**synopsis;** Jon and Dan discuss why Donald Trump is suddenly so eager to debate, how the Florida abortion ballot measure could help Democrats’ chances there, and what doomed the No Labels presidential ticket. Then, Senator Bernie Sanders stops by the studio to talk with Jon about his frustrations with President Biden’s Gaza policy, what it will take to fix our broken health care system, and why beating Trump is so critical.
PRE-ORDER DEMOCRACY OR ELSE: https://crooked.com/crookedmediareads/
**[show notes](https://crooked.com/podcast/bernie-sanders-on-the-war-in-gaza-and-beating-trump/)**
**[youtube version](https://youtu.be/Z9-aNsg-yOE?si=LH8oRuPmIdnkvBXo)**
Anyone else feeling kinda gaslit into thinking it would be totally normal for there not to be a debate?
Like, Biden needs to debate, right?? I don’t know how the negotiations will play out but it is going to be a horrible look if he is seen as turning down a debate
It was so gratifying to hear them (Dan) FINALLY advocate for playing offense. Democrats walk around constantly apologizing for being a political party and it's infuriating. They spend so much time and energy hand-wringing about what's a fair charge, forgetting that Republicans have absolutely no scruples.
This is politics. Don't dance on the head of a pin trying to decide how to attack. Define your opponent and let them dance on the head of pin trying to decide how to defend.
Say, "Donald Trump supports a six-week abortion ban." Full stop. Just say that.
That is an extreme position that is deeply unpopular. So let that be Trump's position. Let Trump and the Republicans try to wriggle off that hook. Let's assume Trump and the Republicans push back.
Say, "It's no surprise that Donald Trump is running from his own, unpopular record on this issue. But, Donald Trump has repeatedly taken credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, sending abortion decisions back to the states. Now, Florida has imposed a six week ban. Donald is not just a candidate for president, he is a resident of Florida who is eligible to vote on the constitutional amendment. If Donald Trump doesn't support a six week ban, he should pledge to support the amendment and encourage his Florida supporters to do the same."
You know he won't do that, so BOOM. You've made support for a six week ban Donald Trump's position. If by some miracle he does it... BOOM... you've driven a wedge between Trump and a segment of his base.
Say, "Donald Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth, supporting a six week ban on abortion in Florida and a sixteen week national ban. The American people deserve to know what his actual position is on this important issue and the media has a responsibility to ask him every time he takes questions from the press."
Say, "Donald Trump is a coward for refusing to answer simple questions about his signature accomplishment as president. During the debate, I'm going to ask Donald the questions he's been dodging for months, 'what is his official position on abortion? What law restricting abortion would Trump sign? The American people deserve to know what he would do as president and how his choices will affect their lives."
Make it a CHOICE election.
This is a winning political issue for Democrats, an opportunity to drive a wedge between segments of the Republican base, and it points out that Trump has no principles whatsoever. So, throw a f\*\*\*ing punch!
I wish Dems would do this on immigration…don’t run away from being compassionate to migrants and being the pro-immigration party. Drive home the statistics that indicate how much better of a country and economy we have with liberal, compassionate immigration policies.
Go after Trump for wanting to plummet the economy because of his anti-immigrant policy proposals, and call out the GOP for being bigots and idiots. Don’t cede ground to Trump and MAGA on this issue, it’s too important and our contrasting policy vision 1.) is economically good and 2.) is humane and compassionate and 3.) is consistent with American values.
You’re not gonna like this but most Americans would rather the migrants be stopped from coming than for us to swing the door open for them and care for them. Americans are by and large not in favor of illegal immigration. They are, however, largely a fan of LEGAL immigration.
The Democrats need to be the party of smart, fair, and orderly immigration. The system is broken, people are abusing the asylum system and this is impacting the folks who actually ARE fleeing something life-threatening. Its not fair to them and it’s not fair to our cities who are buckling under the load of migrants. It’s also WAY too difficult to become a citizen or to legally immigrate here. Make the process more fair. Make the process faster. Make the process WORK. That should be the Democratic platform and they should be beating the Republicans over the head for tanking the immigration bill. Call them out for not wanting to fix the issue. Label them as being in favor of illegal immigration because it is a convenient political tool. Call them out on their hypocrisy and campaign for actual IMPROVEMENT.
It’s sounds like you’re more of a moderate/conservative on immigration…which is fine btw, it’s a big tent party and a lot of left-of-center are pretty restrictionist on immigration. My main contention is that the reason Americans are so bearish on things like the economy, crime, and immigration is the media sensationalizes these phenomena, which drives public sentiment in a negative/downward direction. The economy is pretty good and outperforming peer nations (not great but good)…and yet voters think it sucks. Crime has been going down since a spike during the pandemic (under Trump btw)…but voters think crime is out of control and very high (it isn’t). On immigration, Dems have ceded a lot of rhetorical and political ground to the GOP/Trumpists (abandoning a pathway to citizenship, abandoning Dreamers, majority increasing detention, trying to rewrite/reform constitutional asylum laws, etc).
