David Plouffe: Democrats Have to Run Against Their Party

Finding a hoodie that lasts through the season can be tough. The American Giant Classic Full-Zip hoodie is made to last a lifetime, so you can count on it year after year. The iconic Classic Full-Zip hoodie is the jacket that started it all for American Giant. Custom heavyweight fleece and side panels for mobility make it the best hoodie ever. Every American Giant piece is made in America and designed to last. No exceptions. The result is durable clothing like the premium Slub Crew T, No BS High Rise Pant, and Slim Roughneck Pant that become part of your life. Snag the hoodie that will bring you comfort for life. The American Giant Classic Full-Zip. Save 20% off your first order at American-Giant.com when you use code STAPLE20 at checkout. Hello and welcome to the Bullard Podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. Delighted to welcome to the show, the campaign manager for Barack Obama in 2008 and then advisor Kamala Harris's campaign in 2024. It is David Pluff who's here for the first time. I don't know why. First time. He's oversight. How you doing, man? It's always good to be with you, Mr. Miller. Thanks for having me. Welcome, man. Yeah, this will be much better than being in the MS Now boxes together. No doubt. We can actually talk. It's good. Yes. I want to start. You had a kind of a buzzy op-ed in the New York Times last week about how, while things went good last November for the Democrats, there's still big changes to the party. He's got to make. I want to get to that, of course, but the president is forcing us to talk about some other things, his delusions and manias instead. So we'll start there. The world is gathered in Davos. Have you ever been to Davos? Never, thankfully. Really? Yeah. That is surprising. I had you pregnant as a Davos man. No, no. I've had to support people going to Davos, but I personally have never been to Davos, which I'm quite thankful for. Yeah, same. I don't get it. It looks chilly. They're on their Moncler jackets. I don't know. It's just hard to logistics. Yeah, right. Yeah, tough. So anyway, they're in Davos and here's a couple of things that's happened just this morning. We're taping this Tuesday morning. He's posted Greenland as USA memes. He posted a meme trolling the other world leaders he's going to meet with like a, it was when they met, came to the Oval Office to meet him about Ukraine, but it's Photoshopped to make it seem like he's telling them that we're taking over Greenland. He has attacked the United Kingdom for quote, planning to give away the island of Diego Garcia, which houses a UK US military base. There was an agreement to give that back to Mauritius earlier. Actually, you'd be surprised to learn the Trump administration said they were on board with that because it secured a long-term stable and effective operation. Now Trump says the UK is stupid for doing that. He leaks some texts from the head of NATO in France. Margruda called him Dear Donald. Macron asked him to have dinner in Paris. Both complimented him on his work in Syria. I don't know, man. It's a little different than how your old boss handled this stuff, but what is your big picture reactions and what we're seeing? Tim, you'd always like to laugh at this stuff, but this is an incredibly serious moment. So first of all, here's a guy whose popularity rating has really plummeted. Low 40s, high 30s, people unhappy with the economy. So first of all, politically, there's maybe 10 people in the country who think this is important. They all have dinner at Mar-a-Lago every weekend, or would support this. So there's a priority question. It's incredibly dangerous because of what it would do to our alliances. I mean, this would shred our alliances. It would shred NATO. And I think we have to understand a lot of this is about his ego. But at the end of the day, I think he'd be comfortable having he and Putin and Xi just carve up the world, and all three of us are stride stuff, no matter the price that gets paid. So I think Democrats should make them pay a price for this, which is he's now threatening higher tariffs, which means higher prices for Americans, to steal Greenland, which nobody in America really supports, that's going to do nothing but harm our economy and for our alliances. Like we ought to just pound that away because it's not a stray issue. It's very much connected to a president who's not focused on the things and is even making it worse, the thing people most are concerned about, which is prices and the economy. But it's really scary. And there's no guardrails around this guy. Unlike the first term, there's nobody around to check his worst impulses. You can see the deterioration. And at the end of the day, we know this from the studies of Trump going back to the 70s. The most important principle for him taught by Ray Cohn is never backed down, never apologized. So the thing that scares me most on this Greenland thing is I'm not sure that I see an off ramp right now. And I think that's where a lot of the substantive work has to go, which is what is the off ramp? And at the end of the day, there's going to be no purchase here. So that's ridiculous. This would require, I think, military forces to execute what he wants. So couldn't be scarier, even though it seems like it comes out of like a VP episode. Yeah, I mean, Tom Tillis has been one of the more reasonable Republicans because he's resigning and quitting. He's not welcome to party anymore. It was even on CNBC this morning and said, even if Trump did kinetic action in Greenland, he wouldn't go for impeachment. Yeah. It's like, why are we even talking about kinetic action in Greenland? To your point on the real consequences, I mean, potentially huge medium long-term consequences about what would happen if NATO collapse and our alliances collapse. But just in the short term in the economy, and the stock market is down today, bond market is reacting negatively, it causes interest rates to rise, it affects regular people. And then you mentioned the tariffs, which will be a sales tax on people here. There's like real substantive harms that are happening to people for this just like strange obsession, delusion of like a man baby that wants a new toy. Listen, the foreign policy, defense, geopolitical implications, this are important, it should be talked about to the extent that I think Democrats and others are talking to real voters. They need to simmer this around the economy, I think. This is dangerous for the world, so that's not good. But it's obviously dangerous for our economy. What's interesting about Trump is, I think in part because he's frustrated by his polling and frustrated by the view of the American people on the economy. And the thing I've learned in politics as a view, which is the one thing you can never tell anybody is how they should think the economy is doing. Now, they're their own judge of that. And they're judging you very negatively right now. But Trump is obsessed with volatility. He's obsessed with kind of dominating the news. And as you said, today we get another verdict from those who want stability, who want the economy to be quieter, who want the world to be quieter. So if anything, as you look at the rest of this year, what's most important is that Americans are going to experience more economic pain and harm to them, which is far more important than the politics. But I think the politics are going to get worse and worse for Republicans because it's hard to believe that Trump's not going to continue to do things that cause real pain to the economy. And the challenge for Democrats, I think, is since he's not on the ballot, you've got to make each Republican running for office responsible for all of this, either because they're supporting it or they're not stopping it. Like that to me is really, really important piece of the puzzle right here. And I'm concerned that's not happening to the degree we need to happen, which is there should be no daylight between Trump and these House Republicans and Senate Republicans. They are as responsible for everything that's happening as he is. It's interesting. You're seeing the reverse kind of in the data now. We're like, for a while, Trump was more popular than Republicans. And now you are seeing a little bit of the inverse. And I think it's for this reason that you're laying out, like that