you should just say that.

It's not, you know, the 1960s, 70s, or 80s anymore where if a politician says, damn, everyone gets all

weirded out by it.

Like if something has happened, happening that's outrageous and like

the fact that Donald Trump has committed 110 billion impeachable offenses in the last six months is something that all Democrats are terrified to mention.

It's just like, why?

Why be so scared of that idea?

Trump literally was calling the Democrats evil.

I was thinking about this yesterday.

It was like, it's like randomly at the prayer breakfast, he just does an aside where he's like, Democrats are evil.

And it's like that, and that's just part of his shtick.

And he just, and it seeps in with people and it seeps in with voters.

And it's like Democrats are afraid that if they do it, that one of the panelists on CNN will like wag their finger at them and say, don't look down at Republican voters by saying they're evil.

So it's just kind of like, I don't, why?

What is the asymmetry here?

Like, if it's like, if they're doing, if Trump and the administration is doing evil shit, like call them fucking evil.

All right.

Like, but to your point, right?

Like, why do swing voters matter as a concept?

They matter because both parties compete over the same pool of them, right?

So what Trump is doing worked a little bit better than that.

There are overlapping pools, really.

Because there is also a pool of swing voters who are either Republican or no vote or Democrat and no vote, right?

And then the swing, then there's the middle pool.

Yes, but but they're like, however you want to group them.

Trump did a little bit better than Democrats in the last election at reaching them.

But like he, it wasn't with policy, it was with bombast, right?

And so it's like, if it works for him, then at least you know that there's no huge penalty to pay for popping off at the mouth a bit and not being so wrapped up in yourself that you can't express yourself like a normal person.

So, I think that those are like: step one: there's more to politics than just governing well.

Step two, learn to talk like you would talk to your spouse or your best friends from college or high school or whatever about what's fucked up about what's happening in the world.

And then, third, and this is where I actually think like Matt makes his best point, which is it's about the Senate

specifically, but it, I think it's a generalizable thing: is that if Democrats want to stop

the slippage into authoritarianism, make the country more Democratic, they're going to need to win back the Senate, and they currently don't have a plan to do so because their brand, whether it's a policy problem or a interpersonal problem, is toxic in the states that you would need to win, right?

So, what's the plan for winning North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, whatever?

And his emphasis, I think, is mostly on the policy changes you would need

the party to tolerate in candidates from those states.

So lax on guns, strict on the border, things like that.

And I think that that's probably correct.

But I think that

what you want is not just like a new prescription, like this is the old agenda, here's the new agenda, but

a method for peacemaking within the party so that the kinds of candidates who might win in North Carolina are willing to run, right?

Like it's probably not going to be someone like Zoran Mandani.

It's probably going to be someone like Roy Cooper.

And you want that person to feel like, well, I'm going to run for Senate.

I'm going to talk about how I'm more lax on guns than the rest of the party.

And like the gun control movement people are going to jump down my throat about it.

What I've written about as a proposal for like intra-party peace isn't about finding the middle ground between policy, but it's about just like establishing grounds for good faith, right?

Like I think that I would want progressives, and I think that I think you're seeing this start to happen with people like AOC to

have more grace for the kinds of candidates that you need to win in red and purple red states, right?

Just like when they run on, like from your state, if John Bell Edwards ran and he ran on being pro-life, like don't make a big stink about it because it's important to...

Or maybe to make a big stink about it, but kind of just wink about it.

Sure.

I mean, be a politician.

But so that's the give.

Like the take is that

what they need to have grace for are things that are actually culturally important to the people who live in Louisiana or Texas or North Carolina.

And to me, those are things like guns, like abortion, and they're not like what you end up getting from a lot of centrist Democrats like Kirsten Cinema, which is like private equity concerns and

like capital gains taxes.

And then they're claiming that it's, no, I need to do this because because my state is more conservative and you know i'll get i'll get run out of office if i don't do these things it's like no that's not true yeah you're just mining for donor bucks and you're using the your political challenges as cover to be a little bit soft corrupt right and so that you want moderate leaders to say

we are not going to do that like yes we need the party to moderate on actual issues that that matter to actual people in actual parts of the country that are more conservative than blue america but not as a smokescreen to do crypto and ai and yeah no i think that's right my one more and another thing on that before we move on is uh also they got to be able to attack the main body of the party

And like, and, you know, I think of all of my complaints about Joe Biden, which are myriad, like my biggest one that does not get enough attention is like once he decided to leave, this like sensitivity to being criticized.

Like, what, you know, and you can, and like, this happened internally where there were like calls that have like where, and, and part of this, I think, was Kamala wanted to be loyal, but part of this was like the Biden people were very sensitive to being criticized.

And, like, didn't Joe didn't want his legacy to be heard or whatever.

And it's like, no, like the, the, to, to reach these guys that we're talking about that care about Epstein, that think that there is a conspiracy happening, you need to be able to credibly run and say, I'm not part of that.

And like, basically, and, and that was what worked for Obama in 08.

Um, he's able to credibly do that because he wasn't around for the Iraq war vote, basically, but also because of the nature of his name and like a lot of reasons.

He was like, I'm different.

And then that's Trump.

And you can't expect that you're going to be able to win over voters that voted for Trump in Texas for the Senate if they think that you don't have any legitimate criticisms of the Democrats.