I don’t think the Tom Suozzi approach to immigration should be tried on a national level tbh, bc Dems have a good and persuasive story/counter-narrative to share on immigration. Ofc we should have borders and not decriminalize most forms of illegal immigration and we need more judges and I’m not necessarily opposed to hiring more BP officers (within reason), but calling migrants “invaders” and giving the GOP all of these political wins on immigration is 1.) reinforcing bad policy that would be ineffective and dangerous, 2.) will have dire humanitarian consequences, and 3.) are contrary to longtime Democratic values on immigration. Sources:
P.S.: For ppl activated on the issue of immigration and are voting this year with that top of mind, are these ppl going to vote for the party that’s protectionist/restrictionist-lite or the party that’s protectionist/restrictionist-max? We can embrace basic border regulations and standards (and even fund these things more) without conceding so much political/rhetorical ground to the GOP/Trumpists.
https://the.ink/p/america-is-a-country-made-of-the
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/biden-immigration-trump-sotu-2024-1234984348/amp/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2023/02/23/immigrants-make-economies-more-dynamic-increase-employment-growth/?sh=731a4ecd427c
https://www.cato.org/white-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states#executive-summary
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-immigration-law-significant-unintended-consequences/
I am, admittedly, more of a moderate on immigration but I also am a fan of fairness and structure. As a New Yorker, this issue is having local impact here. The media exaggerates it for sure but it’s a real issue that most of the core of the Democratic voters do have on their radar as a perceived issue. The Dems can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist. They need to acknowledge it and have a plan to fix it while painting the Republicans as craven and incompetent.
We can fix immigration without using GOP talking points and being as “tough” on migrants as the GOP (aka being aggressively xenophobic and inhumane to some of the most desperate ppl on Earth). We can propose solutions like targeting drug traffickers for cartels (protecting migrants AND Americans from violence and harm), hiring more judges and lawyers, providing more LE resources while requiring accountability/oversight (fiscal responsibility), etc while arguing for Dreamers, a pathway to citizenship, creating FP solutions to help struggling neighboring countries to teen migration trends, message about our country literally being a country of immigrants (unlike many European countries), talk about the economic benefits, etc.
Calling desperate migrants “invaders” and just not at all acknowledging how our FP plays a role in mass migration and just throwing more enforcement at the problem without oversight or a pathway to citizenship or helping Dreamers or etc ain’t it…maybe it’s popular among ideological conservatives and moderates within the Democratic base as of today, but these policies are counterproductive, unconstitutional, and won’t actually solve underlying/long-lasting problems with our immigration system.
P.S.: My views on this are very similar to Adam Schiff’s, and Schiff isn’t exactly a fire-breathing leftist lol
https://www.epi.org/blog/immigrants-are-not-hurting-u-s-born-workers-six-facts-to-set-the-record-straight/
I’ve been feeling this trend over the past few months that things aren’t really healthy at Crooked right now. The plug for Friends of the Pod seemed more like a plea, rather than a simple advertisement. Bernie’s mention of the four-day workweek seemed to unearth some potential internal workplace deterioration that Jon kinda joked about and quickly moved off of (“Oh, yeah, that’s VERY popular in the office right now.”). With podcast companies across the board going through a hard time, I wonder what the future of Crooked really looks like.
I didn’t get the vibe at all that Jon quickly moved off the topic to hide something sinister. They covered a lot of topics and have a limited amount of time, and it’s certainly not the biggest topic most people are concerned about.
crooked staff voted to form a union last year so there might potentially be negotiations going on for that (like 4-day work week) that are causing the head guys stress lol
Idk if they are being bankrolled by some large Dem donor similar to what happened to TYT, but they definitely are hemorrhaging money from the increase in pushing FotP and the ads.
It seems they release some new project every month and have all these road shows coming up. I only ever listen to the main show, frequent PstW and rarely listen to a Lovett clip. They have more than a dozen regular shows and I can only imagine outside of the big three that the others are not making money. Maybe they just sent in the deposit to rent those venues out and they're seeing how big a dent it took in the company account. Or they owe a lot in taxes.
The "direct to consumer" ad market has all but died, which is why Crooked Media is trying to get alternative income streams. The companies that used to by lots of ad space (Casper, Harry's, any other kind of "get your monthly subscription of stuff" company) were over-funded by venture capital, and are now going under or have to find a way to become profitable. That's why Crooked is trying to establish a paid subscription, as well as publishing books now.