there are a lot of people that are like, you know, well, you know, Trump's acting crazy, but I still prefer the Republicans on this issue or that issue. That's tough to fix. But whether it be tariffs, whether it be Greenland, you know, whether it be how they're handling AI, healthcare, all of these economic issues, you need to lay at the foot of anybody on the ballot in 2026. There should be no daylight between Trump and them. And I think you raise an interesting point, which is, I'm not sure we've ever seen that inverse, but it's happening right now. So to me, that looks like an opportunity, which is if you align those House and Senate Republicans with Trump in terms of voters' views on the economy, Democrats' chances to win not just the House, but maybe the outside chance of the Senate get a lot better. You talked about the off ramps. Now it's hard to find an off ramp because he's like a stubborn child. And we've seen how these foreign leaders and even Democratic leaders, you were just trying this at times, have done the, you know, thing where you coddle them and you rub his belly. And, you know, if you're nice enough to him, then he'll back down for a little while and then you have a temper tantrum again. Like we've all been through all this a bunch. You do wonder the limits of that. I understand the rationale for why Mark Ruda and Emmanuel Macron are sending him, you know, sweet lover stacks to try to like make him feel like he's a big boy. But are we getting close to the edge of where that is valuable? Gavin Newsom, your governor of Ufam, California had a contrary view on how they should handle it. I want to play that. Governor Newsom, do you have a message for Europeans who are concerned about the messages in the White House around Greenland this week? Yeah, time to fuck up. It's time to get serious and stop being complicit. It's time to stand tall and firm, have a backbone. I can't take this complicity. People rolling over. I should have brought a bunch of knee pads for all the world leaders. I mean, handing out crowns and handing out, I mean, this is pathetic. Knee pads for world leaders. What do you think about that? Interesting sound like. Well, listen, it's a great question you ask. I mean, when you work in the White House, you get to see psychological profiles that are developed for world leaders. Trump's psychological profile is like literally a sentence long, which is just flatter the guy and you'll get what you want. So on the one hand, whether you're a business leader, we've seen this a lot in Silicon Valley, you're a world leader, you know, you bend the knee, you say some things nice publicly. And, you know, he is like a dog. He rolls over, his belly has been rubbed, he's happy. I think this is probably a situation where that's not going to work. I probably tend to agree more with the Newsom view on this, which is I think these world leaders need to talk about the economic pain this will cause to Americans. I think they need to talk about the fact that if there is kinetic action, it's not going to be free throws. There's going to be, think about that, there's going to be war between, you know, soldiers from the UK and from Denmark and from France and Germany with the US. Like that image I don't think is yet some kind for the American people. So this is wildly unpopular. It'll get more unpopular when people think I'm going to pay an economic price and American soldiers are going to go to war with their allies. So I think you need to paint the picture of what could actually happen here, you know, in a very aggressive way. Now, at the same time behind closed doors, you're thinking maniacally about what is an off ramp that could prevent the worst. One does not seem apparent to me right now because the concessions here and the surrender all need to come from Trump. He's the one misbehaving. This isn't one it's like, okay, you throw a tent or tantrum and somehow you kind of get half of what you want. There is nothing here. We already have security arrangements with Denmark. We obviously already have a great relationship. You know, Trump talks about Iron Dome. I don't even think he really understands what he's talking about there. Is there an elegant off ramp? I don't know if there is one. But rhetorically, I'd like to see European leaders begin to paint a picture of if Trump doesn't stop this, this is where this is headed. And I think that domestically here in the US will get people's attention even more than it already is. Yeah, I mean, I think it's obviously the right move domestically. This is more in your wheelhouse now. I actually don't know what your day job is. These days, are you doing CEO advising anymore? Is that in your remit? Yeah. So one of these guys calls you, I don't know, like Bill Crystal, I think, tweeted this yesterday. He's like, well, not one of these CEOs tell him to fuck off. And I do wonder, like, he does back down. And he is a bully in that sense, right? Like the character analysis that you painted of him, right? If somebody who responds to flatter, you're like, that's true. But he also does respond to a little bit of a sock in the nose. To me, I have like PTSD from that 2016 primary, I'm working for Jeb. Is this just all like a collective action problem? Where everybody knew that it'd be the best interest for all 15 CEOs to sock him in the nose, but it's not in the best interest for one to stick out? Is that what you think? Maybe, you know, I'm not currently working with anyone who would probably be, you know, at that level with Trump to be influential in terms of relationship. But I think that you've got to think whether you're from the financial sector, construction sector, even from the tech sector, you know, it's not directly to Trump. If it's through David Sacks and others, that could be useful. You know, the economy obviously is incredibly fragile right now. And so something like this could really tip it over. So yeah, listen, I think anyone who has a voice here should use it. And the challenge here, I think, for people want to use their voice, and I think this is true for Republicans, is it's not one of these situations where you say, well, I understand what he's trying to do here. But like, this is just absolutely crazy. It's historically, epically damaging to the entire world and to Americans. I think that needs to be called out. You know what, Trump, you never really know, is this because he likes all the attention it's getting? He's kind of dominating the world coverage. He's an interesting guy. He was taught by Roy Cohn never to surrender. We see he does taco every once in a while. I think when he thinks it's going to hurt the economy is probably when he's been most acceptable to doing his own form of backtracking. So I think the more this is put in an economic frame by those who have concerns, the better. In an economic frame vis-a-vis the American people. And if he's hearing that from business leaders who are concerned about what it's going to mean in the near and medium term, I think that'd be helpful. You piqued my interest when you said when you were in the White House, you were getting personality profiles of the other leaders. Are there any interesting ones you remember? Berlusconi, do you know, do you have any details that you can share? I'm not going to share any details. Any current leaders? If I set to say the Putin one is dramatic reading, yes. That's got to be kind of fun. What's the most fun thing that you got to read that you wouldn't have expected to when you were in there? For me, it was really when I was there, it was we were coming out of the financial crisis. So it was any kind of documentation that we're actually coming out of it that the economy was beginning to heal. Those are the things you like to read because for a long time we got the opposite. But when you work in the White House and you have clearance, obviously you it's a window in the world and it can be both inspiring but also quite frightening in terms of what's going on on a day-to-day basis. All right guys, this wallet sponsor we got Ridge. I just have to admit, it's important, Radical Candor as you know, is the keystone of this podcast. At first I was like, I don't know about this Ridge wallet. It looks a little mask for me. It looks a little bit like something that, I don't know, a Ukrainian soldier would be carrying into battle. And that's for some people. You