December 20, 2025 • 32 mins
Tis the season to reflect back on a year that, more than anything else, was marked by intra-party fights. S.E. recaps the many ways the Democrats and Republicans — and MAGA — are their own worst enemies. Has fighting just become the point? S.E. also singles out Ben Shapiro’s Talking Points USA speech. Shapiro has been called courageous for condemning his own people — some of whom were speaking on the very same stage — for poisoning the conservative movement from within. But S.E. thinks Shapiro didn’t go far enough. (and you can read more on her Substack). And S.E.'s guest, former New York representative, Biden White House adviser, and current senior adviser to Vote Vets, Max Rose, also weighs in on the battle inside of MAGA and what Democrats should really be focusing on.
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 (00:03):
Welcome to talking politics.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
We're headed into the holidays and as my husband said
this week, we all have a real case of senioritis.
Does it feel like doesn't feel like all of a sudden,
the holidays were here and we're rushing to get our
cards out and our gifts wrapped, and yet this week
is dragged and dragged and dragged. We're almost there, and
then we have a nice chunk of time. Off reminder,
(00:26):
we had a new Off the Cup interview post this
week with comedian a partner Nancherla.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Which is terrific.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
We talk a lot about the holidays and mental health,
so go check that out.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
And a new talk and coffee this week. Go check
that out.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
And reminder special new Year's Off the Cup featuring many
of the year's best guests answering the all important question
when is it iced?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Coffee season again?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
That posts on New Year's Eve, so check that out too.
But now are our last talk in politics of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Five and what a year it was.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
I wrote about this for sub Stack, so you can
go check it out more there. But I think this year,
more than anything else, was marked by intra party fights.
I can't remember a year in which both parties were
fighting internally as much as they did this year. Right
on the left, I'll remind you you had in the
(01:20):
beginning of the year Democrats coming for Biden. You had
Kamala Harris, who wrote that book about her campaign. She
took some swings at Biden. You had rank and file
Dems and dem voters coming out against dem leadership after
the government shut down. Right that came Jeffries Chuck Schumer,
with a number of elected Dems calling for both of
(01:40):
them to step down.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
That was something.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
You had Democrats against Zoronmumdani. Even though Mamdani was the
Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, Schumer never
endorsed him. Jeffries waited until the last minute, and even
then barely endorsed him. You had progressive Democrats fighting with
moderate Democrats. You had Democrats against Israel and other Democrats
(02:03):
who support Israel.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
It was a bloodbath on the left.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And later in a minute, we're going to talk to
a former Democratic congressman about the latest thing that's tearing
up the party, the DNC's decision not to release the
findings of their twenty twenty four autopsy. But over on
the right. It was just as bad this year. Remember
you had Elon versus Trump. They both pushed the nuclear
option on each other earlier. This year, you had women
(02:28):
in Congress against Trump, right, Nancy Mays, Marchorie Taylor Green,
Lauren Bobert defied Trump on the Epstein files, have demanded
that they be released. Speaking of March, she came out
swinging against Trump this year on Epstein, but also on
America First and affordability.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
In the shutdown in healthcare, that was.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Wild Trump's FBI fought with Trump's doj Cash, Mattel Dan Bongino.
They went after Pam Bondi, and then so did Suzie
Wilds and that and that Vanity Fair piece. That's highly
unusual inside and administration. You get at least Defana going
after Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House. Finally, you have
the fight inside Megamedia, Megan Kelly, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson,
(03:11):
Nick Fuents, Candice Owens, Erica Kirk. That's been a wild
one to watch now. Truly, that's a lot of intra
party fighting, and on the one hand, I think it
speaks to how disillusioned people are with our political system.
Nothing seems to be working to the point that Dems
are fighting Dems, Magas fighting MAGA because they know how
(03:31):
disliked they all are by voters. But on the other hand,
it makes me wonder if fighting has just become the point.
It's not about solving problems or good governance. It's just
about picking fights and then grand standing over them, virtue
signaling to whomever your audience is, and you know, self survival.
Before we get to our guest, I want to talk
(03:52):
about that last fight I mentioned, the one inside Mega
Media because last night Ben Shapiro spoke at Turning Point
USA as America and he railed against Megan Kelly, Candice Owens,
Nick Quentes, and Tucker Carlson for their cowardice. And in
case you haven't been following all of this, Ben's been
calling out some of his peers, in some cases his friends,
(04:16):
for things like platforming neo Nazis and spreading baseless and
dangerous conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's death and who they
think was involved in it.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Take a listen to a short clip from that.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
The conservative movement is also in danger from Charlatans who
claimed to speak in the name of principle, but actually
traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile
and despair, who seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism
by championing enervation and grievance. These people are frauds, and
they are grifters, and they do not deserve your time,
(04:50):
and they are something worse than that, a danger to
the only movement capable of stopping the left from wrecking
the country wholesale.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Okay, he went on, and he named names. It was
an act of courage for sure. Calling out your own people,
some of whom were speaking on that same stage on
that same day, for poisoning the conservative movement from within,
is I think a really important thing to do. It
isn't easy, it isn't comfortable, it isn't always profitable, but
(05:20):
it's really really important. It's why I've been doing it
for like the past ten years. People like Candice and
Megan and Nick and Tucker need to be called out
because what they're doing is corrosive and sick. Pimping out
and whitewashing Nazis is corrosive and sick.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Wondering whether Jeffrey Epstein is.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Really a pedophile because he likes fifteen year old girls
and not five year old girls.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Is corrosive and sick.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Telling your massive audience that the Jews or the French
Foreign Legion, or the Egyptians, or members of Turning Point
or Erica Kirk herself are in some way responsible for
Charlie Kirk's death, or at least covering it up as
corrosive and sick. These people are dangerous and they're corrupting
their audiences for money and clicks. So good on Ben
(06:05):
Shapiro for calling these people out. But here's the problem
with us, and I want you to listen to that
clip one more time.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
The conservative movement is also in danger from Charlatans who
claim to speak in the name of principle but actually
traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile
and despair, who seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism
by championing enervation and grievance. These people are frauds, and
they are grifters, and they do not deserve your time,
(06:35):
and they are something worse than that, a danger to
the only movement capable of stopping the left from wrecking
the country wholesale.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Okay, Like, who's the elephant in the room here.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
He is applying all of this critique deservedly to Tucker
and Meghan and Candace and Neck.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
What about Trump?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Ben says, they Megan, Tucker, Candice Neck, They're Charlatans who
claim to speak in the name of principle but actually
traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
That's Trump.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Ben says, they offer nothing but bile and despair.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That's Trump too.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Ben says they seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism
by championing enervation and grievance.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Yep, that's Trump again.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Ben says they're frauds and they're grifters, and they do
not deserve your time.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Trump, Trump, Trump.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
While they're all fighting each other, none of them will
say the obvious thing, which is that all of this grifting,
all of the fake grievance peddling, all of the political revenge, born,
all of the conspiracy theories, the jettising of conservatism to
instead push garbage lies, sinking to the lowest common denominator,
to defend neo Nazis and protect pedos. That all started
(07:54):
with Donald Trump. Since twenty fifteen, he's been trafficking, and
all the garbage that Ben accuses his friends of it
trickled down to Magamedia, who made the choice, the calculation,
not to oppose this, but to lean in to feed
their audiences more and more of it, to the point
where they aren't even talking about policy anymore. It's just
(08:17):
this personality nonsense that changes your life, not one bit
to get you addicted to their drugs of outrage and conspiracy.
