May 28, 2025 • 55 mins
The political landscape has undergone a seismic transformation over the past three decades, and few understand this evolution better than Eric Lems. From his early days as a White House intern during the Clinton administration to his current role as Executive Director of the Maricopa County Democratic Party, Lems offers a rare perspective on how technology has revolutionized campaign strategy.
Remember when campaigns meant phone banks with physical landlines and CNN dominated the 24-hour news cycle? Lems walks us through the remarkable journey from those analog days to our current era of sophisticated data analytics and targeted digital media. He explains how Howard Dean pioneered online fundraising, Obama mastered internet organizing, and Trump revolutionized digital targeting—creating the integrated approach campaigns use today.
What makes Maricopa County so politically significant? As the fourth largest county in America and second largest voting jurisdiction, Maricopa stands alone among major metropolitan areas as a true battleground. With nearly 5 million residents spread across diverse communities ranging from wealthy gated neighborhoods to farmlands, winning here is essential to winning Arizona. Lems reveals how migration patterns from the Midwest, Northeast, and California have gradually transformed the state from reliably Republican to competitively purple.
Drawing from his Fortune 500 background at Microsoft and SAP, Lems shares how corporate leadership skills translate to political strategy—and crucially, which corporate habits to leave behind. He emphasizes that trust forms the foundation of effective campaign teams, creating an environment where candidates can be vulnerable and weather disagreements. The most valuable lesson from his 2016 Clinton campaign experience? "Never take victory for granted and keep your foot on the gas until you cross the finish line."
As concerns about election integrity dominate political discourse, Lems provides reassurance by revealing the bipartisan verification process that occurs before every election and the dedicated civil servants who ensure fair results regardless of personal political views. He warns that the real threats come through legislative efforts to restrict voting access—making vigilance and participation essential to preserving our democratic system.
Ready to get involved or learn more about local organizing? Visit maricopadems.org and discover how you can make a difference in one of America's most consequential political battlegrounds.
The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter https://wwwJackHopkinsNow.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast.
I'm your host, jack Hopkins,today's guest, has spent the
last three decades deeplyinvolved in democratic politics.
Eric Lems got his start as acollege volunteer on a campaign
swing for Vice President Al Gore, which led to a White House
internship during the Clintonadministration.
(00:22):
After time in corporateleadership with major Fortune
500 companies, he returned topolitics, spending most of 2016
on the road with the Clintoncampaign.
Since then, he's been all in onlocal organizing.
He served on the MaricopaCounty Democratic Party Board,
worked as deputy executivedirector and now leads the
(00:44):
organization as its executivedirector.
Okay so, eric and thesequestions like this are always
tough on the spot to answer I'masking you to really compress
three decades, but to the bestof your ability.
How have politics, how's itchanged in the last 30 years?
(01:09):
If you were to step back andjust kind of look at the
timeline and say, gosh, we starthere and now we're here, how's
it changed?
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, the technology that's deployed on campaigns is
boy, it's just changedtremendously, right.
So when I first got into thisspace, which would have been
during the Clinton years, that'sthe first, my first
presidential election in 92.
It was 24-hour news cycle,almost exclusively in CNN.
(01:43):
That was pre-Fox, that waspre-MSNBC, obviously pre-digital
media, and Bill Clinton and hiscampaign and his people were
trailblazers at that mediumright.
And you and I are probably of acertain age.
Remember the town hall style.
You bet it was kind of a firstthen.
(02:04):
Sure, the town hall style, youbet it was kind of a first.
Then he had, you know, a youngguy by the name of George
Stephanopoulos at the time who's, of course, now been with ABC
News forever, and then JamesCarville and were then unknowns
but obviously subsequentlybecame very famous from that
campaign and and so that waskind of where we began.
(02:24):
And then you get into the 2000s, the internet you know the
advent of the internet about,probably you know, and its usage
and utilization in campaignsaround the early 2000s.
And Howard Dean was able toraise an amazing amount of money
just from online donations, toraise an amazing amount of money
(02:46):
just from online donations.
Then you move over into thekind of the Obama era of it and,
forgive me, I tend to look atit through the lens of the
camera Right.
Who kind of using the internetto organize and he had a big
kind of an army of ground on theground organizing there.
(03:09):
And then now I am going to go toa Republican.
Then you go with the DonaldTrump bearer and what did he
master?
He used a technology oftargeted digital media and
really blew the doors off thatand destroyed the Clinton
campaign Hillary Clintoncampaign in that regard in 2016
and, frankly, has never lookedback from that.
(03:29):
But now we're kind of, if youlook at 2025, where you combine
all those things kind of themedia rapid response side, the
online donations, the targeteddigital advertising,
communications you know thetargeted digital advertising and
you know we're kind of at anera now where, frankly, I say
(03:50):
the Republicans are ahead of theDemocrats on that.
But it's where all of thosetechnologies have kind of come
to, you know, come to the forenow, and one big thing is kind
of gives us what we see today.
So kind of from where we beganand where we are, it's really
just been an incredibletrajectory and it's really been
a lot of fun to kind of be awitness to that history.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Oh, I can't imagine.
You know, it's interesting tome how quickly we forget some
things or don't have them kindof lined up in our mind.
When you said you know kind ofthe advent of the internet.
When you said you know kind ofthe advent of the Internet, and
as you said that I bought myfirst personal computer in 97.
It was an old Packard Bell witha monitor the size of a
(04:36):
Frigidaire right.
And yeah, I don't often whenI'm thinking politically I don't
often put those two togetherand so to think about what an
exciting but yet unchartedterritory and time that must
have been.
You've got this new technologyand yet you know it's new.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So you're having to kind of figure it out as you go
along.
Was that anything that, from atechnological aspect, that ever
caused any problems?
Well, I think a cause.
Well, I think, for presidentialcampaigns, I think you know you
find out there's problems,frankly, after Election Day when
you find out whether you wantto lose, right, sure, if you
look below the presidentiallevel, where stuff frankly is
not as sophisticated, right, Imean for the statewide races,
(05:30):
governors and US Senate you knowsome of those if they're
well-resourced enough, you knowyou get kind of technology
that's more or less on par withsome of what you see at the
presidential level.
Below that, everything is a lotmore of a bootstrap nature,
right, right, so you have to bekind of.
You don't have access to asmany things financially,
(05:52):
technologically, you have to bea lot more clever and making
fewer resources go the furthesttype of a thing.
So in that regard, you reallyrealize it as you kind of move
down in the level of campaign.
Another major difference I willsay in campaigns is and I would
(06:13):
say this probably started tohappen about 10 to 15 years ago
range the data that's in thesecampaigns.
Now, it's kind of ironic thatat the time where data has
become a very much bigger thinginside of campaigns.
Polling has gotten worse andworse and worse.
(06:34):
I think there's a lot ofreasons for that.
You know landlines to selllines and age stuff, pickup
rates and all that kind of thingI think is kind of some of the
cause for that, and it's justharder to do polling for a
variety of systemic reasons.
But by data I specifically meanI mean you now have people with
master's degrees and some typeof or PhDs in some cases in a
(06:58):
STEM-type science inside ofpresidential campaigns running
your numbers yeah, inside ofpresidential campaigns running
your numbers and looking andslicing the numbers several
different ways to try toidentify and isolate the people
you need to target, and that hasreally there's been a huge
uptick in that, probably aboutthe past decade or so.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Trevor Burrus.
So when you look back to yourearliest beginnings in politics,
does it seem like a fairlyantiquated time compared to what
they're able to do now withtechnology, or is it just kind
of all blended together for you?
Speaker 2 (07:38):
No, it was an antiquated time.
I can go back pre-'90s before Ikind of got into it.
And we've seen this kind of gotinto it.
You know, you'd be kind of, andwe've seen this kind of
portrayed in movies, where youknow a campaign office, you have
a bunch of cubicles and peopleat phones and like all that
stuff we do virtually now.
Right so, I mean it's, you know, which frankly cuts down on
(08:00):
things like real estate coststoo, right so, and phone line
costs and those kinds.
So look, I mean, I think theother kind of perspective I
bring to it is I was in thecorporate business world for a
number of years before I gotinto this full time.
Yes, and it just so happens mychosen industry was software and
(08:21):
technology.
Oh, interesting.
So I spent a decade at placeslike Microsoft and SAP, so I
also am able to kind of seeconnect technology to politics
probably more fluently than alot of other folks are yeah, and
that's also why the other stufflooks more antiquated too.
To be honest, Right.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Well, let me ask you this, because, especially over
the last decade, Arizona hasbeen a big deal in politics,
right in elections.
What is it that makes MaricopaCounty so important politically?
So, first of all, we're verybig.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And we are the fourth largest county in the United
States and, frankly, you andyour listeners probably know can
guess the other three, right?
Sure?
So New York, new York,including Manhattan, cook County
, which is Chicago, la County,and then we have Harris County
(09:29):
Actually, we actually werebigger than Manhattan, but
Harris County, which is Houston,and then Maricopa County.
We're close to 5 million people.
In terms of voting jurisdiction, we're the second largest
behind LA County, so we'relarger than 26 states.
Probably most importantly,we're actually considered
battleground.
All the other counties Imentioned are deep blue.
(09:50):
Yeah, we're the onlybattleground county, so you
pretty much have to win MaricopaCounty to win Arizona.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Yeah, yeah, that's a significant deal, yeah, okay,
yeah, yeah, that's a significantdeal, yeah, okay, yeah.
I'm trying to think as we werediscussing a little bit before
we went live, I was out inArizona, in the Phoenix area, in
1990, and when you said 5million, I have no idea what the
(10:22):
numbers were back then, butthey were considerably smaller,
I know that Since then it'sdoubled.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
probably about doubled.
Yeah, yeah, Wow.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Okay, that's a pretty big piece of the pie in terms
of importance, right, just sheernumbers.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yeah, importance, right, just sheer numbers, yeah,
and you know, I mean we look atjust the sheer numbers and then
you also add in we're not denselike some of these other, or as
dense as some of those othercommunities as well, right, so
we think of Cook County.