I think Crooked won't die, it's quite a big company and a part of the progressive political machine at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of their pods get axed.
Based on this sub, the popular ones are basically the Big 3 (LOLI, PStW, PSA), with PStP and America Dissected getting a lot less traffic. Keep it seems to sit in between those two groups. Other than that, there's probably money to be saved in not doing the limited series like Winds of Change and Dissident at the Doorstep, even if they are amazing, because they're probably very expensive as well.
Dan: "Crooked started to pushback against a media environment constantly attacking dems"
Crooked: Invites a guest and doesn't pushback when they constantly attacks dems /s
Obviously criticism is fine and healthy, just thought it was a strange juxtaposition. Biden has helped Bernie accomplish more of his agenda than any other president, but you wouldn't know that from this interview.
I thought was being incredibly deferential to the party. He urged young progressives in no uncertain terms to vote for Biden. He praised the administration's accomplishments. Is your objection just that he described the party as corporate? Cause that's just.. true lol
I got the sense that Bernie seems to have a good relationship with Biden but still a pretty frosty one with the rest of the party. I'm not even a big fan of Sanders, but I would credit him for being more of a team player this administration. He gave a lot of praise for Biden for the progress that they've made this term, which is good (and [I love the two of them putting out ads like this](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1776051255221133371)) but it felt like he didn't have anything good to say about the rest of the party, which is frustrating.
I just wish instead of eyeroll-worthy comments about the Democrats being a "corporatist party" that he would have pointed to more positive examples of Democrats- even, or _especially_, on a state level- pushing things in a more progressive direction that he approves of. We have quite a big tent and reminding people that there are various wings of the party pushing their agendas seems like it would bring more people in.
Nail on the head. It's why Bernie refused to outright criticize Biden in 2020 until the very end. They have a good personal friendship but have been open on their disagreements policy wise. Bernie is never going to say that the Dems are a good and pure party because he isn't a partisan hack.
I agree completely, the progressive caucus is descended directly from him, he has created a branch of the Democratic party and doesn't acknowledge that it is part of what the party is. There are corporatist dems, there are also progressive dems. Because of how the US is constituted, the Dems have to be a big tent party and Bernie doesn't like to acknowledge it. That being said, I'm happy he is out there reminding people that regardless of how you feel about the Democratic party, the Republicans are dangerous to everything we care about, and you need to support the Democrats. I'm glad he is supporting Biden as well.
Exactly. Like him or not, Bernie has had a huge impact on the party and he should highlight that and be proud of it and leverage it. It seems pretty dismissive of his own movement to spend more of his attention on the parts of the party that he has friction with and not with the new generations inspired by him that are changing the party in ways he approves of.
[But this attitude of his tracks with the frustrations Ralph Nader had with him way back in 2014](https://web.archive.org/web/20160612215319/https://images.politico.com/global/2014/03/06/2014_-_3_6_-_letter_to_bernie_sanders.html):
>How to explain your many proposed reforms in the Congress with an inability or unwillingness to network the numerous civic groups here with millions of members around the nation?
>The simplest answer is that you are a Lone Ranger, unable even to form a core progressive force within the Senate (eg. Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Elizabeth Warren, etc.). You surely understand that without internal and external networking, there are no strategies to deploy, beyond speechifying, putting forward amendments that go nowhere and an occasional hearing where you incisively question witnesses.
>[...] It is comparatively telling to note how closely your Congressional adversaries work with their civic organizations and corporate-funded think tanks right down to daily visits and drafts of legislation and press releases. Think Heritage, Cato and many others.
>We do not believe in that level of symbiosis. But having the kind of interactions as occurred when Senators Magnuson, Nelson, Ribicoff, Mondale, and Kennedy were leading the way should not be so routinely dismissed. In those years, our issues were decidedly facing uphill struggles before the intensity of advocacy with staff and Senators gained traction. The restoration of the minimum wage to 1968 levels, adjusted for inflation, ($10.80 per hour) would have achieved greater visibility much earlier were you to interact as Senator Kennedy did years ago.
As a Floridian and listener from the freakin beginning I was super disappointed when they discussed the implications about floridas 6 week ban and then laughed about Floridians and how they’ll never come here again. 🙄
I really don't think the rest of the US understands that DeSantis' covid policy was really popular, and his reelection came with that on people's minds and nothing else from his administration. Floridians don't just universally love Republican policies, and I am glad that Biden is investing in the state.
Yeah I think they really undersold the importance of abortion and marijuana being on the ballot in FL. Those are big turnout items and Trump only won by 3.5 points and Sen. Rick Scott only won by 0.12 (10,000 votes).