So to pretend this came from nowhere, that there isn't
someone at the top to blame for this insanity, it's
intellectually dishonest. It's exposing the disingenuousness of this supposedly courageous
(08:41):
act of defiance. So great to call out Megan and
Tucker and Nick and Candice, But if you're not going
to acknowledge that Trump is ultimately responsible for this, that Trump,
more than anyone else, is threatening the health of conservatism,
that Trump is leading America down this dark path, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I'm sorry you have no credibility here.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
I'm all for having a come to Jesus moment realizing
you can no longer abide the dangerous and irresponsible bile
that your friends and colleagues are putting out into the bloodstream.
But that project should have started ten years ago with
Donald Trump. All right, I want to get my guests
(09:31):
take on this, but also the latest out of the DNC.
So let's bring him in. Max Rose is senior advisor
to Vote Vets. He served in the House representing New
York's eleventh Congressional district from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty one.
He was a Biden White House Advisor. He served in
Afghanistan and the Army, where he was awarded a Bronze
Star and a purple Heart. He's also my friend and
(09:53):
colleague at CNN, where we do a bunch of TV together.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Welcome Max, Hey, my friend, how are you good.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
Good to see It's really good to see you too.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
I want to talk about what's going on in the
right and then we're going to move on to what's
going on in your party. What do you make of
this battle inside of Magamedia.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
It's not just Magamedia, it's Maga incarnate, you know. One
of the strengths politically speaking, it was a moral wasn't
a moral strength, but one of the political strengths to
Donald Trump even just a year ago, was basically that
he unified his party with just a force of personality.
(10:29):
It wasn't about ideological consistency, it wasn't about honoring campaign promises.
But it was if Donald Trump wants something, so it goes.
And that actually applied from Mike Lohler to Marjorie Taylor Green.
We've seen that just even over the last ninety days,
completely break down in front of our very eyes. Just
(10:52):
a few days ago, for Modern Republicans signed on to
a discharge petition to force an extension, a three year
extent of the Obamacare subsidies against Donald Trump's wishes and
Speaker Johnson's wishes, and of course a month ago, on
the other side of the maga ideological spectrum, Marjorie Taylor Green,
(11:12):
Lauren Bourbert, and Nancy Mace and several others stood up
and on the Epstein files, yeah, and said, I don't
care what you want, I don't care what you say.
This is what we're gonna do now, all of these folks,
and we can throw the people who you referenced earlier
as well into this. They didn't just finally find salvation.
(11:34):
They didn't just turn into good people. They're politicians or
they're something like that. And so what they're seeing is
they're seeing data and they're seeing trends that speaks to
a newfound political weakness on the part of Donald Trump,
and they're exploiting that. Donald Trump in the end, And
this is twenty twenty six talking is an eighty year
(11:56):
old lame duck president. Does that sound familiar? Sounds familiar
to me?
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Mm hm.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
And everybody's gonna start thinking and acting about twenty twenty nine. Yeah,
and they're gonna start turning on this president, particularly because
his poll run numbers are just horrible right now. Yeah,
he's not following up by any of his campaign promises.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Yeah, and he's actively telling his own voters, like the
things you said you care about, the things I told
you I cared about, it's a hoax, it's a scam.
Don't worry about it. The economy is great, it's crazy.
And you know, as I've pointed out a lot on
this podcast and elsewhere, that's why DEM's lost because they
looked at voters and said the economy is great, and
don't believe.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Your lion eyes.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
And now Donald Trump's doing the same thing, which is
political malpractice.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
But I'm just wondering what you think.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I don't think the left has as powerful a group
of like media influencers, you know, when you add like
Joe Rogan and all the Manisphere podcasters to you know,
Candice Bend et cetera. There's just nothing on the left
that speaks directly to voters the way these people are.
And it's why I think the things that they say,
(13:09):
whether it's about Nazis or Epstein or Charlie Kirk or Jews, like,
it's not just fringy, basement d subculture stuff. These people
are picking presidents. Like Erica Kirk and Tucker Carlson are
out there championing jd Vance for president, and they will
likely be hugely influential voices in twenty twenty eight. And
I don't think like the pod save guys have the
(13:30):
same cachet, Like tell me if.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
I'm wrong, Max, I don't want them to okay and SayMore, well, yes, fine,
the right can have Erica Kirk and some of these
other folks, but it's not like they don't have Joe Rogan.
They don't some of these other podcasters who I think
(13:53):
immediately after twenty twenty four, we thought, oh, these are
Maga like influences. They're not. They're just going where the
majority of Americans are, and the majority of Americans at
that point were in opposition to You.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Don't think they were guiding the majority of Americans. You
think that they followed the majority.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Of American I do.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Wow, that's really interesting.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
I absolutely do, as demonstrated by the fact that Joe
Rogan was a Bernie supporter at one point. Like, it's
not these folks are business people, they are nothing.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
They're following the money.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
I get that right, and they are so I actually
applaud Democrats who are not because what the reason why
I don't like this narrative for the Democrats is that
if you assume that Joe Rogan and some of these
other bros are just fully own subsidiaries of the Republican Party,
then you don't want to go play on that turf. Rather,
(14:50):
if you look at them as up for grabs, then
you'll go on their platforms as well as amongst many
many others. Do I think think that you know, Erica
Kirk is yeah, no, see that's a lost cause, right,
and you should. But that's such a small minority. That's
that that's thirty percent, that's twenty percent. That that's like
(15:12):
the vote that.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Twenty thirty percent wins an election. What do you mean
know that?
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Not in a pre look. That is a base mobilization issue.
So there's three different types of things that matter in
an election. There's three decisions that matter. There's the decision
of your own base to vote. Yeah, there's the or not.