So your advice about how mad they need to be about Trump, I agree with that.

You also need to, whatever thing it is, I actually, I literally don't care what it is, but whatever thing it is that pisses you off about the Democrats, you need to be mad about that too and make sure people know it.

You know, so you, it doesn't seem as if you're a stooge.

Yeah, just like everything's been fine and we just had some bad luck or whatever.

I mostly agree.

I think that there are a couple distinctions I'd draw in that.

One is like the distinction between Biden per se, the person, and the Democratic.

party establishment, which is, you know, he's a part of, but is a bigger and in some ways easier to hate on thing than he, you know, like, and I mean, like, I, I sensed when he decided to run for president at 77 or whatever that there was a lot of ego here and that this could get us into trouble.

And sure enough, I think that the Democrats who are torn about throwing Biden under the bus are just genuinely fond of the person.

And it's

tough.

And by the way, that was not me saying that like, oh, the thing to do is throw Biden under the bus.

And you can do it if you want.

That's fine with me.

I just meant like, you can't be afraid to separate yourself from either Biden.

Yeah.

Well, but like to tie it back to what we've been talking about all along is that, you know, anyone who has ambition in the Democratic Party is going to be asked the Biden question.

And I think that like, just as in policy, all these people should stop and they should ask themselves, what do I really think about Joe Biden, the person, how he carried himself, what he did in office, how he handled the final year, how he's handled things since.

And what do I want to say about it?

And I think that what I've seen so far, you know, like Mallory McMorrow and a few others, is just this like, you know, consultants say throw Biden under bus.

And so like all the nuance collapses out of that.

And you're defining yourself in contrast to Biden, right?

It's a little bit shitty.

And it's also, I don't think it scans as real because, like, you could probably go find quotes from most of those Democrats from literally just a year ago saying the opposite, you know, like, like,

so you really need to know what you believe and then figure out how to articulate.

That's quite a so.

So that's, that's the Biden versus the party per se.

I feel like give them a wide berth.

I do see sometimes that candidates,

especially when their races are really hard, they will go about this in ways that I think are

maybe they're helpful in their races, but they like they are so cutting and mean about the Democratic Party that it's like

it hurts the rest of the party really badly, right?

Like, so the one that sticks in my craw.

Is Bernie saying the election was stolen from him?

Yeah, well, okay, okay, Jared Golden.

I was Bernie talking about like at a time of unusual economic prosperity, how 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, which is a made-up statistic, is not helpful.

It's like

you want your party to be able to run on the optimism of morning in America, not like, hey, sorry, it's been three and a half years and you're all still miserable, right?

So that's a good example.

But Jared Golden, his thing after the debate was, this confirms my suspicion that Donald Trump is going to win the election.

And I'm okay with that because I disagree with Democrats that Donald Trump is a threat to democracy.

It's like, whatever.

It was one quote in one newspaper, so it wasn't like some

major incident.

But it validates the Republican critique that Democrats have Trump derangement syndrome and all their warnings about threats to democracy are opportunistic and fake or hysterical, and you can just ignore them.

And like, either he's stupid or he was like very cynical in doing that.

And I think that like, you want people to be responsible enough to know like the difference between attacking the Democratic Party on grounds where it has legitimately failed or underperformed and attacking the Democratic Party with casual slander.

Like they're all making up that they think Trump is a threat to democracy because

the latter is damaging.

The former is constructive.

It's a little harder than it sounds, it seems like, Brian.

I know.

I mean, it's a maze.

All right, I've got to tell you about this game-changing product.

It's been a sponsor of us for a while, and it's something I use before night out with drinks.

It's called pre-alcohol.

Let's face it.

After a night with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to.

I got to make a choice.

I can either have a great night or a great next day.

That is until I found Zebiotics Pre-Alcohol.

Let me tell you, if there's a surefire way to wake up feeling fresh after drinks with friends, it's with pre-alcohol.

Zebiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.

It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking.

Here's how it works.

When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.

It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough next days after drinking.

Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.

Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night.

Drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow.

Like I told you the last time we were discussing this, my favorite pre-alcohol story so far was

Super fan Audrey sent me a screenshot of a message from either a brother or brother-in-law, I forget.

And they were planning the Big Family Beach vacation.

And, you know, brother was listening to the pod or watching it on youtube maybe after a few pops heard the zbiotics ad and like you know your boy your boy's selling us this pre-alcohol and given what we got planned for beach week i just ordered a lifetime supply so take after them you're going on a family vacation you're gonna need some wine to hang out with the fam get some pre-alcohol so you're not as annoyed the next morning go to zbiotics.com slash the bulwark to learn more and get 15 off your first order when you use the bulwark at checkout zbiotics is backed with a 100 money-back guarantee.

So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money.

No questions asked.

Remember to head to zbiotics.com/slash the bulwark and use the code the bulwark at checkout for 15% off.

Let's get back to Epstein.

Here's the easy part.

Here's the easy part.

Talk about Jeffrey Epstein.

Listen to a Julie Brown interview so you know what the hell you're talking about.

And let's use it as a cudgel, as it should be used against Republicans.

I want to play you this audio.

It's a little mashup.

People probably heard most of these, but it's the attorney general, the FBI director, and the deputy FBI director in their own words talking about the Epstein files.

Please do not let that story go.

