November 27, 2025 • 34 mins
Legendary Democratic pollster James Carville examines why populism is the path for Democrats to win.The Center for Working Class Politics’ Jared Abbott details The Democratic Penalty and how Democrats can win with a populist message.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. We're on vacation, but that doesn't mean
we don't have a great show for you today. The
Center for Working Class Politics Shared Abbott stops by to
talk to us about the democratic penalty and how Democrats
can win with.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
A populist message.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
But first we'll talk to legendary democratic poster the Ragin
Cajun James Carvill.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
James Carvell, welcome back.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Well, thank you. I love I love being on our
favorite podcast to come on.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Thank you very.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Much, thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I've read this piece you wrote in the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
I agree one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
I want you to tell me first, why do you
think economic populism is the only way to go?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Well, I think it for a couple of reasons, and
I've been thinking about it, had been building up for
a time. The Scott Galloway lecture on Generational the Really
it's got me to thinking a lot deeper about it.
And I'll be honest with you, Molly. I started hearing
from the biggionair class saying we got to do something.
This is just not this is not work. I mean,
(01:11):
Peter Platt, just for a fact, for Saint James, you
need to say something because the amount of wealth that
is going to older people and savers and people that
already have wealth is just overwhelming.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
And what have we done this year.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
We've straddled the young people with another three and a
half tree dollars in debt, and we straddled with a
tax code is even more unfair to them. And I
was on a squawk box this morning Andrew Ross Hawking,
and somebody needs to do an intervention on capitalism because
if it goes the way it's gone, it's going up
in flames because it's just not producing.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Results for a whole lot of people.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
And the only way you can do that is you
got to intervings that way a minute, tails us try
to make this a little bit more equitable, if you will.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I'm sure they love that. On squawk Box.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well, he said something like, well some people will leave.
I said, well, you know what, if you're a billionaire,
you can't pay forty percent, get your ass.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Out of the country. We don't need you if you
go into the country.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
And if people went up Sugar Oak Hill and charged
the stone Wall and Bredickson did all the stuff they did,
and you can you know we paid thirty nine and
a half percent of the night. It is proffers a
decade we've had sheet since since the law, at least
maybe even longer than that. And I'm sorry if it
hurts you feelings, you know, think, oh you've gotten from
this country and how every carrot interest is just in
(02:32):
all it's like a I'm a cradle, kathlic it's it's
a sewing maral, it's a cent. And we got we
got an adjustice.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
The taxation on carried interest, which is much lower than
income taxes.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
It's not worth explaining, but to billing asked to do
hedge funds, if they lose their money, you know, if
they make money, they only pay a lower rate.
Speaker 5 (02:54):
Than you do.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
You're hearing from billionaire is that they're saying it's not fair.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
And the first people that called me, and you should
look them up, patriotic millionaires.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Oh I know those guys.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Yeah, And they called and I have a main names
when I was in New York, two big and ass
and both of them you would probably know.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
But I'm not going to mention your names because they didn't.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I didn't ask them who will both being as and
said this is this is not going to work much long.
And I hear that constantly. Is the inequality and the
amount of money that is going to say to net
sabers at the costs of that Brawers is ridiculous that
people can't young people can't buy a house. They don't
think you can afford an education. And all of this
(03:41):
is happening in four percent unemployment. Do you want me
to tell you what this is going to look like
in seven percent unemployment?
Speaker 5 (03:46):
No?
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Okay, this country, since two thousand and nine, we've had
asset appreciation the likes of which you could not imagine.
Do you take S and P growth and then take
hourly wage growth from two thousand from ten to now
and see what that line looks like. And somebody has
to do an intervention. It just can't continue like this.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
The Democratic brand is also bad, not as bad as
the Trump brand, but bad.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Do you think that's part of this look?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I don't care about the parted brand elections like we
were like we just wanted earlier this month. The brand
can be in the sewer, okay, right. The problem is
I think the brand, the fact that we want and
I like these images of Santa Kelly and Slotkin and
Gego and them, you know, this whole thing showing that, hey,
(04:38):
you know, we can be macho, we can stand up
to think. That's going to help. And I'm just so
excited about this presidential contest coming up in twenty twenty eight.
When people see the talent we have, it's going to
be fine. Now, I'd tell you right now, I would
much rather be a Democrat than a Republican, much much rather.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
But that is, there still really are internal fractions, and
I'd love you to talk about because I think your
idea of economic populism is really important and it's the
only way I think for Democrats to really move forward.
It's both a moral precedent and it's also politically smart.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Yeah, there's not a wing of the Democratic Party, and
as I pointed out, for whatever reason, I view myself
as that. But people think I'm a center is it
always Holly, I'm no such thing. I'm a liberal, Okay.
I believe in a progressive tax code, I believe in
inclusion and opportunity and whatever.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
But that's going to be determined by the primaries.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
So whatever the wings are hearing it, you know, shure,
somebody from the more progressive wing is going to run.
Is going to be some one of them. You can
do pragmatic governors. There's going to be some. It's going
to be a lot of different people. And the decision
is going to be made by Democratic primary voters that
vote in presidential primaries. And I'm going to say this
(05:57):
without fear of hesitation, equivocation around servation. Southern blacks picked
the Democratic nominee. Okay, is not picked in Queens, is
not picked in bel Air, it's not picked in Marin County.
It's picked by Southern Blacks.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
And that is the way it should be.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Because time and time again, we didn't win New Hampshire
in ninety two, Obama loss, Biden loss. What happened as
soon as it came south, the hammer dropped. And I
think that's going to be the case this time. And
I got news. The Democratic Party in its modern history
has never nominated the most quote liberal whatever that means,
(06:36):
un quote candidate.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
South Carolina is actually the fourth, the third or the
fourth the third.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
It don't matter, right, That's the one that people look at.
That's where they go campaign again, Yes you got, we
got New Hampshire. I don't know what our does now.
Nevada has something.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Who remembers who won the Nevada Caucasus right now?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Okay, everybody, Now, look, I don't think it's going to
change because and I think that Southern Black should deservedly
deserve this exalted position because they've shown that they pretty
judicious in the candidate they select, and they're a big
part of the base of the Democratic Party, and there
should be a card into respect.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
But a lot of Southern Black voters are really disenfranchised.
So South Carolina, no, they're more franchised. But say Mississippi, Louisiana,
I mean, are there do you see any efforts to
get those voters to be able to be engaged in
voting products.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Well, I think we're going to American prediction, all right,
or bursted down. I'm not at all impaired. I think
Missippi is going to have a Democratic center by the
time the primary is a twenty twenty eight roll around
name it's Scott Column. I think there is a chance
if you can go on Predicted one of these betting sites,
(07:55):
you can get good art. I would take Scott Column
to defeat Cindy high Smith.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
And now that Tupperville is leaving the Senate, you know
Cindy Hyde Range is well, he's learning for governess. I
guess he was staying in the city. He might Doug
Jones might beat You don't do kid yourself?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Really?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Yeah, tell me why. Well, Doug was a senator from
from Alabama. He was prosecuted, prosecuted. The people in Birmingham
were those children. Uh, he's very Alabama. He's very personal
and tumboviille. How do I say this delicately? He's goofy.