There's the decision of the Republican your opponent's base to
vote or not. And then there's the persuadables decision to
(15:39):
vote or not. Erica Kirk only influences one third of that.
It's it's important, but it's the thing that Democrats can't influences.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
No, no, of course not, of course not.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
But when Democrats are the project for Democrats will be
winning back of their own voters who they lost twenty
four So they're not starting from the same place as Republicans.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Well, well now, certainly they're looking like they're on stronger footing.
If you think about what Donald Trump ran on and
the ways in which he is now failing on each
of those promises. I'd must rather be the Democratic Party
than the Republican Party right now. In terms of just
basic political I'm sure he was any day, any day
(16:28):
of the week. Ultimately the bag of movement. And this
is the story of the last decade. The MAGA movement
is not a governing ideology. They're not a governing party,
and they've only been electorally successful for the most part
when they're in the minority and they're bashing the people
in power. They have never been able to build on
their majority. Donald Trump never has one re election. Donald
(16:49):
Trump has never performed well in a midterm year.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I mean they in twenty twenty four, Republicans won more
Hispanics than they ever had. Donald Trump won a lot
of first time voters he had never won. He won
the young people. They built on a majority when Democrats
were losing their own coalection coalition.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
And this doesn't pay like make me happy to say, no,
we have to deal in some facts.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
We're agreen with each other. In twenty twenty four, MAGA
wasn't in power, MAGA wasn't in the White House, and
so MAGA was running against something and that's just the
same as in twenty sixteen or twenty fifteen. But they
were absolutely unable to prevent a blue wave in twenty
(17:33):
eighteen or to win reelection in twenty twenty. So we've
seen this cycle where they're actually at their strongest when
they can talk in taglines and trash what's going on.
So what does that mean for Democrats, Well, it means
we're Democrats that they have to get much better at governing.
We have to get much better at actually governing. We
(17:53):
can't just let kind of the whims of you know,
wanting to make sure that we're all is on the
right side of this and the right side of that
the dictate how we govern because in some ways, like
I actually think the American people, for better or for worse,
will hold Democrats to a higher standard.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
No, they do, one hundred percent. And I've said this
for a long time. You're absolutely right. Trump voters holds
him to a very low standard, right, and they held
Biden and Harris and Democrats to an incredibly high standard totally.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
And part of that is due to the fact that
Democrats are a party that are saying that we want
to be proactive, right, we want to do things and
use the tools of government to address social ills. Right.
And that's a great thing, But no one's going to
trust you to give them more of your tax revenue
or to approve of a new program if you can't
(18:49):
keep the border straight. But if they see anarchy on
the border, or if they see the cost of their
groceries go thirty.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
These things aren't going to work. Whereas the I think Maggi,
the Maggi ideology at its course of destructive ideology, Well, I.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Don't disagree all. It won't surprise you to learn I
totally agree. I want to talk about the DNC with you.
As you know, the DNC did what Republicans did in
twenty twelve when we were sent to the woodshed. I
worked on that autopsy. It was painful, but it was necessary,
and ultimately it was incredibly productive. It gave us all
something to talk about. We all knew what our weaknesses were.
(19:31):
Now Trump came along and torched it, but you know,
it was an important thing for us to do. And similarly,
Dems needed to do this after losing in twenty twenty four.
How did it happen that they lost to a convicted
criminal who swept all seven swing states. So they did it.
They did the autopsy, and they waited until after the election.
(19:51):
They wanted to wait, which I get not really a
profile and courage, but I get it. But now fresh
report from the New York Times that the DNC is
scrapping the report, deciding not to publish it.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Here's what the Times wrote. Ken Martin, the chairman.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Of the DNC, said on Thursday that he decided to
not publish the report that he'd ordered months ago into
what went wrong for the Democratic Party last year. Mister
Martin will instead keep the findings under seal. He believes
that looking back so publicly and painfully at the past
would prove counterproductive for a party as it tries next
year to take back power in Congress.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Max. What the F I can't get over how dumb
this is.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
It makes the DNC look scared and weak and afraid
of its own people.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
Maybe also a bit irrelevant. Yeah, yeah, So going back
to twenty twelve, it's actually so interesting you brought that up, because, yes,
the Republican Party did this massive analysis, and what the
large conclusion was is that the party has to get
better at going after independent persuadables. So some of the
(20:58):
conclusions in twenty twelve were, we need to temper our
stuff on immigration, we need to maybe temper some of
our stuff on tax cuts for the wealthiest cer at
least temper some of our stuff about proactive aggressive warfare
abortion abortion too.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And get what Donald Trump and I don't.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Believe Donald Trump actually makes like purposefully analytical conclusions, but
he's almost like a shark in the sense that he
does things based off instinct. The conclusion that Donald Trump
his actions, I think poor two, was that the answer
was an enhanced based mobilization. Forget about the independence and
it's just mobilized.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
That he didn't care about it at all.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
And what we did it and we talked about it
and we released it totally.
Speaker 4 (21:42):
And look, I can tell you what the DNC analysis is.
I can tell you us.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
What they find.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
You'll need a long term mckensey analysis to tell you
what happened. The border was a disaster, Inflation was an
utter disaster. The White House was absolutely unwilling to act
on or talk about any of those in a cogent,
basic human way that anyone can understand. And Harris was
(22:11):
unwilling to turn her back on those policy and campaign
failures and missteps.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
So why not just come out and say that we
know it. I know it, you know it, why not
just say it?
Speaker 4 (22:22):
They should. I'm not telling you that they should do it,
but I'm just telling I'm telling you that it's not
like there's no mystery here. Yeah. So the point though,
for the party right now is going to be to
what degree do you act like this shy rear looking
party going backward, and or to what degree do you
(22:44):
kind of stand up say something that doesn't look poll tested,
you know, kind of say, let's school you if you're
you know, if you don't like it, and see how
that turns out these new voters. That breaks polls. Because
the story of the twenty first century and politics this
is that our best politicians are the ones that break polls.
Our best movements are the ones that break polls. That's
(23:07):
what Obama did in twenty twelve. That's why I pissed
the Republicans off so much, because they thought they were
going to win and all these people turned out who
they never thought were going to turn out, right, And
that's what we have to learn how to do again.
And you're not going to do that with fancy analysis.
I think you will do that though, by being really
really bold, really bold.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Well, I agree, And what worries me. Now is what
you and I were just talking about. The Trump administration
is imploding. We're watching it before our eyes. We had
Steve Israelan. He thinks Dems will not only win the House,
but maybe even the Senate, and I agree in twenty
six and I agree Trump is the weakest he's ever been.