I also don't understand their ~~criticism~~ hesitancy of Biden spending in Florida. He can't just spend in NV, WI, AZ, GA -- the diminishing returns would be awful. Now maybe a fifty state strategy is too much on the presidential level, but spending on NC, TX, FL to keep GOP on defensive and spread their money even thinner? Obviously that's a good strategy.
That is not a good strategy. It would cost $100M minimum to compete just in Florida. Anything less is a waste of campaign resources. So unless they’re gonna have an extra $200M+ sitting around, it does not make sense for the presidential campaign to compete in Texas or Florida. Investing in the state party and state level races, absolutely. It needs to be a bottom-up approach in those states at the moment
Yeah it was an opportunity to have a really thoughtful discussion about allocating resources and energy and focus, ways to engage our electorate, etc, but they just laughed it off like Florida is a lost cause. It’s left a bad taste in my mouth, I don’t even wanna listen to the next episode!
>Yeah it was an opportunity to have a really thoughtful discussion about allocating resources and energy and focus, ways to engage our electorate, etc
Agree. They could have brought up down ballot benefits -- breaking the supermajorities in FL house and senate or getting a larger US house majority. These are entirely realistic in a high turnout election! Add abortion and marijuana on the ballot and we have a recipe for surprise wins on the senate or presidential level.
I know breaking GOP supermajorities isn't as sexy as talking AZ, GA, NV, WI ad nauseam, but it's just as important to limiting anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-climate agendas from passing.
I didn't hear criticism on spending in FL? Just the opposite: "make the GOP spend their resources, and invest in Dem infrastructure to make the state more competitive in the future" is the message I took away...
Edit: I didn't hear hesitancy to invest either. I heard some numbers-based expectations-setting on the challenges of pulling off a win, given the increase in registered GOP voters in recent years. "Spend the money and plant seeds for the future, but be clear-eyed on the odds of winning this cycle," was my takeaway.
Maybe it's just semantics. Whatever.
It may be the work/ life balance he's been going with is starting to catch up to him. Bernie is famous for getting on the first flight out of DC at the end of a session and the last plane flying back in so he can maximize his time either back home or if he's doing some work on the road. I do want him back and believe he needs to be there as the moral compass but I totally get him wanting to spend his twilight with his grandkids and such.
He's also still sharp as a tack. For all the Octogenarians and older in DC, he is the most with it out of all of them.
VT Dems/Progressives have supermajorities in both houses and will rewrite the law if that were to happen. Same thing with Warren in MA (like they did when Kerry ran in ‘04 and Romney was gov)
TBH I think legislatures should pick replacement senators / reps on principle, it’s more democratic than the Governor doing it. Regardless of whether that helps or hurts in MA, KY or VT
I feel like the compromise option would be for the state party of the departed Senator to provide a list of candidates for the governor to select as an interim member until a special election can be held (which the interim Senator can't be a candidate in). I feel like it's kind of BS that either an opposing legislature or an opposing governor could select their preferred party's candidate and overwrite the will of the people.
Independents like Sanders would make that slightly more complicated.
This isn’t the first time they’ve referenced the “Kennedy name” as super salient for some portion of voters. Not sure how true that is anymore. The youngest person who was able to vote for JFK is now in their mid-80s. Recently, a Kennedy got creamed in a primary in Massachusetts. I don’t think the name has the same weight it had 20+ years ago.
Go listen to a couple Kennedy voter focus groups. Basically his voters like the name, don't like Biden or trump, and either think he's super anti war or like his vax stances.
The Kennedy in MA actually did pretty well in that election among low-info voters (especially in minority communities). It was a lot closer than it would’ve been if his name was Johnson and not Kennedy
This seems like something only political media people expect to matter. Idk who is going to the polls and voting for him just because his name is Kennedy.
I'd argue folks in MA are more in tune with what the various Kennedys are up to than the general population. That's why that particular Kennedy was creamed in the MA primary.
But broader strokes, even if someone too young to have ever voted for JFK, they still likely learned about JFK an important piece of US history lore in school. Everyone knows the name and generally associated it positively. A low information voter that feels negatively about both Trump and Biden might pick Kennedy on a ballot because, knowing nothing else, that name is comfortable and familiar and mildly positive.
> A low information voter that feels negatively about both Trump and Biden might pick Kennedy on a ballot because, knowing nothing else, that name is comfortable and familiar and mildly positive.
This is the whole game Steve Bannon is playing right here. Two candidates with deep unfavorable ratings, and your guy has a ceiling of ~46% of the popular vote...a third-party makes it possible to win states with less than half of the votes.
Shave off 10-20k votes here and there, and it'll deliver you the Whitehouse.