(08:39):
All right, he's goofy. He can't debate Doug Jones and
you know, and that kind of coature you got to
you gotta stand up for yourself. He doesn't have the
IQ to remotely get on the same stage with Doug Jones,
and he knows it, and I think dogs makes a
pay out of it.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
He's also kind of dumb.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
Yes, it's goof he's done. Yeah, he's goofy.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
The thing about him is the most amusing human being
on earth is a person who is really stupid and
thinks they're smart.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
That's what he is.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
That's first of why he has ending entertainment. He doesn't
know how stupid he is.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
There are opportunities right now because Democrats have these even
though the whatever, the brand, has some kind of problem
in the elections, they are just way overperforming. We have
a special election in like ten days in Nashville for
a jerrymander. That's a R plus twenty one. So it's unlikely.
(09:39):
But what are you seeing other opportunities in the South.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Well, you've got to see how some of this redistricting
stuff turns up. But I think Virginia will pick up
to house stats of North Carolina is a most certain
of flip to Democrat in the Senate if jerrymandered these things,
so you kind of limited this to the number of
(10:03):
seats you can get. But right now Democrats are running fifth,
I don't know, fifteen points ahead of the expected foremast
ten fifty, maybe ten to fifteen, I think. But it's
been pretty consistent. And if you look at the elections
earlier this month, the two things that really impress you
is the magnitude and but equal in partner is the breath.
It didn't matter where you were, even California, You're in Mississippi, Pennsylvania,
(10:27):
wherever he was just in Virginia and New There. It
was just it was all. It was breathtaking amounts. And
you know this as well as I do, because we
talked to a lot of saint people. Everybody was panicked
about Mikey schell, Oh my gosh, not that good at canidate.
Oh my god, a TV is not that guy shit around?
Oh my god, Murphy's unpopu. Oh my god, it's really
going to be called Oh my god. I can see
(10:47):
Spanberg of winning about ten, but I think Eryl could
lose by a point or two. What happened vacialism is
still being blown sky high. And it was all about Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Yeah, but you know, as someone who and there to
cover Mikey and who wrote about it for the New
York Times too, it was all about Trump, but it
was also all about I think people were worried that
the electorate was a lot more sexist than we thought
it was going to be, because remember, we have run
two Democratic women and they've both just gotten creamed by Trump.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Well, first of all, I mean not Hillary, but.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
Shitty had creamed right.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Look, and everybody assumed that the shifts away from the
demo frass about Hispanics and younger voters was permanent.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
It was no such thing.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
If you look at the results in the Passaic County,
I guess it is, or any other place.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
You can see it right there right back.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I think there's a Maya's race in Miami coming up
too sometimes, and it hadn't been a democratic may have
Miami in a long time, and I think we're going
to help word.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
This time Miami.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
I don't know, it's so Florida's sort of feels like
it's wait and see, tipped into the ocean of republicanism.
I do think it is worth talking about the rage
component of economic populism for just a minute. Okay, So
what you write about is that the electorate is just
super angry on the left and the right.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
I think it's really true.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Is economic populism the only way to catch that electorate?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Or are there other well?
Speaker 3 (12:22):
I think whatever we call it economic populism, Okay. First
of all, it has to be done. It's the moral
thing to do, all right, And if we don't do it,
then we keep sliding towards greater inequality, very very bad
things can happen to the country.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
The second thing is all popular.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
There's nothing more popular than tact and rich people and
use it the money to give young people opportunity. It's
a seventy five percent issue. I'm sorry, it just is.
It's not only the moral thing to do, it's not
only the right thing to do, it's the popular thing
to do. Is the politically smart thing to do. Everything
that you want in a policy tells you that you'd
have to have an aggressive economic program to give opportunity
(13:03):
to people who are trying to make it. And if
that cost come from people that already have it made,
then so be it. Somebody helped them before they made it.
I mean I went to when I was educated on
the GI bill, all right, I had guaranteed low interest
rates and we got to, you know, somebody, I had
(13:24):
almost free college because you're not to pay any money
to go to the state university back then. We've got
to create opportunity for hungry young people. Right now, they
just see themselves being able to afford anything.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
So you think it's partially tax incentives, partially free college
partially really do forgive it as yeah?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Long forgiveness is a a little more of a sticky issue.
But obviously, the more you can expand college. The more
you can bring the cost out to help people who
are better off, that's going to be And yes, the text,
yes you can remember we got thirty eight thirty nine
trillion dollars in debt. The tax code is a statement
of the nation's priorities, and right now the nation's priorities
(14:08):
all we hope people already haven't made and we kicked
a crap out of people who are trying to make it.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
And I think that's a long priority.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
How do you think like what we saw with Trump
was these Democrats did a video about the military. Veteran
Democrats did this video, don't disobey the law. That was
the video, right, don't disobey the law. It made Donald
Trump completely crazy and started calling for them to be hanged.
(14:36):
Is this smart politics? It seems like it's elevated Mark
Kelly and so many other people in the video.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
I think my budg say our friend Ruben after they
was not happy. It is not a happy camp. But look,
I think that there are people. It is not an
academic discussion that what And I think they were probably
talking to senior officers. They weren't talking to the last corporal.
(15:04):
All right, very likely that this guy, is he gets desperate,
is going to give illegal arts. It is and that
is not a that's just not a theoretical thing I'm
going to have at a seminar at the Naval Academy
or at West Point.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
That's a real possibility.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
That is something that people You notice that people discuss
what do you do if this crazy over this shows
you to go, you know, look look at what they're doing.
So I think there was a real purpose behind what
they said, and they wanted to be very clear if
you're thinking about doing something crazy, you know, watch out,
because people don't have to follow your art. And I
(15:42):
think it's clear. And I think what they said, which
is in the Uniform Code of Military Justice anyway, that
you're not supposed to follow neeial or so anything drives
him crazy, and the crazier he gets. Now you know,
he said, well, affordability, that's he's discovered that were and
of course you can't. He's not doing anything about it,
(16:04):
and he just keeps getting distracted, and it does take
much of distract him.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I think you're right, and I think it is reasonable
to assume that Donald Trump will do stuff like that.
But I just want you for one more minute to
talk about this idea. Is it's more politics, because it
certainly has, Like I think about Newsom, like Newsom got
those five seats for Democrats, it was needed, but it also.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Fighting with Trump did in fact elevate him.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
I think there's circumstances of certainly develement Governor Newsom. I
think since Kelly was obviously elevated by this, I think
Governor Pritsko has been somewhat elevated by us. But there's
a long way to go between nine to time people
were run for president. If I had to guess, I
don't twenty twenty eight. I think the American people already
(16:54):
are sick of Trump. They're going to really be sick
of Trump, and they're really going to be sick of
talking about Trump. And I think the candidate that says
I'm going to focus on the voters in the future
in less than Trump, I think we'll do better. Right now,
everybody wants Trump to attack them because it enhances their
position in the party. And I think now done a
(17:14):
good job obviously sent to Kelly, you know, was up
to this mission to say the least right. Same thing
would come to Prisky but I just think that Trump fatigue,
I don't know what you call it, more than fatiguels him.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
It's just going to get worse and worse.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Yeah, I think that's right, and certainly leveling the West wing.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Well, they say they're gonna fire, o't He's supposed to
fire a bunch of people, according to.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
It, from his cabinet, his people or government.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
No, his people.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
I mean there was a story that who knows Saturday,
It's all I'm gonna do is replace somebody who's really
offered with someone who's even more off.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Yeah, James Carville, I hope he'll come back.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
I will come back.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
And remember if the way he is to be economically
aggressive to make this a more the way you make
this society more professes, you make it more just, and
you create more opportunity.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working
Class Politics.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Jared Abbott, Welcome to vast Politics.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Thank you, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
First, we've got to start with the democratic penalty because
this is such a fascinating idea. So I want you
to explain to us where this came from, how you
got here everything.
