To Vote Or Not To Vote In 2024 (Live Event On June 18, 2024)

2:22PM Jun 19, 2024

Speakers:

David Sirota

Arjun Singh

Keywords:

democratic party

joe biden

people

vote

biden

kamala harris

donald trump

party

president

economic policies

election

trump

candidate

joe biden's

primary

democratic primary

person

good

outcome

corporate

First and foremost thought on Donald Trump. If he becomes president, it's not only bad for stuff like climate policy. It's not only bad for stuff like corporate regulation, the economy, etc, etc. Donald Trump winning, in my view, would significantly strengthen the corporate aligned politicians, media outlets and consultants that currently control the Democratic Party. The same class of people who obstruct progress on everything, it would so significantly strengthen the Democratic Party leadership, Donald Trump winning, that it's not actually insane to believe that that Democratic Party leadership, in some ways wants Donald Trump to win, or at least would be absolutely fine with Donald Trump winning. So you're probably wondering, well, wait a minute, how does Donald Trump winning strengthen the corporate masters of the Democratic Party? Because it would reimpose the rhetorical parameters that those Democratic party bosses want. They want a discourse that is purely anti Trump all the time, a discourse that exclusively focuses on Trump's outbursts and insanity and crimes, a discourse that marginalizes all other topics as some sort of distraction from the central cause of opposing Donald Trump. They want a discourse that casts all pressure on the Democratic Party, not just as a distraction, but as traitorous ally ship with Donald Trump. That's what the Democratic Party leadership wants. A Trump victory in November, gives the current Democratic Party leadership, exactly those rhetorical conditions, which allow them to further suppress all pressure on the Democratic Party itself. So if you want to help the corporate center of the Democratic Party, the corrupt corporate aligned leaders of the current Democratic Party if you want to help them, it seems to me your choice in this election is very clear. vote for Donald Trump. Now, Biden, let me start by saying that I literally ran the part of Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign that focused on spotlighting the terrible parts of Joe Biden's record. That was literally my job every day for two years. So I know all of the reasons why people are not excited to vote for Joe Biden. I'm like the top 1/10 of one 1% of people who understand what Joe Biden is, and certainly the bad side of his record. So if you're going to come in here and say all, you know, Serota, you don't really understand how bad Biden is, I spent two fucking years of my life every single hour of every single day focusing on that. So I know very well, the downsides of Joe Biden's record. So here's my take on Biden, he has laid out and enacted the best economic policies of any president in 50 years, which isn't saying much considering the competition, but actually is a true statement. When you look at the American rescue plan parts of the inflation Reduction Act, the actions of the FTC, the CFPB, this is not a debatable point, it's a fact. I don't care how much you hate Joe Biden, or how you're going to vote again, vote however you want. That's your business. But this administration has produced the best economic policy we've seen in 50 years, which isn't to say that people are in grades because they're unhappy with the economy. Two things can be true at the same time, the current president's economic policies can be better than any in the last 50 years, which may not be saying much again, because of the past presidents haven't been that great. That can be true. And people are understandably unhappy with the with America's persists persistently dystopian economy, two things can be true at the same time, I'm not one of those people who says, you know, people complaining about the economy or in grades. But let me also say I completely understand why people are so mad at pi. He's done some pretty terrible things like not doing more not using more political capital to pass a minimum wage increase, not doing more to reauthorize the Child Tax Credit, letting the American rescue plan, expire, and obviously refusing to do anything to halt the violence in Gaza. But again, I'm not here to tell you how to vote, do whatever you want. But I will offer this just as Trump winning is the most helpful possible thing to the corporate center of the Democratic Party, a Biden win, will almost certainly weaken that corporate center of the Democratic Party. Now, again, I know what you're thinking, Well, how does voting for the corporate center of the Democratic Party, their candidate, weaken those same people? It's because of Biden's age and he's incredibly weak vice president because he is so old and because his Vice President is obviously not a shoo in successor, Biden is instantly a lame duck president the day after the election, and his entire White House staff is similarly a lame duck staff just as important. The day after a Biden win in 2024 is the first day of the 2028 Democratic presidential primary and the corporate bosses who run the Democratic Party no longer have their boogeyman to suppress the Party's internal debate, they can no longer cite Donald Trump as a reason that every one should fall in line behind their handpick candidate, they will no longer be able to argue that there shouldn't be any kind of vigorous intra party fight for the direction of the party. And not only will they not be able to argue that there will be that contest because of the 2028 Democratic primary because it will be an open field, unlike say Al Gore in 2000. Kamala Harris is not a strong enough vice president to be able to effectively clear the field, there are going to be a lot of candidates vying for the presidency, and the Democratic nomination. And here's the thing, they will be competing with each other to court various factions of the Democratic Party, including the party's progressive base, if you hate the corporate center of the Democratic Party and want to finally weaken its grip on power. That's the kind of competition you should want. It's the kind of competition that will almost certainly happen if Biden is reelected, but that almost certainly will not happen. If Donald Trump is president, and democratic party party bosses can suppress such a fight by saying that it allegedly weakens the party and undermines the necessary fight against Trump. Now, of course, I can already hear some people saying, well, Serota saying we should reward Joe Biden's bad policies with our vote. And by doing that we tell the Democratic Party, that there's no price to be paid for their broken promise. That argument or that kind of argument, it's like saying, you have to punish the party, to get the party to respond to you. I'd like to believe that's the way politics works. I really would. But sorry, that's not the way politics works. being blamed for an election loss tends to marginalize an agenda even further, in my opinion, what can actually change a party's overall direction, what we've actually seen happen in history, not some theory is is that a vigorous internal party battle can end up changing the whole direction of the institution. And that kind of battle can only happen if there's not an outside boogeyman like Donald Trump for the cynical, corrupt or brutalized leaders of today's Democratic Party to be able to cite that boogeyman to shut down the discourse. So that's my basic take on this election and how to think about electoral outcomes. I again, I'm not telling people how to vote. I'm just saying the two premises are Donald Trump wins is the best night in the world, for the corporate align center of the Democratic Party, Joe Biden winning it is immediately the day after the start of the 2028 presidential race, the start of major politicians in the Democratic Party, having to compete aggressively competing to court, different factions of the party, including the party's progressive wing. To me, that's the kind of competition you want. Sorry for a long winded answer.