That pretty much ispredominantly Chicago, which is
pretty dense, and even LA isdense in its own way.
I mean it doesn't like goupward like Manhattan or New
(11:06):
York does, of course, but it's.
There's no kind of like emptyparcels of land in LA.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Right, right, so, and so what?
So the reason why I raise thatis because, you know, maricopa
County is not just talking topeople virtually or digitally,
what have you, but even on myjob, day to day, I physically
travel all over the county andso, getting to one corner of it
(11:35):
versus another, that just addscomplexities.
Just with our volunteer workand when people are door-to-door
canvassing, that's a lot,frankly, a lot of zip codes that
you have to cover, even ifyou're, you know, paying for
media and so not to mention thedriving that you're doing as a
candidate, right?
And so last year we actuallyran a pretty much a full slate
(12:00):
of county candidates for variousoffices, ranging from county
attorney down to countysupervisor, and I can tell you
our county-wide candidates, Imean, they're kind of feeling
like they're driving across astate, yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
I was going to say.
I mean just thinking, comparingit to Manhattan or LA County.
I kind of use as a reference,as you were talking about that,
the number of saguaro cactuses.
You know you go by cacti.
Yeah, you think about thedensity of Manhattan and then
(12:38):
you look at Maricopa County andgosh, it's different in so many
ways just in terms of how youwork.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
And we have the various parts of the county are
different in terms ofsocioeconomics, right.
So we have kind of the northeastpart of the county is not only
affluent but it's kind ofnestled in a lot of mountains,
too, right, and thosecommunities are gated.
(13:14):
So just the things that I thinkabout as a political hack kind
of person is you can't knockdoors in communities like that
just because of the terrain,because they're gated, so you
have to pay to reach thosevoters, right, right.
Whereas then you also have thefar southwest, even though kind
of our farmland is going awayand that's another major
difference between now and 1990is, when you're flying into
(13:35):
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport,you'd see lots of fields and
farmland and so forth, and mostof that's been replaced by, you
know, factories, assembly lines,you know Amazon fulfillment
facilities and the like.
You know there's a $60 billionyes, $60 billion development in
(13:57):
the north part of town from aTaiwan semiconductor.
They're building kind of liketheir US headquarters here, and
so that looks a lot different.
But in the far southwest, wherethere is kind of still some of
those fields, that is more rural.
So you're kind of mixing inrural, ex-urban, suburban and
urban, so that variety alsomakes it just a very fun, unique
(14:21):
and fun place to do politics.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Yeah, sounds like the landscape has changed
considerably.
I remember when I came in fromthe north the first time I was
in Arizona and hit Sun City andI called a buddy of mine that
lived in Mesa and he gave medirections and there were wide
open spaces between, I mean wideopen spaces between, sun City
(14:45):
and Mesa.
I'm guessing those havedwindled down.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Those are long gone, jack.
Yeah, and I would say so, yoursurrounding cities in Mesa,
chandler, you know, queen Creekare kind of the big ones out
there.
Yeah, that's all kind of filledin.
It's just truly incredible.
You know the, and also becauseof what you're seeing, because
(15:11):
of the growth, you know housingprices also just kind of.
You know we don't havehurricanes, we don't have
earthquakes.
It's hot as heck, but you knowpeople kind of discover, you
know the quality of life here isjust a lot of fun, and so,
(15:32):
consequently, the demand forhousing has just gone up as well
.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, what has that done to?
Speaker 2 (15:41):
the political landscape, that growth.
So it's been fascinatingbecause you know you really see
a lot of interesting thing withthe migration patterns here,
right.
So you know we've had a veryhealthy mix of people coming
from really all over the country, ranging from the Midwest to
(16:02):
the Northeast, ranging from theMidwest to the Northeast.
Very curiously, frankly, sportsand I know you and I are both
kind of in the sports science aswell in our own ways has had
something of an impact on that,because we've hosted a number of
major events.
We've hosted several SuperBowls and then, of course, the
Fiesta Bowl has gotten verylarge.
We hosted the collegebasketball tournament last.
(16:26):
So what happens is peopletravel out here for one reason
or another.
They discover they love it andthen they migrate out here.
And we've hosted a lot of teamsfrom the east and so that's
kind of led to people from thatpart of the country migrating
out here.
So when you get people comingfrom those, and then I also
suspect we have a fair number ofCalifornia refugees who the
(16:49):
housing price over there is justsuch that, hey, it's just we
got to get out of here, kind ofa thing, right.
So I think the net of that, theimpact on politics is the state,
frankly, has become closerright, polit, yes, you know.
Politically, you know, probablymore divided.
I'd say it was probably in theeras of, say, 1990 to maybe 2010
(17:14):
, 2015,.
Pretty solidly red, I would say.
Yeah, you know, we did have acouple of Democrats who did well
statewide in that era who, Iwould say, for their own set of
reasons, were kind of justspecial talents Janet Napolitano
comes to mind.
But by and large I mean prettysolidly read.
(17:36):
But really in the past decadeor so, I think the migrations
patterns have kind of made itcloser and so that's what we're
seeing, gotcha.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
You spent some time in the Fortune 500 world, the
corporate world, right.
I'm curious about how thatexperience shaped your political
leadership skills.
And you mentioned that you wereinvolved in kind of the
software sector.
So what did you carry over intopolitics and maybe what did you
(18:09):
not so much?
Speaker 2 (18:13):
So let me preface Even though I name-dropped
Microsoft before, that does notmean I'm a software developer or
engineer.
I was more again on the.
I have an MBA, so I was kind ofmore on the strategy corporate
side.
But I used a lot of analyticalskills when I was in the
business world and that wassomething I was immediately able
(18:35):
to connect to politics.
And every day I'm always kindof I have to manage.
I have to manage, you know, abudget, for example.
I have to build a budget andmanage to it.
You know, that's something thatI was very it was easy for me
to just kind of transfer overthat I still use on a daily
(18:55):
basis and I use that not just inmy current role, my American
County Democratic Party but alsoeven when I've been a campaign
manager.
I have to do that.
So that's something that youknow I was able just to kind of
easily just kind of bring thatskill set you know and merge
that with the political world.
You know, I would say you know,one thing that I've tried to
(19:18):
kind of I don't want to sayleave behind, that I let's say I
haven haven't, I've tried tonot replicate is um, you know
there's certainly a.
You know, politics is cutthroatwhen it's like democrat versus
republican, yes, like you'rekind of opponents in the
corporate world.
There's an element of that,even inside your own division,
right, sure and uh, you know,when I was with um Microsoft at
(19:44):
that era it was about 20 yearsago now it kind of had a if you
remember the old CEO, jack Welchat General Electric, yes, it
kind of had that culture to itand that created a lot of
moments in certain times of theyear angst within the team, you
know.
So one thing I've always triedto foster is kind of a family
(20:06):
atmosphere in the teams that Ilead and I foster a relationship
of trust.
Trust, I think, is paramountwithin a political team, I think
, because you know this is anenvironment where, especially
for candidates, they have to bemore vulnerable than they've
(20:27):
ever been in their lives, andsometimes it's not just the
candidate himself or herself,it's their family as well, and
those principals have to trustyou and the team around them
without hesitation.
And so just kind of fosteringthat, you know, that sense of
(20:48):
team and family and trust, issomething that I've tried to
foster in this life that,unfortunately, I wasn't really
empowered to do, maybe in aprevious life.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Sure, Would it be fair to say that the higher the
level of trust?
Would it be fair to say thatthe higher the level of trust,
the quicker things rebound?
When people do disagree witheach other, when there is a
flare-up, that if the level oftrust is deep it tends not to be
(21:19):
that big a deal.
But if the level of trust iskind of low or just barely there
, then those disagreements canbecome deal breakers.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
So here's the thing.
You know you don't have to evenI'm talking within the team
itself right?
You don't have to agree withyour principal, your candidate,
on every single thing, right?
Sure, you both just have tohave a shared goal that you want
to win.
Right, and as long as you guysare on the same page there, um,
(21:51):
you know disagreements you don'ttake personally.
You just have a differentapproach for a different reason.
You know you come to it with acertain sense of well, okay, you
and I are going to agree todisagree, but let's roll forward
and let's do it, and then youmove on.
You know you don't hold on tothat emotion.
You know one thing that I thinkcandidates confront that maybe
(22:13):
kind of their politicaloperatives might have a
different perspective on.
You know I'm fortunate enoughnow that I happen to have a lot
of personal vested interest init, because this is my hometown
and my home state, and so so anycandidates that run, I'm as
emotionally invested in it asthey are, Right, Right, and what
you see a lot in thisprofession is you get road
(22:34):
warrior kind of campaign managertypes who will manage a
congressional campaign, whensometimes you know those
campaign managers want you to gohyper negative and go negative
against your opponent and allthat kind of thing, yeah, and
you know the candidate's like,look, I got to live here
afterward, you know, Right,Right.
And so that's sometimes wherethings can get a little.
(22:54):
But again, if you have a sharedmission and you trust each
other on that level, you don'treally take anything personally.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Over the years, we've seen candidates that didn't
even remotely live close to thearea or the state even that they
were running who come in, and Ialways thought of that in terms
of attempting to establishtrust there.
You know, I can only imagineit's a lot more difficult to do.
(23:33):
Imagine it's a lot moredifficult to do and you've got
to have some really big treat.
You're dangling in front ofyour potential constituents when
you do that because of the lackof trust.
Let's talk about a name againthat's been mentioned, but one
(23:54):
that maybe a few peoplelistening will know, and that's
Clinton.
What lessons from the 2016Clinton campaign can we pull
forward to now?
As we look forward and I hateto say this, but I would be, I
(24:15):
just wouldn't be authentic if Ididn't say this when we look at
the midterms and we look at 2028, in the forefront of
everybody's mind now is will wehave a free and fair election
right, election right.
(24:41):
You know that is.