Speaker 6 (18:37):
Yeah, Well, we center Ford and Cross Politics, where I'm
the director. We're trying to We have this intuition, like
most people on our side do, that the Democratic brand
is very weak, is particularly among independents and obviously Republicans.
But we wanted to quantify that in some way that
would allow us to just go out there and tell
Democrats all over the country like, this is literally what
(18:59):
you losing just by being a Democrat. And so we
did this survey in restpout states, in four states in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Ohio. And we had some of the best versions
of strong economic populist candidates, their sound bites, and we
sort of gave these to the respondents and the survey
(19:20):
and very strong candidates that we think would do well
in those in those states.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
And some of the respondents.
Speaker 6 (19:27):
Got those great economic populist champions as Democrats, and some
of them got the exact same candidates as independents. And
it turns out that changing nothing else but the party
identification costs Democrats in Ohio like fifteen points. They costs
democrats in Michigan, you know, ten or eleven points. The
(19:48):
one state where we actually didn't see a penalty at
all was in Pennsylvania. And there's a lot of potential
reasons for that, but in general, we see that in
these quite working class heavy states without as large of
sort of metropolitan urban centers like in Pennsylvania. You know,
we see these major penalties simply by having the D
next to your name, and that helps us to explain,
(20:08):
you know why it's maybe the greatest champion in the
Senate of economic populism, Jared Brown, you know, couldn't overcome
you know, that disadvantage despite him his Berkeley being very
popular in the state and running on what we think,
you know, created in a lab should be you know,
the perfect messaging for working class voters in Ohio.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
I want to go back to Sharon Brown in a minute,
but first I just want to like game this out
in Pennsylvania. Is the reason that the D next to
the name not toxic in Pennsylvania because of Governor Shapiro
in any which way?
Speaker 5 (20:42):
I don't know. I mean it could be.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
I think that's a reasonable hypothesis, and we're doing some
follow up work now to dig into this.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
Because he's very popular. He's a Democrat, Yeah, he is
very popular.
Speaker 5 (20:54):
You know.
Speaker 6 (20:54):
Governor Whitmer's not unpopular and so it's not like there's
a there's a huge distinction.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
So I don't actually know.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
I think there's a lot of potential reasons why that
could be the case, and we're sort of digging into it.
But we do know that in places in Pennsylvania, you
know that we're more Republican leaning, that we're more working
class heavy, we do see that penalty. So stay wide,
we don't see it, but we do see it in
areas that look more like the Roustbelt parts of.
Speaker 5 (21:23):
Michigan or Ohio or Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
So it sounds like your working theory, as much as
you have one, is that DS do better in urban
areas and the D penalty is worse in rural areas.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
Yes, that's correct, and that's not verified yet.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
We're still doing more tests, but I think that that's
probably an important part of the story.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
So can you explain to us is tied to the
race of the voters at all?
Speaker 6 (21:49):
It could be there's a stronger democratic penalty among white
voters than black voters.
Speaker 5 (21:55):
Definitely that's the case.
Speaker 6 (21:56):
And the democratic penalty also has a gender dynae, even
among black voters, where it's significantly larger among black men
than it is among black women.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
The penalty is quite.
Speaker 6 (22:10):
Large, in fact larger among Latino voters in our survey
than it was among white voters, which is really interesting.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
So that is interesting. So you have the penalty is
the worst for Latino voters. I mean, the penalty speaks
to the brand absolutely.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
So if you have.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Latino voters with it the least happy, and then you
have white voters in the middle, and then you have
black female voters as the sort of most open to
the brand, I think that's very interesting.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
Yeah, absolutely, and it's something that you know, even though
there is this penalty, we're not trying to draw conclusions
from this. You know that Democrats can't make up ground,
they can't turn their image around, but we do think
that they're going to have to work extremely hard to
do so among these voters for whom Democratic brand is
(23:01):
you know, basically in the trash can. And there's a
sense in which they can only really do that if they.
Speaker 5 (23:09):
Focus on economic populace and in.
Speaker 6 (23:12):
Cases where it's possible, we think that people that are
trying to beat Republicans, be they Democrats or independents, you know,
they should think even more outside the box of not
running Democratic candidates like like like Dan Osborne and Nebraska.
Speaker 5 (23:25):
We don't know how well he's going to do this year.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Obviously, but he ran a campaign that was you know,
way ahead of Harris in Nebraska, and he outperformed baseline expectations,
you know, even compared to virtually anybody else running for
the Senate. And so places like that where Democrats are
just never going to win, at least in the short
to medium term, are the places where you know, we
need to be thinking much more creatively about different options
(23:50):
for be being Republicans. And I think our survey shows
you know how important that is. But it doesn't mean
that in places where you know that's not viable because
you know, there's always going to be a Democratic candidate
and we don't want to elect the Republican that they
can't do things that are going to improve the odds
by doubling down on you know, cost of living, affordability,
(24:11):
and also anger at the economic elites that have been
screwing over working people in this country for decades. And thankfully,
I mean, like a bolt of lightning from the heavens,
Jim Carville comes out with the you know, with the.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
Of the New York Times this week like preaching my
my gospel.
Speaker 6 (24:27):
So I was extremely pleased to see that what we're saying,
and what many others you know that have been saying
similar things, is breaking through and, if not becoming consensus
among Democrats by any stretch of the imagination, certainly taking
up a lot more airspace than than it did in
twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
James Carvell is the other guest in this episode. One
is when I read that, I was like.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Holy shit, we got to get James on here. But yes,
I want to go back for a minute to Dan
Osborne because he's very central to this thesis in a.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Lot of ways.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
For sure, even though I just want to say, like
for my own edification and also because black women have
just been continually screwed again and again and again and
by American politics in every which way, is interesting to
me that they are the most positive on the brand
because they are the base of the party in a
lot of different ways. And they also, you know, you
(25:20):
have to wonder how their relationship to the Harris run,
you know what I mean, Like I just I just
wonder how much that affects them. But that again, neither
of us can speak to that particularly, but talk to
us about Dianne Osborne though, because he did really run
and again it was a very tough race. Nebraska is tough.
(25:40):
He's going to run again. But I just he really
didn't embody a lot of what you're talking about.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
Yeah, for sure, this is somebody that is able to
speak the language of working people in a way that
most Democrats are not. And he talked about the problems
of corporate greed, and he can inequality, you know, viscerally
from his own experience, right, somebody who had literally been
a union organizer, had you know, been a leader in
(26:08):
a strike against you know, big corporation, n Keller Corporation.