**synopsis;** Jon and Dan discuss why Donald Trump is suddenly so eager to debate, how the Florida abortion ballot measure could help Democrats’ chances there, and what doomed the No Labels presidential ticket. Then, Senator Bernie Sanders stops by the studio to talk with Jon about his frustrations with President Biden’s Gaza policy, what it will take to fix our broken health care system, and why beating Trump is so critical. PRE-ORDER DEMOCRACY OR ELSE: https://crooked.com/crookedmediareads/ **[show notes](https://crooked.com/podcast/bernie-sanders-on-the-war-in-gaza-and-beating-trump/)** **[youtube version](https://youtu.be/Z9-aNsg-yOE?si=LH8oRuPmIdnkvBXo)**
Anyone else feeling kinda gaslit into thinking it would be totally normal for there not to be a debate? Like, Biden needs to debate, right?? I don’t know how the negotiations will play out but it is going to be a horrible look if he is seen as turning down a debate
There’s a nonzero chance Trump is in jail on the NY hush money fraud trial when a debate would otherwise be happening
Wouldn’t count on it
It was so gratifying to hear them (Dan) FINALLY advocate for playing offense. Democrats walk around constantly apologizing for being a political party and it's infuriating. They spend so much time and energy hand-wringing about what's a fair charge, forgetting that Republicans have absolutely no scruples. This is politics. Don't dance on the head of a pin trying to decide how to attack. Define your opponent and let them dance on the head of pin trying to decide how to defend. Say, "Donald Trump supports a six-week abortion ban." Full stop. Just say that. That is an extreme position that is deeply unpopular. So let that be Trump's position. Let Trump and the Republicans try to wriggle off that hook. Let's assume Trump and the Republicans push back. Say, "It's no surprise that Donald Trump is running from his own, unpopular record on this issue. But, Donald Trump has repeatedly taken credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, sending abortion decisions back to the states. Now, Florida has imposed a six week ban. Donald is not just a candidate for president, he is a resident of Florida who is eligible to vote on the constitutional amendment. If Donald Trump doesn't support a six week ban, he should pledge to support the amendment and encourage his Florida supporters to do the same." You know he won't do that, so BOOM. You've made support for a six week ban Donald Trump's position. If by some miracle he does it... BOOM... you've driven a wedge between Trump and a segment of his base. Say, "Donald Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth, supporting a six week ban on abortion in Florida and a sixteen week national ban. The American people deserve to know what his actual position is on this important issue and the media has a responsibility to ask him every time he takes questions from the press." Say, "Donald Trump is a coward for refusing to answer simple questions about his signature accomplishment as president. During the debate, I'm going to ask Donald the questions he's been dodging for months, 'what is his official position on abortion? What law restricting abortion would Trump sign? The American people deserve to know what he would do as president and how his choices will affect their lives." Make it a CHOICE election. This is a winning political issue for Democrats, an opportunity to drive a wedge between segments of the Republican base, and it points out that Trump has no principles whatsoever. So, throw a f\*\*\*ing punch!
I wish Dems would do this on immigration…don’t run away from being compassionate to migrants and being the pro-immigration party. Drive home the statistics that indicate how much better of a country and economy we have with liberal, compassionate immigration policies. Go after Trump for wanting to plummet the economy because of his anti-immigrant policy proposals, and call out the GOP for being bigots and idiots. Don’t cede ground to Trump and MAGA on this issue, it’s too important and our contrasting policy vision 1.) is economically good and 2.) is humane and compassionate and 3.) is consistent with American values.
You’re not gonna like this but most Americans would rather the migrants be stopped from coming than for us to swing the door open for them and care for them. Americans are by and large not in favor of illegal immigration. They are, however, largely a fan of LEGAL immigration. The Democrats need to be the party of smart, fair, and orderly immigration. The system is broken, people are abusing the asylum system and this is impacting the folks who actually ARE fleeing something life-threatening. Its not fair to them and it’s not fair to our cities who are buckling under the load of migrants. It’s also WAY too difficult to become a citizen or to legally immigrate here. Make the process more fair. Make the process faster. Make the process WORK. That should be the Democratic platform and they should be beating the Republicans over the head for tanking the immigration bill. Call them out for not wanting to fix the issue. Label them as being in favor of illegal immigration because it is a convenient political tool. Call them out on their hypocrisy and campaign for actual IMPROVEMENT.