But Democrats still need to earn votes. And I worry
(23:51):
that the worst Trump does, the less they'll feel like
they need to present a case and make here's our agenda,
here's what we have to offer, because it just gets
easier and easier to let Trump hang himself and voters
still they still need voters to come back to them
and not sit home, which is what most voters do
in midterms.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
But that there was some of your opening monologue that
pointed to a little bit of kind of this twenty
twenty five Dems in disarray narrative, or at least something
about these internal battles that are happening in the party.
I'm really happy about that. I think it's great. Yeah,
because when we annoint people and when we have our
(24:31):
ducks in a row and everything, everyone become this is
our person's two years out, it's all settled.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
We fuck it up badness. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
Yeah, So, Like I love the idea of ideological combat
in the party. I love the idea of a noisy,
messy primary. I think it's a wide open field. I
don't think we're dealing with any more of the traditional
kind of left versus moderate notions in the party. I
think that that's kind of gone. I think it's really
(25:02):
going to be a question of new verses old and
who is willing to, like, you know, throw out not
only creative ideas from a policy perspective, but creative ideas
from a mobilization perspective about how are you going to
stick it to the people that are screwing us right now?
Like I want to hear about how that Trump ballroom
will be named the Obama Ballroom. I want to hear
(25:25):
someone coming out talking about how they are going to
make sure that Elon Musk do all the things that
he's doing. Yeah, that Elon Musk either doesn't win a
contract or the majority of his space related adventures are nationalized. Like,
I want to hear someone and I don't consider myself
(25:45):
some like foreign lefty, right, but that's what I want
to hear, And that's why I think the majority of
the base.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Actually, well, I think Gems need to do that, and
so they need to do that, and a majority of
voters do not care. Their life is not changed at
all by what happens to the East wing of the
White House. Democrats need to be talking about affordability and
immigration and crime and the issues that matter to the
most amount of people.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
Yes, like, I think, of course that's the case. But
I don't. Look, you know, what the hell do I know?
I've lost more elections than I've won. But I.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
No, I think you're right. But I think it's and but.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
I don't think that that's the way people vote. I
don't think that. I don't think that people vote according
to specific policy prescriptions. I think people they don't.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
They vote based on how they feel and how they
feel most of them, and they don't.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I don't think that Trump the East wing is the
issue that matters most of them.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Here's at the risk, You're probably never going to invite
me back, because I'm of the disagreement.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
We will invite you back every day on Sunday.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Love the conversation.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
You know how insecure I am, so I appreciate that.
But I in order for someone, an elected official, particularly
a president, to address the really deep, painful things that
Americans are enduring today, particularly around cost of living, that
person is going to have to have the guts to
(27:20):
do stuff that hasn't happened before. That person is going
to have to be willing to dig deep and look
at these bureaucrats and look at this precedent and say,
screw you, we are not doing it that way anymore.
And that is the signal I believe that the American
electorate are going to be looking for, is does this
(27:42):
person have the guts to be different?
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Yeah, I get what you're saying. They want a fighter,
and there's a way to signal that.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
I think really did it brilliantly, Like Mam Donnie signaled
I'm a fighter. I'm not going to do things the
way they've all been always been done. But to my point,
he also focused on the issues that matter to most Americans,
affordability and safety and all those things.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
Absolutely. Yeah, And you know this is I think we're
slowly kind of dancing towards you say saying the same point,
which is just a little bit that I feel like
it kind of Mom Donnie's proposals. Let's talk about him
for a secon Right, there's three planks, fast and free buses,
free freeze the rent, universal childcare. Right, those three things,
(28:28):
for the vast majority of New Yorkers dealing with an
affordability crisis, won't actually dramatically improve their situation. Right, Like,
if you're like someone in the working class, lower middle
class and suddenly you're not you're getting on a free bus,
your affordability life hasn't dramatically changed. But what I do believe,
(28:48):
what Mam Donnie was saying is that like, dude, this
is simple and it's bold, and that's the way I'm
going to govern like consistently. Yeah, And it's not like
some thirty pinch thing that you got to look through
where the nuance is going to be the way I
screw you yea, and the way like us looking for
ways to consistently communicate that about our personality as a party,
(29:11):
which is we don't talk about this enough how the
culture of the Democratic Party is broken. It is broken
because it is filled with technocrats who are scared and
who are actually consistent, particularly when they work in administrations,
and democratic administrations aren't thinking about their next job. They're thinking,
(29:33):
how can I go to Baine, How can I go
to McKinsey, How can I go to Solivan and Cromwell.
I how can I just make this the palate cleanser,
the progressive palate cleanser, So I have my West Wing moment,
but still preserve social credibility to the rest of my
professional career. That group of people, that culture is not
what the American people think will deliver on these bold,
(29:55):
unprecedented changes that are part fuck you. Yeah, And that's
kind of where I'm coming from here. When there is
an element of coming out and when you say the
ballroom should be named after Barack Obomba, there's an element
of that where you do also communicate implicitly that you
will deliver bold you'll do it all, change it.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
I got it, I get it, but no, I get it.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
And I actually think we are saying very similar things.
I want what you're saying, plus I want that, and
and I think I think of a talented you know,
a talented person can can.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Do it all.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
All right, I know you got to go. Before I
let you go. We do an exit poll here. It's
three questions of varying degrees of seriousness. The first one
is what's your favorite movie about politics?
Speaker 4 (30:46):
What's that movie with Michael Michael Douglas American President. Yeah,
that's just such a good one.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
I mean, that's a good one. And it's it's uh,
it's poignant. That's a Rob Reiner film.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
That that that one's amazing one.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Who is someone you like across the aisle?
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Oh? I love Brian Fitzpatrick. I think he's a great guy.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
He's a dear friend.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Good And finally, how do we save our democracy?
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Max?
Speaker 4 (31:11):
We win elections. That's it, periods.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
It's the only way to do it.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
You gotta win. Absolutely, Max Rose, thanks so much for
joining me. Really appreciated this como.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Thank you again, See you soon well.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And thanks to you for tuning in.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Have a great holiday everyone, and remember look for our
new Year's Off the Cup special.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
And I'll see you in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Off the Cup is a production of iHeart Podcasts as
part of the Reason Choice Network.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
If you want more, check out the other.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Reason Choice podcasts Spolitics with Jamel Hill and Native Land Pod.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
For Off the Cup, I am your host, Si Cup.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Editing and sound design by Derek Clements, our executive producers
are me Si Cup, Lauren Hanson, and Lindsay Hoffman. Rate
and review wherever you get your podcasts, Follow or subscribe
for new episodes every Wednesday.