There are still things hangingout there about this last
election in terms of we knowthat wasn't even a question mark
.
We know that there was Russianinterference again, just as
there had been in 2020.
Now that he's in the WhiteHouse again based on how he has
portrayed himself since he'sbeen in office public statements
(25:03):
that he has made things heintends to do.
I mean, when somebody comes outand tells you they're maybe
looking at a third term, youhave to take them seriously.
In this situation, what can we?
Knowing those things, fearingthose things because, let's be
(25:26):
honest, voters are fearful rightnow.
Right, you know there's anelement of fear that we've had
over the last eight years, butnow, with some of the things
that we've seen happen, I thinkthat that level of fear has
elevated.
What can we bring forward?
(25:49):
Let me back up.
What have you brought forward?
Right, that people like me willbe glad that you brought
forward from those lessons thatcan be applied now and in the
future, yeah, no.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
So I think the number one thing is, you know, and let
me preface by saying, I think,one, if I look back to kind of
what happened in 2016, one thingthat I think is oft overlooked
is and that's not to say that I,I think Secretary Clinton lost
(26:28):
for a variety of reasons, but Ithink we can ignore the fact
that it's really hard to getthree in a row.
Ok, right, so that going intothe campaign for her, in
particular, that was a headwindthat already she was facing to
try to get three in a row.
And the American people, theylike to kind of do a change
after eight years.
Right, so there's that.
(26:49):
But I think for me, you know, Ithink that I've kind of learned
is and I want to be careful insaying this I don't for a moment
think that the inside theClinton campaign itself, that we
took things for granted.
I mean, I know that I can speak,that I was very focused.
(27:11):
I happened to be working on thecampaign in Michigan.
Well, I did two things.
I was very focused.
I happened to be working on thecampaign in Michigan.
Well, I did two things.
One, I worked on the NationalConvention staff in 2016, and
the show itself was incredibleand great and successful and all
of that.
We were very focused on makingthat a great experience for her
and for the country.
(27:31):
And even when I worked inMichigan in the final weeks of
the campaign, all my teammateswere very focused and I suspect
they were very focused inBrooklyn where the headquarters
was, sure, but I think, onedegree out from the actual paid
campaign itself.
Amongst the activists andcertainly amongst the media, I
(27:51):
think people just took forgranted she was going to win.
Amongst the media, I thinkpeople just took for granted she
was going to win.
You know, I certainly think Imean I hate to bring this name
up I certainly think James Kobeassumed that she was going to
win and a lot of his behaviorwas impacted by that.
So I think that you know, notletting one's foot up off the
gas ever until you cross thatfinish line is a lesson that all
(28:12):
of us need to learn, All of us.
Line is a lesson that all of usneed to learn, All of us, you
know, don't take, you know,anything you're doing.
You know inside the campaignfor granted.
You know, always stay focusedon mission and just don't let
your foot up off the gas untilyou get to the finish line is a
lesson that we just need tolearn and stick to.
(28:33):
I think the good news now is, Ithink the urgency is such that
people are locked in and,frankly, if anything, I think we
have kind of the reverseproblem now is based on what I'm
seeing and hearing when Itravel of the county.
It's like what can we do now,now, now, now, now, now, now,
right, Because people just can'twait until November of 26.
(28:57):
So the lesson you just got tokeep your foot on the gas and
run through the tape.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
I want to ask you a question to see how much this
kind of philosophy I have pairsup with what you just said and
it may not pair up at all, but Isuspect there may be a little
overlap and I'd like to get yourfeedback on it.
I wrote an article a few weeksago that was essentially talking
(29:25):
about the inherent danger ofmaking a political candidate a
celebrity superstar, that it canbe a double-edged sword, right
(29:46):
that their celebrity status canbecome so big that then there is
just an assumption well, ofcourse they're going to win.
They're so big, they're theOprah right of politics who else
would win?
Who could beat them?
(30:06):
And so obviously it's abalancing act, because on the
one hand you have to make sureeverybody knows who the
candidate is and they have to bebig.
But is there a fine line youhave to pay attention to there
(30:27):
with getting them so big in acelebrity type way that it
starts working against thecampaign?
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Well, you know, what's interesting about that is
when you look over the years atkind of who the nominees have
been in the United States, goingback at least again.
Simon has 30 years, right,right, but going back at least
again.
So I've been in this 30 years,right, people, it tends to.
(31:01):
The winners tend to be peoplewith the shortest paper trim,
interesting Even George W Bush.
He'd been governor.
What Now?
He had the family name,obviously Right, he'd been
governor, I believe, only sixyears.
Barack Obama, us senator fouryears.
Trump, of course, had neverserved in any type of elective
or public office before.
So, you know, in the UnitedStates unlike, say, a Germany,
(31:22):
for example, where I mean Merkelwas, you know, a PM for
Chancellor for 20 years and then, I think, in the Parliament for
several decades before that,right, by comparison, the United
States might be something 20years and then, I think, in the
parliament for several decadesbefore that, right, right, right
.
By comparison, the UnitedStates might be something to be
said for people like fresh faces, right, right.
(31:44):
It's also kind of harder tocaricature somebody who's more
of a fresher face.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Yes, caricature somebody who's more of a fresher
face.
Yes, and I'm guessing, if I caninterrupt you for a second,
that caricature effect can cutboth ways as well.
Would that be it can?
Speaker 2 (32:04):
It can.
But what I would say is theperson maybe, perhaps with a
shorter paper trail, might havea little more.
I guess latitude, ok, right, wecould use as well, right.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
You bet.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
You know, they probably don't necessarily
operate by a rule book that'sbeen used for 10 or 20 years.
So you know it can cut bothways, you know, you know.
To your question is you know,you know, can celebrity be too
much?
I mean, I don't know.
I mean I think that at thepresidential level, particularly
(32:45):
once you're the nominee, you'realways going to get a lot of
free kind of paid Right, freeearned media right, because
there's only two candidates andthe media is always fascinated
by who the nominees are.
And all of that, I would say,bring us back down to local.
Frankly, I loved having anastronaut run for US Senate.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
I'm not going to lie about that.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Sure sure, especially when our candidate for your
listeners I'm being veryspecific about US Senator Mark
Kelly, when he was runningagainst Martha McSally, who also
, as you know, had an extremelyimpressive military background
Right.
And so certainly I think, onceyou get below the presidential
(33:34):
level, I think you might evenprefer a celebrity in some
respects.
So it probably also depends onthe race and the level of race
you're looking at too.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
I can only imagine that if I or anyone else were to
, in the middle of a campaign,right come to a campaign manager
and say, you know, I think yourcandidate's name is getting too
big, I probably wouldn't meetwith somebody that would agree
with me.
If what I hear you saying and Icertainly understand that
(34:05):
dichotomy you know that.
Hey, I suppose, having listenedto what you had to say, listen
to what you had to say, what Iwrote about might be true, but
in general, you probably stillwould want to lean towards
(34:27):
bigger name.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
I'm actually going to punt here.
I'd say it's case by case, andhere's why I say that Some
celebrities have certain skillsthat we like to see in politics
um better skills and say othersum, yeah I I'll just be very
specific on some names here.
Um, I personally think thatdonald trump has better raw
(34:53):
skills than, say, a GeorgeClooney Sure.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
So look, I'm right there with George Clooney on his
political ideology, but I wouldagree with you, by the way.
But in terms of his raw skillsto do this kind of thing, I just
don't think he would be as goodas Trump.
So I think it depends on therace, the candidate, the moment
Right.
You know, I think it reallydepends on the race, the
candidate, the moment Right.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
You know, I think it really depends and I'm glad to
hear you say that because I havefound on social media, for
example, if I post somethingalong those lines, kind of
making that type of comparison,you've got to be prepared for
the pushback because thosecomments will be perceived as
(35:36):
support of some kind for DonaldTrump when it's simply just an
analysis of a skill set.
But obviously, off the cuff, asraw as it is, there's something
there that you don't see justeverywhere.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Oh, absolutely yeah you don't see, oh, absolutely.
And to go a step further, Ithink it also depends on you
play to your.
You have a certain set ofskills and then you play to your
strengths right.
So Donald Trump's strength isbuilding excitement at an event,
within his flock, within hiscrowd.
It's not necessarily doing adebate, and so what does he do?
(36:18):
He does fewer debates and morerallies, right, and you can play
to your strengths that way.
You know George Herbert WalkerBush if you allow me to get kind
of nerd out on you you know fora second here on some history,
george Herbert Walker Bush.
His strengths were just anabsolutely honorable and decent
and fine public servant, datingback to his days as a
(36:41):
19-year-old combat pilot inWorld War II.
And of course, again, Idisagreed with a lot of his
policies.
But I mean you can't questionthe man's patriotism and sense
of service.
And and when he's debating, youknow somebody like a Bill
Clinton, particularly in a townhall type of a setting.
That was not his strength,right, right, what you do is, I
(37:02):
think the key is you know, youunderstand kind of what your
skills are as a candidate andyou kind of work within those to
kind of you know, see if youcan excel Right to kind of you
know, see if you can excel Right.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Let me ask you what strategies, what approach MCDP
has for reaching the voters whoare just kind of like you know
they're just kind of reachingtheir threshold for politics, as
(37:39):
so many people are, justbecause it's been a pretty rough
and tense and stress-filledeight or nine years now.
How are you strategizing forthat, to reach and connect with
those people and give them asense of, hey, we're still in
(38:00):
the game?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
So, look, I mean, just like a lot of Democrats, we
were unhappy with the, you know, obviously very unhappy and
disappointed and to a certainextent, even surprised by the
results of last November.
So we wanted to learn from thatand we wanted to do differently
, you know.
And, of course, going.
You know, as I think I saidreferenced earlier.
(38:24):
You know you feel like you havea good plan going into the
election, but the quality of theplan is always determined by
the outcome, frankly.
So the question for us is and,frankly, for the people that
(38:45):
we're serving, our precinctcommittee people and activists,
sure, voters, doing a better jobof listening, you know, to our,
you know, to Democrats and ouractivists.