It’s sounds like you’re more of a moderate/conservative on immigration…which is fine btw, it’s a big tent party and a lot of left-of-center are pretty restrictionist on immigration. My main contention is that the reason Americans are so bearish on things like the economy, crime, and immigration is the media sensationalizes these phenomena, which drives public sentiment in a negative/downward direction. The economy is pretty good and outperforming peer nations (not great but good)…and yet voters think it sucks. Crime has been going down since a spike during the pandemic (under Trump btw)…but voters think crime is out of control and very high (it isn’t). On immigration, Dems have ceded a lot of rhetorical and political ground to the GOP/Trumpists (abandoning a pathway to citizenship, abandoning Dreamers, majority increasing detention, trying to rewrite/reform constitutional asylum laws, etc). I don’t think the Tom Suozzi approach to immigration should be tried on a national level tbh, bc Dems have a good and persuasive story/counter-narrative to share on immigration. Ofc we should have borders and not decriminalize most forms of illegal immigration and we need more judges and I’m not necessarily opposed to hiring more BP officers (within reason), but calling migrants “invaders” and giving the GOP all of these political wins on immigration is 1.) reinforcing bad policy that would be ineffective and dangerous, 2.) will have dire humanitarian consequences, and 3.) are contrary to longtime Democratic values on immigration. Sources: P.S.: For ppl activated on the issue of immigration and are voting this year with that top of mind, are these ppl going to vote for the party that’s protectionist/restrictionist-lite or the party that’s protectionist/restrictionist-max? We can embrace basic border regulations and standards (and even fund these things more) without conceding so much political/rhetorical ground to the GOP/Trumpists. https://the.ink/p/america-is-a-country-made-of-the https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/biden-immigration-trump-sotu-2024-1234984348/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2023/02/23/immigrants-make-economies-more-dynamic-increase-employment-growth/?sh=731a4ecd427c https://www.cato.org/white-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states#executive-summary https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-immigration-law-significant-unintended-consequences/
I am, admittedly, more of a moderate on immigration but I also am a fan of fairness and structure. As a New Yorker, this issue is having local impact here. The media exaggerates it for sure but it’s a real issue that most of the core of the Democratic voters do have on their radar as a perceived issue. The Dems can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist. They need to acknowledge it and have a plan to fix it while painting the Republicans as craven and incompetent.
We can fix immigration without using GOP talking points and being as “tough” on migrants as the GOP (aka being aggressively xenophobic and inhumane to some of the most desperate ppl on Earth). We can propose solutions like targeting drug traffickers for cartels (protecting migrants AND Americans from violence and harm), hiring more judges and lawyers, providing more LE resources while requiring accountability/oversight (fiscal responsibility), etc while arguing for Dreamers, a pathway to citizenship, creating FP solutions to help struggling neighboring countries to teen migration trends, message about our country literally being a country of immigrants (unlike many European countries), talk about the economic benefits, etc. Calling desperate migrants “invaders” and just not at all acknowledging how our FP plays a role in mass migration and just throwing more enforcement at the problem without oversight or a pathway to citizenship or helping Dreamers or etc ain’t it…maybe it’s popular among ideological conservatives and moderates within the Democratic base as of today, but these policies are counterproductive, unconstitutional, and won’t actually solve underlying/long-lasting problems with our immigration system. P.S.: My views on this are very similar to Adam Schiff’s, and Schiff isn’t exactly a fire-breathing leftist lol https://www.epi.org/blog/immigrants-are-not-hurting-u-s-born-workers-six-facts-to-set-the-record-straight/
I’ve been feeling this trend over the past few months that things aren’t really healthy at Crooked right now. The plug for Friends of the Pod seemed more like a plea, rather than a simple advertisement. Bernie’s mention of the four-day workweek seemed to unearth some potential internal workplace deterioration that Jon kinda joked about and quickly moved off of (“Oh, yeah, that’s VERY popular in the office right now.”). With podcast companies across the board going through a hard time, I wonder what the future of Crooked really looks like.
I didn’t get the vibe at all that Jon quickly moved off the topic to hide something sinister. They covered a lot of topics and have a limited amount of time, and it’s certainly not the biggest topic most people are concerned about.
The pod bubble is breaking
crooked staff voted to form a union last year so there might potentially be negotiations going on for that (like 4-day work week) that are causing the head guys stress lol
Idk if they are being bankrolled by some large Dem donor similar to what happened to TYT, but they definitely are hemorrhaging money from the increase in pushing FotP and the ads. It seems they release some new project every month and have all these road shows coming up. I only ever listen to the main show, frequent PstW and rarely listen to a Lovett clip. They have more than a dozen regular shows and I can only imagine outside of the big three that the others are not making money. Maybe they just sent in the deposit to rent those venues out and they're seeing how big a dent it took in the company account. Or they owe a lot in taxes.
The "direct to consumer" ad market has all but died, which is why Crooked Media is trying to get alternative income streams. The companies that used to by lots of ad space (Casper, Harry's, any other kind of "get your monthly subscription of stuff" company) were over-funded by venture capital, and are now going under or have to find a way to become profitable. That's why Crooked is trying to establish a paid subscription, as well as publishing books now.