Who has Jeffrey Epstein's Blackbook?

Black book.

FBI.

But who?

That is that, I mean, there.

So that's under direct control of the director of the FBI.

What the hell are the House Republicans doing?

They have the majority.

You can't get the list.

Put on your big boy pants and let us know know who the pedophiles are.

Who's on the Epstein tapes, folks?

Who's on those tapes?

Who's in those black books?

Why have they been hiding it?

And this is something Donald Trump has talked about.

The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.

Will that really happen?

It's sitting on my desk right now to review.

That's been a directive by President Trump.

Everything's going to come out to the public.

The public has a right to know.

Americans have a right to know.

I mean,

they might be clowns, but it's the attorney general, the FBI director, and the deputy FBI director all passionately using Brian Butler's advice, passionately advocating for the release of this material.

Like the Democrats cannot just let this go.

And I don't think they're going to.

Here's one place where I do sympathize with Democrats is that like what you're hearing from these guys is acting.

You know, they're they're pretending to, you know, maybe some of them are actually like really down the rabbit hole to conspiracy theories.

But every time something insane happens in Republican politics, you'll get a lot of liberals being like, can you imagine if a Democrat, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And what I always want to say is don't do the metacritique.

Just have Democrats go out and

act themselves.

Like be, perform your anger.

And I honestly would be horribly uncomfortable doing that.

That's just the kind of person I am.

And I think probably Democrats are a lot like.

You would?

I'll do it right now.

I will do it.

I'll show you how to do it right now.

FBI director Cash Patel, you said that the FBI director has this information.

These are pedophiles.

There are real victims out there that were harmed by these powerful people.

What are you hiding?

Is it Donald Trump?

Is it friends of Donald Trump that you're hiding?

Come testify today and explain what happened.

Or were you lying then?

Because those are the options.

That's easy.

That's not performative.

That's legit.

So we're recording this Tuesday.

I guess it comes out Tuesday.

So whatever.

Tuesday.

Yesterday,

Hakeem Jeffries, I think in two different places, finally came out with something strong.

He was really good.

Let's listen.

There are only two things that are possible here.

Option one,

Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, and the MAGA extremists intentionally lied to the American people for years

about the Jeffrey Epstein situation.

That's option one.

Option two

is that, in fact,

there's reason for the American people to be concerned as it relates to

what

information has not been released that could be damaging to the Trump administration and the friends and family of the Trump administration and their billionaire corrupt supporters.

And so they're actively engaging in a cover-up.

Option one, they lied for years.

Option two, they're engaging in a cover-up.

At this point, it seems reasonable that can only be one of the two things.

Here's good.

Yes, but

you'll notice that the formulation he came up with, he came to it like a week after the podcast bros did.

Like as soon as Trump backed away from Epstein stuff and got Bondi and Patel on board, they realized this is either you lied to us about pedophilia to to get elected, or you're covering up the fact that you're implicated in the pedophilia scandal.

Which is it?

We need to know?

And like, when I recognized that that was the either or that Trump had presented, I was like, that's an important point.

Democrats should jump on that.

And I mean, I happen to know a little bit about how Democrats go about figuring out what to talk about and when and how to say it.

And it's that like they waited for the focus group information to come back on whether they should talk about this and what they should say about it.

And what they learned is essentially that like

the Democratic Party standards that like do best in focus groups still outperform Epstein's stuff.

But interest and engagement level is so much lower on that stuff that if you talk about Epstein, you reach so much farther and that like that outweighs like the persuasive power of things like healthcare.

And they had to wait for some sort of laboratory experiment to tell them that before they felt comfortable coming out and saying it.

And this is the kind of impulse I want to unplug from the party because I don't think, I think Hakeem Jeffries is a smart guy.

And I bet you he kind of knew that this was a decent approach and that he didn't actually need to wait seven days.

That like literally as soon as Trump posted that crazy thing on True Social or whatever, that this was a good line to use.

But better late than never.

They're doing

another thing that happened yesterday.

They added an amendment to like some crypto bill, I guess, about

demanding that the files be released, which is like, it's kind of like, what are the files, right?

Like, it's not exactly like there's like a just a ledger that lists all of the pedophiles, right?

Like the files include like, you know, all of the investigations and the videos that were taken from Epstein's house and, you know, very, the redacted stuff of things that's already been released.

So anyway, but they...

They put an amendment through.

Ralph Norman voted with them, Republican from South Carolina.

Chip Roy, Republican from Texas, abstained.

And so like you're getting close, right, to like actually forcing

the hand.

And so doing that kind of stuff, I think is important and meaningful.

And things will come out from all this, right?

The other thing, the other example I always gave, which was I was so frustrated with Democrats and oversight the last time they were in charge, was I was like, there's a lot of mockery of the Benghazi hearings.

You know, there's a lot of mockery of all of that sort of stuff.

But that, like, in like a weird indirect way, like the Republican oversight hearings led to the Comey letter, right?

Because it was like, oh, we realized that Anthony Weiner has a laptop with this.

And then we looked at the lab, right?

Like you just, you, you never know what stuff will be uncovered.

And like, there is obviously more information and more people.

We don't know who they are.

Are they donors?

Are they people that have gotten

sweetheart deals in this administration?

Does Trump show up in a weird kind of way that's a little bit grey?