And we're doing that in theform of listening tours.
We've done several of themalready and literally what we're
(39:07):
doing is we're traveling intoall parts of the county, we're,
you know, sitting in a you knowroom or community center for you
know a couple of hours and wejust say up front hey, we're
going to be vulnerable, we wantto hear what you guys have to
say, what keeps you up at night,what's on your mind.
You know, we're going to takethis information and hope that
(39:30):
it informs, better, informs howwe do our strategy and our
messaging, and that's why we'rehere and we take all that
incoming for a couple of hours.
So that's one thing we're doingas well.
We're trying to bill out, youknow, our digital media
platforms.
We launched a new webpage,maricopademsorg for those who
(39:50):
want to check that out, andwe're trying to do a better job
of visiting platforms thatheretofore we've not visited.
You know, like yours and others, jack, and so we're, you know.
I think one takeaway, at leastfor me, from last year's
election is, you know, thepresident did a superior job of
(40:13):
meeting voters where they were,and sometimes that wasn't
necessarily, you know.
I mean, democrats tend tomyself included tend to think,
well, let's look to that debatewhere so many millions of people
are watching, but you know, theother side tends to think of it
as well no, let's do this andthat podcast, let's do this and
(40:33):
that on digital social media,and we're really trying to do a
lot better in that area becauseI think, as I said, as I think
I've said earlier, we're tryingto play catch up in some of
those ways.
So those are the three or fourthings that we're doing
differently to try to reachpeople.
Speaker 1 (40:47):
Nice and once again for anybody watching or
listening, correct me if I'mwrong, but maricopademsorg.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Is that correct?
Maricopademsorg, is thatcorrect?
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Maricopademsorg Gotcha, gotcha.
Listen, as we kind of wind downhere, let me ask you this
before we get into the lastquestion what advice would you
give your younger self?
So, if we go back to your forayinto politics, with the
experience that you've garneredand the thinking and the wisdom
(41:24):
you've developed, if you couldgo back to that young man and
say, let's have coffee.
I've got some pointers here foryou.
What are some of the thingsthat you would tell that Eric?
Speaker 2 (41:38):
Well, I think about that, uh, from time to time.
Um, one thing I wouldabsolutely do differently Um, I
would have charted, frankly, adifferent path for my um,
professional life.
I think, um, I, um, you know so, I know.
So I kind of got an MBA, wentinto the business world and,
(42:00):
kind of, you know, I started outas a White House intern in the
mid-90s and for Vice PresidentGore specifically which, of
course, just so peopleunderstand that there's about at
that time there was about 250interns and we were also unpaid
in that era, so that's anotherstory altogether.
They'd only reached more thangetting paid.
(42:21):
It's incredible.
But of the 250, about 20 to 25were vice presidential.
And so the reason why that'simportant for me is because I
developed a pretty closerelationship with Al Gore's team
, his official team at the time.
And the number one thing I dodifferently is I probably would
(42:44):
not have left that networkbehind for such a long time,
cause I was in the businessworld and did kind of have some
separation from that and thenabout a decade ago, I had to
kind of start fresh again.
Yeah, so I, you know, Idefinitely would have just
charted a different path formyself professionally when I
have the opportunity and nothave blown that opportunity For
(43:05):
those you know who and I, onoccasion I do have the chance to
mentor folks, kind of, you know, in their early 20s, when I was
at that age.
To mentor folks kind of you know, in their early 20s, when I was
at that age, sure, hey, if youhave any inkling of wanting to
do something in the political orpublic service space, just go
for it.
Just, you know, dive right in.
(43:26):
You know, all of us kind ofhave different experiences with
my, you know, with our parentsand with our fathers.
And I was like, hey, go outthere and make money and get
rich and all that kind of havedifferent experiences with my,
you know, with, with our, withour parents and with our fathers
.
And I was like, hey, go outthere and make money and get
rich and all that kind of right.
And so I kind of fell into thatfor a number of years like I
gotta get rich, I gotta get richagain.
It just wasn't satisfying forme and really, um, you know,
(43:49):
public service was kind of youknow, politics was always my
calling and I, you know,whenever I can, I advise people,
you young people, to do that,and that's one thing I would do
differently, just kind of followmy heart.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Right.
So, to close out, I want to askyou to contribute this and tell
me your approach.
One message that I am reallysending out to everybody that I
talk to in terms of futurevoters right, people who are
going to be voting in upcomingelections or who should be
(44:22):
voting in upcoming elections Imake sure to that concern, that
fear that election integritycould be a question mark because
(44:43):
of the kinds of threats thatwe've heard be made.
Right, but I follow up with wehave to vote, like election
integrity will be straight upand down and as tight as it has
ever been.
Because I think if you don'tblend those two stories, if you
(45:08):
don't match their fears with afact, which is If we don't vote,
that's when we have problems.
Right, we have to vote.
But I think, at the same time,one way to kind of lose trust or
(45:29):
risk losing trust is to actlike, oh, there's nothing to
being concerned about electionintegrity.
Put that, that's not even adeal.
I think people have experiencedtoo much to just wipe it away.
So I acknowledge it.
But then boom, we have nomatter what we are afraid of, no
(45:53):
matter what we think couldhappen.
We have to vote anyway.
So what is the Eric message tothat idea.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
So I'm actually going to blow the Republicans' cover
here on something to kind ofgive folks some confidence in
the system.
And I'm speaking again narrowlyin Maricopa County, our
elections officials so I'mtalking specifically, not
necessarily the elected countyrecorder here, who is someone
(46:33):
who I oppose, and we had anothercandidate who I supported, but
I'm speaking his civil serviceteam, the people who actually do
the day-to-day work.
They are incredible people andthese are people who they're not
political, they just do thework.
And then one of the things thatwe do is both the Democratic,
(46:59):
the county Democratic Party andthe county Republican Party
actually goesrove the systemprior to every single election,
(47:23):
even the most mundane, like bondelections, all the way up,
obviously, to presidential.
Both county political partiesdo that and that's the dirty
little secret to this.
So people understand that afterthe election, when they hear,
oh, my goodness, and it was, youknow, from the MAGA side, that
was fit.
Hey, the county RepublicanParty was there proving stuff
(47:44):
beforehand.
So that's one thing I'll say.
The second thing I'll say andagain just keeping it kind of
focused on Arizona is we have asecretary of state, adrian
Fontes, who, yes, happens to bea Democrat state.
(48:04):
Adrian Fontes who, yes, happensto be a Democrat, but Adrian
Fontes, this man, is a Marine.
He is the most hopelessromantic about democracy and
this republic that I've everseen, and pardon my French here.
(48:29):
But he will be damned if heeven whiffs that there's
something that is off or awry orthat is not honest or not
working with the election.
So the folks in Arizona shouldfeel very confident that next
year election is going to be ameaningful election.
No one should use that as apretext or an excuse to not vote
.
Who was it that said this is arepublic if we can keep it?
(48:51):
I think that might have beenBenjamin Franklin.
But we need to just rememberthat and go to the polls next
year when the time comes withthat in mind.
Just remember that and go tothe polls next year when the
time comes with that in mind,and let's just not surrender
this republic, this nation, tothose who would do us harm from
within.
Let's not do that Well said.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
You know, those are two fantastic confidence
bolstering points that you laidout there, bolstering points
that you laid out there To havesomeone with that kind of
integrity in the position thatAdrian is in, and then your
(49:32):
dirty little secret, as it were.
I can see why Republicans wouldlike to keep that a dirty
little secret.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
I just need their covers though.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Yeah, yeah, no, and I think and let me kind of
backtrack a minute andoftentimes I don't clarify this
enough so many times, when I'mtalking about election integrity
, one of the things that's in mymind and I probably ought to
word it differently is voters,voting rights, right, voters,
right, yeah, right.
(50:05):
I think you know we arewatching the attempt and the
attack on voting rights to tryto decrease the number of people
who can vote, to decrease thenumber of people who can vote
(50:27):
and then, where that fails, totry and decrease the number of
people who will vote, and soyeah, but that comes right back
to the two things that you laidout and the ongoing fights now
to defend and protect votingrights.
Speaker 2 (50:40):
So yeah, Well, to your point, Jack.
I believe there's a bill that'sscaring a lot of people.
It's called what?
The SAVE Act, or something likethat, which simply would
disenfranchise a lot of women inthe country, right, Because it?
has to do with so many women whochoose to change their name
(51:01):
when they to take their spouse'sname and and very dangerous,
and people just need to continueto be vigilant against that
stuff and oppose it at everyturn.
You know, and certainlyDemocrats in Washington need to
oppose that kind of stuff atevery turn there's efforts afoot
to tinker and limit and,frankly, shave voters in one way
(51:25):
or another.
Here in Arizona as well, youknow, governor Katie Hobbs has
has been a stalwart in vetoing,frankly, legislation.
Speaker 1 (51:36):
Yes, she has.
Speaker 2 (51:53):
And dangerous, but but I really urge people to.
Yes, she has.
And to your point, jack, theintegrity side of it really
happens at the legislative level, state and federal level,
before the election even happens.
Right, and what their statelegislatures are doing with
(52:18):
trying to frankly, shave votersoff the rolls and curtail voting
rights, because that stuff isvery hard to see.
But that's why the urgency isfor people to pay close
attention to it.
Speaker 1 (52:52):
Right, well, listen, I have enjoyed this so much.
Listen, I have enjoyed this somuch and I think that the people
of Mar, I can see howflawlessly and seamlessly you've
shaped that into this personalthing specifically for the world
of politics, throughout yourlife, throughout your career.
(53:18):
Not everybody from the corporateworld is able to blend, you
know they bring that exactstrategy and I can only imagine
that's not always the bestapproach, but it sounds like
you've made that something.
You took some things that youlearned and skills that you
(53:38):
gained.
But you recognize, hey, this isa different world and it's
clear that you've got anadmiration and an appreciation
for so many of the people thatyou had the opportunity to work
with and around and there's justa humbleness about you that
comes through.