Welcome to talking politics.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
We're headed into the holidays and as my husband said
this week, we all have a real case of senioritis.
Does it feel like doesn't feel like all of a sudden,
the holidays were here and we're rushing to get our
cards out and our gifts wrapped, and yet this week
is dragged and dragged and dragged. We're almost there, and
then we have a nice chunk of time. Off reminder,
(00:26):
we had a new Off the Cup interview post this
week with comedian a partner Nancherla.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Which is terrific.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
We talk a lot about the holidays and mental health,
so go check that out.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
And a new talk and coffee this week. Go check
that out.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
And reminder special new Year's Off the Cup featuring many
of the year's best guests answering the all important question
when is it iced?
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Coffee season again?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
That posts on New Year's Eve, so check that out too.
But now are our last talk in politics of twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Five and what a year it was.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
I wrote about this for sub Stack, so you can
go check it out more there. But I think this year,
more than anything else, was marked by intra party fights.
I can't remember a year in which both parties were
fighting internally as much as they did this year. Right
on the left, I'll remind you you had in the
(01:20):
beginning of the year Democrats coming for Biden. You had
Kamala Harris, who wrote that book about her campaign. She
took some swings at Biden. You had rank and file
Dems and dem voters coming out against dem leadership after
the government shut down. Right that came Jeffries Chuck Schumer,
with a number of elected Dems calling for both of
(01:40):
them to step down.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
That was something.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
You had Democrats against Zoronmumdani. Even though Mamdani was the
Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, Schumer never
endorsed him. Jeffries waited until the last minute, and even
then barely endorsed him. You had progressive Democrats fighting with
moderate Democrats. You had Democrats against Israel and other Democrats
(02:03):
who support Israel.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
It was a bloodbath on the left.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And later in a minute, we're going to talk to
a former Democratic congressman about the latest thing that's tearing
up the party, the DNC's decision not to release the
findings of their twenty twenty four autopsy. But over on
the right. It was just as bad this year. Remember
you had Elon versus Trump. They both pushed the nuclear
option on each other earlier. This year, you had women
(02:28):
in Congress against Trump, right, Nancy Mays, Marchorie Taylor Green,
Lauren Bobert defied Trump on the Epstein files, have demanded
that they be released. Speaking of March, she came out
swinging against Trump this year on Epstein, but also on
America First and affordability.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
In the shutdown in healthcare, that was.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Wild Trump's FBI fought with Trump's doj Cash, Mattel Dan Bongino.
They went after Pam Bondi, and then so did Suzie
Wilds and that and that Vanity Fair piece. That's highly
unusual inside and administration. You get at least Defana going
after Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House. Finally, you have
the fight inside Megamedia, Megan Kelly, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson,
(03:11):
Nick Fuents, Candice Owens, Erica Kirk. That's been a wild
one to watch now. Truly, that's a lot of intra
party fighting, and on the one hand, I think it
speaks to how disillusioned people are with our political system.
Nothing seems to be working to the point that Dems
are fighting Dems, Magas fighting MAGA because they know how
(03:31):
disliked they all are by voters. But on the other hand,
it makes me wonder if fighting has just become the point.
It's not about solving problems or good governance. It's just
about picking fights and then grand standing over them, virtue
signaling to whomever your audience is, and you know, self survival.
Before we get to our guest, I want to talk
(03:52):
about that last fight I mentioned, the one inside Mega
Media because last night Ben Shapiro spoke at Turning Point
USA as America and he railed against Megan Kelly, Candice Owens,
Nick Quentes, and Tucker Carlson for their cowardice. And in
case you haven't been following all of this, Ben's been
calling out some of his peers, in some cases his friends,
(04:16):
for things like platforming neo Nazis and spreading baseless and
dangerous conspiracy theories about Charlie Kirk's death and who they
think was involved in it.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Take a listen to a short clip from that.
Speaker 3 (04:28):
The conservative movement is also in danger from Charlatans who
claimed to speak in the name of principle, but actually
traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile
and despair, who seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism
by championing enervation and grievance. These people are frauds, and
they are grifters, and they do not deserve your time,
(04:50):
and they are something worse than that, a danger to
the only movement capable of stopping the left from wrecking
the country wholesale.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Okay, he went on, and he named names. It was
an act of courage for sure. Calling out your own people,
some of whom were speaking on that same stage on
that same day, for poisoning the conservative movement from within,
is I think a really important thing to do. It
isn't easy, it isn't comfortable, it isn't always profitable, but
(05:20):
it's really really important. It's why I've been doing it
for like the past ten years. People like Candice and
Megan and Nick and Tucker need to be called out
because what they're doing is corrosive and sick. Pimping out
and whitewashing Nazis is corrosive and sick.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Wondering whether Jeffrey Epstein is.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Really a pedophile because he likes fifteen year old girls
and not five year old girls.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Is corrosive and sick.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Telling your massive audience that the Jews or the French
Foreign Legion, or the Egyptians, or members of Turning Point
or Erica Kirk herself are in some way responsible for
Charlie Kirk's death, or at least covering it up as
corrosive and sick. These people are dangerous and they're corrupting
their audiences for money and clicks. So good on Ben
(06:05):
Shapiro for calling these people out. But here's the problem
with us, and I want you to listen to that
clip one more time.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
The conservative movement is also in danger from Charlatans who
claim to speak in the name of principle but actually
traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty, who offer nothing but bile
and despair, who seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism
by championing enervation and grievance. These people are frauds, and
they are grifters, and they do not deserve your time,
(06:35):
and they are something worse than that, a danger to
the only movement capable of stopping the left from wrecking
the country wholesale.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
Okay, Like, who's the elephant in the room here.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
He is applying all of this critique deservedly to Tucker
and Meghan and Candace and Neck.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
What about Trump?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Ben says, they Megan, Tucker, Candice Neck, They're Charlatans who
claim to speak in the name of principle but actually
traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
That's Trump.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Ben says, they offer nothing but bile and despair.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That's Trump too.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
Ben says they seek to undermine fundamental principles of conservatism
by championing enervation and grievance.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Yep, that's Trump again.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Ben says they're frauds and they're grifters, and they do
not deserve your time.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Trump, Trump, Trump.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
While they're all fighting each other, none of them will
say the obvious thing, which is that all of this grifting,
all of the fake grievance peddling, all of the political revenge, born,
all of the conspiracy theories, the jettising of conservatism to
instead push garbage lies, sinking to the lowest common denominator,
to defend neo Nazis and protect pedos. That all started
(07:54):
with Donald Trump. Since twenty fifteen, he's been trafficking, and
all the garbage that Ben accuses his friends of it
trickled down to Magamedia, who made the choice, the calculation,
not to oppose this, but to lean in to feed
their audiences more and more of it, to the point
where they aren't even talking about policy anymore. It's just
(08:17):
this personality nonsense that changes your life, not one bit
to get you addicted to their drugs of outrage and conspiracy.