No, I mean, I look, I think everything you said, well spoken, I think you just spoke a lot of realities and truths. And like you said, you're coming from someone who's actually participated, not just in a campaign in the pretty much very same campaign, to unseat Joe Biden. And I think that when I look at this, there are just political realities we have to accept, there would always be sort of a perfect world scenario. And I think a lot of the way that you have to approach voting is, like you said, it is a tactic. So I'm seeing a couple of questions right here that say, what if I live somewhere where I, my vote is automatically going to go one way or the other. And I want to cast a symbolic vote of support, to kind of double down on what you said, I don't think either of us are in here and trying to convince anybody to vote one way or the other. You vote however you want. If that's if it's on your conscious, and you say, I just cannot bring myself to vote for this person. That's your right. That's your right as an American. You don't have to tell anybody about that. I'm not certainly going to say you should or shouldn't do this. I'm not here to scold you. What I will say is that if you believe in certain political outcomes and objectives and goals, you have to nest necessarily look at this in a strategic sense. And that's not

actually actually I, the other way to think about it is, before you decide how to vote, or whether to vote, I think you should start with what outcome do I want? Yeah, what's a realistic outcome that I would not and not just like a any outcome that you want? What's a realistic outcome? That you, what's the best realistic outcome, you think can come out of this election? And then from there, you work backwards? Okay. Well, then how do I how do I cast my vote if if I think it's a realistic outcome, that a third party can win? If you're genuinely, if you're being honest with yourself, you're not like pie in the sky buying it. And you're saying, I think I think a third party can win. So I'm gonna vote for a third party. Hey, no one can tell you you're right, right or wrong. I'm not telling you you're, you're right or wrong. If you generally, if you genuinely think the best possible outcome you can hope for is space to be cleared for there finally, to be an open seat, Democratic presidential primary, that causes a vigorous intra party debate that may be able to force the eventual nominee to be much better on policy, then I would suggest one way of thinking about that is that that's exactly what happens if Joe Biden wins because of his age, because his VP is, is so weak, I'm just saying, think first about the outcomes you want. Be willing to be honest about what realistic outcomes are. And then from there, figure out how to how to vote, figure out how to engage politically in the election.

Alright, just jump in real quick, David on the idea of outcomes. The elephant in the room, I think for many people who are listening right now, and I actually noticing there is one question or directly that I'm responding to the issue of what is happening in Israel and Gaza right now. If you want to punish punished Joe Biden, because of his policies, what I would say is you have to look at Joe Biden in comparison with other candidates. And so for one thing, if you are comparing Joe Biden between Donald Trump and Robert F Kennedy, Joe Biden, whether you like it or not, unfortunately, probably has the more progressive side of that position. Robert F. Kennedy and Donald Trump seem to have both essentially endorse exactly what is happening. They support Netanyahu, whose government, Trump has, of course said, Well, you know, I would end the war in one day. Nobody knows what that actually means. But that's, I think one thing you have to consider when you think of political realities. The other thing with it, the idea of voting third party is the same thing that I would say. It is the political outcome. And so if you believe that a third party candidate is the person that can do the job, I think that entire premise through I think that, yes, there is an attraction to voting for a third party candidate, because on a certain issue, they're saying what you want, or rhetorically they're saying what you want. But the reality is, is that being the President isn't just rhetorical, and you have to think through? Is this person really going to be able to do the job that is going to get done? And I'd be curious, David, when you worked on the Sanders campaign, that's probably something that you guys thought about when you thought about policy? What are the political realities of what can actually get accomplished, right? You still have to go through a house, you still have to go through a Senate, you have to go through limitations, you will have to play politics. But I think when I've said that before, to people, that is something that and I'm sure like you said, you're gonna hear people probably getting mad at me for saying this. But it was sort of like broached like the third rail of something to say that is this person able to convince swats of their party to be able to get behind this kind of legislation, whether that's Medicare for all, whether that is the passing of a minimum wage law, I think that there are just political realities that we need to accept. And in that way, that's how I think consider who is the best person to lead the party. But how did you kind of balance that? Is that something that you thought about when you are campaigning is that there are certain things that are feasible, and they're just certain things that aren't?

Well, I think I don't think it's static. I think that what somebody campaigns on, can build a an election mandate, to then compel the Congress to do what they campaigned on. I think we have had campaigns like that in the past, in which the the candidate has not followed through in trying that. And I think that's why I think that in part, that's why the social contract has been torn apart. To be specific about it. I think you saw, you know, back then As the you the royal you, we saw the I'm reading a book right now called Winter War about FDR winning and how much the difficult transition between Hoover and FDR, and it's a lot of it is about how FDR campaigned on what were then radical ideas, and he did try to follow through on them. And he did build enough election. You know, there was there was the 32 election, then, of course, the midterms and the 36 election. And his theory was, if I keep winning elections based on an agenda, I will end up forcing that agenda into passage, right, it will ultimately trickle down into my party having to do what I'm campaigning and winning elections on. I think, unfortunately, in the modern era, we have seen Democratic presidents, especially I think a lot about Obama, raising the prospect of lots and lots of things are going to happen campaigning in a sense, like FDR campaigned, and then immediately refusing to even try to implement a large, broad, sweeping agenda. And I think when people watched that, it shredded the social contract that shredded the expectation, it shredded people's faith, that campaigns mattered much that anything matters much, and thus created the conditions for the Joker. Donald Trump, right? Like and I mean, like the Joker, not Haha, I'm talking about like, you know, people who've watched the movie The Joker, or Joker, I guess that called the Joker but joke, the modern movie Joker, sort of Joker politics, nothing matters, no matter what I say. It wouldn't matter what my opponent says no matter what anybody in the political arena says it's all bullshit. So just vote for me to blow up the system. So I think visa vie, you know, campaigns. I think we have gotten so used to candidates campaigning on promises, and then abandoning those promises, that there's actually not nearly as much outrage for abandoning those promises. Because it's been normalized, because we've gotten used to that. And I think, I think that's sown, again, the conditions for Donald Trump to succeed. Now, again, I keep going back to when I think about this election, I keep going back to what do I want the day after the election? What do I want? Do I want a stronger Democratic Party political machine, to be able to say, Everyone shut the fuck up? The only thing that matters is stopping Donald Trump, if you're pressuring the Democrats to do anything, you are making an alliance with Donald Trump, do I want that outcome? Or do I want the outcome the day after the election where different governors different Congress, people are thinking about running for president and are starting to tout a much more populist progressive agenda and trying to court different pieces of the party to build a coalition to become the next president after Joe Biden, based on that. That's the outcome I want. I can't think of a time that we've had that maybe I guess you could argue 2008 between Obama and Clinton, where I do think that debate was actually really healthy, really good. I mean, Obama didn't follow through on what he I mean, he grew up I mean, I, I may be the only person in America willing to say this, but I think Barack Obama created the conditions for Donald Trump. I think that I think it's almost I think that as well. Yeah, no, I mean, you're not allowed to say it out loud. And in polite company. But I think that's entirely true. was