You know what I mean?

Like, maybe he was interviewing.

I mean, maybe maybe the FBI interviewed.

The answer might not just be like, oh, Trump is on list, right?

And like, Trump raped young girl.

Like, maybe, I don't know.

Like, there have been a lot of accusations against Donald Trump, but there are a ton of other things that could lead to other distractions and problems.

And like, it's worth playing in that pool and seeing what happens.

So, I mean, what you said about Benghazi is literally true.

It was through the Benghazi investigation that they found out that Hillary Clinton was using this email server, which started that investigation, which led to the initial Comey statement.

Then they found the laptop.

I mean, there was a through line in all that.

And somewhere in the middle of that process, Kevin McCarthy came out and ruined his first bid for speaker,

saying, Remember how popular Hillary Clinton was at the beginning of this campaign?

Well, what did we do?

We started a Benghazi select committee, and look at what happened to her numbers.

And back then, there was still a little bit more shame in politics than there is now.

So it ruined his, like, Republicans were a little embarrassed that he had confessed to what the strategy was, but he was dead on.

He was completely accurate, right?

I took a lot from that experience.

And so when Democrats took over in 2019 and then did an impeachment over the Ukraine shakedown, there was a moment in that investigation where one of the witnesses, I think, attested that Trump had a bunch of other corrupt-sounding conversations with international leaders that they stashed on this server that was improperly classified.

And it was like, oh, they can blow this scandal wide open.

And like the leadership shut down that avenue of inquiry.

And it's like, why would you, maybe that's the, that's the Hillary's emails in the, and, and they just, they like resist the temptation for the jugular.

And it's related to what we were saying about waiting for the focus group information to come back.

And like, I don't think Jeffries blew it.

Like time was not so much of the essence here.

Like he struck it while the iron was still plenty hot.

Yeah, no, it was good.

Yeah.

And like, and like, and like, I think John Kennedy in the Senate, your senator was like, they're going going to have to go back to the drawing board on this.

But I would like Schumer now to say,

we are going to introduce these new elements of obstruction until Republicans stop the Epstein cover-up so that the story doesn't fizzle out.

Because if Democrats don't stay on it, it will eventually fizzle.

Another example of this, just I was listening to you talk about like kind of foreign influence and stuff is like the crypto thing, something I'm obsessed with, like the Trump crypto coin and how that's going away.

And again, Democrats right now have limited avenues for like doing hearings and stuff instead of the minority.

Like that's another thing that, like, just going back to our original meta point, right?

That, like, you could go on one of these bro shows because they do crypto, you know, go on with Portnoy or one of these fucking guys, you know, and talk crypto and be like, isn't it strange that the president has this fucking shit coin and we don't know who's investing in it?

Like, aren't you worried about that?

You care about corruption.

You like, you care about the congressional stock, congressional congresspeople investing in Palantir, and you're mad about that or stocks or whatever.

Nancy Pelosi got rich.

It's like Trump's getting rich.

We don't even, at least we know who what Nancy Pelosi was invested in.

We don't even know who's investing in him.

And again, like, that is a type of thing that I, you know, you hear Democrats mention as a talking point, but like it's something that like you can go and sit down with somebody for 20 minutes and dig in.

And that starts to get, you know, their natural conspiratorial podcast mind percolating a little bit.

And Tim, don't you think it would have been better if instead of saying, hey, we need to placate the crypto barons, let's pass this bill and and let's pass it even though Republicans are blocking a provision that would prohibit Trump from owning, being involved in the crypto industry.

If instead of that, the senators who wanted to cave to crypto went on these shows and were like, look, like, we want to meet you where, but, like, first, isn't it weird that like?

Shouldn't we have rules?

Shouldn't we have rules about this that the president can't have anonymous, anonymous investors in his coin?

Because I'm with you.

If we add that rule to this bill, I'm for it.

Yeah, I totally agree.

He absolutely could have.

And I think that like he, he probably would have been actually pretty good at it.

And yeah.

But, you know, I also think that like there's a donor consideration that's kind of making it hard for them to see their own political interests clearly.

But that would have just been better.

It would have been good on

harming Trump.

It would have made the crypto bill better.

And it would have given lots of Democrats easy inroads to these audiences who probably aren't super familiar with the legislative process or what's in the bill or whatever else.

And it's not too late.

Nope.

And the bill's passed.

Yeah.

But it's like, it's not too late.

The issue's not dead.

Yeah.

It's not too late.

Like, you can do all this stuff.

You can reinvigorate all this stuff.

I don't, you know, again, like, learn from Trump.

Trump fucking brings up scandals from nine fake scandals from nine years ago.

He's so all the time.

You know what I mean?

And so, like, okay, just because we're not, the Qatar Plain story is off of, you know, the front page of the Washington Post doesn't mean that you can't go like talk about it to some fucking influencer.

Anyway.

Yeah.

You know, one thing I love about our sponsors is that I feel like I've become a shirp of a pied piper of sorts for straight men who want to get into face moisturizing.

You know, the amount of middle-aged straight men who are now coming up to me, letting me know that they're engaging in moisturizing, I feel like is a true win.

You know, we might not have won the election in 2024, but we are making some progress with straight men's skincare.

But we've got a new one.

One skin has a new scalp serum, OS1 hair, and people are raving about it.