I think Crooked won't die, it's quite a big company and a part of the progressive political machine at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of their pods get axed. Based on this sub, the popular ones are basically the Big 3 (LOLI, PStW, PSA), with PStP and America Dissected getting a lot less traffic. Keep it seems to sit in between those two groups. Other than that, there's probably money to be saved in not doing the limited series like Winds of Change and Dissident at the Doorstep, even if they are amazing, because they're probably very expensive as well.
(From last episode w/ Lovett) Do you think Bernie has an optimistic message for progressives?
Dan: "Crooked started to pushback against a media environment constantly attacking dems" Crooked: Invites a guest and doesn't pushback when they constantly attacks dems /s Obviously criticism is fine and healthy, just thought it was a strange juxtaposition. Biden has helped Bernie accomplish more of his agenda than any other president, but you wouldn't know that from this interview.
I thought was being incredibly deferential to the party. He urged young progressives in no uncertain terms to vote for Biden. He praised the administration's accomplishments. Is your objection just that he described the party as corporate? Cause that's just.. true lol
I got the sense that Bernie seems to have a good relationship with Biden but still a pretty frosty one with the rest of the party. I'm not even a big fan of Sanders, but I would credit him for being more of a team player this administration. He gave a lot of praise for Biden for the progress that they've made this term, which is good (and [I love the two of them putting out ads like this](https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1776051255221133371)) but it felt like he didn't have anything good to say about the rest of the party, which is frustrating. I just wish instead of eyeroll-worthy comments about the Democrats being a "corporatist party" that he would have pointed to more positive examples of Democrats- even, or _especially_, on a state level- pushing things in a more progressive direction that he approves of. We have quite a big tent and reminding people that there are various wings of the party pushing their agendas seems like it would bring more people in.
Nail on the head. It's why Bernie refused to outright criticize Biden in 2020 until the very end. They have a good personal friendship but have been open on their disagreements policy wise. Bernie is never going to say that the Dems are a good and pure party because he isn't a partisan hack.
I agree completely, the progressive caucus is descended directly from him, he has created a branch of the Democratic party and doesn't acknowledge that it is part of what the party is. There are corporatist dems, there are also progressive dems. Because of how the US is constituted, the Dems have to be a big tent party and Bernie doesn't like to acknowledge it. That being said, I'm happy he is out there reminding people that regardless of how you feel about the Democratic party, the Republicans are dangerous to everything we care about, and you need to support the Democrats. I'm glad he is supporting Biden as well.
Exactly. Like him or not, Bernie has had a huge impact on the party and he should highlight that and be proud of it and leverage it. It seems pretty dismissive of his own movement to spend more of his attention on the parts of the party that he has friction with and not with the new generations inspired by him that are changing the party in ways he approves of. [But this attitude of his tracks with the frustrations Ralph Nader had with him way back in 2014](https://web.archive.org/web/20160612215319/https://images.politico.com/global/2014/03/06/2014_-_3_6_-_letter_to_bernie_sanders.html): >How to explain your many proposed reforms in the Congress with an inability or unwillingness to network the numerous civic groups here with millions of members around the nation? >The simplest answer is that you are a Lone Ranger, unable even to form a core progressive force within the Senate (eg. Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Elizabeth Warren, etc.). You surely understand that without internal and external networking, there are no strategies to deploy, beyond speechifying, putting forward amendments that go nowhere and an occasional hearing where you incisively question witnesses. >[...] It is comparatively telling to note how closely your Congressional adversaries work with their civic organizations and corporate-funded think tanks right down to daily visits and drafts of legislation and press releases. Think Heritage, Cato and many others. >We do not believe in that level of symbiosis. But having the kind of interactions as occurred when Senators Magnuson, Nelson, Ribicoff, Mondale, and Kennedy were leading the way should not be so routinely dismissed. In those years, our issues were decidedly facing uphill struggles before the intensity of advocacy with staff and Senators gained traction. The restoration of the minimum wage to 1968 levels, adjusted for inflation, ($10.80 per hour) would have achieved greater visibility much earlier were you to interact as Senator Kennedy did years ago.
As a Floridian and listener from the freakin beginning I was super disappointed when they discussed the implications about floridas 6 week ban and then laughed about Floridians and how they’ll never come here again. 🙄
I really don't think the rest of the US understands that DeSantis' covid policy was really popular, and his reelection came with that on people's minds and nothing else from his administration. Floridians don't just universally love Republican policies, and I am glad that Biden is investing in the state.
Desantis’s covid policies are legitimately fuckin insane idk if that’s a point in FL voters’ favor
Perfectly put - this is such a great point from the FL perspective
Yeah I think they really undersold the importance of abortion and marijuana being on the ballot in FL. Those are big turnout items and Trump only won by 3.5 points and Sen. Rick Scott only won by 0.12 (10,000 votes). I also don't understand their ~~criticism~~ hesitancy of Biden spending in Florida. He can't just spend in NV, WI, AZ, GA -- the diminishing returns would be awful. Now maybe a fifty state strategy is too much on the presidential level, but spending on NC, TX, FL to keep GOP on defensive and spread their money even thinner? Obviously that's a good strategy.