of that generation. I was in high school in 2008. I remember hope, change everything. Yeah, this is great. And I do think that that's why a lot of millennials, particularly right now are so upset with what they see in their political reality is because the campaign was premised on being such a radical change. The campaign slogan was literally change. And if you're just casually paying attention, or you're young, and you didn't really kind of understand the whole limits of the system, you are promised that this is going to be one of the most transformational things in history that this is such a sea change from George W. Bush, who for millennials, was the president basically their whole life and then you saw a continuation of the wars you saw a compromise let's work with the Tea Party. Let's work with you know, my opponents and this is very high minded politics, but I think you're completely right. I think that most people watching that said where is is the change and where is the transformation that I was promised? And I do think that is why now, you do see a lot of people grappling with, what does my vote actually mean? And what does it actually matter? I think not one thing to answer, one of the questions here that says, you know, in other words, is 2028 Is it going to be an open democratic party race regardless, in fact, Trump winning is the only thing that guarantees that what I would say about the world and especially politics is nothing is a guarantee, there's nothing that you can guarantee is going to happen as much as you gain out a scenario. And that's the acceleration is kind of

right, though. But I think Trump winning, yes, there will be an open Democratic primary in 2028. If Trump wins, but that means that the entire 2028 Democratic presidential primary will be about Trump. It will literally be about Trump, I worked in that 2020 primary, one of the most destructive suppressive aspects of the 2020 Democratic primary, as compared by the way to the 2016 Democratic primary, was that Trump overlaid everything in the 2020 Democratic primary, then there was an a hesitation among every candidate to actually have an honest conversation, a vigorous debate to go after one another, over important issues. Because infused into the media, infused into the political class, infused into the activist class infused into the rank and file Democratic voters thinking was any vigorous debate weakens the party's ability to ultimately defeat Trump, it was incredibly distortive. It was incredibly, that way of thinking is incredibly destructive. And what I'm hoping for is a 2028 presidential contest, where that's gone, where there can actually be an uninhibited competition for the base voter of the Democratic Party. And we haven't had that. I mean, it's not to say we've never had that 2008 There was a little bit of that. And 2016. There was there was that, yeah, that's why you saw I thought you saw Bernie Sanders, being much more willing to go after Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders was willing to go after Joe Biden. And I was right there, having arguments with Bernie Sanders, about how he had to go, draw much sharper contrast with Joe Biden. And the hesitation was not just from him. But from the a lot of the apparatus around him. And from a lot of voters, certainly from a lot of the Democratic consulting class was you can't draw a sharp contrast with Joe Biden, because that's only going to if Joe Biden ends up being the nominee that's only going to weaken him in a battle to unseat Trump. I mean, I think that that whole theory is horseshit. Yeah, I think it's complete garbage. Right that I don't think there's much evidence for the for the fact that a vigorous open seat primary, I don't think there's any evidence at all that a vigorous open seat primary weakens the ultimate nominee for the general election. I mean, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ripped each other's face off in 2008. I mean, they destroyed each other. And Barack Obama won a huge, a huge election victory. So I think that's

how we got here, right now with the state of the unpopularity of Joe Biden for one a primary forces you out onto the campaign trail, you have some but as you said, it battle tests you and so I think so many voters feel like Where was our voice to even say, this is what we want to push for, to the point that so many people in primaries just said we'll just vote uncommitted. Is that what it's going to take to send this guy a message? And I do think that if there was a more real primary, you did have Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips, I think if there was even at least just one debate between Joe Biden and Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson, she might have actually not assuaged people, but maybe put some people to rest to say, look, fine, we went through it, we were able to get a primary and the guy still won. And you can pick apart all the reasons that that allow that, you know, being the nominee and having the party behind you leads to that, but at least people might have felt a little bit better and saying whatever we got our chance to try. Now you basically skipped over the primary. You don't really hear a lot from this guy on the campaign trail. And he just goes out there and we don't really get a sense of what energizes the base of the Voters, what messaging works and what's not. But also, I think, you know, something about Joe Biden, that a lot of progressives, you know, we've broken on the show not too long ago, have credited is that he has been pushed on issues. And to, you know, I think it should be stated that there are a handful of things that Joe Biden was far more conservative on, he did end up going bigger. It's not perfect, you know, and that, again, I'm not trying to make the sale for Joe Biden. But I do understand that strategic point that you could push Joe Biden, this time, I think that is where a lot of the discontent is, whether it be on Gaza, whether it be on taking a much bigger whack openly against corporations, or, you know, the lock of the establishment in the party. People don't feel like they have any means of at least getting a concession or pressuring them without essentially saying, we might not vote for you. And that's kind of what gets us into this fraught sort of thing here. So all that to say is, I completely agree with you. And I think that the lack of a primary has been incredibly detrimental. Absolutely. 100%,