know, you want sturdiness and stability in a wallet, but as a gay, I wasn't sure. And then, you know, it's like, look, what is with my own internalized homophobia? I'm sad at a bar, friend takes out a wallet, happens to be a gay man. It's the Ridge wallet, loves it. Talk about how great it is. I was like, look, why am I holding myself back? And I checked it out and you know, it is quite wonderful. Losing your wallet is a problem for me. And I'm sure for some of you, no longer with Ridge, because they got an air tag attachment. You'll know exactly where it is before the panic mode kicks in. And if you're not fully sold on the wallet idea, they also got other stuff like key cases, suitcases and rings all built with the same sleek and durable design. No matter what you pick, Ridge has free shipping, a 99 day risk-free trial and a lifetime warranty on all their products. For limited time, our listeners get 10% off at Ridge by using code TheBullwork at checkout. Just head to ridge.com and use code TheBullwork and you're all set. After you purchase, I'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. I want to go to Minnesota really quick before we get to your op-ed and the scenes we've seen there. There's always just kind of ghost to immediately go to what should the Democrats do about this. So, I guess before we do that, what's kind of your just reaction on a human level to like what we're seeing right now in Minnesota? You know, it's gut wrenching obviously. You know, I think it's not really ideology that unifies some of those who have bent the need of Trump, whether they be in the business community and the political community. I think there's a lot of them. I think Musk is this way. I think Saks and there's a lot of tech leaders. I think there's plenty of Republican leaders, Vance falls into this Trump at the top. They simply don't want any guardrails. They don't want to be criticized. They don't want protest. They want to be treated as heroes. They don't want anybody to point out whether you're a journalist or a political opposition. And so this now goes to citizens. They don't want citizens to lift their voice to protesting what's happening in the country. And that's really frightening beyond just what's happening in the moment in Minnesota, as scary as that is. That's where they would like us to head, whether it be the courts, whether it be the voters, whether it be journalists, whether it be political opponents, they do not want to be questioned. They don't want to be questioned. And that's really scary. So, you know, at the end of the day, we've seen dramatic changes in people's views of ICE around immigration. I think you and I probably have the same view of this in the long term, which is Democrats should be supportive as Barack Obama was as many Democrats were in prior times. We need a secure border. We need good enforcement. But once you've attested to that, you have the ability then to go to the other side of the picture where Trump is obviously very weak, where people think that this kind of enforcement is way beyond the bounds of what we want as Americans. We should be welcoming of people here who are contributing to communities, who are paying taxes. We need to have a pathway towards legalization. So to me, this opens up the ability to have some of these discussions. But when you see Minnesota, the JD Vance of the world, the Donald Trumps of the world, certainly the gnomes and homens of the world, they want to lean into this. They want the fight. I mean, they're calling an American citizen, a mother who was just exercising her constitutional right, a terrorist. And so that will continue to have who they killed all over the country. And I think there's a bigger point here, which is they want us all to be silenced. That's what they desire. That's what autocrats desire. They then build a system to ensure that's the case. And when Trump jokes about there shouldn't be an election, I think we're going to have an election, but it's not a one off. That's what he believes. I think they'd be perfectly comfortable with a country where Donald gives it off to Don Jr., who then gives it off to Ivanka, who then gives it off to JD Vance. It's crazy, but they'd be fine with that. By the way, that 40% of the country would say, should we have a system that's essentially monarchy slash autocracy? And 40% of the country would say yes. So that's the other thing that's scary about this is even though I think 75 to 80% of the people now have witnessed the video, and that is important because whatever JD Vance says is immaterial because people have seen it for themselves, they've come to their same conclusion, we still have a healthy percent of the people in the country who think what's happening up there is okay. Yeah, like 30% saw the video and were like, that's good. And they drive Republican politics, as you know, they drive Republican politics. I want to play this, this video of Obama that's been going around for him talking about immigration. It feels like this is one of those, the past is a foreign country type videos. When you listen to him talk about it, I just want to play it for the audience. This is not going to be a free ride. It's not going to be some instant amnesty. What's going to happen is you are going to pay a significant fine. You are going to learn English. You are going to crowd reaction. You are going to go to the back of the line so that you don't get ahead of somebody who was in Mexico City applying legally. But after you've done these things over a certain period of time, you can earn your citizenship so that it's not something that is guaranteed or automatic. You've got to earn it. But over time, you give people an opportunity. Now, it only works though if you do all the pieces. I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can't have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it. So here's my thing on this. No Democrat sounds like that right now. Basically, I'm sure we could find one. But basically, no Democrat sounds like that in immigration. And also, very few Democrats have the anger that I want about what's happening in Minneapolis. I feel like it's like the worst of both worlds. And I feel like can we not combine that totally rational immigration policy that had whoops and yes and cheers from a Democratic audience 20 years ago less? Can we not combine that set of policies Obama laid out with like righteous anger about what ICE is doing internally and saying, we take off your fucking masks. We will investigate people that do crimes. You cannot kill women. It feels like you can do both. And maybe they need to do both. Well, I think, Tim, it's a great point. I think this is the way Democrats can finally get out of the hole in immigration and get on their front foot. So first of all, you mentioned something interesting. That was a long time ago, but historically not that long ago. And those comments, I believe, were in Iowa or South Carolina. It was during the Democratic primary. Right. I mean, I remember in 2007, 2008, in some of the early primary states, you'd get really challenging questions on immigration from Democratic caucus colors. So this wasn't just this wasn't appealing to like right of center swing voters in the state of Indiana that we're trying to win. And I think not much has changed, which is we need a secure border. We need to obviously make sure to the extent we have enforcement, it should be focused on those who could or have committed violent felonies who are here illegally. But the rest of Obama's point is where most of America is, they still want the ability for people who are working hard, contributing their community to have a pathway. So now with what's happening in Minnesota, not just in Minnesota. I mean, first of all, ICE is an economic issue. You remember Iraq back in the 2000s became as much an economic issue as a foreign policy issue. Voters said, hey, why are we spending all this time and money and attention in Iraq, not rebuilding my community here in the home? We're spending all this money on ICE. By the way, a Democrat could say, we should actually be funding more police jobs, right? To keep our community safe, not ICE. So I think you're exactly right. I think a Democrat who says, let me tell you something, I believe in a secure border. We got that wrong under the Biden administration. So it's one thing Trump's done well. I