Clearly you're a very smart guy, you've got a ton of experience
(54:02):
connected, but there's justthat humbleness there that
allows you to really connectwith someone and that's rare to
encounter that in somebody inyour unique situation.
So I want to say I appreciateyou just for being the human
(54:24):
being that you are, because I'veenjoyed talking to you.
Maricopa County you are in goodhands with Eric Lenz.
So, listen, I'd love to do thisagain sometime.
Speaker 2 (54:42):
Absolutely, jack.
It's been a lot of fun.
Thank you so much and for thekind words that's kind of me to
say Appreciate it you bet, eric,all right.
Speaker 1 (54:48):
Well, I will talk to you again soon and keep that
heat for a while, will you thatArizona heat?
We will, buddy, we will.
Okay, all right.
Bye-bye, eric Sure.
Speaker 2 (55:01):
Bye-bye.
Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast.
I'm your host, jack Hopkins,today's guest, has spent the
last three decades deeplyinvolved in democratic politics.
Eric Lems got his start as acollege volunteer on a campaign
swing for Vice President Al Gore, which led to a White House
internship during the Clintonadministration.
(00:22):
After time in corporateleadership with major Fortune
500 companies, he returned topolitics, spending most of 2016
on the road with the Clintoncampaign.
Since then, he's been all in onlocal organizing.
He served on the MaricopaCounty Democratic Party Board,
worked as deputy executivedirector and now leads the
(00:44):
organization as its executivedirector.
Okay so, eric and thesequestions like this are always
tough on the spot to answer I'masking you to really compress
three decades, but to the bestof your ability.
How have politics, how's itchanged in the last 30 years?
(01:09):
If you were to step back andjust kind of look at the
timeline and say, gosh, we starthere and now we're here, how's
it changed?
Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, the technology that's deployed on campaigns is
boy, it's just changedtremendously, right.
So when I first got into thisspace, which would have been
during the Clinton years, that'sthe first, my first
presidential election in 92.
It was 24-hour news cycle,almost exclusively in CNN.
(01:43):
That was pre-Fox, that waspre-MSNBC, obviously pre-digital
media, and Bill Clinton and hiscampaign and his people were
trailblazers at that mediumright.
And you and I are probably of acertain age.
Remember the town hall style.
You bet it was kind of a firstthen.
(02:04):
Sure, the town hall style, youbet it was kind of a first.
Then he had, you know, a youngguy by the name of George
Stephanopoulos at the time who's, of course, now been with ABC
News forever, and then JamesCarville and were then unknowns
but obviously subsequentlybecame very famous from that
campaign and and so that waskind of where we began.
(02:24):
And then you get into the 2000s, the internet you know the
advent of the internet about,probably you know, and its usage
and utilization in campaignsaround the early 2000s.
And Howard Dean was able toraise an amazing amount of money
just from online donations, toraise an amazing amount of money
(02:46):
just from online donations.
Then you move over into thekind of the Obama era of it and,
forgive me, I tend to look atit through the lens of the
camera Right.
Who kind of using the internetto organize and he had a big
kind of an army of ground on theground organizing there.
(03:09):
And then now I am going to go toa Republican.
Then you go with the DonaldTrump bearer and what did he
master?
He used a technology oftargeted digital media and
really blew the doors off thatand destroyed the Clinton
campaign Hillary Clintoncampaign in that regard in 2016
and, frankly, has never lookedback from that.
(03:29):
But now we're kind of, if youlook at 2025, where you combine
all those things kind of themedia rapid response side, the
online donations, the targeteddigital advertising,
communications you know thetargeted digital advertising and
you know we're kind of at anera now where, frankly, I say
(03:50):
the Republicans are ahead of theDemocrats on that.
But it's where all of thosetechnologies have kind of come
to, you know, come to the forenow, and one big thing is kind
of gives us what we see today.
So kind of from where we beganand where we are, it's really
just been an incredibletrajectory and it's really been
a lot of fun to kind of be awitness to that history.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Oh, I can't imagine.
You know, it's interesting tome how quickly we forget some
things or don't have them kindof lined up in our mind.
When you said you know kind ofthe advent of the internet.
When you said you know kind ofthe advent of the Internet, and
as you said that I bought myfirst personal computer in 97.
It was an old Packard Bell witha monitor the size of a
(04:36):
Frigidaire right.
And yeah, I don't often whenI'm thinking politically I don't
often put those two togetherand so to think about what an
exciting but yet unchartedterritory and time that must
have been.
You've got this new technologyand yet you know it's new.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So you're having to kind of figure it out as you go
along.
Was that anything that, from atechnological aspect, that ever
caused any problems?
Well, I think a cause.
Well, I think, for presidentialcampaigns, I think you know you
find out there's problems,frankly, after Election Day when
you find out whether you wantto lose, right, sure, if you
look below the presidentiallevel, where stuff frankly is
not as sophisticated, right, Imean for the statewide races,
(05:30):
governors and US Senate you knowsome of those if they're
well-resourced enough, you knowyou get kind of technology
that's more or less on par withsome of what you see at the
presidential level.
Below that, everything is a lotmore of a bootstrap nature,
right, right, so you have to bekind of.
You don't have access to asmany things financially,
(05:52):
technologically, you have to bea lot more clever and making
fewer resources go the furthesttype of a thing.
So in that regard, you reallyrealize it as you kind of move
down in the level of campaign.
Another major difference I willsay in campaigns is and I would
(06:13):
say this probably started tohappen about 10 to 15 years ago
range the data that's in thesecampaigns.
Now, it's kind of ironic thatat the time where data has
become a very much bigger thinginside of campaigns.
Polling has gotten worse andworse and worse.
(06:34):
I think there's a lot ofreasons for that.
You know landlines to selllines and age stuff, pickup
rates and all that kind of thingI think is kind of some of the
cause for that, and it's justharder to do polling for a
variety of systemic reasons.
But by data I specifically meanI mean you now have people with
master's degrees and some typeof or PhDs in some cases in a
(06:58):
STEM-type science inside ofpresidential campaigns running
your numbers yeah, inside ofpresidential campaigns running
your numbers and looking andslicing the numbers several
different ways to try toidentify and isolate the people
you need to target, and that hasreally there's been a huge
uptick in that, probably aboutthe past decade or so.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Trevor Burrus.
So when you look back to yourearliest beginnings in politics,
does it seem like a fairlyantiquated time compared to what
they're able to do now withtechnology, or is it just kind
of all blended together for you?
Speaker 2 (07:38):
No, it was an antiquated time.
I can go back pre-'90s before Ikind of got into it.
And we've seen this kind of gotinto it.
You know, you'd be kind of, andwe've seen this kind of
portrayed in movies, where youknow a campaign office, you have
a bunch of cubicles and peopleat phones and like all that
stuff we do virtually now.
Right so, I mean it's, you know, which frankly cuts down on
(08:00):
things like real estate coststoo, right so, and phone line
costs and those kinds.
So look, I mean, I think theother kind of perspective I
bring to it is I was in thecorporate business world for a
number of years before I gotinto this full time.
Yes, and it just so happens mychosen industry was software and
(08:21):
technology.
Oh, interesting.
So I spent a decade at placeslike Microsoft and SAP, so I
also am able to kind of seeconnect technology to politics
probably more fluently than alot of other folks are yeah, and
that's also why the other stufflooks more antiquated too.
To be honest, Right.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Well, let me ask you this, because, especially over
the last decade, Arizona hasbeen a big deal in politics,
right in elections.
What is it that makes MaricopaCounty so important politically?
So, first of all, we're verybig.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And we are the fourth largest county in the United
States and, frankly, you andyour listeners probably know can
guess the other three, right?
Sure?
So New York, new York,including Manhattan, cook County
, which is Chicago, la County,and then we have Harris County
(09:29):
Actually, we actually werebigger than Manhattan, but
Harris County, which is Houston,and then Maricopa County.
We're close to 5 million people.
In terms of voting jurisdiction, we're the second largest
behind LA County, so we'relarger than 26 states.
Probably most importantly,we're actually considered
battleground.
All the other counties Imentioned are deep blue.
(09:50):
Yeah, we're the onlybattleground county, so you
pretty much have to win MaricopaCounty to win Arizona.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Yeah, yeah, that's a significant deal, yeah, okay,
yeah, yeah, that's a significantdeal, yeah, okay, yeah.
I'm trying to think as we werediscussing a little bit before
we went live, I was out inArizona, in the Phoenix area, in
1990, and when you said 5million, I have no idea what the
(10:22):
numbers were back then, butthey were considerably smaller,
I know that Since then it'sdoubled.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
probably about doubled.
Yeah, yeah, Wow.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Okay, that's a pretty big piece of the pie in terms
of importance, right, just sheernumbers.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yeah, importance, right, just sheer numbers, yeah,
and you know, I mean we look atjust the sheer numbers and then
you also add in we're not denselike some of these other, or as
dense as some of those othercommunities as well, right, so
we think of Cook County.
That pretty much ispredominantly Chicago, which is
pretty dense, and even LA isdense in its own way.
I mean it doesn't like goupward like Manhattan or New
(11:06):
York does, of course, but it's.
There's no kind of like emptyparcels of land in LA.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Right, right, so, and so what?
So the reason why I raise thatis because, you know, maricopa
County is not just talking topeople virtually or digitally,
what have you, but even on myjob, day to day, I physically
travel all over the county andso, getting to one corner of it
(11:35):
versus another, that just addscomplexities.
Just with our volunteer workand when people are door-to-door
canvassing, that's a lot,frankly, a lot of zip codes that
you have to cover, even ifyou're, you know, paying for
media and so not to mention thedriving that you're doing as a
candidate, right?
And so last year we actuallyran a pretty much a full slate
(12:00):
of county candidates for variousoffices, ranging from county
attorney down to countysupervisor, and I can tell you
our county-wide candidates, Imean, they're kind of feeling
like they're driving across astate, yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
I was going to say.