the lack of a Democratic primary. I mean, it's not just detrimental to his campaign. It's detrimental to the Democratic Party. It's, frankly, it's detrimental to democracy. And it's a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic Party. It it, will you and we did a podcast about this episode of evertime, which was, which asked the question, how is it that there are so few, even self interested ambitious Democratic politicians seeing an opportunity for themselves to run in a democratic in a Democratic primary? But by that, I mean, this party is now such a top down ossified party, as compared to the past. In the past, when there were primaries all the time, at every level. And I was just listening to a podcast recently, from WGBH. The Big Dig. Oh, yeah. And one of the episodes is about how Michael Dukakis faced a primary. Yep, in I think, was 78 and lost a Democratic primary for governor. He ultimately came back and won a Democratic primary later on to become governor again. And it's like, well, it's actually hard to imagine a Democratic Party in which even at the gubernatorial level, much less the presidential level, that they're the primaries were like a thing, like a normal part of democracy. Right. I mean, it's incredible to me, that people that people at a national stature governors, senators, Congress, people, all of them, presumably Ambitious politicians, at some level, looked at the state of the presidential race, and said, you know, what, I'm gonna take pass. Like that is a an incredible commentary, on the lack of ambition, and how ossified the Democratic Party really is. And so I would argue, to bring it back to the central question about voting and 2024. I would argue that if you think the ossification and the corruption of the Democratic Party machine is a major problem in politics, not just a minor problem, a huge problem. That's where I come down. I think it's one of the big problems in our country's politics right now that you have a Democratic Party that basically doesn't have democracy in it. Okay. That's one of the problems in America. If you think that's one of the problems in America, and you're willing to acknowledge that Donald Trump won't be better on any policy that you care about, than Joe Biden, then I think you should factor that into your decision to how you vote. I think that's something you should think about. And I know I've seen some of these questions saying, you know, Joe Biden supports genocide, Joe Biden, this Joe Biden that I don't I don't dispute any of that. I don't dispute the criticism of Biden's foreign policy. I don't dispute the the the substance of criticism out there. I'm looking at outcomes. What outcome do I think is most realistic? And also, obviously, this other question of, especially for the the so called accelerationist argument, oh, things have to get worse before they get better. Right. I think that's a highly privileged thing to assert. In this way. It's kind of triggering for me, because I've heard people say that, you know, things have to get better before they get worse. So Trump winning Yeah, things will be bad, but that'll like radicalize everybody so that things will be better on the other side. How privileged do you have to be to just sort of ylide for years of destruction on climate policy, on economic policy on foreign, like how how, how great and insulated from the real world must your life be to say, hey, you know what I'm willing to kick back have four years of just burning everything down? Because I was gonna decide which we did do and it wasn't great, right? Like how fucking privileged are you to say we got my Excel my my accelerationist theory, right? It's just a theory, my acceleration is theory means it's fine for shit to just get burned all the way to the ground with all the death and destruction that will cause because at the end of the day at the end of that it offers a better chance that people will be in such vicious pain that they'll decide to do the right thing then. I mean, I just think that's like it's like a sociopathic argument that I can't even take seriously.

Yeah, so I want to get to some of the questions that we have here. And you know, apologies with them and saying your names exactly why but we are we are seeing these we're trying to incorporate them. So Chuck Ginsburg, I'm going to kind of roll both of these that you've asked him to one. So one of your questions is, why haven't we discussed RFK? Jr. What are our thoughts on that? I will give you that in just one second. Your other question is, is it a lack of ambition that no one wanted to compete with Biden? Or was it the DNC that dictated Biden was their men? So that was actually the premise of one of our first episodes of the relaunch of leisure time? Well, you know, without getting into the exact rooms where conversations are happening with people like Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro, or Gavin Newsom from California, I think it is very clear that the media, and, frankly, members of the Democratic Party, were openly saying there are stronger candidates we think could run, there are younger candidates, there are people who can create a bigger coalition. So I don't think it's for a lack of ambition. I mean, you don't get to become the governor of an entire state. If you're not an ambitious person, you don't have to

have a wait a minute, wait, I'm going to dispute that. Okay. And I think that most Democratic politicians today have have learned and or come up through a system of compliance to get where they are, right, and that their method of getting where they are, is to play by the top down rules, that there are not a lot of, of politicians in the Democratic Party, at any level, who crashed the gate, there are very few who crashed the gate. So if you have come up in politics, carefully appeasing the top, then you are highly unlikely ever to try to violate that top down system for fear of being marginal like it, you know, it's the old idea. If you come to the king, you best not miss right fit right? Knowing that if you miss, you're, you're done, like your career is over. And I think the difference is, is that we there was a world in the not so distant past where you could run in a primary. And still, if you didn't win, you would still remain relatively irrelevant. Yeah, you could do that in a way that it wasn't perceived as a crime against the party. Right? I mean, I I'm not idealizing this but one example like Ted Kennedy ran for president against a very weak Jimmy Carter, he did not win the primary. He didn't win the primary for a lot, lots of reasons, including reasons of his of his own, you know, errors and failings, etc, etc. And some people have blamed Carter's loss on Ted Kennedy's primary, I see no evidence for that. I think Jimmy Carter did a hell of a job losing that race himself. We won't debate that. But my point is, is that Ted Kennedy remained Ted Kennedy. after that. He wasn't banished from the party. He wasn't considered some sort of political criminal for having run a primary. I do think the dynamic has now changed. That the dynamic now is most of the politicians who were in office at a national level in the Democratic party came up by kissing the ring. And also know that if they ever tried to jump out of that order, or VI or didn't respect those top down rules, they would be they would face real consequences.

Yeah. And so to the second part of your question and shock to the DNC dictate that Biden was there, man, but I don't know of a smoking an email or a memo that went around. What I do think is very apparent is that multiple heads of state Democratic Parties really put their thumb on the levers to keep names off the bat. Ella in Florida's case to cancel primary in North Carolina's case to keep someone like Dean Phillips or Marianne Williamson off the ballots. So can I say confidently there was an internal DNC push to keep Biden as the nominee and protect him? I think we can say presumably, presumably because he or it would be a very odd coincidence that multiple heads of states democratic parties all decided, You know what? We're just not going to put other people's names on the ballots. Chuck.