If you're familiar with OneSkin, you know about their patented OS-1 peptide and how it's scientifically proven to target aging at the cellular level.

So it powers the skin and sun care, and now it's targeting age-related hair loss and thinning.

One skin scientist did a clinical study showing that after six months, participants had significantly thicker and denser hair.

If you're ready to give OS-1 hair a try, you can get 15% off for your first three months.

Supply with code Bullwork at oneskin.co.

It's something for you to look into, Bevins.

For me, I like the fact that the OneSkin has a whole wide variety of products.

You know, we've got the under-eye cream that I've been having to work on because of lack of sleep lately.

You know, we've been discussing the normal face moisturizer before, and now we've got the scalp serum, whatever you need to keep yourself looking fresh in middle-aged.

You just, you turn to OneSkin.

One skin is the world's first skin longevity company.

By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, oneskin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer.

For a limited time, you can try OneSkin with 15% off using code Bullwork at oneskin.co.

That's 15% off oneskin.co with code Bullwork.

After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them.

Please support your show and tell them we sent you.

All right, a couple other things happened on the hill.

Well, just really quick, I just want to let you cook.

What's your, like, what is a valuable way to now that the tax and spend bill has passed, like

it's kind of a disaster, I think.

Like, how do you wrap your hand around that

issue as opposed to these more tabloid-y issues?

So, what I've written, and I, it's the best I've come up with so far, is really essentially to take a page from you guys back in 2010.

At the bulwark,

RNC,

you know, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

Where are the jobs?

Well, specifically, like Obamacare, right?

Democrats were fretting over the details of their bill.

And Nancy Pelosi was like, we just need to pass the bill, then we'll implement it.

People will be happy with it once they find out what's in it.

And Republicans are like, uh-uh-uh.

Obamacare means you own everything that happens in the healthcare system.

Everyone whose insurance gets canceled,

every

cent that gets cut out of Medicare reimbursements, we'll call it a Medicare cut and we'll blame you, right?

And I think that Trump has made Trump care now.

And most of the harms of Trump care are set to take effect at the end of or after his presidency.

And so it's not going to be like we wake up early next year and 10 million people lose their insurance all at once.

But hospitals are already under strain.

They're going to continue closing.

Like honest healthcare executives will say the looming Medicaid cuts are making that happen faster.

Every time a rural hospital closes, Trump care did this.

Your member voted for Trumpcare, right?

And it's not like always going to be the sexiest topic or the thing that gets you invited onto

Joe Rogan's show or whatever, but

I do think that like the sort of memeification of what the consequences of this bill will be will do a better job

getting into people's head if they have a simple mnemonic for

understanding what is changing about healthcare and who's responsible, which is what essentially what Republicans did when they wanted Democrats to own every negative thing that happened to the healthcare system after Obamacare passed.

And I think that Trump care offers like a pithier way to do it than, you know, I've heard you on your podcast struggle with like whether we call it one big fugly slut or, and Democrats, because they're not.

Trump care is the answer.

I think it's Trump care, but Democrats are stuck on one big, beautiful betrayal, which makes no sense.

Yeah, big, ugly bill.

Big, ugly bill.

Yeah.

And like the beauty of just being like, okay, you passed the generational reform to the healthcare system, one that really sucks and it's going to hurt a lot of people.

Fold in the rest of the Trump healthcare policy.

Like, Trump care is also cancer research being gutted.

Trump care is also

the problems that people with pre-existing conditions will experience when their premiums go up because people drop out of the insurance exchanges.

It's like there's a lot to work with here that isn't just in the text of the bill.

And if I were a staffer for an ambitious Democrat, I would keep one eye out for any healthcare story that was even like loosely connected to Trump administration policy or this bill and just be like, hey, Trump care claims another victim.

That's me cooking.

Like there may be better ideas out there.

I also feel like, and I know this issue matters to you a lot.

They should be thinking now about what they're going to do about, oh,

like, look, like, I honestly,

I didn't know where you were going to go.

What issue matters to me a lot?

Immigration.

El Salvador?

I'm thinking of like the $150 billion for ice in the prisons.

But I think the debt in a weird way might...

I have a number of issues that I care about, Brian.

I thought it'd be funny for me to say the debt because I knew that wasn't what you were going to say.

But I also thought that.

But

it might help Democrats on its own if debt leads to inflation, leads to stagflation.

To interest rates, high interest rates, really.

It could save democracy that Trump is being so reckless fiscally.

They should be thinking about like the new politics of immigration that have transformed because of these raids, the stories about alligator Alcatraz.

Like, suddenly, Trump is way underwater here, and he's just about to start building this secret police force in this Gulag archipelago.

And, you know, either people are going to rebel further against him on this stuff as it becomes a nationwide infestation, or they're going to get used to it.

And I think I would want Democrats to get out of the fetal position on immigration and think about how to go on the front foot now, because otherwise they're going to inherit this situation at some point in the future and either have to dismantle it or this enormous police force is going to be like controlling their politics in the same way like corrupt city police forces sometimes undermine mayors if they don't get their money and their enforcement priorities met.

Yeah, this is...

And I obviously agree with you on that.

And Democrats should be on the front foot on this.

And

this goes back to our main topic of the day, our overarching topic, which is like nothing is a distraction, actually.

Like, you can use anything that he wants to use a distraction to your benefit now that he is the president, right?