think there's some things we could change. We're going to have a secure border. We're going to use technology. We're going to make sure that continues. But we're also now not going to terrorize our fellow citizens, not use the power of the state to terrorize fellow citizens. We're not throwing teachers and gardeners and housekeepers who've been here for 20 or 30 years out, treating them violently. There is an audience for that. To me, that is probably not even a 70-30 issue. It might be an 80, 20, 85, 15 issue. So yeah, and I think part of it, Tim, is over the last 10 years Democrats, for the most part, I don't want to maybe paint a two-brother brush. They've been scared of this issue. Right. And one of the things, it's going to sound like fanboy because I worked for them, but I think whether it's national security or taxes or immigration or crime, one of Obama's strengths, I think Clinton had this as well, is very comfortable talking about these supposed strengths for the Republicans and stating our case, but also going right at where they were wrong. And I think it's really important that we get back to doing that with more consistency and more effectiveness. And we potentially have a budget fight about this in the hell in two weeks. And you already seen Chris Murphy and some of the Senate saying, we can't fund ICE. I'm already seeing the Republicans in my feed saying basically, do that. Great. You want to defund deportations, a defund Department of Homeland Security? You're giving us a gift. What do you think about that? I mean, listen, I think we'd be stronger position for the Murphy position and others if we had done some what you talked about, which is to strengthen the enforcement side of the house in terms of the border, but then also be more highly critical of ICE. Listen, at the end of the day, I'd probably have to fight. But of course, a fight in theory is not worth fighting. It's like, what's the storytelling? What's the campaign around it? Are you getting money on the airwaves to tell this story? And obviously, it's always a choice, which is most Americans don't think ICE should be the largest law enforcement agency in the country, by the way, but they have to be told that's what happening. They're not following the in and outs of Washington budgeting. One of the largest ones in the world. I like using the fact that it's going to have more funding than the Israel military. That's like very in the news right now. People understand they're fighting multiple actual wars. And it's like ICE has a bigger budget now than Israeli military. I also think it's pretty common sense, which is, listen, the American people see ICE all around the country wreaking havoc. They got plenty of money. So say the, you know, Trump wants them to have more money. I don't want them to have more money. They got plenty of money. In fact, I think they have too much money, but they certainly don't need more money. But here's what we should be investing in. It's actually not that complicated. I think if you frame it in that way, so I'd have to fight. That's smart. I'm not going to keep complimenting you. We might have a couple of disagreements coming. So, but that one was smart. All right, y'all have been traveling a lot recently and thinking about all the different luggage options out there. Almost picked up the wrong person's luggage out of the overhead bin the other day. So, you know, you got to be mindful of that. And a new sponsor of this podcast, Noble is offering a kind of suitcase that I think you guys should look into. It is zipperless. The zipperless suitcase that's critical, because you know, it's super easy to break into your luggage and it's super easy to break your zipper. And with the Noble suitcase, you've got something that is sleek and safe and affordable. Noble wasn't just a safe suitcase. They've actually fixed everything that used to drive you crazy about travel. They have a built-in charging port that keeps your phone alive at the gate. It's crucial for me because I live by the motto, ABC, always be charging. It has a front laptop pocket that makes the TSA a breeze. You know, if they're making you take your laptop out, if you don't have clear. And maybe my favorite part, they've got a flip out cup holder right there in the luggage. You just put a little water bottle in there. Super easy and functional. Noble gives you a real travel piece of mind, security, design and convenience all in one. Head to nobletravel.com for up to 46% off your entire order. That's N-O-B-L, travel.com for up to 46% off. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them the bulwark sent you. All right, let's go to your op-ed. We'll stick with the agreements because the premise of the op-ed is something that I've impassionately in agreement with you on. And then I think that is just under accepted and recognized still in democratic world. And basically the gist of it is that had a good year last November, but the party's still in crisis. And I think the nut graph or the nut statement of this was right now, Democrats have no credible path to sustain control of the Senate and the White House. And the Democrats need to come up with a way to have sustained control of the Senate and the White House if we're going to brush back this authoritarian movement in the Republican Party. So talk about that. Right. So to me, we'll talk about the specifics, but I did this largely because I thought the spirit was more important than even the specifics. The spirit is we're in deep trouble. And I think for the good of the country and the world, we need sustained control of the White House and Senate for most of the next decade. You know this. The ugly truth is it could get worse when Trump leaves the stage. It's not like we're going to be Trump's gone and the Republican Party turns back to pre-2016. The entire enterprise will be a battle to who can go even further, who can destroy norms even more, who can actually put a more palatable kind of wrapper around Trump's crazy. So it's going to get worse and worse. I mean, think about the 28, 32, 36. Nikki Ailey is not walking through that door in 2032. Right. The door shut. You're in a situation right now where the Republican Party is obviously deeply unpopular. The only thing maybe more unpopular is the Ebola virus and the Democratic Party. But because the Republicans are in control, they will pay a price in 26 almost certainly. To degree to which it is, I don't know yet. But we have market failure. People have two options in the marketplace. They don't like either. The Republican brand is not going to improve with Trump astride it. I write about this. So it seemed to me if the Democratic brand can significantly improve where enough voters say, you know what? This candidate or the party generally seems different. Think about how much stronger we'll be, particularly if you think about it not through the lens of, well, we'll win some elections, we'll lose some elections. We actually have to win most of the elections going forward here. I would say at least eight years, maybe 12 years, control the White House from 28 through 36 or 40 and control the Senate. The latter being really hard. We have to get competitive in more places, which means voters have to say this candidate seems a lot different, whether it's there, how they talk about government, they talk about jobs, they talk about corruption, they talk about their own party. Like I think the way I think about it is, I always think it's helpful. This is a very analog thing. But a candidate running for House or Senate this year in the presidential campaign in 28, how's the crowd reacting? 