And he's somebody who literally embodied all of the kinds
of values and the critiques that working class people have
had for decades about you know, the fact that our
country is essentially being run by by an oligarchy. And
in addition to that, he was really smart about knowing
(26:31):
the electorate of Nebraska. Right, we need to have candidates
who can win in a huge diversity of places in
this country, many more than you know, currently Democrats aren't
really capable of winning in and that requires somebody like
Dan Osborne who's able to talk to voters about, you know,
difficult issues in a way that they can understand, in
(26:53):
a way that they don't find to be condescending, but
without completely undermining or you know Negaate, you know core
values that he has about the importance of civil rights
and of human dignity. And so I think there's many
lessons that can be drawn from that, and I think
many candidates this year are drawing from those lessons. And
we see a much wider bench of economic populist candidates
(27:15):
running in very difficult contexts and competitive context than we
saw last year.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
And I think that's very encouraging.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
So you're talking about Graham Platner.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
I'm talking about Platner, I'm talking about Nathan Sage, and
I I'm talking about Rebecca Cook in Wisconsin.
Speaker 5 (27:31):
We're seeing a bench here of House.
Speaker 6 (27:34):
Candidates and even the Senate candidates and Gubernor Tour, I
mean Governor elect Cheryl in New Jersey was running a
quite a populist, like a shocking lead from my vantage
point populist campaign and sounding like I don't know if
it's Jen Osborne or Berry Sanders or whoever else, but
sounding like a real populace in a way that I
wouldn't have really imagined before. And so I think that
(27:55):
that kind of candidate is expanding in scope and getting
more of a serious here from funders than they would
have in the past. And I also think that that
general ethos, as you're going to hear from Carville as well,
is seeping into the party in a really positive way
that I think that, combined with the surprisingly strong showing
that Democrats had in twenty twenty five, is putting us
(28:17):
on the path. You know, it making me at least
more hopeful than I was six months ago.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
You can't talk about this subject without talking about the
Democratic brand being bad.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
It's not as bad as a Trump brand.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Well, it's not far off.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
It's not far off.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
We have this fight club happening in the Senate, and
I want to talk about it. There's an article in
your Times, reported article about this group of senators, Chris Murphy,
Tina Smith. I was a little surprised to see Van
(28:54):
Holland in there.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
And again van Holland, you'll remember.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Went to visit kil Mar Obrego Garcia, who was a
marilynd Man. So got Van Holland in there. Bernie and
Warren not a huge surprise, but Van Holland Basically, these
guys they're mad at the sort of establishment recruiting, the
establishment push.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
It's called fight Club.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
And they're mad at both Humor and Jilibrand because Jillibrand
is the Senate, is the head of the Senate's Democratic
campaign arm and they're mad. They basically, I'm just going
to give you their sort of demands. I think this
is super interesting in my mind. And the other senators
in this group are Marquee, which makes sense, Merkley, Martin Heinrich,
(29:44):
all my sort of secret favorites. But basically, what I
think is really interesting is they're mad about the candidates
that these guys have picked. And I think it's important
because they feel they're too corporate friendly. But some of
these candidates, the sort of establishment candidates they picked, aren't
so great, right, Like, especially in Michigan, Haley Stevens seems like,
I mean, we've had it on this podcast. She seems
(30:05):
like she's really struggling. So I'd love you to sort
of talk us through what you think about this division,
and it sort of goes along with what you're thinking.
Speaker 6 (30:14):
Is yeah, no, I mean, I think that's great that
there's pushback against you know, the same all same, all
sorts of tried and true but not you know, very
successful corporate democrats, and you know, to build that bench
of people that are saying within that within the chamber,
you know that we need a new kind of Democrat
that has a different image and a different brand. And
(30:35):
and like you said, the great thing about that is
it kind of cuts across the ideological divisions within the party.
And I think and even like a Mom Donnie kind
of is part like in the ether there, right, or
maybe not even like especially.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Especially because we have Schumer has been just such a
disaster on monomie and Jill Brant was spreading this lie
that he had said globalizenifat and when in fact there
was no nothing to that.
Speaker 6 (30:59):
And meanwhile, the you know, the most consummate populist politician
in the United States, you know, is enthralled with Mom Donnie, right,
Donald Trump. And so you know, we're we're definitely seeing
the line shifting and some of the traditional divisions and
axes of competition sort of breaking down and sort of
recasting itself along this sort of elite anti elite axis
(31:19):
and I think that's extremely healthy for the Democratic Party,
and I think that confrontation is long overdue, and I
hope that it deepens and continues so that we can
actually show working people as Democrats, not that you know,
we can say the right thing, but that we're actually
willing to take some risks, We're actually willing to break
some eggs in order to make you know, more pro
working class omelets.
Speaker 5 (31:40):
So to speak.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
Tell me what you think leadership should be doing. The
polls say the brand is bad, what can make the
brand better?
Speaker 6 (31:48):
Well, I think that we're seeing this sort of confirmed
across a range of different recent autopsies like the Deciding
to Win report and you know, Mitch Landers outfit the
Working Class Project put out a report a couple of
weeks ago, and our reports recently have basically shown that
there's a number of pretty common sense things that Democrats
need to do, ranging from having more people with working
(32:09):
class backgrounds run for office. Number one is that alone
just creates a messenger that's so much like a Dan
Osborne just shows us so clearly who can connect with
folks just based on his own background in a very
effective way. And beyond that, yeah, focusing like a laser
on affordability and on offering not just affordability in a
(32:31):
narrow sense, but also offering a vision for a middle
class future for Americans, so that Americans feel like their kids'
lives are going to be better than theirs, like my
grandparents thought, like my parents thought, but like I as
a millennial on most people in my generation and lower generations,
the younger generations don't feel.
Speaker 5 (32:49):
And the third part of the sauce.
Speaker 6 (32:51):
Is to sort of along with what you were just
saying a couple of minutes ago, Molly, really attack the
corporate establishment of this country and take a real fight
and say that there are battle lines here. We're not
going to continue to let this country be run by
economic elites and oligarchs. We need to send costly signals
to voters that we actually believe that our country has
(33:13):
been run in this way and that we are at
a forty year hold of corporate dominance or neoliberalism sometimes
people call it, and that that's got a change.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Costly symbols. You have ninety seconds to explain what that means.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
Democrats need to be willing to pick fights with people
that might be, you know, have given them money in
the past, and they need to be willing to actually
burn some bridges.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
And they need to be willing.
Speaker 6 (33:37):
To show voters that they're not just saying things on TV,
but then at home and among their donors and strategists
doing something completely different.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
They need to put their money where their mouth.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Is that a a pack, it's.
Speaker 6 (33:49):
You know, not taking you know, corporate donations. Having more
candidates commit to a rule of no corporate pack money
would be a great start.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Jared, this is so interesting. I hope you will come
back absolutely.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Thanks for listening.
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. We're on vacation, but that doesn't mean
we don't have a great show for you today. The
Center for Working Class Politics Shared Abbott stops by to
talk to us about the democratic penalty and how Democrats
can win with.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
A populist message.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
But first we'll talk to legendary democratic poster the Ragin
Cajun James Carvill.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
James Carvell, welcome back.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Well, thank you. I love I love being on our
favorite podcast to come on.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
Thank you very.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Much, thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I've read this piece you wrote in the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
I agree one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
I want you to tell me first, why do you
think economic populism is the only way to go?