The other thing is, the other thing is before we get to RFK, the other thing is, is that like the DNC and the Biden, White House are effectively one in the same. Yeah. Coordinating Committees the same? Like it's asking whether like, did the DNC help get Biden to be the you know, the unchallenged nominee? It's like, did Joe Biden get Joe Biden to be the unchurched? It's the same. It's the same brob. Right. There's no, there's not a difference there. Yeah,

yeah. And I think you do hear that even from DNC officials who have said Biden as the leader of the Democratic Party, he is the incumbent. So I think there's that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Look, I think Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. If I will be completely honest. And I have watched many of his interviews, I have read a lot of his statements. I think Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is really an anti establishment figure who has a couple unorthodox positions. He's taken a different tack on vaccines. He's more comfortable, you know, looking at things like institutional capture. But for the most part, I tend to see a pretty standard cut and dry Democrat. I think the way he packages himself is different. And I think that he breaks a couple shibboleths, particularly. And you know, to his credit, he does talk about the influence of corporate power. But when it comes to things like his Israel policy, and frankly, even when it comes to things like how he would address student loan debt, the economy, I don't really feel that RFK Jr. is that much of a break from much of the a lot of what you've seen already come out of the Democratic Party, he himself is just a kind of interesting, different figure. I think his rawness is something that is really what makes him stand out is his ability to just be happy saying on an interview, I don't know, I need to look into this. I see that as a thing people are getting attracted to, but I don't, I don't consider him to be as iconic clastic. Or as radical as sometimes the portrayal of RFK Jr. can get he's from a legacy, democratic political family. He believes in much of what the party is doing. I think, again, there are a couple of things that yes, he has said, In matters of war, he would like to roll back the, you know, the US military state. Again, a lot of political candidates running for office, Barack Obama had also said similar things. And you see in somewhere like the Israel Gaza situation, he doesn't seem to agree that that should go there. So that I think with RFK, JR. He's really just more of an interesting character. But I don't know if he's representing such a paradigm shift from what we've already seen come out of the Democratic Party.

I mean, my take on Robert F. Kennedy, is that, first of all, I'm not convinced how much of a factor he's going to be. But perhaps in some places he might. My own personal opinion on him is that he's had a very loud audible career as an environmental advocate. I've been on his was on his radio show. Oh, ring a fire. Yeah, yeah. But also, I've been pretty disturbed about his sudden downplaying of the, of the climate crisis and climate policy during his campaign. And I think it's likely because he knows that might offend conservative voters that he's trying to court. So I've been like, like, I've been particularly kind of disturbed by a guy who knows better, who has been an environmental advocate all of a sudden being like, yeah, you know, climate is not a big priority for me. Like, that suggests a level of it just suggests a level of instability or inconsistency. That's, like, was his issue. So the minute he gets into the actual political arena, and he sees that, that that fighting for that issue might be a little bit complicated, he's like, Yeah, I'm out. Like, I'm not not gonna talk about that anymore. Like that. That's not good. Yeah, that's, that's especially not good for a candidate who's holding himself out there as like a, like a voice of like, a principled voice of truth. I've also been disturbed by some of the things that he said about vaccines. Yeah, I mean, I just I just think like, I'm not saying questions can't be raised about, you know, how vaccines come into processing or they are they tested, et cetera, et cetera. But he said some pretty out there shit about vaccines, and anybody who denies that is welcome Mine, like he said crazy shit about vaccines.

He was asked point blank on a podcast name one good thing about vaccines if you think you're if you say you're not an anti Vaxxer. And he couldn't he didn't answer the question you refuse to not refuse to saying I won't answer the question. He said I can't think of it. And then he said, If you think any vaccine is truly safe, I don't agree with that. That is a patently anti Vax. Yeah, so

I think he said some crazy shit about vaccines. And I also say this, I generally don't like the idea of presidential candidates of any party, whose candidacies are largely built on Celebrity, rather than experience in government. And let's, I mean, maybe this makes me old fashioned or something. But I don't think being President is just a celebrity position. It's a real job, that you probably should have some experience or related experience in. In government, it's a big government job. I think the trend of electing presidents with almost no executive experience in government has been bad. Trump is the most egregious example of this being, you know, a guy who has, I mean, you could say as corporate executive experience, like sort of rioting, that's even being generous, like, like, sort of, he has no experience running any kind of public entity. And by the way, Obama had barely been in the US Senate had zero executive experience running any large public entity. That wasn't a great presidency, either. And it's the same thing for somebody like RFK, Jr. and who it's worth adding, if we're going to be really honest, is only even in this race, because of his name. If his name was Joe Schmo, he wouldn't be any kind of factor at all. And if you can't admit that, again, you're fucking lying to yourself. Like do you think Joe Schmo who was the same exact person as RFK, Jr, who was named Joe Schmo would get nearly any of the attention as RFK Jr. It's not to say that, like, that's his fault, right. He was he is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. My point, though, is that it is kind of a celebrity ish, or at least name ID candidate. Yeah,

that's why he had his platform. He's Kennedy son. That's also historically his whole career, why he's why the press has listened to him why he's been able to get magazine articles.

And maybe I'm maybe I'm howling at the moon, right? I'm howling at the moon in the sense of like, I don't want, you know, presidential contest to be celebrity races. Maybe that's just like, I mean, that's just a fact of life. But like, I don't I don't think I don't think that's that's great. And I want to go back to I really don't think it's great to elect presidents who have no executive experience in in the public sphere. I think that's bad. And I, you know, maybe you're like, maybe people are eye rolling, saying, Well, you know, get over it like Donald Trump's and President. Yeah, I thought I think that was bad. That was bad. So and I think, you know, I go back to I'm not sure how much of a factor Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is going to be. And again, I'm not telling you to vote for him or not vote for him. That's it. I'm just giving you my sort of thoughts on how I think of Robert F. Kennedy. Yes,