I mean just thinking, comparingit to Manhattan or LA County.
I kind of use as a reference,as you were talking about that,
the number of saguaro cactuses.
You know you go by cacti.
Yeah, you think about thedensity of Manhattan and then
(12:38):
you look at Maricopa County andgosh, it's different in so many
ways just in terms of how youwork.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
And we have the various parts of the county are
different in terms ofsocioeconomics, right.
So we have kind of the northeastpart of the county is not only
affluent but it's kind ofnestled in a lot of mountains,
too, right, and thosecommunities are gated.
(13:14):
So just the things that I thinkabout as a political hack kind
of person is you can't knockdoors in communities like that
just because of the terrain,because they're gated, so you
have to pay to reach thosevoters, right, right.
Whereas then you also have thefar southwest, even though kind
of our farmland is going awayand that's another major
difference between now and 1990is, when you're flying into
(13:35):
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport,you'd see lots of fields and
farmland and so forth, and mostof that's been replaced by, you
know, factories, assembly lines,you know Amazon fulfillment
facilities and the like.
You know there's a $60 billionyes, $60 billion development in
(13:57):
the north part of town from aTaiwan semiconductor.
They're building kind of liketheir US headquarters here, and
so that looks a lot different.
But in the far southwest, wherethere is kind of still some of
those fields, that is more rural.
So you're kind of mixing inrural, ex-urban, suburban and
urban, so that variety alsomakes it just a very fun, unique
(14:21):
and fun place to do politics.
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Yeah, sounds like the landscape has changed
considerably.
I remember when I came in fromthe north the first time I was
in Arizona and hit Sun City andI called a buddy of mine that
lived in Mesa and he gave medirections and there were wide
open spaces between, I mean wideopen spaces between, sun City
(14:45):
and Mesa.
I'm guessing those havedwindled down.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Those are long gone, jack.
Yeah, and I would say so, yoursurrounding cities in Mesa,
chandler, you know, queen Creekare kind of the big ones out
there.
Yeah, that's all kind of filledin.
It's just truly incredible.
You know the, and also becauseof what you're seeing, because
(15:11):
of the growth, you know housingprices also just kind of.
You know we don't havehurricanes, we don't have
earthquakes.
It's hot as heck, but you knowpeople kind of discover, you
know the quality of life here isjust a lot of fun, and so,
(15:32):
consequently, the demand forhousing has just gone up as well
.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, what has that done to?
Speaker 2 (15:41):
the political landscape, that growth.
So it's been fascinatingbecause you know you really see
a lot of interesting thing withthe migration patterns here,
right.
So you know we've had a veryhealthy mix of people coming
from really all over the country, ranging from the Midwest to
(16:02):
the Northeast, ranging from theMidwest to the Northeast.
Very curiously, frankly, sportsand I know you and I are both
kind of in the sports science aswell in our own ways has had
something of an impact on that,because we've hosted a number of
major events.
We've hosted several SuperBowls and then, of course, the
Fiesta Bowl has gotten verylarge.
We hosted the collegebasketball tournament last.
(16:26):
So what happens is peopletravel out here for one reason
or another.
They discover they love it andthen they migrate out here.
And we've hosted a lot of teamsfrom the east and so that's
kind of led to people from thatpart of the country migrating
out here.
So when you get people comingfrom those, and then I also
suspect we have a fair number ofCalifornia refugees who the
(16:49):
housing price over there is justsuch that, hey, it's just we
got to get out of here, kind ofa thing, right.
So I think the net of that, theimpact on politics is the state,
frankly, has become closerright, polit, yes, you know.
Politically, you know, probablymore divided.
I'd say it was probably in theeras of, say, 1990 to maybe 2010
(17:14):
, 2015,.
Pretty solidly red, I would say.
Yeah, you know, we did have acouple of Democrats who did well
statewide in that era who, Iwould say, for their own set of
reasons, were kind of justspecial talents Janet Napolitano
comes to mind.
But by and large I mean prettysolidly read.
(17:36):
But really in the past decadeor so, I think the migrations
patterns have kind of made itcloser and so that's what we're
seeing, gotcha.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
You spent some time in the Fortune 500 world, the
corporate world, right.
I'm curious about how thatexperience shaped your political
leadership skills.
And you mentioned that you wereinvolved in kind of the
software sector.
So what did you carry over intopolitics and maybe what did you
(18:09):
not so much?
Speaker 2 (18:13):
So let me preface Even though I name-dropped
Microsoft before, that does notmean I'm a software developer or
engineer.
I was more again on the.
I have an MBA, so I was kind ofmore on the strategy corporate
side.
But I used a lot of analyticalskills when I was in the
business world and that wassomething I was immediately able
(18:35):
to connect to politics.
And every day I'm always kindof I have to manage.
I have to manage, you know, abudget, for example.
I have to build a budget andmanage to it.
You know, that's something thatI was very it was easy for me
to just kind of transfer overthat I still use on a daily
(18:55):
basis and I use that not just inmy current role, my American
County Democratic Party but alsoeven when I've been a campaign
manager.
I have to do that.
So that's something that youknow I was able just to kind of
easily just kind of bring thatskill set you know and merge
that with the political world.
You know, I would say you know,one thing that I've tried to
(19:18):
kind of I don't want to sayleave behind, that I let's say I
haven haven't, I've tried tonot replicate is um, you know
there's certainly a.
You know, politics is cutthroatwhen it's like democrat versus
republican, yes, like you'rekind of opponents in the
corporate world.
There's an element of that,even inside your own division,
right, sure and uh, you know,when I was with um Microsoft at
(19:44):
that era it was about 20 yearsago now it kind of had a if you
remember the old CEO, jack Welchat General Electric, yes, it
kind of had that culture to itand that created a lot of
moments in certain times of theyear angst within the team, you
know.
So one thing I've always triedto foster is kind of a family
(20:06):
atmosphere in the teams that Ilead and I foster a relationship
of trust.
Trust, I think, is paramountwithin a political team, I think
, because you know this is anenvironment where, especially
for candidates, they have to bemore vulnerable than they've
(20:27):
ever been in their lives, andsometimes it's not just the
candidate himself or herself,it's their family as well, and
those principals have to trustyou and the team around them
without hesitation.
And so just kind of fosteringthat, you know, that sense of
(20:48):
team and family and trust, issomething that I've tried to
foster in this life that,unfortunately, I wasn't really
empowered to do, maybe in aprevious life.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Sure, Would it be fair to say that the higher the
level of trust?
Would it be fair to say thatthe higher the level of trust,
the quicker things rebound?
When people do disagree witheach other, when there is a
flare-up, that if the level oftrust is deep it tends not to be
(21:19):
that big a deal.
But if the level of trust iskind of low or just barely there
, then those disagreements canbecome deal breakers.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
So here's the thing.
You know you don't have to evenI'm talking within the team
itself right?
You don't have to agree withyour principal, your candidate,
on every single thing, right?
Sure, you both just have tohave a shared goal that you want
to win.
Right, and as long as you guysare on the same page there, um,
(21:51):
you know disagreements you don'ttake personally.
You just have a differentapproach for a different reason.
You know you come to it with acertain sense of well, okay, you
and I are going to agree todisagree, but let's roll forward
and let's do it, and then youmove on.
You know you don't hold on tothat emotion.
You know one thing that I thinkcandidates confront that maybe
(22:13):
kind of their politicaloperatives might have a
different perspective on.
You know I'm fortunate enoughnow that I happen to have a lot
of personal vested interest init, because this is my hometown
and my home state, and so so anycandidates that run, I'm as
emotionally invested in it asthey are, Right, Right, and what
you see a lot in thisprofession is you get road
(22:34):
warrior kind of campaign managertypes who will manage a
congressional campaign, whensometimes you know those
campaign managers want you to gohyper negative and go negative
against your opponent and allthat kind of thing, yeah, and
you know the candidate's like,look, I got to live here
afterward, you know, Right,Right.
And so that's sometimes wherethings can get a little.
(22:54):
But again, if you have a sharedmission and you trust each
other on that level, you don'treally take anything personally.
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Over the years, we've seen candidates that didn't
even remotely live close to thearea or the state even that they
were running who come in, and Ialways thought of that in terms
of attempting to establishtrust there.
You know, I can only imagineit's a lot more difficult to do.
(23:33):
Imagine it's a lot moredifficult to do and you've got
to have some really big treat.
You're dangling in front ofyour potential constituents when
you do that because of the lackof trust.
Let's talk about a name againthat's been mentioned, but one
(23:54):
that maybe a few peoplelistening will know, and that's
Clinton.
What lessons from the 2016Clinton campaign can we pull
forward to now?
As we look forward and I hateto say this, but I would be, I
(24:15):
just wouldn't be authentic if Ididn't say this when we look at
the midterms and we look at 2028, in the forefront of
everybody's mind now is will wehave a free and fair election
right, election right.
(24:41):
You know that is.
There are still things hangingout there about this last
election in terms of we knowthat wasn't even a question mark
.
We know that there was Russianinterference again, just as
there had been in 2020.
Now that he's in the WhiteHouse again based on how he has
portrayed himself since he'sbeen in office public statements
(25:03):
that he has made things heintends to do.
I mean, when somebody comes outand tells you they're maybe
looking at a third term, youhave to take them seriously.
In this situation, what can we?
Knowing those things, fearingthose things because, let's be
(25:26):
honest, voters are fearful rightnow.
Right, you know there's anelement of fear that we've had
over the last eight years, butnow, with some of the things
that we've seen happen, I thinkthat that level of fear has
elevated.
What can we bring forward?
(25:49):
Let me back up.
What have you brought forward?
Right, that people like me willbe glad that you brought
forward from those lessons thatcan be applied now and in the
future, yeah, no.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
So I think the number one thing is, you know, and let
me preface by saying, I think,one, if I look back to kind of
what happened in 2016, one thingthat I think is oft overlooked
is and that's not to say that I,I think Secretary Clinton lost
(26:28):
for a variety of reasons, but Ithink we can ignore the fact
that it's really hard to getthree in a row.