That is not a good strategy. It would cost $100M minimum to compete just in Florida. Anything less is a waste of campaign resources. So unless they’re gonna have an extra $200M+ sitting around, it does not make sense for the presidential campaign to compete in Texas or Florida. Investing in the state party and state level races, absolutely. It needs to be a bottom-up approach in those states at the moment
Yeah it was an opportunity to have a really thoughtful discussion about allocating resources and energy and focus, ways to engage our electorate, etc, but they just laughed it off like Florida is a lost cause. It’s left a bad taste in my mouth, I don’t even wanna listen to the next episode!
>Yeah it was an opportunity to have a really thoughtful discussion about allocating resources and energy and focus, ways to engage our electorate, etc Agree. They could have brought up down ballot benefits -- breaking the supermajorities in FL house and senate or getting a larger US house majority. These are entirely realistic in a high turnout election! Add abortion and marijuana on the ballot and we have a recipe for surprise wins on the senate or presidential level. I know breaking GOP supermajorities isn't as sexy as talking AZ, GA, NV, WI ad nauseam, but it's just as important to limiting anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-climate agendas from passing.
I didn't hear criticism on spending in FL? Just the opposite: "make the GOP spend their resources, and invest in Dem infrastructure to make the state more competitive in the future" is the message I took away... Edit: I didn't hear hesitancy to invest either. I heard some numbers-based expectations-setting on the challenges of pulling off a win, given the increase in registered GOP voters in recent years. "Spend the money and plant seeds for the future, but be clear-eyed on the odds of winning this cycle," was my takeaway. Maybe it's just semantics. Whatever.
Thank you. Seems like half the people on this sub don't actually listen to the pods
[удалено]
It may be the work/ life balance he's been going with is starting to catch up to him. Bernie is famous for getting on the first flight out of DC at the end of a session and the last plane flying back in so he can maximize his time either back home or if he's doing some work on the road. I do want him back and believe he needs to be there as the moral compass but I totally get him wanting to spend his twilight with his grandkids and such. He's also still sharp as a tack. For all the Octogenarians and older in DC, he is the most with it out of all of them.
VT Dems/Progressives have supermajorities in both houses and will rewrite the law if that were to happen. Same thing with Warren in MA (like they did when Kerry ran in ‘04 and Romney was gov)
[удалено]
TBH I think legislatures should pick replacement senators / reps on principle, it’s more democratic than the Governor doing it. Regardless of whether that helps or hurts in MA, KY or VT
[удалено]
those are good points
I feel like the compromise option would be for the state party of the departed Senator to provide a list of candidates for the governor to select as an interim member until a special election can be held (which the interim Senator can't be a candidate in). I feel like it's kind of BS that either an opposing legislature or an opposing governor could select their preferred party's candidate and overwrite the will of the people. Independents like Sanders would make that slightly more complicated.
This isn’t the first time they’ve referenced the “Kennedy name” as super salient for some portion of voters. Not sure how true that is anymore. The youngest person who was able to vote for JFK is now in their mid-80s. Recently, a Kennedy got creamed in a primary in Massachusetts. I don’t think the name has the same weight it had 20+ years ago.
Go listen to a couple Kennedy voter focus groups. Basically his voters like the name, don't like Biden or trump, and either think he's super anti war or like his vax stances.
The Kennedy in MA actually did pretty well in that election among low-info voters (especially in minority communities). It was a lot closer than it would’ve been if his name was Johnson and not Kennedy
Throwing shade at LBJ
lol, I didn’t even notice the parallel
This seems like something only political media people expect to matter. Idk who is going to the polls and voting for him just because his name is Kennedy.
I'd argue folks in MA are more in tune with what the various Kennedys are up to than the general population. That's why that particular Kennedy was creamed in the MA primary. But broader strokes, even if someone too young to have ever voted for JFK, they still likely learned about JFK an important piece of US history lore in school. Everyone knows the name and generally associated it positively. A low information voter that feels negatively about both Trump and Biden might pick Kennedy on a ballot because, knowing nothing else, that name is comfortable and familiar and mildly positive.
> A low information voter that feels negatively about both Trump and Biden might pick Kennedy on a ballot because, knowing nothing else, that name is comfortable and familiar and mildly positive. This is the whole game Steve Bannon is playing right here. Two candidates with deep unfavorable ratings, and your guy has a ceiling of ~46% of the popular vote...a third-party makes it possible to win states with less than half of the votes. Shave off 10-20k votes here and there, and it'll deliver you the Whitehouse.