I think a good continuation is Karen from Portland, Oregon. David has just described the reason for the death of the Democratic Party. Do you not be surprised that the next four years parentheses, no matter who wins, that a third party grows from 2024 through 2028 RFK, Jr. Should be seen in a congressional hearing of any kind before you consider him. This will encourage you to never vote for the man. So I will say he was actually in a congressional hearing not too long ago. So if people want to look up that video, do not be surprised that a third party grows from 2024 through 2020. I look, I will be honest, and maybe, you know, even in my 30s, I'm starting to get cynical about this. This is like every election, I feel like there has been this, you know, the establishment candidate has not done quite the things and there's always this thing that says, Look, eventually a third party is going to mobilize it's going to get bigger, it's going to do that. On at least the presidential level. I don't know how realistic that is. Part of it is I think because a lot of third parties only focus on the presidential race, building a party. The Democratic Party, the Republican Party, is a giant umbrella of state affiliated organizations who are doing a ton of work as much as you know it is dictated from the top down. You have local offices that are printing out flyers organizing volunteers knocking on doors, basically putting out there Look how many people are in this party or these are the two choices. Third parties to me just don't they're not doing that. Whether it's everyone

wants to look everyone. Everyone wants a shortcut. Yeah, this is the thing. This isn't this is me. At age 48, the old man that I am having, I sound like a crotchety old uncle. But I think in every sphere of American culture, everyone is looking for an easy shortcut, whether it's in media, building media organizations, whether it's in politics, whether it's in business, everyone is looking for a cheap, easy shortcut. And I'm here to tell you that cheap, easy shortcuts don't exist, that the idea of a actually grassroots populist third party, connected to real people can start at the highest, most isolated part of the political system, the presidential level, without taking the time. And the hard work to actually build those part those parties, in local communities in states is absurd. But it's classically American. Everyone wants a get rich, quick scheme. Everyone wants a shortcut. They don't fucking exist. And, you know, we've seen third parties. In some states mean, you saw the Progressive Party in Vermont, you saw the Working Families Party use Fusion voting in places like New York, it hasn't done nearly enough. And the two major parties have done whatever they can to squelch that down. But if you if you're interested in third parties, stop thinking about the presidential race, start thinking about your own local community. I know it's not as sexy, it's not as glamorous, it doesn't give you a sense that you're going to change the world overnight. But the world doesn't change overnight. When it comes to American politics. Yeah, by the way, I want to reiterate, because I'm because I'm gonna get that's gonna get taken out of context. If you want to vote third party in the presidential election, have at it. I'm not here to tell you how to vote. Well, I

don't think that is exactly the theme of what we're talking about tonight. We're talking really, in terms of strategy. I mean, again, your vote is your vote, but you ostensibly want your vote to go or go towards something. I do think if you want a third party candidate to grow between 24 and 28, I would work on the local level. But organizing is difficult. And you know, raising that kind of money can also be difficult. So those are just the reasons why I don't think a third party is really necessarily going to run. Also,

also I want to bring up government. Let's do some rapid fire questions here. Pete writes in Clinton, Obama, Clinton and Obama both lost Democratic primaries, that is true. If Biden wins regardless of the views of her, there's a good chance that Harris could be running as president. Look, I think Kamala Harris will run for president because that's what Vice Presidents tend to do. I would take it a step further, I think there's a chance that Kamala Harris becomes president, because I don't think Joe Biden is looking very good. I think that the craziest part of the, in a second term becomes the none of the craziest part of this entire election is that they're like, I'm not trying to be morbid. I'm not trying to be predictive. I'm just like, you know, on an actuarial table, there's a good chance that Donald Trump or Joe Biden die in office like that's like just actuarial table data here statement of fact. So I think there's a decent chance that Kamala Harris is the President. And I think that's an unbelievable disaster for the Democratic Party in 2028. And I think there's a situation in which Kamala Harris is the appoint essentially the the not appointed president, but but the successor President becomes President sometime in Biden's second term. And then there isn't a contested, vigorous Democratic Party. I could see that playing out. But I want to underscore could I still am not convinced that Kamala Harris is perceived within the Democratic Party, even within the Democratic Party elite. Yeah, as as strong enough a candidate as skilled enough a candidate to squelch down and to crush to say, you know, the governor of Pennsylvania, the governor of Michigan, this senator that Senator can't shouldn't must not be allowed to run against them. I just don't think she's earned that space in the Democratic Party. So but But I certainly could see that I certainly could see that, you know, it's 2026. Kamala Harris is now president. Like, what happens to 2028? I mean, and it does raise it does raise an interesting question, because, look, you know, if you believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the United States of America, and yet you were also like, let's rename monied a wildly unpopular 81 year old incumbent, like there's a little bit of tension there, isn't there, like Donald Trump is an existential threat to the entire United States and to the world, he must be stopped. That's one message from the Democratic Party elite. And the way to stop him, is we just we just must re nominate an 81 year old, historically unpopular incumbent like, well, which is it? Is it like Donald Trump is so dangerous that we need to do everything we can to stop him? Or is the priority, just deference to the Dear Leader? Right? Because I think if you're if you care about defeating Donald Trump, if you if you sincerely are worried that Donald Trump is the worst threat to the to the United States in the world, as the Democratic Party purports to believe in its advertisements, then you would have thought that the same Democratic Party would be like, hey, you know what, maybe we should find a stronger nominee, maybe maybe the 81 year old, wildly unpopular incumbent is not the best guarantee to stop. The thing that we're saying is the existential threat. Which then of course, if you, you know, you take those two, those two thoughts together, you're like, wait a minute. Maybe there are parts of the Democratic Party, that don't mind if Donald Trump wins, which goes back to my theory, which is that I think the top of the Democratic party knows that it will be just fine. When if Donald Trump wins, not only fine that they will be able to continue their grift if you are a democratic consultant right now, and you're making a lot of money on TV ads, if you are a Democratic Party official right now, and you've got a good high paying job at the DNC or whatever, you know, that if Donald Trump's president, the next four years, just you send out emails saying give us money to stop Donald Trump. You know, your job is way easier. In 2020, the day after the election of Donald Trump wins, way easier than if the day after the election. Joe Biden is president and there are seven candidates running for president in 2028. More questions?

Yeah, let's do it. Are there any ones that are standing out to you?