100 people in Georgia or New Hampshire or Nevada. Are they nodding their head? And a candidate who says, listen, Donald Trump has been damaging to this country. The Maga Republicans who followed him have been. But our institutions have damaged the country. My own party has been complicit. That candidate will have people nodding their head. People will be leaning and I want to hear more, I want to hear more. And so that's my point, which is we have to understand the scale of the challenge here, the mission. Democrats are called now to sustain them, to win elections much more than we have recently and in places that we haven't been able to win recently. And in order to do that, we have to fundamentally change our offering to the American people in my view. During the Obama era, Democrats won either Obama himself or Democratic Senate candidates in Iowa, Indiana, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas. I would say, with maybe the exception of Mary Peltola in Alaska, I don't see a single Democrat running in 2026 in any of those states who has a meaningfully differentiated brand from the Clinton Biden-Harris party. They all seem to be some version of that. And those candidates weren't competitive in any of those places. If you'll get wrapped up into, does that mean doing it in a Bernie style or in a mansion style or whatever? But to me, the frustrating part is that I agree with your premise and it doesn't feel to me like there are very many people out there saying, no, we need to do something really different, particularly to win in those places, particularly when talking about the Senate. You see a few. We'll see if Plattener gets to his primary, you know, I wish the Plattener thing was in a different state. That's in Maine. Right, James Tallarico, I think. Is Tallarico a different thing? Yes, he's Tallarico. He's, you know, yeah. I mean, I think he's been, I think, somewhat critical of democratic leadership. But we need to see a lot more. I just think we have to expand our view of where we are and where we need to go. And I think, you know, we just got done with the college football playoff, NFL playoffs. Like, this isn't like it's a fourth and one and we can do the tush push. Okay, right. This is like fourth and six, fourth and eight. You know, right now, you you're going to convert that much less than 50% of the time. How do you improve your odds there? And the truth is, again, I think the Republicans, at least through 26 and maybe through 28, we'll see here, their nominee has a chance to kind of create some change as well with voters. But they're kind of stuck. That's the point at the end of my piece. I really wanted people to focus on, which is this is a gift as bad as things are right now for the Democratic Party. It's a gift. We're given the opportunity to refresh ourselves for voters to take a fresh look at us because the Republicans can't. And if we squander that, we're not going to like where we are. By the way, let's talk about the Supreme Court. Let's say we have a Democratic president from 28 to 36, from, you know, your lips to God's ears, that'd be amazing. But let's say we don't have the Senate. Do you think we'll be able to confirm a Supreme Court justice? I don't think so. No, I agree. They obviously don't plan on ever confirming a Democratic justice again. So I think we have to hold the Senate and we've got to have the White House. And again, I think right now, you know, the degree of difficulty there is much too high given the necessity at that point. And just saying the last two successful politicians to remake their party's image, like both ran against the party, your guy in 08 and Trump, like actively against the party. You know, like not like, oh, a little bit like, oh, we might have messed up a little bit. And you were there in 08. But obviously the Trump campaign was a total affront to the Republican establishment in a way that Obama wasn't. But on foreign policy and other issues, like Obama was very much critical of the Democratic establishment had the benefit of running against Hillary who could have represented it. And obviously, 2008, you know, Twitter wasn't really a thing yet. And Facebook was just on college campuses. So you didn't have the dynamic. Now you mentioned like there's 30% of the country that probably supports what Trump and Eisen doing in Minnesota. But they drive Republican politics. My suspicion is the most active voices on social media who are active Democrats, you know, some of them think the Democratic Party needs to fundamentally change to be fair. But I think a lot of them don't like the criticism. But I think the people who will decide our presidential nomination, real voters in states, whatever the calendar ends up being, they'll be open to that message. They're not going to be on social media criticizing a candidate necessarily for saying it, but they'll give the vote to somebody who does it. And again, it's not criticism for criticism's sake. But whether it's our economic message, whether it's how we think about corruption in recent times, the congressman in Illinois, who at the last minute, you know, slid his successor in there. Yeah, truly. Most Democrats in Washington didn't criticize them. Some did. That's outrageous. Jeffrey Epstein writing talking points for the delegate from the Virgin Islands and we defend it. Like, what the fuck are we doing? Like, we got to be willing to call shit out. And that doesn't mean we're weak. I get they don't do it. We don't have to be that. Also, Trump does do it. Actually, Trump criticizes other Republicans all the time. And no one else will. Yeah, right. Yeah, they won't criticize him. But I mean, A, we don't want to be them. That's why I left them. Right. So, okay. But also, you shouldn't have a false view of how Trump's success worked. Like Trump's success literally did work by having a full frontal assault on the establishment of an unpopular establishment of the Republican Party. And so maybe there's something to learn from that. By the way, and it's not just, I mean, you mentioned those two. I mean, Clinton, obviously, in part, John Kennedy, even though that was, you know, very few primaries Reagan were important Reagan. Absolutely. Like basically, all the two Trump presidents except W, who like lost the popular vote. But remember, he was the kinder gender Republican. I mean, if you watch the Bush Gore debates and watch Bush, I mean, it's just a masterclass. So he was also critical of his party. He gave voters who are concerned about Republicans an avenue because his sense was, Hey, man, I'm a different guy. I can work with Democrats. You know, that was his whole message. It was so powerful. So I think history suggests that there's an opening and I think it's even bigger right now. Because people are very frustrated. We have market failure. They don't like their two political choices. You know, they're concerned about the economy. They think Washington may be irreachively broken. And so new voices who suggest a new path forward who are also honest, like it's just not honest to say this is all the Republicans fault. It's just not. One of the lines in the app that got a little buzz was that people running in 26 should call for new leadership and say that if elected, they won't support the current crop. Some of the Democratic Congress, people did not like that too much. Brenda Boyle, friend of the show, he said that this is bizarre. House Dems under Jeffries have made Trump's beautiful bill, the most unpopular bill ever pulled, and they're now having favorites to win the House, etc., etc. So what do you make of that? Well, Brenda Boyle, like I, is a still mourning Philadelphia Eagles fan. So I have a great sympathy for him. Listen, my point was, it kind of goes back to the point I was making, but you have to envision a crowd listening to a candidate. I just think there's no question that whether you're running for the Senator House to say, listen, I think the Democratic leadership has also not done all it can, you know, to make this country better. I'm frustrated. So I'd like to see new leaders emerge. By the way, Nancy Pelosi would be the first person always to tell candidates, you do whatever you need to do to win. You know, my suspicion is that's what Chuck Schumer probably actually believes, whether he's saying it to candidates or not. I don't know. And even Akim, it's tough to lead the opposition against Donald Trump. We've seen that historically. People aren't going to center their campaign on who the House Speaker is. It's more the spirit of, listen, I want fundamental change in Washington. I want to stand up to Trump and MAGA. I want to basically attack institutions and the status quo that aren't working for people. I want to rethink how we build an economy, how we deal with AI, how we deal with corruption, all the important issues, health care. But I also think my party has to change. Like that candidate is going to be stronger. But do you think they should actually change their leadership then, or is it just a campaign tactic? Well, listen, at the end of the day, I assume if we win the House back, you know, the current