Ok, right, so that going intothe campaign for her, in
particular, that was a headwindthat already she was facing to
try to get three in a row.
And the American people, theylike to kind of do a change
after eight years.
Right, so there's that.
(26:49):
But I think for me, you know, Ithink that I've kind of learned
is and I want to be careful insaying this I don't for a moment
think that the inside theClinton campaign itself, that we
took things for granted.
I mean, I know that I can speak,that I was very focused.
(27:11):
I happened to be working on thecampaign in Michigan.
Well, I did two things.
I was very focused.
I happened to be working on thecampaign in Michigan.
Well, I did two things.
One, I worked on the NationalConvention staff in 2016, and
the show itself was incredibleand great and successful and all
of that.
We were very focused on makingthat a great experience for her
and for the country.
(27:31):
And even when I worked inMichigan in the final weeks of
the campaign, all my teammateswere very focused and I suspect
they were very focused inBrooklyn where the headquarters
was, sure, but I think, onedegree out from the actual paid
campaign itself.
Amongst the activists andcertainly amongst the media, I
(27:51):
think people just took forgranted she was going to win.
Amongst the media, I thinkpeople just took for granted she
was going to win.
You know, I certainly think Imean I hate to bring this name
up I certainly think James Kobeassumed that she was going to
win and a lot of his behaviorwas impacted by that.
So I think that you know, notletting one's foot up off the
gas ever until you cross thatfinish line is a lesson that all
(28:12):
of us need to learn, All of us.
Line is a lesson that all of usneed to learn, All of us, you
know, don't take, you know,anything you're doing.
You know inside the campaignfor granted.
You know, always stay focusedon mission and just don't let
your foot up off the gas untilyou get to the finish line is a
lesson that we just need tolearn and stick to.
(28:33):
I think the good news now is, Ithink the urgency is such that
people are locked in and,frankly, if anything, I think we
have kind of the reverseproblem now is based on what I'm
seeing and hearing when Itravel of the county.
It's like what can we do now,now, now, now, now, now, now,
right, Because people just can'twait until November of 26.
(28:57):
So the lesson you just got tokeep your foot on the gas and
run through the tape.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
I want to ask you a question to see how much this
kind of philosophy I have pairsup with what you just said and
it may not pair up at all, but Isuspect there may be a little
overlap and I'd like to get yourfeedback on it.
I wrote an article a few weeksago that was essentially talking
(29:25):
about the inherent danger ofmaking a political candidate a
celebrity superstar, that it canbe a double-edged sword, right
(29:46):
that their celebrity status canbecome so big that then there is
just an assumption well, ofcourse they're going to win.
They're so big, they're theOprah right of politics who else
would win?
Who could beat them?
(30:06):
And so obviously it's abalancing act, because on the
one hand you have to make sureeverybody knows who the
candidate is and they have to bebig.
But is there a fine line youhave to pay attention to there
(30:27):
with getting them so big in acelebrity type way that it
starts working against thecampaign?
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Well, you know, what's interesting about that is
when you look over the years atkind of who the nominees have
been in the United States, goingback at least again.
Simon has 30 years, right,right, but going back at least
again.
So I've been in this 30 years,right, people, it tends to.
(31:01):
The winners tend to be peoplewith the shortest paper trim,
interesting Even George W Bush.
He'd been governor.
What Now?
He had the family name,obviously Right, he'd been
governor, I believe, only sixyears.
Barack Obama, us senator fouryears.
Trump, of course, had neverserved in any type of elective
or public office before.
So, you know, in the UnitedStates unlike, say, a Germany,
(31:22):
for example, where I mean Merkelwas, you know, a PM for
Chancellor for 20 years and then, I think, in the Parliament for
several decades before that,right, by comparison, the United
States might be something 20years and then, I think, in the
parliament for several decadesbefore that, right, right, right
.
By comparison, the UnitedStates might be something to be
said for people like fresh faces, right, right.
(31:44):
It's also kind of harder tocaricature somebody who's more
of a fresher face.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Yes, caricature somebody who's more of a fresher
face.
Yes, and I'm guessing, if I caninterrupt you for a second,
that caricature effect can cutboth ways as well.
Would that be it can?
Speaker 2 (32:04):
It can.
But what I would say is theperson maybe, perhaps with a
shorter paper trail, might havea little more.
I guess latitude, ok, right, wecould use as well, right.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
You bet.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
You know, they probably don't necessarily
operate by a rule book that'sbeen used for 10 or 20 years.
So you know it can cut bothways, you know, you know.
To your question is you know,you know, can celebrity be too
much?
I mean, I don't know.
I mean I think that at thepresidential level, particularly
(32:45):
once you're the nominee, you'realways going to get a lot of
free kind of paid Right, freeearned media right, because
there's only two candidates andthe media is always fascinated
by who the nominees are.
And all of that, I would say,bring us back down to local.
Frankly, I loved having anastronaut run for US Senate.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
I'm not going to lie about that.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Sure sure, especially when our candidate for your
listeners I'm being veryspecific about US Senator Mark
Kelly, when he was runningagainst Martha McSally, who also
, as you know, had an extremelyimpressive military background
Right.
And so certainly I think, onceyou get below the presidential
(33:34):
level, I think you might evenprefer a celebrity in some
respects.
So it probably also depends onthe race and the level of race
you're looking at too.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
I can only imagine that if I or anyone else were to
, in the middle of a campaign,right come to a campaign manager
and say, you know, I think yourcandidate's name is getting too
big, I probably wouldn't meetwith somebody that would agree
with me.
If what I hear you saying and Icertainly understand that
(34:05):
dichotomy you know that.
Hey, I suppose, having listenedto what you had to say, listen
to what you had to say, what Iwrote about might be true, but
in general, you probably stillwould want to lean towards
(34:27):
bigger name.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
I'm actually going to punt here.
I'd say it's case by case, andhere's why I say that Some
celebrities have certain skillsthat we like to see in politics
um better skills and say othersum, yeah I I'll just be very
specific on some names here.
Um, I personally think thatdonald trump has better raw
(34:53):
skills than, say, a GeorgeClooney Sure.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
So look, I'm right there with George Clooney on his
political ideology, but I wouldagree with you, by the way.
But in terms of his raw skillsto do this kind of thing, I just
don't think he would be as goodas Trump.
So I think it depends on therace, the candidate, the moment
Right.
You know, I think it reallydepends on the race, the
candidate, the moment Right.
Speaker 1 (35:15):
You know, I think it really depends and I'm glad to
hear you say that because I havefound on social media, for
example, if I post somethingalong those lines, kind of
making that type of comparison,you've got to be prepared for
the pushback because thosecomments will be perceived as
(35:36):
support of some kind for DonaldTrump when it's simply just an
analysis of a skill set.
But obviously, off the cuff, asraw as it is, there's something
there that you don't see justeverywhere.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Oh, absolutely yeah you don't see, oh, absolutely.
And to go a step further, Ithink it also depends on you
play to your.
You have a certain set ofskills and then you play to your
strengths right.
So Donald Trump's strength isbuilding excitement at an event,
within his flock, within hiscrowd.
It's not necessarily doing adebate, and so what does he do?
(36:18):
He does fewer debates and morerallies, right, and you can play
to your strengths that way.
You know George Herbert WalkerBush if you allow me to get kind
of nerd out on you you know fora second here on some history,
george Herbert Walker Bush.
His strengths were just anabsolutely honorable and decent
and fine public servant, datingback to his days as a
(36:41):
19-year-old combat pilot inWorld War II.
And of course, again, Idisagreed with a lot of his
policies.
But I mean you can't questionthe man's patriotism and sense
of service.
And and when he's debating, youknow somebody like a Bill
Clinton, particularly in a townhall type of a setting.
That was not his strength,right, right, what you do is, I
(37:02):
think the key is you know, youunderstand kind of what your
skills are as a candidate andyou kind of work within those to
kind of you know, see if youcan excel Right to kind of you
know, see if you can excel Right.
Speaker 1 (37:17):
Let me ask you what strategies, what approach MCDP
has for reaching the voters whoare just kind of like you know
they're just kind of reachingtheir threshold for politics, as
(37:39):
so many people are, justbecause it's been a pretty rough
and tense and stress-filledeight or nine years now.
How are you strategizing forthat, to reach and connect with
those people and give them asense of, hey, we're still in
(38:00):
the game?
Speaker 2 (38:02):
So, look, I mean, just like a lot of Democrats, we
were unhappy with the, you know, obviously very unhappy and
disappointed and to a certainextent, even surprised by the
results of last November.
So we wanted to learn from thatand we wanted to do differently
, you know.
And, of course, going.
You know, as I think I saidreferenced earlier.
(38:24):
You know you feel like you havea good plan going into the
election, but the quality of theplan is always determined by
the outcome, frankly.
So the question for us is and,frankly, for the people that
(38:45):
we're serving, our precinctcommittee people and activists,
sure, voters, doing a better jobof listening, you know, to our,
you know, to Democrats and ouractivists.
And we're doing that in theform of listening tours.
We've done several of themalready and literally what we're
(39:07):
doing is we're traveling intoall parts of the county, we're,
you know, sitting in a you knowroom or community center for you
know a couple of hours and wejust say up front hey, we're
going to be vulnerable, we wantto hear what you guys have to
say, what keeps you up at night,what's on your mind.
You know, we're going to takethis information and hope that
(39:30):
it informs, better, informs howwe do our strategy and our
messaging, and that's why we'rehere and we take all that
incoming for a couple of hours.
So that's one thing we're doingas well.
We're trying to bill out, youknow, our digital media
platforms.
We launched a new webpage,maricopademsorg for those who
(39:50):
want to check that out, andwe're trying to do a better job
of visiting platforms thatheretofore we've not visited.
You know, like yours and others, jack, and so we're, you know.
I think one takeaway, at leastfor me, from last year's
election is, you know, thepresident did a superior job of
(40:13):
meeting voters where they were,and sometimes that wasn't
necessarily, you know.