Like, and if he wants to talk about fucking Greenland, like, he's talking about Greenland instead of solving your fucking problems.

And so, let's engage on Greenland and fucking mock him over it.

If he wants to do, you know, build a fucking, you know, gulag in the Everglades.

Okay.

Well, like.

He can do that if he wants, but he could have built housing that was going to be more affordable for you, right?

Like, if a Democrats are so,

if they buy the frame that you and I don't buy, which is they have to pivot things back to kitchen table issues, you can still use it within these conversations, right?

Like I liked Michael Tomaski wrote in the TNR the other day that they're spending four times as much on immigration detention centers as is in the budget for low-income housing.

Yeah, like that.

I think that's like a legit populist economic issue and way to get into this in a way that people get.

Like that's an easy talk.

And people are like, do we really want that?

Do people really want that?

Like, sure, the Stephen Miller acolytes do, but a lot of people don't, you know?

And so I do think there's a way to get into these issues that way.

If I could talk to Hakeem Jeffries or like a swing state Democrat or, you know, somebody who's being really

careful.

Yeah, probably am.

Tiptoeing around the issue, I'd be like, this policy is essentially disembodied Stephen Miller, right?

Like

it is his DNA that's flowing into these policies.

Look at Stephen Miller.

Listen to him.

Can you think of a less less appealing person?

Why are you scared to take Stephen Miller on?

I mean, like the most defeatable person in the world of politics.

And you think that he's got you in checkmate or something like this?

I suspect that there are ways,

because this is a question of tyranny versus liberty beyond like housing and economics, that there are ways for Democrats to take the issue on frontally.

Amen.

But

if to the extent that you're still scared of like being like, and that means that we're going to have to do something else with undocumented immigrants and that means that they're going to stay and you don't want to end up having to cop to that, sure.

What you said is totally true.

It's like, why would we spend $150 billion

on concentration camps, but like less than $10 billion on housing,

the biggest economic crisis the country is facing, right?

What does Zin really give you?

Not just hands-free nicotine satisfaction, but also real freedom.

Freedom to do more of what you love, when and where you want to do it.

When is the right time for Zen?

It's any time you need to be ready for every chance that's coming your way.

Smoke-free, hassle-free, on your terms.

Why bring Zinn along for the ride?

Because America's number one nicotine pouch opens up something just as exciting as the road ahead.

It opens up the endless possibilities of now.

From the way you spend your day to the people you choose to spend it with.

From the to-do list right in front of you to the distant goal only you can see.

With Zen, you don't just find freedom.

You keep finding it again and again.

Find your Zen.

Learn more at Zinn.com.

Warning, this product contains nicotine.

Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

This Labor Day, gear up, save big, and ride harder with cycle gear.

From August 22nd to September 1st, score up to 60% off motorcycle gear from your favorite brands.

RPM members get 50% off tire mount and balance with any new tire purchase.

Need to hit the road now?

Fast Lane Financing lets you ride now and pay later with 0% interest for three months.

And here's the big one.

August 29th through September 1st only.

Buy any helmet $319 or more and get a free Cardo Spirit Bluetooth.

Supplies are limited.

Don't wait.

Cycle gear.

Get there.

Start here.

Can we do a little Zoron talk of it?

Of course, since

you're going to be the house lib for the day.

Where are you at on it?

I I just, I just want to get an open.

Do you have concerns,

opportunity?

Are you excited?

Both?

Do you have complex feelings about them?

Yeah,

I think I'm a little bit more on the let's let this guy cook side of things than than you and your co-hosts at the bull work.

He was at nowadays, you get excited.

He was at the hipster hangout in Brooklyn.

Everybody got a lot of cheers, you know?

Oh, man, I'm in Washington, D.C.

We don't know what to do.

I don't even know about nowadays.

Washington, D.C.

is so is so over, it's cooked.

So I could see a literal implementation of everything on the Zoron agenda not working out so well.

I really do hope he is prepared, like has thought through what he's going to do, not just about how the general election race is going to go, but like the corrupt and abusive act of retribution that he and the city are going to come under because he is

in the right wing's imagination, a perfect foil for them and they want to make him famous.

So he needs to be likable and charming and clean, you know, uncorrupted, so that when that comes, like he's people watching are like, wait, that guy seems totally nice and normal.

Why are they abusing him?

And also, like, what are you going to do to protect the people there if Trump comes after them?

So

that's my reservation about...

him becoming mayor.

I don't know that there's anything he can do about it.

And it's like, I feel a little bit like it's victim blaming to put that all on him because honestly, like it should be a scandal that the Justice Department or whatever might come after the mayor of New York and the federal government might crush New York City because they want to raise the profile of somebody who calls himself a Democratic socialist.

It's like it's pretty gross.

Have you fought with Matt about his Eric Adams, his quasi-Eric Adams endorsement over no, no, I

think Matt is being a pretty relative to a lot of other Democrats who are in full mamdani freakout mode, I think Matt has been pretty mature about the situation.

Like I think he I think his view is basically like, I don't think this is going to work out great as a substantive matter, but I hope I'm wrong.

And the Democrats who are trying to

simultaneously claim to be big tent Democrats and also trying to push Mom Dani out of the party should shut the fuck up.

And I think that

that is a good place for people in the moderate camp to be.