Um,

let's say, Patrick, Patrick's question right here. Patrick, you say I am engaged in ballot initiatives in Michigan, it helps drive turnout for dems. We've lost relationships that build political ties and targeting our base. This is technocratic and managerial corporate style politics. It is funded by wealthy donors, it follows best business practices. This style of politics attends to elite concerns of company's corporate agendas, concerns of higher wealth individuals. It's plutocracy stuff in Michigan, we're doing grassroots work to build power. So look, I will say right off the bat, Patrick, I don't think you're wrong. And I think if you follow the work we do here at the lever, we're trying to expose every single one of those things, and we're trying our hardest to do it. What also say is that you're a grassroots organizer in Michigan working on ballot initiatives. Dude, you've liked your credit, you've pushed this party, and I know it doesn't feel like it does. And it can feel like you're getting constantly slapped in the face. But people like you, you're the reason the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is going after credit card companies. You're the reason Joe Biden's former chief of staff, Ron Klain met extensively with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. You're the reason he tried to go with the biggest version of bill back better rather than the more scaled down, which was originally where he started that. So you know, I I agree with everything that you say in this this statement or this question. I guess all I would say in response to it is equal, like you are making a difference. And I know it's not enough of a difference. It doesn't feel like a difference. But that is how I have seen some of the things coming from this administration. We've talked about on lever time. There are some positive economic things that have come out some of the best economic policies, I in fact, yours.

I think that can't be I mean, I know one of the things that I find most annoying about the discourse around this, not just around this, this, this election, but the way we talk to each other in this country, or at least the way people who follow politics talk to each other as if you say something good about a candidate it must mean you love that candidate and think they are perfect. If you say something bad about the other candidate, it must mean you love their opponent. Like, I guess what I'm saying is statements can't exist unto themselves. Right. So but I think that's all a preface to say. I do think it is undeniable and I have written this. And I have been shit on by leftists for writing this, that Joe Biden's economic policies have been the best policies in 50 plus years. I think I think that statement stands on its own, it's not particularly close. To be quite honest, the American rescue plan was the best economic policy that I have seen in my entire lifetime, since at least I've been conscious as a person, right, a massive investment in the working class of this country. What the CFPB and the FTC are doing is by far the best regulatory policy that has happened in 50 plus years. Now, I want to caveat that again, by saying, it's also true that the last 50 years have had horrifically shitty presidents who have been horrible, so the bar is unbelievably low. It's also to say that what Biden's economic policy has done, nonetheless, has been inadequate to the economy that we are dealing with. So multiple things can be true at the same time, people can be rightly unhappy with the way the economy functions, that they're not in grates, they're not stupid, for being unhappy with the economy in the richest country in the world that has a shitty health care bureaucracy that is designed to ration health care, with housing costs out of control, with inflation for groceries and necessities out of control, like your right to be on people the right to be unhappy with with the economy. But it also can be true that the last four years have been the best economic policies that we've seen in 50 years, and far better than anything Donald Trump is proposing. Or did as president. The I think the the problem with I don't know why it takes courage, like I'm like getting nervous just saying that because I know I owe Serota just shilling for Joe Biden. He's just saying Biden's Biden's Great. I'm not saying Biden is perfect or great. There's plenty to criticize Biden about. But I think if you can't acknowledge what I just said, if somehow you think acknowledging it means you're giving Joe Biden a pass on everything else, like you've lost your fucking mind, you're part of the problem in not being able to have an honest discussion about any of this. So to be honest, I'll just level with people, everyone here is a paying lever subscriber. The reason I there was like, a few hours before this event, I was like, I don't want to fucking do this event. I don't want to do this event. I don't I don't want to because like, nobody can have a rational discussion about anything, anything I say, is going to be like, you know, extracted, criticized, you know, taken or taken out of context to suggest I believe things that I don't believe, and it's not, um, it's not about me, it's about like, the whole discourse is like this. So I didn't want to do this, this event because of that, because I'm sick and tired of talking about this shit with because because very few people can have a normal conversation that acknowledges the conflicting truths, or not even conflicting truths, the idea that many things can be true at the same time. Many things can be true, at the same time, which generate different and opposing feelings. And we all have to take these many things that are true at the same time, and ultimately decide how to politically engage with them. It's not easy. It's not easy. But I think, especially in spaces like this, we need to presume good faith, not bad faith, that that's that's actually my main lament. And I know, I sound like an old crotchety old man, but like, this notion that everybody who says anything, that what they say must be you must have the worst take on it, you must presume the worst intentions is is part of why we're, we're at this horrific, horrible moment in history. Yeah.

I also think you know, and what you were doing is that you weren't standing Joe Biden, you are recognizing the work of like the person, Patrick, the grassroots organizer, you're acknowledging the power of that work. And I think that that is something that I, I don't think it's healthy to get overcome with with cynicism and despair. As much as I personally feel it. As much as we spend our entire day talking about crappy things happening in the entire world. I do think that you have to have a reason for hope. You have to have a reason. You have to really have a reason to keep going and when things are put into these kind of bad faith binaries, as you were describing, I think that ultimately leads to people like Trump or corporate power winning because they have completely burnt you out. They have 1984 You know exactly. All right. Oh, That's exactly right. And, and I joined a system and forget it. And

and the corrective that I take from what you just said our June is that Biden having the best economic policies in 50 years, even though they are, they are still inadequate to the economic challenges that we face, even though the bar is low. Because the past presidents, their policies have been so bad, Biden having the best economic policies in 50 years, is not as much a credit to Joe Biden, as it is to the fact that he was forced to take those positions. Joe Biden was a conservative, corporate Democrat for 30, really 40 years, the good economic policy that has come out of his administration, is because you can credit Joe Biden for one thing. One, one skill that Joe Biden has, really may only be one skill, like he may not have any other skills other than this. Okay. Joe Biden's one skill is that he knows where the center, and I mean, the popular center, not the Elite Center. He knows where the center of the Democratic electorate is. And he puts himself, right, there may be one slight click to the right, of the center of the rank and file Democratic Party. And the work to move that center to a more progressive set of positions, especially on economics was work, that will never be fully recognized, will never be fully honored on a person by person level. But that is the work of years and years of grassroots organizing, of electing people at the local level at the state level, right, like so. The credit you can give to Joe Biden is that he knows that his skill is he knows where the center of the rank and file Democratic Party is. The credit that you can give to unions and organizers and communities is that that center through decades of work was finally moved. Yeah, that's that and and so, what you should want, when you think about how to vote in 2024 is, again I want to for people who are just joining people want to think they're voting for a person. What you because because we're in a followership culture, a celebrity culture, right. I mean, look at like Twitter, right, you follow a person, right? Like, we've been taught that we like, when we go into the voting booth, we're voting for like a and you are voting for a person at one level. But the the way to make it a more dispassionate decision, and again, vote however you want. But the way to make it a more dispassionate decision is to think I'm trying to vote for an outcome. Regardless of who happens to be the person I'm voting for. I'm voting, my vote is a tactic to reach an outcome. Yeah.