Speaker 3 (00:50):
Well, I think it for a couple of reasons, and
I've been thinking about it, had been building up for
a time. The Scott Galloway lecture on Generational the Really
it's got me to thinking a lot deeper about it.
And I'll be honest with you, Molly. I started hearing
from the biggionair class saying we got to do something.
This is just not this is not work. I mean,
(01:11):
Peter Platt, just for a fact, for Saint James, you
need to say something because the amount of wealth that
is going to older people and savers and people that
already have wealth is just overwhelming.
Speaker 4 (01:24):
And what have we done this year.
Speaker 3 (01:27):
We've straddled the young people with another three and a
half tree dollars in debt, and we straddled with a
tax code is even more unfair to them. And I
was on a squawk box this morning Andrew Ross Hawking,
and somebody needs to do an intervention on capitalism because
if it goes the way it's gone, it's going up
in flames because it's just not producing.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Results for a whole lot of people.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
And the only way you can do that is you
got to intervings that way a minute, tails us try
to make this a little bit more equitable, if you will.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
I'm sure they love that. On squawk Box.
Speaker 3 (01:59):
Well, he said something like, well some people will leave.
I said, well, you know what, if you're a billionaire,
you can't pay forty percent, get your ass.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Out of the country. We don't need you if you
go into the country.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
And if people went up Sugar Oak Hill and charged
the stone Wall and Bredickson did all the stuff they did,
and you can you know we paid thirty nine and
a half percent of the night. It is proffers a
decade we've had sheet since since the law, at least
maybe even longer than that. And I'm sorry if it
hurts you feelings, you know, think, oh you've gotten from
this country and how every carrot interest is just in
(02:32):
all it's like a I'm a cradle, kathlic it's it's
a sewing maral, it's a cent. And we got we
got an adjustice.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
The taxation on carried interest, which is much lower than
income taxes.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
It's not worth explaining, but to billing asked to do
hedge funds, if they lose their money, you know, if
they make money, they only pay a lower rate.
Speaker 5 (02:54):
Than you do.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
You're hearing from billionaire is that they're saying it's not fair.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
And the first people that called me, and you should
look them up, patriotic millionaires.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
Oh I know those guys.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Yeah, And they called and I have a main names
when I was in New York, two big and ass
and both of them you would probably know.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
But I'm not going to mention your names because they didn't.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
I didn't ask them who will both being as and
said this is this is not going to work much long.
And I hear that constantly. Is the inequality and the
amount of money that is going to say to net
sabers at the costs of that Brawers is ridiculous that
people can't young people can't buy a house. They don't
think you can afford an education. And all of this
(03:41):
is happening in four percent unemployment. Do you want me
to tell you what this is going to look like
in seven percent unemployment?
Speaker 5 (03:46):
No?
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Okay, this country, since two thousand and nine, we've had
asset appreciation the likes of which you could not imagine.
Do you take S and P growth and then take
hourly wage growth from two thousand from ten to now
and see what that line looks like. And somebody has
to do an intervention. It just can't continue like this.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
The Democratic brand is also bad, not as bad as
the Trump brand, but bad.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Do you think that's part of this look?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I don't care about the parted brand elections like we
were like we just wanted earlier this month. The brand
can be in the sewer, okay, right. The problem is
I think the brand, the fact that we want and
I like these images of Santa Kelly and Slotkin and
Gego and them, you know, this whole thing showing that, hey,
(04:38):
you know, we can be macho, we can stand up
to think. That's going to help. And I'm just so
excited about this presidential contest coming up in twenty twenty eight.
When people see the talent we have, it's going to
be fine. Now, I'd tell you right now, I would
much rather be a Democrat than a Republican, much much rather.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
But that is, there still really are internal fractions, and
I'd love you to talk about because I think your
idea of economic populism is really important and it's the
only way I think for Democrats to really move forward.
It's both a moral precedent and it's also politically smart.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Yeah, there's not a wing of the Democratic Party, and
as I pointed out, for whatever reason, I view myself
as that. But people think I'm a center is it
always Holly, I'm no such thing. I'm a liberal, Okay.
I believe in a progressive tax code, I believe in
inclusion and opportunity and whatever.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
But that's going to be determined by the primaries.
Speaker 3 (05:34):
So whatever the wings are hearing it, you know, shure,
somebody from the more progressive wing is going to run.
Is going to be some one of them. You can
do pragmatic governors. There's going to be some. It's going
to be a lot of different people. And the decision
is going to be made by Democratic primary voters that
vote in presidential primaries. And I'm going to say this
(05:57):
without fear of hesitation, equivocation around servation. Southern blacks picked
the Democratic nominee. Okay, is not picked in Queens, is
not picked in bel Air, it's not picked in Marin County.
It's picked by Southern Blacks.
Speaker 4 (06:14):
And that is the way it should be.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
Because time and time again, we didn't win New Hampshire
in ninety two, Obama loss, Biden loss. What happened as
soon as it came south, the hammer dropped. And I
think that's going to be the case this time. And
I got news. The Democratic Party in its modern history
has never nominated the most quote liberal whatever that means,
(06:36):
un quote candidate.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
South Carolina is actually the fourth, the third or the
fourth the third.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
It don't matter, right, That's the one that people look at.
That's where they go campaign again, Yes you got, we
got New Hampshire. I don't know what our does now.
Nevada has something.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Who remembers who won the Nevada Caucasus right now?
Speaker 3 (06:58):
Okay, everybody, Now, look, I don't think it's going to
change because and I think that Southern Black should deservedly
deserve this exalted position because they've shown that they pretty
judicious in the candidate they select, and they're a big
part of the base of the Democratic Party, and there
should be a card into respect.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
But a lot of Southern Black voters are really disenfranchised.
So South Carolina, no, they're more franchised. But say Mississippi, Louisiana,
I mean, are there do you see any efforts to
get those voters to be able to be engaged in
voting products.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Well, I think we're going to American prediction, all right,
or bursted down. I'm not at all impaired. I think
Missippi is going to have a Democratic center by the
time the primary is a twenty twenty eight roll around
name it's Scott Column. I think there is a chance
if you can go on Predicted one of these betting sites,
(07:55):
you can get good art. I would take Scott Column
to defeat Cindy high Smith.
Speaker 4 (08:01):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
And now that Tupperville is leaving the Senate, you know
Cindy Hyde Range is well, he's learning for governess. I
guess he was staying in the city. He might Doug
Jones might beat You don't do kid yourself?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Really?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
Yeah, tell me why. Well, Doug was a senator from
from Alabama. He was prosecuted, prosecuted. The people in Birmingham
were those children. Uh, he's very Alabama. He's very personal
and tumboviille. How do I say this delicately? He's goofy.
(08:39):
All right, he's goofy. He can't debate Doug Jones and
you know, and that kind of coature you got to
you gotta stand up for yourself. He doesn't have the
IQ to remotely get on the same stage with Doug Jones,
and he knows it, and I think dogs makes a
pay out of it.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
He's also kind of dumb.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
Yes, it's goof he's done. Yeah, he's goofy.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
The thing about him is the most amusing human being
on earth is a person who is really stupid and
thinks they're smart.