leadership probably going to have the votes to win. But I think you ought to let candidates who are running for office say whatever they believe. The Democratic brand, I think we're like in the 20s right now. I mean, it's a weight on candidate's shoulders. So to the extent that candidates can show areas where they're going to stand up to their party, be different, I think they will benefit from that. And at the end of the day, we don't know what 28 or 30 or 32 are going to hold to him. We know that 26 likely Democrats will have tailwinds. So when you are a national party and you have tailwinds, the challenge is to maximize every seat you could potentially win in a positive electoral atmosphere. And so it means if you're going to win some seats that are on the outer edge of competitiveness, they're going to be run by people who are, maybe they are very right of center. Maybe they challenge the Democratic leadership. But those are the types of people that can win those types of seats in a tailwind scenario. I think the kind of the defense of Jeffery is from Boyle, like, and any time there's defensive guys, it's an inside game defense. I think my point is like, in this day and age, party leaders have a job to do, which is, in part, the behind the scenes keeping the coalition together, which Jeffery has been good at. But then there's also the projecting a brand out to the country. And I don't think that anybody thinks that Ken Martin, Chuck Schumer and Huckim Jeffries have been particularly good at that part of it. And so if they're going to stay in leadership, they should probably figure out somebody that's better at being the front person. Right. It's changed a lot. Listen, I work for Dick Gephardt when he was the House Democratic leader. And, you know, he would do Sunday shows and he'd have a weekly press conference. He's not the most charming guy. He wasn't like everybody sucks off. Nobody had a thrill up their leg listening to the Dick Gephardt and Town Hall in Iowa. No, but I think he was an effective communicator. But the point was it was 90% behind the scenes. Yeah, world's changed. Yeah, I would argue maybe not for good, but, but, you know, I do think that the most important people in 26 and then ultimately in 28, of course, will be our candidates, less Washington. But the folks in Washington have more of a megaphone now than they used to because of social media. And so you basically need to put on a performance every day. What are you driving? How are you driving it? Is it reaching voters you need to reach? And I think that is where we've been deficient. So I think the qualifications for a leader have changed. And here's the thing. If you're a safe Democrat or Republican in a caucus, you probably still care a lot about the inside stuff. Sure. Committee assignments and fundraising, whatever. But, but if you are running in a competitive district, what you care about is, is that person helping me? So I think the requirements of a leader have changed quite dramatically over the last couple decades. I'm going to do the presidential level stuff and trying to figure out the right way into this because part of this is agenda and for his candidates. But I guess we'll start here. So you advise the former vice president, Vice President Harris. She's been out doing her 107 days book tour. I interviewed her on the tour. I guess I'm wondering what you just make of the narrative that she's putting forth about why Trump won, which I think in short would be that she wasn't really given enough time and kind of these outside factors led to Trump winning. Well, we should do a whole episode on this too or not. Okay. It's painful. Let's do a five minute version. I know our listeners would, I would say that like 80% of listeners would rather rip their toenails off than do a whole episode on this. But we could do it for the 20% of sickos we could do a behind a paywall if you want. I'm always available. But so let's just do the brief version. You know, like you, I thought a lot about this. I mean, the really only realistic chance we had for a Democrat to win would be in 23, not 24 and 23 of Joe Biden said he wasn't going to run. And we would have an open primary. Whether Kamala emerged or someone else, they would have been a fully formed person. There would have been a lot more understanding of biography where they were going to be different from Biden the same what their economic vision was. This is where her point about time is important. Like, like when she got into the race, if I recall in swing with swing voters in swing states, like less than 30% of the people in the issue had even been a prosecutor. What surprises people, but like, you know, you need a lot of I've been part of presidential campaigns where, you know, you do biography and you have a month on healthcare, a month on the economy, you define your opponent. But you know, the reality is the economy was a central issue of the 24 campaign, particularly prices. And in every battleground state, Donald Trump's approval rating on the economy when people said, how did he do in his first term was 50 51 52. Joe Biden's was 30 32 33. They basically why is that they excused him COVID. So they didn't judge the economy on COVID, they excused him COVID. And they thought the economy was a lot better under Trump than Biden. And because Kamala was the vice president, she paid a price for that. So here's the thing I'd say, she ran for president 20, didn't even make it to the first contest got out. And then she gets very close to defeating Trump under very adverse political circumstances. I think she performed admirably, not every day, not in every interview, but I think she did really well. She ran a very strong campaign and inspired a lot of Americans to get involved that you see the reaction out there. But at the end of the day, and I think the question of, well, if she had started by saying, I'm going to do all these things different than Joe Biden, I think she wrote, I would have liked her to done a lot more of that. But as a but but I think to really have had the effect you would have had to say this, listen, I think he was very loose on the board. I told him every day we should be tougher on the border. She didn't do that. She won't going to say that. I think we mishandled inflation. And I think and I think that he shouldn't have run for president. Like that would have been great in like the West Wing Aaron circle. It was not real. What about maybe I think he was, could have been a little bit more sensitive to what was happening in Gaza, probably to. Yeah, I mean, of course, of course. So I think I think I just like, I think it's important to say that because it's not just on the right, you know, it's not just kind of right. I think on both sides, that would have been, I think well advised, but but whose fault was it that she didn't do that? It was Biden's fault, right? I asked her this question three times. I was like, so why didn't you do that? And it's just she wouldn't, she's a very loyal person. So here's the thing. I was pushing. Yeah, she doesn't want to say I don't think the separation that would have been required to make a difference in the election was going to happen because it wasn't, it wasn't reality based, right? You would have really had to say, I told him over and over again, he shouldn't run for president. I told him over and over again, he was mishandling Gaza. I told him over and over again, we were mishandling the border. So when she comes out and says, I'm going to do some things different on the border, different the economy with some voters. Because again, I think, you know, it got closer in some of the battleground states than the atmospherics would have suggested. But it was hard. Listen, I remember being with her the day of the first debate. And as it turned out, only debate, which is very damaging to us, we certainly would have been, I think, advantaged by another debate. I look back on it. You should have done the Fox debate. We should have done the Fox debate. And we should have said the night of the first debate said, we'll meet you on Fox in two weeks. We didn't do that. I still don't think Trump would have done it. We should have done that. We said we want another debate. We should have been more specific. We should have anticipated his team was going to keep him off the debate stage. But the day of the first debate, she was like, can