I mean, democrats tend tomyself included tend to think,
well, let's look to that debatewhere so many millions of people
are watching, but you know, theother side tends to think of it
as well no, let's do this andthat podcast, let's do this and
(40:33):
that on digital social media,and we're really trying to do a
lot better in that area becauseI think, as I said, as I think
I've said earlier, we're tryingto play catch up in some of
those ways.
So those are the three or fourthings that we're doing
differently to try to reachpeople.
Speaker 1 (40:47):
Nice and once again for anybody watching or
listening, correct me if I'mwrong, but maricopademsorg.
Speaker 2 (40:56):
Is that correct?
Maricopademsorg, is thatcorrect?
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Maricopademsorg Gotcha, gotcha.
Listen, as we kind of wind downhere, let me ask you this
before we get into the lastquestion what advice would you
give your younger self?
So, if we go back to your forayinto politics, with the
experience that you've garneredand the thinking and the wisdom
(41:24):
you've developed, if you couldgo back to that young man and
say, let's have coffee.
I've got some pointers here foryou.
What are some of the thingsthat you would tell that Eric?
Speaker 2 (41:38):
Well, I think about that, uh, from time to time.
Um, one thing I wouldabsolutely do differently Um, I
would have charted, frankly, adifferent path for my um,
professional life.
I think, um, I, um, you know so, I know.
So I kind of got an MBA, wentinto the business world and,
(42:00):
kind of, you know, I started outas a White House intern in the
mid-90s and for Vice PresidentGore specifically which, of
course, just so peopleunderstand that there's about at
that time there was about 250interns and we were also unpaid
in that era, so that's anotherstory altogether.
They'd only reached more thangetting paid.
(42:21):
It's incredible.
But of the 250, about 20 to 25were vice presidential.
And so the reason why that'simportant for me is because I
developed a pretty closerelationship with Al Gore's team
, his official team at the time.
And the number one thing I dodifferently is I probably would
(42:44):
not have left that networkbehind for such a long time,
cause I was in the businessworld and did kind of have some
separation from that and thenabout a decade ago, I had to
kind of start fresh again.
Yeah, so I, you know, Idefinitely would have just
charted a different path formyself professionally when I
have the opportunity and nothave blown that opportunity For
(43:05):
those you know who and I, onoccasion I do have the chance to
mentor folks, kind of, you know, in their early 20s, when I was
at that age.
To mentor folks kind of you know, in their early 20s, when I was
at that age, sure, hey, if youhave any inkling of wanting to
do something in the political orpublic service space, just go
for it.
Just, you know, dive right in.
(43:26):
You know, all of us kind ofhave different experiences with
my, you know, with our parentsand with our fathers.
And I was like, hey, go outthere and make money and get
rich and all that kind of havedifferent experiences with my,
you know, with, with our, withour parents and with our fathers
.
And I was like, hey, go outthere and make money and get
rich and all that kind of right.
And so I kind of fell into thatfor a number of years like I
gotta get rich, I gotta get richagain.
It just wasn't satisfying forme and really, um, you know,
(43:49):
public service was kind of youknow, politics was always my
calling and I, you know,whenever I can, I advise people,
you young people, to do that,and that's one thing I would do
differently, just kind of followmy heart.
Speaker 1 (43:59):
Right.
So, to close out, I want to askyou to contribute this and tell
me your approach.
One message that I am reallysending out to everybody that I
talk to in terms of futurevoters right, people who are
going to be voting in upcomingelections or who should be
(44:22):
voting in upcoming elections Imake sure to that concern, that
fear that election integritycould be a question mark because
(44:43):
of the kinds of threats thatwe've heard be made.
Right, but I follow up with wehave to vote, like election
integrity will be straight upand down and as tight as it has
ever been.
Because I think if you don'tblend those two stories, if you
(45:08):
don't match their fears with afact, which is If we don't vote,
that's when we have problems.
Right, we have to vote.
But I think, at the same time,one way to kind of lose trust or
(45:29):
risk losing trust is to actlike, oh, there's nothing to
being concerned about electionintegrity.
Put that, that's not even adeal.
I think people have experiencedtoo much to just wipe it away.
So I acknowledge it.
But then boom, we have nomatter what we are afraid of, no
(45:53):
matter what we think couldhappen.
We have to vote anyway.
So what is the Eric message tothat idea.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
So I'm actually going to blow the Republicans' cover
here on something to kind ofgive folks some confidence in
the system.
And I'm speaking again narrowlyin Maricopa County, our
elections officials so I'mtalking specifically, not
necessarily the elected countyrecorder here, who is someone
(46:33):
who I oppose, and we had anothercandidate who I supported, but
I'm speaking his civil serviceteam, the people who actually do
the day-to-day work.
They are incredible people andthese are people who they're not
political, they just do thework.
And then one of the things thatwe do is both the Democratic,
(46:59):
the county Democratic Party andthe county Republican Party
actually goesrove the systemprior to every single election,
(47:23):
even the most mundane, like bondelections, all the way up,
obviously, to presidential.
Both county political partiesdo that and that's the dirty
little secret to this.
So people understand that afterthe election, when they hear,
oh, my goodness, and it was, youknow, from the MAGA side, that
was fit.
Hey, the county RepublicanParty was there proving stuff
(47:44):
beforehand.
So that's one thing I'll say.
The second thing I'll say andagain just keeping it kind of
focused on Arizona is we have asecretary of state, adrian
Fontes, who, yes, happens to bea Democrat state.
(48:04):
Adrian Fontes who, yes, happensto be a Democrat, but Adrian
Fontes, this man, is a Marine.
He is the most hopelessromantic about democracy and
this republic that I've everseen, and pardon my French here.
(48:29):
But he will be damned if heeven whiffs that there's
something that is off or awry orthat is not honest or not
working with the election.
So the folks in Arizona shouldfeel very confident that next
year election is going to be ameaningful election.
No one should use that as apretext or an excuse to not vote
.
Who was it that said this is arepublic if we can keep it?
(48:51):
I think that might have beenBenjamin Franklin.
But we need to just rememberthat and go to the polls next
year when the time comes withthat in mind.
Just remember that and go tothe polls next year when the
time comes with that in mind,and let's just not surrender
this republic, this nation, tothose who would do us harm from
within.
Let's not do that Well said.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
You know, those are two fantastic confidence
bolstering points that you laidout there, bolstering points
that you laid out there To havesomeone with that kind of
integrity in the position thatAdrian is in, and then your
(49:32):
dirty little secret, as it were.
I can see why Republicans wouldlike to keep that a dirty
little secret.
Speaker 2 (49:40):
I just need their covers though.
Speaker 1 (49:44):
Yeah, yeah, no, and I think and let me kind of
backtrack a minute andoftentimes I don't clarify this
enough so many times, when I'mtalking about election integrity
, one of the things that's in mymind and I probably ought to
word it differently is voters,voting rights, right, voters,
right, yeah, right.
(50:05):
I think you know we arewatching the attempt and the
attack on voting rights to tryto decrease the number of people
who can vote, to decrease thenumber of people who can vote
(50:27):
and then, where that fails, totry and decrease the number of
people who will vote, and soyeah, but that comes right back
to the two things that you laidout and the ongoing fights now
to defend and protect votingrights.
Speaker 2 (50:40):
So yeah, Well, to your point, Jack.
I believe there's a bill that'sscaring a lot of people.
It's called what?
The SAVE Act, or something likethat, which simply would
disenfranchise a lot of women inthe country, right, Because it?
has to do with so many women whochoose to change their name
(51:01):
when they to take their spouse'sname and and very dangerous,
and people just need to continueto be vigilant against that
stuff and oppose it at everyturn.
You know, and certainlyDemocrats in Washington need to
oppose that kind of stuff atevery turn there's efforts afoot
to tinker and limit and,frankly, shave voters in one way
(51:25):
or another.
Here in Arizona as well, youknow, governor Katie Hobbs has
has been a stalwart in vetoing,frankly, legislation.
Speaker 1 (51:36):
Yes, she has.
Speaker 2 (51:53):
And dangerous, but but I really urge people to.
Yes, she has.
And to your point, jack, theintegrity side of it really
happens at the legislative level, state and federal level,
before the election even happens.
Right, and what their statelegislatures are doing with
(52:18):
trying to frankly, shave votersoff the rolls and curtail voting
rights, because that stuff isvery hard to see.
But that's why the urgency isfor people to pay close
attention to it.
Speaker 1 (52:52):
Right, well, listen, I have enjoyed this so much.
Listen, I have enjoyed this somuch and I think that the people
of Mar, I can see howflawlessly and seamlessly you've
shaped that into this personalthing specifically for the world
of politics, throughout yourlife, throughout your career.
(53:18):
Not everybody from the corporateworld is able to blend, you
know they bring that exactstrategy and I can only imagine
that's not always the bestapproach, but it sounds like
you've made that something.
You took some things that youlearned and skills that you
(53:38):
gained.
But you recognize, hey, this isa different world and it's
clear that you've got anadmiration and an appreciation
for so many of the people thatyou had the opportunity to work
with and around and there's justa humbleness about you that
comes through.
Clearly you're a very smart guy, you've got a ton of experience
(54:02):
connected, but there's justthat humbleness there that
allows you to really connectwith someone and that's rare to
encounter that in somebody inyour unique situation.
So I want to say I appreciateyou just for being the human
(54:24):
being that you are, because I'veenjoyed talking to you.
Maricopa County you are in goodhands with Eric Lenz.
So, listen, I'd love to do thisagain sometime.
Speaker 2 (54:42):
Absolutely, jack.
It's been a lot of fun.
Thank you so much and for thekind words that's kind of me to
say Appreciate it you bet, eric,all right.
Speaker 1 (54:48):
Well, I will talk to you again soon and keep that
heat for a while, will you thatArizona heat?
We will, buddy, we will.
Okay, all right.
Bye-bye, eric Sure.
Speaker 2 (55:01):
Bye-bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.