You can still vote for someone and walk out of the voting booth still saying, fuck that guy. Totally. 100% j. And I think you know, it's more if anyone's listening. If that's if you feel like he's better than Donald Trump, he's better than Donald Trump. You can still say fuck that guy. I hate the way everything about him. All of this, maybe

there's only been one person I've ever voted for who I who I have nothing bad to say about money, one conscious. There's only one person I've gone into the voting booth and voted for who I love unconditionally as a person. And that's my wife. Okay, yes, I have voted for my wife, who's a democratic state legislature, democratic state legislator, I have voted for her unconditionally. I mean, I have her and I have our differences. But I love her unconditionally. Right. But like short of that, like, I haven't cast the vote for anyone who, who I don't have differences with. I've never voted for somebody who I think is perfect. In fact, most of my votes, I'm voting for people I don't like as people. And I don't like their I don't like their politics. Because that's what because voting is not an expression of my love for a person. Voting is my, my bet. My tactical and everybody's up, you know, everyone is has a right to how they perceive their tactics. I try to cast my vote by thinking about if I want this outcome, how do I calibrate my vote, regardless of who, which of these people that I am that I hate? I like personally, just what is the outcome I want? So how do I cast my vote to try to get closer to that outcome?

Yeah, absolutely. So Salinas we you don't really have a question but I just like Kamala Harris showed her deficits in the chutzpah department when she passed as California Attorney General on nailing Mnuchin versus destructive impact on more controllers. I wanted to just read that out because I liked the use of the term put spot department. I thought that was a good use. I also want to shout out the book Homewrecker is which is actually exactly what you're talking about here. David, do you know about what happened in California, where Steve Minuchin was I believe he was a stakeholder or even possibly the owner of a company that was basically buying reverse mortgages off of people. Elderly people were tricked into signing these reverse mortgages, their families were left on the line and yes, Kamala Harris, passed as California Attorney General, I think she cut a deal with Mnuchin. Yes, and there's a great book about it called home records that I encourage everyone to go check out.

I mean, Kamala Harris? I will I have a lot of thoughts about Kamala Harris. That's a whole subject for a whole other live event or, you know, to discuss Kamala Harris. I mean, I am extremely unimpressed. With Kamala Harris, I do think being vice president is a difficult job to, to sort of distinguish yourself. It's kind of a weird job. I mean, that's why there was a whole set combative called Veep, which is all about how weird a job vice president is. But I think, you know, I do think the benefit of Kamala Harris, and we're gonna wrap it up here in a sec. I do think the benefit of Kamala Harris is that at least right now, she is not the presumptive successor to Joe Biden, she probably will run for president. And so I think, well, I want to I want to end where we where we started, this is an event about how to think about your vote in 2024. And I think, I want to reiterate this, you know, this point, think about your vote tactically, think about what outcome you want, try to not think about the individual people you're voting for voting against, think about outcomes. And consider the the fact I'm not trying to tell you how to vote. But I think it is. It is a good bet. That Donald Trump becoming president, let me let me step back and say this, if you are unhappy with the current Democratic party's leadership, I think it's worth considering that the best thing for the Democratic Party leadership, the thing that will strengthen them the most is Donald Trump winning. I think it's almost undeniable that they gain more power. If Donald Trump wins more power to control the party, more power to control the discourse with Donald Trump as president because everything then becomes everyone shut the fuck up. And just focus on stopping Donald Trump. That's what that center, the corporate elite bosses of the Democratic Party won. And I think it's also a good bet, that if Joe Biden wins, the day after the election, the 2028 competition for the Democratic nomination begins, and that the competition will include candidates who are trying to amplify and cord, the progressive base of the Democratic Party. And that is the kind of competition that you want. That is the kind of competition that can produce, or at least has the chance of producing a better overall Democratic Party, a better Democratic nominee. Vigorous, small d Democratic primaries are a rare thing in the Democratic Party. I believe the fact that they've become so rare is the reason why the Democratic Party has been so bad in the current era. And so Joe Biden winning and immediately being a lame duck creates an environment for a little bit more democracy in the Democratic Party. This says nothing about again, says nothing about how, how much worse Donald Trump's policies, his proposals are than Joe Biden's current policies and proposals. I mean, I just mentioned that because not to downplay it, but I think that's undeniably true. But I'm sure you'd be accused of like, you know, shilling for Joe Biden. I mean, if you read the lever, you know, we don't show for Joe Biden, like, like, you know, that I'm not shilling for Joe Biden. I'm just trying to try to drop some, like obvious truths here. So that's that's all I got for

everybody. Yeah. Ah, no, I don't think I have much more to tack on to that. No, I think this is a lot of fun event. Thanks for participating everybody. Yes.

Let me let me say thank you, everybody. Yes, thank you, everybody for for participating. Thanks for being here. Thank you for being a paid subscriber. If you like the work that we do, please become I know you're already a paid subscriber. So I'm not trying to like ask for too much. But like if you really like the work we do, pitch into our tip jar, or become a lever leader. We are a reader supported news organization, your support we can't we literally can't do the reporting that we do without your help. So if you want to pitch in if you like events like this, if you like the work we do, please continue being a paying subscriber and when you can pitch in a little more if you can, but either way, thank you so much for your support our June. Thank you for being here tonight. Thank

you and listen to leverage time everybody.

Absolutely.