I really say I'm a new generation of leadership? Like she had to talk to Joe Biden and make sure even that was okay. So that's kind of what we were dealing with. Well, I'm going to stroke out if we keep doing this, but that's fine. I don't know, man. Stakes were just so high. And it's like all that distancing stuff from Biden was obvious stuff, and it's like he needed to tell her, hey kid, do what you need to do. If Peter Baker comes in here and says, did she really tell you that she wanted to be stronger on the border? He didn't be like, yeah, she told me it was in private. I agree with that. On the other hand, I just, again, this will frustrate people because everybody always wants to believe there was a decision that you could have made that would have changed a point and a half, which is a lot of votes, by the way. It was close, but it's also what's a lot of votes. Like at the end of the day, the incumbent president was deeply unpopular. She was a vice president for that deeply unpopular president. And they were running against someone in Donald Trump who voters said, I have all these other concerns about him, but I think he's going to be really good on the economy. So super tough. And I also think our party brand was much weaker than it was even in 20 or even in 16. And that's sort of the point of my op-ed, which is we need to get back to the point where there's more voters available to us in more places where you don't have to pull an inside straight to win every election. This is going back, but also kind of going forward than I have one more going forward question. I had something in the pot last week from the left, people more in the Bernie crowd. Their critique of the campaign would be that you guys tried to appeal too much to me. And I don't think that's a crazy critique actually, because I was like, you had us. I don't know. But the Nikki Ailey voters that we're going to vote for you, like you did pretty well with them in the end, maybe because you were trying to appeal to them, right? And there was not enough effort to reach out to like, whatever, working class, multiracial men, mostly. That was Israel, those economics. What do you say to that critique, both going back and going forward? Yeah, listen, in every state, you have a sense of what's your pathway to victory from a voter standpoint. And for us, it was a pretty narrow pathway. It did include some Republicans, not many. It included a lot of what you might consider center and slightly right of center independence. And then obviously it was holding on to some of the parts of the Democratic coalition that was cracking that Trump was making inroads into, particularly with young men. And that was mostly centered around the economy. The truth is, I think oftentimes, people think about the economy through people in their 30s or 40s, they might have kids. It's like, when you're young, you're broke. You have no savings. And cost of living is punishing to everybody, but just particularly punishing to young people. And I think that that was one thing that came up over and over again in the research, was young people would say, listen, I'm in debt. I'm 22, I'm 23, I'm 24. If I'm 25 or 26, I lived through Trump. It was better than super challenging. So I listen, I think at the end of the day, you know, we didn't win enough votes from all of those baskets. I would say this, the concern about Trump's return was not what you or I would like it to be with voters. You'd be like to say, I'm not sure we can do this again. And there was north of 50% of the people said, I'm not really fucking concerned about that. I don't really believe he's going to do all the things he's going to do. And the economy sucks. And he was okay on the economy. If you were to like to summarize it, right? And so part of our challenge was how do we make people more concerned about it? You know, whether it's abortion, you know, whether it's, you know, using the military for his own purposes, you know, a lot of things Kamala said, I think have come true. We were unsuccessful at getting enough people to believe it then. A lot of people might believe it now. So, you know, at the end of the day, it was a complicated election because it was a patchwork of voters. Because again, our ceiling was very low as it turned out, lower than I've seen in my political lifetime for Democratic presidential candidate, maybe the exception of 2004. So the worry if the Bernie person called you, you're like, look, if we tried to do go full into price controls, lefty economics, whatever, we may be gain whatever there, but we're losing on this other side. Like what's that? Listen, she talked about investigating price gouging. She talked about raising minimum wage, talked about building a lot of houses. By the way, that's court of Mondamis message. So, you know, the notion that this is all about, you know, Liz Cheney is just not right. If you look at the advertising in particular that was being run in these states, it was very focused on the economy was very focused, I think on a lot of ideas that the Bernie Sanders fans of the world would like. But also Kamala Harris had her own view of the economy, what she wanted to focus on. And our job was to, you know, build a campaign around that. So candidates do matter in these things. All right, we can do another whole podcast on this. So I just want your one minute answer on which side of it it's on, and then maybe we can do a date to have it in like three months. And that's how Dems deal with the tech stuff going forward. You mentioned AI and the op-ed. I'm kind of all over the place on this, right? Because I think that there's one view, which is mostly like from Silicon Valley people, you do some advising, right? Which is like the core mistake Democrats made is they alienated a lot of people in Silicon Valley with a lot of their anti-tech rhetoric and didn't actually serve anyone with that, right? Like there wasn't any meaningful change that helped people's lives. So all they did was alienate this constituency that has a lot of money and a lot of influence for nothing. And that Democrats shouldn't do that anymore. And they should invite Elon Musk over for dinner or whatever and have a daytime. That's one point of view. Like there's another side of the point of view, which is like, no, Democrats should do full populist war on the tech elites and, you know, the AI billionaires and, you know, the owners of all these big tech companies. Whatever you believe with the policy, just from the politics of it, I can see both sides of that argument is like, you know, is rational in a certain way. I come down on kind of one side, but I'm wondering what you think is somebody like both lives in the tech world and in the political strategy world. Well, it'll be interesting. I think we're going to get this played out fully by the people running for president in 27 and 28 on our side. I think you'll see some reach out to, you know, tech leaders, some won't, some will be deeply critical. I think the law will be critical, some a little less so. So they're going to be the most important actors in this. So what I would say is one, and by the point of AI is this isn't about being pro AI or anti AI is here to stay. More and more Americans are using it every day. We've got to make sure that China doesn't beat us. But at the end of the day, I think there's a sense from voters that, wait, basically the Trump administration and like five tech leaders are telling us we just have to swallow this. It's happening. Elon Musk is saying there will be no jobs left. You know, Sam Altman saying, you know, everyone will just live like picking flowers and, you know, looking at rainbows. That's not who we are as Americans. Like people want to know like, what the fuck is happening? How are we preparing for this education? You talk to parents all the time, increasingly concerned about how their kids are utilizing AI. Are they really learning? You've got the mental health crisis. You've got perhaps real job displayed. So how do we do this in the right way? I think is important. I think around things like competition, I think, yeah, a lot of the tech leaders thought the Biden administration was too tough on them. They didn't like that. You know, Elon Musk wasn't invited to the automotive summit. I think even Kamala Harris said that was a mistake it was. To me, it's not an either or in this