So to pretend this came from nowhere, that there isn't
someone at the top to blame for this insanity, it's
intellectually dishonest. It's exposing the disingenuousness of this supposedly courageous
(08:41):
act of defiance. So great to call out Megan and
Tucker and Nick and Candice, But if you're not going
to acknowledge that Trump is ultimately responsible for this, that Trump,
more than anyone else, is threatening the health of conservatism,
that Trump is leading America down this dark path, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I'm sorry you have no credibility here.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
I'm all for having a come to Jesus moment realizing
you can no longer abide the dangerous and irresponsible bile
that your friends and colleagues are putting out into the bloodstream.
But that project should have started ten years ago with
Donald Trump. All right, I want to get my guests
(09:31):
take on this, but also the latest out of the DNC.
So let's bring him in. Max Rose is senior advisor
to Vote Vets. He served in the House representing New
York's eleventh Congressional district from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty one.
He was a Biden White House Advisor. He served in
Afghanistan and the Army, where he was awarded a Bronze
Star and a purple Heart. He's also my friend and
(09:53):
colleague at CNN, where we do a bunch of TV together.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Welcome Max, Hey, my friend, how are you good.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
Good to see It's really good to see you too.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
I want to talk about what's going on in the
right and then we're going to move on to what's
going on in your party. What do you make of
this battle inside of Magamedia.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
It's not just Magamedia, it's Maga incarnate, you know. One
of the strengths politically speaking, it was a moral wasn't
a moral strength, but one of the political strengths to
Donald Trump even just a year ago, was basically that
he unified his party with just a force of personality.
(10:29):
It wasn't about ideological consistency, it wasn't about honoring campaign promises.
But it was if Donald Trump wants something, so it goes.
And that actually applied from Mike Lohler to Marjorie Taylor Green.
We've seen that just even over the last ninety days,
completely break down in front of our very eyes. Just
(10:52):
a few days ago, for Modern Republicans signed on to
a discharge petition to force an extension, a three year
extent of the Obamacare subsidies against Donald Trump's wishes and
Speaker Johnson's wishes, and of course a month ago, on
the other side of the maga ideological spectrum, Marjorie Taylor Green,
(11:12):
Lauren Bourbert, and Nancy Mace and several others stood up
and on the Epstein files, yeah, and said, I don't
care what you want, I don't care what you say.
This is what we're gonna do now, all of these folks,
and we can throw the people who you referenced earlier
as well into this. They didn't just finally find salvation.
(11:34):
They didn't just turn into good people. They're politicians or
they're something like that. And so what they're seeing is
they're seeing data and they're seeing trends that speaks to
a newfound political weakness on the part of Donald Trump,
and they're exploiting that. Donald Trump in the end, And
this is twenty twenty six talking is an eighty year
(11:56):
old lame duck president. Does that sound familiar? Sounds familiar
to me?
Speaker 1 (12:02):
Mm hm.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
And everybody's gonna start thinking and acting about twenty twenty nine. Yeah,
and they're gonna start turning on this president, particularly because
his poll run numbers are just horrible right now. Yeah,
he's not following up by any of his campaign promises.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Yeah, and he's actively telling his own voters, like the
things you said you care about, the things I told
you I cared about, it's a hoax, it's a scam.
Don't worry about it. The economy is great, it's crazy.
And you know, as I've pointed out a lot on
this podcast and elsewhere, that's why DEM's lost because they
looked at voters and said the economy is great, and
don't believe.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Your lion eyes.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
And now Donald Trump's doing the same thing, which is
political malpractice.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
But I'm just wondering what you think.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I don't think the left has as powerful a group
of like media influencers, you know, when you add like
Joe Rogan and all the Manisphere podcasters to you know,
Candice Bend et cetera. There's just nothing on the left
that speaks directly to voters the way these people are.
And it's why I think the things that they say,
(13:09):
whether it's about Nazis or Epstein or Charlie Kirk or Jews, like,
it's not just fringy, basement d subculture stuff. These people
are picking presidents. Like Erica Kirk and Tucker Carlson are
out there championing jd Vance for president, and they will
likely be hugely influential voices in twenty twenty eight. And
I don't think like the pod save guys have the
(13:30):
same cachet, Like tell me if.
Speaker 4 (13:32):
I'm wrong, Max, I don't want them to okay and SayMore, well, yes, fine,
the right can have Erica Kirk and some of these
other folks, but it's not like they don't have Joe Rogan.
They don't some of these other podcasters who I think
(13:53):
immediately after twenty twenty four, we thought, oh, these are
Maga like influences. They're not. They're just going where the
majority of Americans are, and the majority of Americans at
that point were in opposition to You.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Don't think they were guiding the majority of Americans. You
think that they followed the majority.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Of American I do.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Wow, that's really interesting.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
I absolutely do, as demonstrated by the fact that Joe
Rogan was a Bernie supporter at one point. Like, it's
not these folks are business people, they are nothing.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
They're following the money.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
I get that right, and they are so I actually
applaud Democrats who are not because what the reason why
I don't like this narrative for the Democrats is that
if you assume that Joe Rogan and some of these
other bros are just fully own subsidiaries of the Republican Party,
then you don't want to go play on that turf. Rather,
(14:50):
if you look at them as up for grabs, then
you'll go on their platforms as well as amongst many
many others. Do I think think that you know, Erica
Kirk is yeah, no, see that's a lost cause, right,
and you should. But that's such a small minority. That's
that that's thirty percent, that's twenty percent. That that's like
(15:12):
the vote that.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Twenty thirty percent wins an election. What do you mean
know that?
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Not in a pre look. That is a base mobilization issue.
So there's three different types of things that matter in
an election. There's three decisions that matter. There's the decision
of your own base to vote. Yeah, there's the or not.
There's the decision of the Republican your opponent's base to
vote or not. And then there's the persuadables decision to
(15:39):
vote or not. Erica Kirk only influences one third of that.
It's it's important, but it's the thing that Democrats can't influences.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
No, no, of course not, of course not.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
But when Democrats are the project for Democrats will be
winning back of their own voters who they lost twenty
four So they're not starting from the same place as Republicans.
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Well, well now, certainly they're looking like they're on stronger footing.