This takes us back to that original triangle question about what the Democrat solution is, you know, and like how did it like, is it,

you know, you got to pivot to the right on cultural issues, you got to pivot to the left on economics, or you got your, the vibe's got to be different, right?

Like, and he, and he's kind of two of the three in those potential options.

And I wonder, like, what's your answer to the question of, like, could there have been a,

I don't even know, I don't want to brand their politics, like a Pete, like somebody with Pete's politics that like ran that got the same level of excitement?

Like, like, was, was it necessary for Zoron to be a Democratic socialist to have that level of enthusiasm in New York?

Or was his campaign, you know, was the strategy that he employed enough that you could have glommed on a different ideology onto it and it still would have worked?

I'm going to speak from intuition because

I suspect that Mamdani would have won on the same platform if he had never been a part of the Democratic Socialists.

But I'm not sure that his margin would have been as big.

But it's possible that my instincts are wrong and that he would have actually done even better if he had just been like a progressive who was young, charming, literate online, same charisma, same star power.

Just he thought of himself as like an FDR Democrat instead of a Democratic socialist.

But in an enclave like New York City, it might have helped him.

That's just where my gut is on that.

I think Pete shows that on a national level, you can be more mainline and

have serious reservations about socialism or people who identify as democratic socialists and still get big crowds and still inspire a lot of people.

Like, I don't know if Pete would win a presidential election, but he can definitely fill an auditorium.

That's the thing that worries me about Zoran is like, and I love Pete, but I'm like, Pete appeals to a certain demo.

It's like,

what I don't want is like 27, 25-year-old progressives to like become, it's like AOC or Zoran or nothing.

You know, like the only way to excite me is through that because I think that AOC and Zoran totally work in New York.

Whether he'll be a good mayor or not remains to be seen.

I've hashed out my various reservations about him, the things that I think that he did well.

But like, obviously, Zoron or AOC are not going to win like Wisconsin.

I think we can in 2028, at least.

I don't know what the future holds.

Maybe, you know, I guess Donald Trump could send us into a Great Depression and AOC could win Wisconsin, potentially, I would say.

Zoron can't run for president.

But I guess my question is like, that's the thing that worries me about him more than like any actual specific policies.

Like that, something like New York is resilient.

New York's had plenty of bad mayors.

If he ends up being a bad mayor, New York will be fine four years later.

But like, I worry that like young Democrats like really kind of glom on to this and like anything else seems like a sellout.

And it's hard to like channel any sort of excitement that crosses the whole breadth of the party.

Like that's like the meta concern I have about the Mamdani mania.

I can see that.

I think that a lot of Democrats, any young Democrats who try to emulate Mamdani in

cities or districts or whatever that don't have New York City-style politics are going to find out pretty quickly that it's not a universal thing.

And, you know, then there are going to be others like Kat Abu Gazella is running a very progressive district.

Like that might work.

I do think that AOC and Mamdani have a kind of star power that is a little bit hard to like maybe like they could become president because presidential elections tend to be like closely closely run things and they're super charismatic.

But if you tried to run somebody with Joe Biden levels of charisma on that platform, it might not work out so great.

I wrote in my Tuesday piece, it's about what policy and politics can do about the epidemic of loneliness.

And like, spoiler behind the paywall is that I was like, the way I would like to see Democrats.

Thank you for providing the bulwark listeners some behind the paywall material.

We appreciate it.

Reward me with your subscriptions.

The way I would like to see Democrats learn from Mom Dani more than just like,

let's say we're Democratic socialists just like he did and it'll be magic and we'll win our primaries and then lose the general election is like what would Zoran Mom Dani have run on if the animating issue in that race had been loneliness as opposed to cost of living.

Obviously, those are overlapping issues, but and I think that instead of being like, here's a 10-point plan for loneliness, he would have said four-day work week.

And like, that would have been the thing that

people glommed onto.

Like, yes, he gets it.

Like, we're lonely because we're exhausted, because we work too hard, and we need like leaders.

We don't have a labor movement that'll do this for us.

We need leaders who will champion something like that.

I mean, it could be a bunch of other things.

It could be like taxing the tech oligarchy for mining our brains for attention and making us miserable.

Come on, keep giving me one I might like.

All right.

The second one was better than the first one.

Where do we go?

More.

Okay.

Spend that money on

like community investment, but for so that people can congregate and party and do extracurricular activities that are subsidized and that you can walk to.

And like you could do that.

Obviously, that's not just an urban thing, like

hunting excursions in rural America, like

things so that you're hanging out with people instead of on your screen.

But ultimately, I think it's mostly having somebody who has charisma, who makes clear through the way they campaign that they care about this and that they're like in this to

heal the the country's soul, like that will just

attract people and then like give them a leg up in the primary.

And it's an important issue.

And so like not how would the Center for American Progress or Harvard take on the loneliness problem, but how would Mom Donnie do it?

And I think that something good might come out of that.

And like it doesn't have to be the ideas I wrote about in my piece by any stretch.

I'm trying to think about but I'm trying to think about socialist policies for

loneliness I could get behind.

how about like capping the amount of data you could use in a given day on your phone forcing them to jailbreak phones in order to uh be on you know to be on uh you know the more data you can text you can call but uh you know you you've only got three hours that's very anti-abundance view i would come up i would come out about this in ways where

one thing i think is that if If anyone who cared about this issue decided to run at it by saying, we're going to take away away your phones, the people who are made miserable by their phones would be furious.