Speaker 4 (09:10):
That's what he is.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
That's first of why he has ending entertainment. He doesn't
know how stupid he is.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
There are opportunities right now because Democrats have these even
though the whatever, the brand, has some kind of problem
in the elections, they are just way overperforming. We have
a special election in like ten days in Nashville for
a jerrymander. That's a R plus twenty one. So it's unlikely.
(09:39):
But what are you seeing other opportunities in the South.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Well, you've got to see how some of this redistricting
stuff turns up. But I think Virginia will pick up
to house stats of North Carolina is a most certain
of flip to Democrat in the Senate if jerrymandered these things,
so you kind of limited this to the number of
(10:03):
seats you can get. But right now Democrats are running fifth,
I don't know, fifteen points ahead of the expected foremast
ten fifty, maybe ten to fifteen, I think. But it's
been pretty consistent. And if you look at the elections
earlier this month, the two things that really impress you
is the magnitude and but equal in partner is the breath.
It didn't matter where you were, even California, You're in Mississippi, Pennsylvania,
(10:27):
wherever he was just in Virginia and New There. It
was just it was all. It was breathtaking amounts. And
you know this as well as I do, because we
talked to a lot of saint people. Everybody was panicked
about Mikey schell, Oh my gosh, not that good at canidate.
Oh my god, a TV is not that guy shit around?
Oh my god, Murphy's unpopu. Oh my god, it's really
going to be called Oh my god. I can see
(10:47):
Spanberg of winning about ten, but I think Eryl could
lose by a point or two. What happened vacialism is
still being blown sky high. And it was all about Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Yeah, but you know, as someone who and there to
cover Mikey and who wrote about it for the New
York Times too, it was all about Trump, but it
was also all about I think people were worried that
the electorate was a lot more sexist than we thought
it was going to be, because remember, we have run
two Democratic women and they've both just gotten creamed by Trump.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Well, first of all, I mean not Hillary, but.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
Shitty had creamed right.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Look, and everybody assumed that the shifts away from the
demo frass about Hispanics and younger voters was permanent.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
It was no such thing.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
If you look at the results in the Passaic County,
I guess it is, or any other place.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
You can see it right there right back.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
I think there's a Maya's race in Miami coming up
too sometimes, and it hadn't been a democratic may have
Miami in a long time, and I think we're going
to help word.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
This time Miami.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
I don't know, it's so Florida's sort of feels like
it's wait and see, tipped into the ocean of republicanism.
I do think it is worth talking about the rage
component of economic populism for just a minute. Okay, So
what you write about is that the electorate is just
super angry on the left and the right.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
I think it's really true.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Is economic populism the only way to catch that electorate?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Or are there other well?
Speaker 3 (12:22):
I think whatever we call it economic populism, Okay. First
of all, it has to be done. It's the moral
thing to do, all right, And if we don't do it,
then we keep sliding towards greater inequality, very very bad
things can happen to the country.
Speaker 4 (12:38):
The second thing is all popular.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
There's nothing more popular than tact and rich people and
use it the money to give young people opportunity. It's
a seventy five percent issue. I'm sorry, it just is.
It's not only the moral thing to do, it's not
only the right thing to do, it's the popular thing
to do. Is the politically smart thing to do. Everything
that you want in a policy tells you that you'd
have to have an aggressive economic program to give opportunity
(13:03):
to people who are trying to make it. And if
that cost come from people that already have it made,
then so be it. Somebody helped them before they made it.
I mean I went to when I was educated on
the GI bill, all right, I had guaranteed low interest
rates and we got to, you know, somebody, I had
(13:24):
almost free college because you're not to pay any money
to go to the state university back then. We've got
to create opportunity for hungry young people. Right now, they
just see themselves being able to afford anything.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
So you think it's partially tax incentives, partially free college
partially really do forgive it as yeah?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Long forgiveness is a a little more of a sticky issue.
But obviously, the more you can expand college. The more
you can bring the cost out to help people who
are better off, that's going to be And yes, the text,
yes you can remember we got thirty eight thirty nine
trillion dollars in debt. The tax code is a statement
of the nation's priorities, and right now the nation's priorities
(14:08):
all we hope people already haven't made and we kicked
a crap out of people who are trying to make it.
Speaker 4 (14:13):
And I think that's a long priority.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
How do you think like what we saw with Trump
was these Democrats did a video about the military. Veteran
Democrats did this video, don't disobey the law. That was
the video, right, don't disobey the law. It made Donald
Trump completely crazy and started calling for them to be hanged.
(14:36):
Is this smart politics? It seems like it's elevated Mark
Kelly and so many other people in the video.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
I think my budg say our friend Ruben after they
was not happy. It is not a happy camp. But look,
I think that there are people. It is not an
academic discussion that what And I think they were probably
talking to senior officers. They weren't talking to the last corporal.
(15:04):
All right, very likely that this guy, is he gets desperate,
is going to give illegal arts. It is and that
is not a that's just not a theoretical thing I'm
going to have at a seminar at the Naval Academy
or at West Point.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
That's a real possibility.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
That is something that people You notice that people discuss
what do you do if this crazy over this shows
you to go, you know, look look at what they're doing.
So I think there was a real purpose behind what
they said, and they wanted to be very clear if
you're thinking about doing something crazy, you know, watch out,
because people don't have to follow your art. And I
(15:42):
think it's clear. And I think what they said, which
is in the Uniform Code of Military Justice anyway, that
you're not supposed to follow neeial or so anything drives
him crazy, and the crazier he gets. Now you know,
he said, well, affordability, that's he's discovered that were and
of course you can't. He's not doing anything about it,
(16:04):
and he just keeps getting distracted, and it does take
much of distract him.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I think you're right, and I think it is reasonable
to assume that Donald Trump will do stuff like that.
But I just want you for one more minute to
talk about this idea. Is it's more politics, because it
certainly has, Like I think about Newsom, like Newsom got
those five seats for Democrats, it was needed, but it also.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Fighting with Trump did in fact elevate him.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
I think there's circumstances of certainly develement Governor Newsom. I
think since Kelly was obviously elevated by this, I think
Governor Pritsko has been somewhat elevated by us. But there's
a long way to go between nine to time people
were run for president. If I had to guess, I
don't twenty twenty eight. I think the American people already
(16:54):
are sick of Trump. They're going to really be sick
of Trump, and they're really going to be sick of
talking about Trump. And I think the candidate that says
I'm going to focus on the voters in the future
in less than Trump, I think we'll do better. Right now,
everybody wants Trump to attack them because it enhances their
position in the party. And I think now done a
(17:14):
good job obviously sent to Kelly, you know, was up
to this mission to say the least right. Same thing
would come to Prisky but I just think that Trump fatigue,
I don't know what you call it, more than fatiguels him.
Speaker 4 (17:27):
It's just going to get worse and worse.