way. I think you can be deeply critical where you think you should be critical, where there should be more oversight. You should be deeply cooperative where you think that tech and government can work together, you know, to help solve problems and mitigate problems. That doesn't mean that you don't talk to people. Elon Musk is like Trump in this way, which is he is very much he likes flattery and hates disrespect. I think that's ridiculous for the most wealthy person in the world to view that. And obviously, he's going into some of the darkest corners of the world in terms of our politics, in terms of race, some of the things he's tweeted out about white men recently, like this is super dangerous. But, you know, I think we should keep open lines of communication with most of these tech leaders. But at the end of the day, I think most Americans are concerned that we could be moving in a direction where they're going to get trampled. And all the wealth goes to the already wealthiest people in the world. I think a lot of voters when you talk about social media, they use it, they're concerned about it. But their sense was this kind of all happened to us. We didn't have any say in it. So they'd like to have a say as it relates to AI, like let's really talk about this, as opposed to a sense of we know best, we're going to kill all the jobs. You're basically your entire life's going to change, but it's okay. We've got it handled. No one trusts that, right? So I was always struck by the way in 2012 in our re-election when the economy was weak but recovering, we tried every different way with voters to say, how could you credential Obama in the economy? You know, some of it was manufacturing might be coming back, this plant opened, jobs are coming back a little bit. You know, we had a lot of support in the tech community. So you'd sit down with voters and say, well, tech leaders think Obama knows where the economy's going. And for a lot of those voters, that was a reason to vote against him. Okay. So you also have to understand these tech leaders, they've built amazing companies. I'm glad they're built here, not elsewhere. We should be proud of a lot of this. You know, voters don't get the sense that they're necessarily the people they want to be charting the course here. So I think Democrats are going to have to be, they shouldn't be like reflexively just anti-tech. It should be like, whether it's AI, whether it's competition, whether it's data, whether it's tax policy, what's the right thing for the country? And some of those questions, I think you can do that in a cooperative frame with tech leaders and others, you're going to be opposed to them. But that doesn't mean you don't have dialogue. Listen, I believe we didn't do it perfectly, but in the Obama administration, certainly, you know, even when you're going up against somebody, you want to have a conversation with them, you learn from that, you understand where they're coming from. So I think that's one thing that I would say generally, less from politics, from a substantive standpoint, you know, the more you're talking to people, the more you learn and the better decisions you'll make. I'm with you on that. These babies are so sensitive though. I will say this about Obama, I haven't been on the other side, the opposite side of him on this. I'm always just kind of shocked by how big of a baby everybody is compared to him. Like people that are like, oh, you guys were so mean to Mitt Romney, so I had to be radicalized to go for Trump or oh, they're so mean to Elon, he was snubbed. So he had to become a fascist and Trump is such a baby. It's like, the Republicans said Obama was born in Africa, his wife's a man. I mean, everything in the world you could possibly imagine about him. And he seems to have been somewhat, you know, insulated from that, you know, manly insecurity. Well, you've got to have the Chicago tough skin. I mean, listen, I mentioned one of the things that unifies, I think a lot of the political and entertainment and even business figures supporting magas, they don't want rules, you know, they don't want criticism. You know, some of that's for business aim for sure, and power, but a lot of it is because they're so thin skinned. Listen, I think for a lot of tech leaders, not all a lot of tech leaders, they really want to be treated as as if they're running a charity as if what they're doing is, you know, on behalf and good for the world. And there's no doubt some of their products are, but you're running a business first and foremost. And I think that that they want to be put up on a pedestal. And what's interesting, of course, is Trump puts them on the pedestal, then he cuts out the pedestal. So I think some of what these folks are learning is it's not like they're protected from the vagaries of Trump and his administration. You basically prostrate yourself, and you still could get a really adverse effect. So yeah, I think generally we'd be better off as a society if our leaders in both parties grew up business had a lot tougher skin and can endure criticism. Even criticism they find unfair and just slough it off. It's amazing to me that we've kind of lost that capacity in a broad way. Yeah, you know, I've become a live now and I'm obsessed with male fragility. Let's have a fucking fragile rich dude. Where's Clint Eastwood? All right, I don't know. Where's John Wayne? I don't know. I'm way over it. I just have to ask you that you're not going to endorse somebody in 28 or you're not going to pick or predict or favorite, but does anything sound fun? You know, you're in your 50s now. You know, are you looking at any of the people right now and do any of them sound fun? Like, you know, if you're a kid, you're like, you know, this is going to be fun. We'll see how it goes. You know, not yet, but I hope so. Me too. Tim, what I would say is this is basically, I get asked a lot of, I know you get asked a lot like, well, what's going to happen and what lane and we don't know, this is an audition. It's a bunch of off-broadway plays, essentially auditioning to be the one that makes it a broad way. And we'll see what our voters are looking for, what's going on foreign policy economically. But I think somebody who's just willing to tear up the playbook and let it rip and burn all the houses down is going to be really successful. And hopefully as a Syrian truth teller has that thick skin, you can't be a truth teller these days without thick skin. Because if anybody who lifts their voice on anything, you know, whether it's real people or bots gets crucified for it. So you've got to have the thick skin. And I think we're going to have a big field. Here's what I would say is, I think the person who is the most change and not just from Trump, that's important. People aren't going to look for a replica to Trump but a remedy. But who's also the most change from the status quo, back to our previous discussion about successful two-term presidents, will win. And also the most exciting candidates tend to win. And I don't know if we know who that is. Just look back at those primaries. There's not a lot of evidence of people who aren't fun. That's kind of why I asked. Fun, exciting, you know, controversial, whatever, like just bring it on. So we'll see. I think our primaries can be super fascinating. Of course, I would say, we can talk about this at a later date, we don't know what the track is because the calendar's not been set. And maybe someone will emerge as such a strong political athlete in 28 that it doesn't matter, they'd win in every calendar. But the calendar does generally matter. And so that's a really important thing for political nerves to be paying attention to is, you know, what's our first, second, third and fourth contest? And how does that unfold into the rest of the states? I went way over, but it's just, you know, we could have done two more hours, you know, and you'd never been on before. So I'm sorry. I hope you didn't have like a important board meeting or whatever it is that Now, things as important as this, Mr. Yeah, whatever it is, the consultant class does these days. I'm out of that world. David, I appreciate your brother. Let's do it again soon. All right, man. Thanks to you. Everybody else will be back here tomorrow for another edition of the podcast. See you all then. Peace. The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.