They'd be like, don't you dare take away my phone.

If you tell people, like, we're not here to take away your phones, but we all kind of agree that the phones are making us unhappy.

And so here's some resources that make it easier for you to choose to be off your phone or off your screen or off your gaming console or whatever.

And

I think that there are probably

like policy is going to be like a so-so lever for this.

But

a political leader who tries to elevate the issue, make enemies of the people who are making us miserable, that'll resonate.

I think there are a lot of people who are.

I like this.

I'm worried that it's like a heat-seeking missile targeted towards elder millennials who remember life before the phone.

And

maybe it might not be as popular with 27-year-olds.

But I'm hoping we, this, as like you, I'm anti-Democrats obsessing over focus groups and polls and stuff and just fucking like speak from your gut and have passion and let it rip.

Like, it's like the right thing to do in 90% of the cases.

This might be one where, like, yeah, I don't know.

I want to see some data on it.

Yeah.

And I mean, like, what you said about our age is actually a point I wanted to make.

The one way Mom Donnie is a bad

representative of this

attention problem, this loneliness problem, is that his campaign was super online and super algorithm forward or whatever.

But I think that like

what you were saying about people our age is like related to this problem Democrats have communicating because like Mom Donnie, AOC, Maxwell Frost, maybe a couple others, like,

they didn't have to adapt.

Like, the internet happened when we were, we, when we were kids.

So, we're the generation that was like really cavalier about phones and the internet.

Like, we posted photos of ourselves pissed drunk online, got in problem.

You know, like, this was like late 2000s, early 2010s.

And we didn't really feel the distinction between private and public life.

Most elected Democrats are older than us, and so the problem was even worse for them.

And then so when we all started realizing that this was like a double-edged sword or like a

like everything we did online was in some way public, we all kind of clammed up and everyone got scared of saying anything out of context because who knows when the cameras are rolling or whatever.

And like Mom Dani and AOC like didn't really need to adapt in the same way to that change.

That was just life for them.

So they're super comfortable in all realms of public life, like giving a speech or talking to a stranger on the street.

You know, they're not like liable to do something stupid, like be drunk or say something vulgar, but they're just really comfortable in their own skin.

And I don't know how you teach somebody who's our age, let alone in their 50s, 60s, 70s, to have that because the internet really did come around in our lifetimes, but it would, I think, help address some of these problems.

And then once you have that, I think that a lot of the other, like, how should we campaign on issue, including loneliness or the attention economy, becomes more, it just becomes easier.

Cause once, once you know what you believe, you also know how to articulate it in an internet-friendly way.

All right.

The sub-stack is off message.

I'll keep reading it.

Next time you do something really good, you can come back on the podcast.

Yeah,

it'll be a carrots and sticks treatment of your newsletter writing.

Sit in the back of your head.

Everybody else, we'll be back here tomorrow for another edition of the Bullworld Podcast, and we'll see y'all then.

Peace.

Nine lies, the spheres, no catfish.

Tim and a heart is what I'm after.

One and one, the force is like magnet.

Hope twelve, don't stop me in traffic.

Bad luck, I don't need that.

Thirteen, I was playing drums for the Baptists.

Count on you and you count on me.

Numbers don't lie when the truth is a lie to set you free.

Get free, you and me, baby.

Count on you and you count on me.

That's you

The Bullard Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.

This is Larry Flick, owner of the Floor Store.

Labor Day is the last sale of the summer, but this one is our biggest sale of the year.

Now through September 2nd, get up to 50% off store-wide on carpet, hardwood, laminate, waterproof flooring, and much more.

Plus two years interest-free financing and we pay your sales tax.

The Floor Stores Labor Day sale.

Don't let the sun set on this one.

Go to floorstores.com to find the nearest of our 10 showrooms from Santa Rosa to San Jose.

The Floor Store, your area flooring authority.

Looking to transform your business through Better HR and payroll?

Meet PACOR, a paychecks company, the powerhouse solution that empowers leaders to drive results.

From recruiting and development to payroll and analytics, PACOR connects you with the people, data, and expertise you need to succeed.

Their innovative platform helps you make smarter decisions about your most valuable asset, your people.

Ready to become a better leader?

Visit paycorp.com slash leaders to learn more.

That's paycor.com/slash leaders.

Managing your money shouldn't feel like a guessing game.

Klarna is your smarter everyday spending partner, built to help you make clear, confident choices with your money.

With the Klarna app, you have access to the tools you need to shop smarter, compare prices, track your purchases, find exclusive deals, earn cash back, and choose whether to pay now or split payments over time with no interest when you pay on time.

It's a flexible, secure way to stay on top of your budget and spend with intention.

Whether it's your weekly essentials, a planned purchase, or something in between, Klarna fits into how you already shop and helps you do it with more confidence.

It's not just about stretching your money.

It's about using the right tools to manage it better.

Klarna brings everything into one place, so you're always a step ahead.

Download the Klarna app or head to Klarna.com to learn more.

California resident loans made or arranged pursuant to a California finance law license.

NLS number 1353190.

Klarna balance account required.

Klarna may get a commission.

Limitations, terms, and conditions apply.