Speaker 1 (17:29):
Yeah, I think that's right, and certainly leveling the West wing.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Well, they say they're gonna fire, o't He's supposed to
fire a bunch of people, according to.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
It, from his cabinet, his people or government.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
No, his people.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
I mean there was a story that who knows Saturday,
It's all I'm gonna do is replace somebody who's really
offered with someone who's even more off.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
Yeah, James Carville, I hope he'll come back.
Speaker 4 (17:57):
I will come back.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
And remember if the way he is to be economically
aggressive to make this a more the way you make
this society more professes, you make it more just, and
you create more opportunity.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Jared Abbott is the director of the Center for Working
Class Politics.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Jared Abbott, Welcome to vast Politics.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Thank you, happy to be here.
Speaker 1 (18:25):
First, we've got to start with the democratic penalty because
this is such a fascinating idea. So I want you
to explain to us where this came from, how you
got here everything.
Speaker 6 (18:37):
Yeah, Well, we center Ford and Cross Politics, where I'm
the director. We're trying to We have this intuition, like
most people on our side do, that the Democratic brand
is very weak, is particularly among independents and obviously Republicans.
But we wanted to quantify that in some way that
would allow us to just go out there and tell
Democrats all over the country like, this is literally what
(18:59):
you losing just by being a Democrat. And so we
did this survey in restpout states, in four states in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Ohio. And we had some of the best versions
of strong economic populist candidates, their sound bites, and we
sort of gave these to the respondents and the survey
(19:20):
and very strong candidates that we think would do well
in those in those states.
Speaker 5 (19:25):
And some of the respondents.
Speaker 6 (19:27):
Got those great economic populist champions as Democrats, and some
of them got the exact same candidates as independents. And
it turns out that changing nothing else but the party
identification costs Democrats in Ohio like fifteen points. They costs
democrats in Michigan, you know, ten or eleven points. The
(19:48):
one state where we actually didn't see a penalty at
all was in Pennsylvania. And there's a lot of potential
reasons for that, but in general, we see that in
these quite working class heavy states without as large of
sort of metropolitan urban centers like in Pennsylvania. You know,
we see these major penalties simply by having the D
next to your name, and that helps us to explain,
(20:08):
you know why it's maybe the greatest champion in the
Senate of economic populism, Jared Brown, you know, couldn't overcome
you know, that disadvantage despite him his Berkeley being very
popular in the state and running on what we think,
you know, created in a lab should be you know,
the perfect messaging for working class voters in Ohio.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
I want to go back to Sharon Brown in a minute,
but first I just want to like game this out
in Pennsylvania. Is the reason that the D next to
the name not toxic in Pennsylvania because of Governor Shapiro
in any which way?
Speaker 5 (20:42):
I don't know. I mean it could be.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
I think that's a reasonable hypothesis, and we're doing some
follow up work now to dig into this.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
Because he's very popular. He's a Democrat, Yeah, he is
very popular.
Speaker 5 (20:54):
You know.
Speaker 6 (20:54):
Governor Whitmer's not unpopular and so it's not like there's
a there's a huge distinction.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
So I don't actually know.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
I think there's a lot of potential reasons why that
could be the case, and we're sort of digging into it.
But we do know that in places in Pennsylvania, you
know that we're more Republican leaning, that we're more working
class heavy, we do see that penalty. So stay wide,
we don't see it, but we do see it in
areas that look more like the Roustbelt parts of.
Speaker 5 (21:23):
Michigan or Ohio or Wisconsin.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
So it sounds like your working theory, as much as
you have one, is that DS do better in urban
areas and the D penalty is worse in rural areas.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
Yes, that's correct, and that's not verified yet.
Speaker 6 (21:40):
We're still doing more tests, but I think that that's
probably an important part of the story.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
So can you explain to us is tied to the
race of the voters at all?
Speaker 6 (21:49):
It could be there's a stronger democratic penalty among white
voters than black voters.
Speaker 5 (21:55):
Definitely that's the case.
Speaker 6 (21:56):
And the democratic penalty also has a gender dynae, even
among black voters, where it's significantly larger among black men
than it is among black women.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
The penalty is quite.
Speaker 6 (22:10):
Large, in fact larger among Latino voters in our survey
than it was among white voters, which is really interesting.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
So that is interesting. So you have the penalty is
the worst for Latino voters. I mean, the penalty speaks
to the brand absolutely.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
So if you have.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
Latino voters with it the least happy, and then you
have white voters in the middle, and then you have
black female voters as the sort of most open to
the brand, I think that's very interesting.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
Yeah, absolutely, and it's something that you know, even though
there is this penalty, we're not trying to draw conclusions
from this. You know that Democrats can't make up ground,
they can't turn their image around, but we do think
that they're going to have to work extremely hard to
do so among these voters for whom Democratic brand is
(23:01):
you know, basically in the trash can. And there's a
sense in which they can only really do that if they.
Speaker 5 (23:09):
Focus on economic populace and in.
Speaker 6 (23:12):
Cases where it's possible, we think that people that are
trying to beat Republicans, be they Democrats or independents, you know,
they should think even more outside the box of not
running Democratic candidates like like like Dan Osborne and Nebraska.
Speaker 5 (23:25):
We don't know how well he's going to do this year.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Obviously, but he ran a campaign that was you know,
way ahead of Harris in Nebraska, and he outperformed baseline expectations,
you know, even compared to virtually anybody else running for
the Senate. And so places like that where Democrats are
just never going to win, at least in the short
to medium term, are the places where you know, we
need to be thinking much more creatively about different options
(23:50):
for be being Republicans. And I think our survey shows
you know how important that is. But it doesn't mean
that in places where you know that's not viable because
you know, there's always going to be a Democratic candidate
and we don't want to elect the Republican that they
can't do things that are going to improve the odds
by doubling down on you know, cost of living, affordability,
(24:11):
and also anger at the economic elites that have been
screwing over working people in this country for decades. And thankfully,
I mean, like a bolt of lightning from the heavens,
Jim Carville comes out with the you know, with the.
Speaker 5 (24:23):
Of the New York Times this week like preaching my
my gospel.
Speaker 6 (24:27):
So I was extremely pleased to see that what we're saying,
and what many others you know that have been saying
similar things, is breaking through and, if not becoming consensus
among Democrats by any stretch of the imagination, certainly taking
up a lot more airspace than than it did in
twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2 (24:44):
James Carvell is the other guest in this episode. One
is when I read that, I was like.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Holy shit, we got to get James on here. But yes,
I want to go back for a minute to Dan
Osborne because he's very central to this thesis in a.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Lot of ways.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
For sure, even though I just want to say, like
for my own edification and also because black women have
just been continually screwed again and again and again and
by American politics in every which way, is interesting to
me that they are the most positive on the brand
because they are the base of the party in a
lot of different ways. And they also, you know, you
(25:20):
have to wonder how their relationship to the Harris run,
you know what I mean, Like I just I just
wonder how much that affects them. But that again, neither
of us can speak to that particularly, but talk to
us about Dianne Osborne though, because he did really run
and again it was a very tough race. Nebraska is tough.
(25:40):
He's going to run again. But I just he really
didn't embody a lot of what you're talking about.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
Yeah, for sure, this is somebody that is able to
speak the language of working people in a way that
most Democrats are not. And he talked about the problems
of corporate greed, and he can inequality, you know, viscerally
from his own experience, right, somebody who had literally been
a union organizer, had you know, been a leader in
(26:08):
a strike against you know, big corporation, n Keller Corporation.