If you think about what Donald Trump ran on and
the ways in which he is now failing on each
of those promises. I'd must rather be the Democratic Party
than the Republican Party right now. In terms of just
basic political I'm sure he was any day, any day
(16:28):
of the week. Ultimately the bag of movement. And this
is the story of the last decade. The MAGA movement
is not a governing ideology. They're not a governing party,
and they've only been electorally successful for the most part
when they're in the minority and they're bashing the people
in power. They have never been able to build on
their majority. Donald Trump never has one re election. Donald
(16:49):
Trump has never performed well in a midterm year.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I mean they in twenty twenty four, Republicans won more
Hispanics than they ever had. Donald Trump won a lot
of first time voters he had never won. He won
the young people. They built on a majority when Democrats
were losing their own coalection coalition.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
And this doesn't pay like make me happy to say, no,
we have to deal in some facts.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
We're agreen with each other. In twenty twenty four, MAGA
wasn't in power, MAGA wasn't in the White House, and
so MAGA was running against something and that's just the
same as in twenty sixteen or twenty fifteen. But they
were absolutely unable to prevent a blue wave in twenty
(17:33):
eighteen or to win reelection in twenty twenty. So we've
seen this cycle where they're actually at their strongest when
they can talk in taglines and trash what's going on.
So what does that mean for Democrats, Well, it means
we're Democrats that they have to get much better at governing.
We have to get much better at actually governing. We
(17:53):
can't just let kind of the whims of you know,
wanting to make sure that we're all is on the
right side of this and the right side of that
the dictate how we govern because in some ways, like
I actually think the American people, for better or for worse,
will hold Democrats to a higher standard.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
No, they do, one hundred percent. And I've said this
for a long time. You're absolutely right. Trump voters holds
him to a very low standard, right, and they held
Biden and Harris and Democrats to an incredibly high standard totally.
Speaker 4 (18:28):
And part of that is due to the fact that
Democrats are a party that are saying that we want
to be proactive, right, we want to do things and
use the tools of government to address social ills. Right.
And that's a great thing, But no one's going to
trust you to give them more of your tax revenue
or to approve of a new program if you can't
(18:49):
keep the border straight. But if they see anarchy on
the border, or if they see the cost of their
groceries go thirty.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Yeah, you're right.
Speaker 4 (18:59):
These things aren't going to work. Whereas the I think Maggi,
the Maggi ideology at its course of destructive ideology, Well, I.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Don't disagree all. It won't surprise you to learn I
totally agree. I want to talk about the DNC with you.
As you know, the DNC did what Republicans did in
twenty twelve when we were sent to the woodshed. I
worked on that autopsy. It was painful, but it was necessary,
and ultimately it was incredibly productive. It gave us all
something to talk about. We all knew what our weaknesses were.
(19:31):
Now Trump came along and torched it, but you know,
it was an important thing for us to do. And similarly,
Dems needed to do this after losing in twenty twenty four.
How did it happen that they lost to a convicted
criminal who swept all seven swing states. So they did it.
They did the autopsy, and they waited until after the election.
(19:51):
They wanted to wait, which I get not really a
profile and courage, but I get it. But now fresh
report from the New York Times that the DNC is
scrapping the report, deciding not to publish it.
Speaker 1 (20:02):
Here's what the Times wrote. Ken Martin, the chairman.
Speaker 2 (20:05):
Of the DNC, said on Thursday that he decided to
not publish the report that he'd ordered months ago into
what went wrong for the Democratic Party last year. Mister
Martin will instead keep the findings under seal. He believes
that looking back so publicly and painfully at the past
would prove counterproductive for a party as it tries next
year to take back power in Congress.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Max. What the F I can't get over how dumb
this is.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
It makes the DNC look scared and weak and afraid
of its own people.
Speaker 4 (20:35):
Maybe also a bit irrelevant. Yeah, yeah, So going back
to twenty twelve, it's actually so interesting you brought that up, because, yes,
the Republican Party did this massive analysis, and what the
large conclusion was is that the party has to get
better at going after independent persuadables. So some of the
(20:58):
conclusions in twenty twelve were, we need to temper our
stuff on immigration, we need to maybe temper some of
our stuff on tax cuts for the wealthiest cer at
least temper some of our stuff about proactive aggressive warfare
abortion abortion too.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
And get what Donald Trump and I don't.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
Believe Donald Trump actually makes like purposefully analytical conclusions, but
he's almost like a shark in the sense that he
does things based off instinct. The conclusion that Donald Trump
his actions, I think poor two, was that the answer
was an enhanced based mobilization. Forget about the independence and
it's just mobilized.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
That he didn't care about it at all.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
And what we did it and we talked about it
and we released it totally.
Speaker 4 (21:42):
And look, I can tell you what the DNC analysis is.
I can tell you us.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
What they find.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
You'll need a long term mckensey analysis to tell you
what happened. The border was a disaster, Inflation was an
utter disaster. The White House was absolutely unwilling to act
on or talk about any of those in a cogent,
basic human way that anyone can understand. And Harris was
(22:11):
unwilling to turn her back on those policy and campaign
failures and missteps.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
So why not just come out and say that we
know it. I know it, you know it, why not
just say it?
Speaker 4 (22:22):
They should. I'm not telling you that they should do it,
but I'm just telling I'm telling you that it's not
like there's no mystery here. Yeah. So the point though,
for the party right now is going to be to
what degree do you act like this shy rear looking
party going backward, and or to what degree do you
(22:44):
kind of stand up say something that doesn't look poll tested,
you know, kind of say, let's school you if you're
you know, if you don't like it, and see how
that turns out these new voters. That breaks polls. Because
the story of the twenty first century and politics this
is that our best politicians are the ones that break polls.
Our best movements are the ones that break polls. That's
(23:07):
what Obama did in twenty twelve. That's why I pissed
the Republicans off so much, because they thought they were
going to win and all these people turned out who
they never thought were going to turn out, right, And
that's what we have to learn how to do again.
And you're not going to do that with fancy analysis.
I think you will do that though, by being really
really bold, really bold.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Well, I agree, And what worries me. Now is what
you and I were just talking about. The Trump administration
is imploding. We're watching it before our eyes. We had
Steve Israelan. He thinks Dems will not only win the House,
but maybe even the Senate, and I agree in twenty
six and I agree Trump is the weakest he's ever been.
But Democrats still need to earn votes. And I worry
(23:51):
that the worst Trump does, the less they'll feel like
they need to present a case and make here's our agenda,
here's what we have to offer, because it just gets
easier and easier to let Trump hang himself and voters
still they still need voters to come back to them
and not sit home, which is what most voters do
in midterms.
Speaker 4 (24:11):
But that there was some of your opening monologue that
pointed to a little bit of kind of this twenty
twenty five Dems in disarray narrative, or at least something
about these internal battles that are happening in the party.
I'm really happy about that. I think it's great. Yeah,
because when we annoint people and when we have our
(24:31):
ducks in a row and everything, everyone become this is
our person's two years out, it's all settled.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
We fuck it up badness. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
Yeah, So, Like I love the idea of ideological combat
in the party. I love the idea of a noisy,
messy primary. I think it's a wide open field. I
don't think we're dealing with any more of the traditional
kind of left versus moderate notions in the party. I
think that that's kind of gone. I think it's really
(25:02):
going to be a question of new verses old and
who is willing to, like, you know, throw out not
only creative ideas from a policy perspective, but creative ideas
from a mobilization perspective about how are you going to
stick it to the people that are screwing us right now?
Like I want to hear about how that Trump ballroom
will be named the Obama Ballroom. I want to hear
(25:25):
someone coming out talking about how they are going to
make sure that Elon Musk do all the things that
he's doing. Yeah, that Elon Musk either doesn't win a
contract or the majority of his space related adventures are nationalized. Like,
I want to hear someone and I don't consider myself
(25:45):
some like foreign lefty, right, but that's what I want
to hear, And that's why I think the majority of
the base.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Actually, well, I think Gems need to do that, and
so they need to do that, and a majority of
voters do not care. Their life is not changed at
all by what happens to the East wing of the
White House. Democrats need to be talking about affordability and
immigration and crime and the issues that matter to the
most amount of people.
Speaker 4 (26:13):
Yes, like, I think, of course that's the case. But
I don't. Look, you know, what the hell do I know?
I've lost more elections than I've won. But I.
Speaker 1 (26:24):
No, I think you're right. But I think it's and but.
Speaker 4 (26:27):
I don't think that that's the way people vote. I
don't think that. I don't think that people vote according
to specific policy prescriptions. I think people they don't.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
They vote based on how they feel and how they
feel most of them, and they don't.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
I don't think that Trump the East wing is the
issue that matters most of them.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Here's at the risk, You're probably never going to invite
me back, because I'm of the disagreement.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
We will invite you back every day on Sunday.
Speaker 4 (26:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Love the conversation.
Speaker 4 (26:57):
You know how insecure I am, so I appreciate that.
But I in order for someone, an elected official, particularly
a president, to address the really deep, painful things that
Americans are enduring today, particularly around cost of living, that
person is going to have to have the guts to
(27:20):
do stuff that hasn't happened before. That person is going
to have to be willing to dig deep and look
at these bureaucrats and look at this precedent and say,
screw you, we are not doing it that way anymore.
And that is the signal I believe that the American
electorate are going to be looking for, is does this
(27:42):
person have the guts to be different?
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Yeah, I get what you're saying. They want a fighter,
and there's a way to signal that.
Speaker 2 (27:48):
I think really did it brilliantly, Like Mam Donnie signaled
I'm a fighter. I'm not going to do things the
way they've all been always been done. But to my point,
he also focused on the issues that matter to most Americans,
affordability and safety and all those things.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
Absolutely. Yeah, And you know this is I think we're
slowly kind of dancing towards you say saying the same point,
which is just a little bit that I feel like
it kind of Mom Donnie's proposals. Let's talk about him
for a secon Right, there's three planks, fast and free buses,
free freeze the rent, universal childcare. Right, those three things,
(28:28):
for the vast majority of New Yorkers dealing with an
affordability crisis, won't actually dramatically improve their situation. Right, Like,
if you're like someone in the working class, lower middle
class and suddenly you're not you're getting on a free bus,
your affordability life hasn't dramatically changed. But what I do believe,
(28:48):
what Mam Donnie was saying is that like, dude, this
is simple and it's bold, and that's the way I'm
going to govern like consistently. Yeah, And it's not like
some thirty pinch thing that you got to look through
where the nuance is going to be the way I
screw you yea, and the way like us looking for
ways to consistently communicate that about our personality as a party,
(29:11):
which is we don't talk about this enough how the
culture of the Democratic Party is broken. It is broken
because it is filled with technocrats who are scared and
who are actually consistent, particularly when they work in administrations,
and democratic administrations aren't thinking about their next job. They're thinking,
(29:33):
how can I go to Baine, How can I go
to McKinsey, How can I go to Solivan and Cromwell.
I how can I just make this the palate cleanser,
the progressive palate cleanser, So I have my West Wing moment,
but still preserve social credibility to the rest of my
professional career. That group of people, that culture is not
what the American people think will deliver on these bold,
(29:55):
unprecedented changes that are part fuck you. Yeah, And that's
kind of where I'm coming from here. When there is
an element of coming out and when you say the
ballroom should be named after Barack Obomba, there's an element
of that where you do also communicate implicitly that you
will deliver bold you'll do it all, change it.
Speaker 1 (30:17):
I got it, I get it, but no, I get it.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
And I actually think we are saying very similar things.
I want what you're saying, plus I want that, and
and I think I think of a talented you know,
a talented person can can.
Speaker 1 (30:31):
Do it all.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
All right, I know you got to go. Before I
let you go. We do an exit poll here. It's
three questions of varying degrees of seriousness. The first one
is what's your favorite movie about politics?
Speaker 4 (30:46):
What's that movie with Michael Michael Douglas American President. Yeah,
that's just such a good one.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
I mean, that's a good one. And it's it's uh,
it's poignant. That's a Rob Reiner film.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
That that that one's amazing one.
Speaker 1 (30:58):
Who is someone you like across the aisle?
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Oh? I love Brian Fitzpatrick. I think he's a great guy.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
He's a dear friend.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Good And finally, how do we save our democracy?
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Max?
Speaker 4 (31:11):
We win elections. That's it, periods.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
It's the only way to do it.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
You gotta win. Absolutely, Max Rose, thanks so much for
joining me. Really appreciated this como.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Thank you again, See you soon well.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
And thanks to you for tuning in.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Have a great holiday everyone, and remember look for our
new Year's Off the Cup special.
Speaker 1 (31:32):
And I'll see you in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2 (31:38):
Off the Cup is a production of iHeart Podcasts as
part of the Reason Choice Network.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
If you want more, check out the other.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Reason Choice podcasts Spolitics with Jamel Hill and Native Land Pod.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
For Off the Cup, I am your host, Si Cup.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Editing and sound design by Derek Clements, our executive producers
are me Si Cup, Lauren Hanson, and Lindsay Hoffman. Rate
and review wherever you get your podcasts, Follow or subscribe
for new episodes every Wednesday.
Host
S.E. Cupp
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.