And he's somebody who literally embodied all of the kinds
of values and the critiques that working class people have
had for decades about you know, the fact that our
country is essentially being run by by an oligarchy. And
in addition to that, he was really smart about knowing
(26:31):
the electorate of Nebraska. Right, we need to have candidates
who can win in a huge diversity of places in
this country, many more than you know, currently Democrats aren't
really capable of winning in and that requires somebody like
Dan Osborne who's able to talk to voters about, you know,
difficult issues in a way that they can understand, in
(26:53):
a way that they don't find to be condescending, but
without completely undermining or you know Negaate, you know core
values that he has about the importance of civil rights
and of human dignity. And so I think there's many
lessons that can be drawn from that, and I think
many candidates this year are drawing from those lessons. And
we see a much wider bench of economic populist candidates
(27:15):
running in very difficult contexts and competitive context than we
saw last year.
Speaker 5 (27:21):
And I think that's very encouraging.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
So you're talking about Graham Platner.
Speaker 6 (27:26):
I'm talking about Platner, I'm talking about Nathan Sage, and
I I'm talking about Rebecca Cook in Wisconsin.
Speaker 5 (27:31):
We're seeing a bench here of House.
Speaker 6 (27:34):
Candidates and even the Senate candidates and Gubernor Tour, I
mean Governor elect Cheryl in New Jersey was running a
quite a populist, like a shocking lead from my vantage
point populist campaign and sounding like I don't know if
it's Jen Osborne or Berry Sanders or whoever else, but
sounding like a real populace in a way that I
wouldn't have really imagined before. And so I think that
(27:55):
that kind of candidate is expanding in scope and getting
more of a serious here from funders than they would
have in the past. And I also think that that
general ethos, as you're going to hear from Carville as well,
is seeping into the party in a really positive way
that I think that, combined with the surprisingly strong showing
that Democrats had in twenty twenty five, is putting us
(28:17):
on the path. You know, it making me at least
more hopeful than I was six months ago.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
You can't talk about this subject without talking about the
Democratic brand being bad.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
It's not as bad as a Trump brand.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Well, it's not far off.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
It's not far off.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
We have this fight club happening in the Senate, and
I want to talk about it. There's an article in
your Times, reported article about this group of senators, Chris Murphy,
Tina Smith. I was a little surprised to see Van
(28:54):
Holland in there.
Speaker 2 (28:55):
And again van Holland, you'll remember.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Went to visit kil Mar Obrego Garcia, who was a
marilynd Man. So got Van Holland in there. Bernie and
Warren not a huge surprise, but Van Holland Basically, these
guys they're mad at the sort of establishment recruiting, the
establishment push.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
It's called fight Club.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
And they're mad at both Humor and Jilibrand because Jillibrand
is the Senate, is the head of the Senate's Democratic
campaign arm and they're mad. They basically, I'm just going
to give you their sort of demands. I think this
is super interesting in my mind. And the other senators
in this group are Marquee, which makes sense, Merkley, Martin Heinrich,
(29:44):
all my sort of secret favorites. But basically, what I
think is really interesting is they're mad about the candidates
that these guys have picked. And I think it's important
because they feel they're too corporate friendly. But some of
these candidates, the sort of establishment candidates they picked, aren't
so great, right, Like, especially in Michigan, Haley Stevens seems like,
I mean, we've had it on this podcast. She seems
(30:05):
like she's really struggling. So I'd love you to sort
of talk us through what you think about this division,
and it sort of goes along with what you're thinking.
Speaker 6 (30:14):
Is yeah, no, I mean, I think that's great that
there's pushback against you know, the same all same, all
sorts of tried and true but not you know, very
successful corporate democrats, and you know, to build that bench
of people that are saying within that within the chamber,
you know that we need a new kind of Democrat
that has a different image and a different brand. And
(30:35):
and like you said, the great thing about that is
it kind of cuts across the ideological divisions within the party.
And I think and even like a Mom Donnie kind
of is part like in the ether there, right, or
maybe not even like especially.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Especially because we have Schumer has been just such a
disaster on monomie and Jill Brant was spreading this lie
that he had said globalizenifat and when in fact there
was no nothing to that.
Speaker 6 (30:59):
And meanwhile, the you know, the most consummate populist politician
in the United States, you know, is enthralled with Mom Donnie, right,
Donald Trump. And so you know, we're we're definitely seeing
the line shifting and some of the traditional divisions and
axes of competition sort of breaking down and sort of
recasting itself along this sort of elite anti elite axis
(31:19):
and I think that's extremely healthy for the Democratic Party,
and I think that confrontation is long overdue, and I
hope that it deepens and continues so that we can
actually show working people as Democrats, not that you know,
we can say the right thing, but that we're actually
willing to take some risks, We're actually willing to break
some eggs in order to make you know, more pro
working class omelets.
Speaker 5 (31:40):
So to speak.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
Tell me what you think leadership should be doing. The
polls say the brand is bad, what can make the
brand better?
Speaker 6 (31:48):
Well, I think that we're seeing this sort of confirmed
across a range of different recent autopsies like the Deciding
to Win report and you know, Mitch Landers outfit the
Working Class Project put out a report a couple of
weeks ago, and our reports recently have basically shown that
there's a number of pretty common sense things that Democrats
need to do, ranging from having more people with working
(32:09):
class backgrounds run for office. Number one is that alone
just creates a messenger that's so much like a Dan
Osborne just shows us so clearly who can connect with
folks just based on his own background in a very
effective way. And beyond that, yeah, focusing like a laser
on affordability and on offering not just affordability in a
(32:31):
narrow sense, but also offering a vision for a middle
class future for Americans, so that Americans feel like their kids'
lives are going to be better than theirs, like my
grandparents thought, like my parents thought, but like I as
a millennial on most people in my generation and lower generations,
the younger generations don't feel.
Speaker 5 (32:49):
And the third part of the sauce.
Speaker 6 (32:51):
Is to sort of along with what you were just
saying a couple of minutes ago, Molly, really attack the
corporate establishment of this country and take a real fight
and say that there are battle lines here. We're not
going to continue to let this country be run by
economic elites and oligarchs. We need to send costly signals
to voters that we actually believe that our country has
(33:13):
been run in this way and that we are at
a forty year hold of corporate dominance or neoliberalism sometimes
people call it, and that that's got a change.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
Costly symbols. You have ninety seconds to explain what that means.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
Democrats need to be willing to pick fights with people
that might be, you know, have given them money in
the past, and they need to be willing to actually
burn some bridges.
Speaker 5 (33:36):
And they need to be willing.
Speaker 6 (33:37):
To show voters that they're not just saying things on TV,
but then at home and among their donors and strategists
doing something completely different.
Speaker 5 (33:45):
They need to put their money where their mouth.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
Is that a a pack, it's.
Speaker 6 (33:49):
You know, not taking you know, corporate donations. Having more
candidates commit to a rule of no corporate pack money
would be a great start.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Jared, this is so interesting. I hope you will come
back absolutely.
Speaker 5 (34:03):
Thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.