I love the outside of politics segment every episode and I loved hearing about night fishing. I grew up fishing for striped bass, we called them Rockfish, with my grandfather in the Chesapeake Bay. This was so fun.
I am really enjoying these whiteboard conversations. Conversations directly about Trump and Musk are hard right now. It's hard to keep up with all the things (Trump's orders, court injunctions, DOGE, court injunctions, withdrawals of orders) and it's hard to have any reaction but outrage. I appreciate PP when Sarah and Beth bring something besides outrage, which I can get anywhere. I find myself not wanting to listen when it's all vibes and feelings about Trump. The whiteboard conversations, whether I agree with the interviewee or not, feel like we, as a community, are thinking beyond the day-to-day horrors of this administration to what we could do next. I understand there are people more directly impacted by Trump's actions than I am, but I also don't see how PP leaning into expressing outrage moves the needle.
Reading the replies to this episode is training me and preparing me for the criticism that comes with trying to have a frank and forthright conversation that bridges gaps and makes people challenge their dearest beliefs and assumptions.
You can say something in the most high brow, nuanced, academically informed way - but you'll alienate the lower info, high school educated crowd who just want you to speak plainly about the problems they see in front of them.
You can put the problems in clear and simple terms, using plain language and real world examples (that sneakily demonstrate a more complex point) - and you'll alienate or anger the higher educated, "discourse" crowd that want you to include every caveat and every finer point in every conversation.
To be clear, this community is my home. Y'all are my people. I've loved Sarah and Beth and their followers for almost a decade. Every point you've made here resonates with me.
But I listened to this podcast and said "Yes!" and nodded my head vehemently at almost every single point. Even when it was Tyler saying something...and then Beth or Sarah immediately pushing back! I nodded my head to both!
I've lived with a right-leaning Mexican man for over 5 years. Who listens to Joe Rogan podcasts and is "sick of woke." My sister and friends are so anti-Trump they get hives at the mere sight of a MAGA flag. Many of my uncles and cousins (in central Illinois, Indiana, even Kentucky) are the middle class, traditionally masculine, blue collar men that the Democratic party "loses" or "misses" so often. I've had political conversations with ALL of them. I've heard what frustrates them and what they like to hear from a candidate.
I deeply valued the conversation in this episode. And I think...if we want to gain any ground with the people that have felt overlooked by the Democratic party - we need to be willing to cede a little ground (just here and there), and include more people in the conversation by not being such sticklers for getting every little thing exactly right. It's meant to be inclusive, but it actually ends up leaving a lot of people out. And can be paralyzing or exclusionary - leaving people lost for how to engage. "This person with expertise and eloquence just got eviscerated for saying something about this issue. Why on earth would I try to say anything? They'll attack me, too."
Again, all of this said with love. And if there is any place for us to have the more nuanced conversations and tack on some context and caveats to be in conversation with Sarah and Beth (and their guests) it is here. <3 I love this community. And the patience that Sarah and Beth bring and the big feelings (and willingness to be challenged) that most of you bring. <3
From Pete’s instagram this morning. I really liked what he said about providing a new vision and thought it went along nicely with this conversation (I intended to screenshot the third slide but since I can’t add a picture here’s the link)
I agree that the economy could be a helpful building tool in the future. I don’t think there can be a strong “reset” on the general public’s views of the Democratic Party until a significant portion of our population faces the natural consequences of the current admin. This is disturbing, as so many people are currently being harmed, but I believe it is reality. From my perspective, the Democratic party leadership’s focus each day should be doing what they can to protect democracy and the constitution. Everyone non-MAGA should also have this focus. If we want to preserve a government by and for the people, we all need to keep at it. I think it all counts. Every action shows that people are paying attention and won’t go down quietly. One person speaking up makes it easier for the next. You never know who or what will change someone’s perspective.
The idea of more “traditionally masculine” people in the party brought to mind Lucas Kunce. He fits the mold pretty well and ran a campaign that really showed out his “masculine” side, but he lost to Josh Hawley. In this same election, MO voters approved Amendment 3, to overturn the state’s abortion ban. State legislators are now trying to overturn the overturned ban…. I really don’t understand what humans want these days. We are conflicted beings.
I’ve come mostly to defend Tyler although I do disagree with him on some big issues that annoy me. I had a bit of a Tyler deep dive before the episode when I found out who was going to be on it from insta. Broadly this is my impression of him. First I’m going to point out what annoys me. 🙃 He’s very quick to dismiss DEI etc. He seems to think we’ve focused too much on the interpersonal aspects of these issues that have been raised and centered in the social sciences at universities. Though this may be true to a point, I find issue with completely dismissing the work of things such as racial reconciliation and working on things internally and recognizing bias, privilege etc. He’s a black biracial man (I believe) and as a black biracial woman it’s completely beyond me to dismiss the importance of this. While I don’t think changing hearts and minds is the main way to root out structural racism or prejudice for example, I don’t think that skipping that part makes much sense either. He points out that many corporations have taken on DEI as a cover to just be seen as good while doing things like union busting. I think this is a good point. His main thing I agree with is that he values structural change in systems instead of simply branding and talking about things. I think he sees this as more effective and I don’t disagree. This is why he’s been a Bernie guy, he wants big structural changes that focus on cost of living, healthcare, taxing corporations/rich etc. He sees making this the focus as being a more effective way to reach working class voters at large and to stop losing male POC voters, as many of them are more conservative socially. He doesn’t think DEI is the main reason we lost the election and he doesn’t think we should turn our backs on minority groups. He just thinks that putting more emphasis on wealth disparity, the rich stealing from you, housing etc will be more effective and a better strategy politically in getting everybody back on board and becoming the party of the working class again. I don’t disagree with him on this main point and I think he’s right. So overall I’ve valued listening to his input. *sorry this was a novel*
Ok, I’ve finished the episode. And I want to say that I do really appreciate PP having different viewpoints on the show. I don’t agree with a lot of what Mr. Austin said, but I do think he made some valid points. I think it was the way he made the points that ruffled me. Believing we need more masculinity in the party, ok - saying Tim Walz isn’t a good example? The football coach? Is he just too nice? I also agree with the other commenters that I was incredibly proud to vote for Kamala and I think she was a great candidate.
Then I discovered he was crazy in outside politics and everything made sense 😂. Swimming alone in the dark with sharks is basically my worst nightmare.
I was thinking about Coach Walz just now. How is he not masculine enough? It reminds me of how every veteran who's a Democrat is not a good enough veteran. (See: John Kerry.)
I am really struggling with the overall direction of Pantsuit Politics since the election. Maybe it’s a me problem, and I just need to find different outlets, but inviting people on to critique every move that Democrats make is wearing pretty thin for me.
Huge policy changes that are affecting millions of people’s lives are happening on a daily basis, and rather than thoughtfully explaining what is happening, whether or not it’s legal, what the long-term consequences will be, etc., Pantsuit Politics seems to be zeroed in on messaging to Democratic leadership.
I distinctly remember hearing PP talk about how they’re not going to freak out about the clown show of cabinet nominees until they actually got confirmed. Maybe I missing it, but I never heard those critiques when every single one of the nominees save Matt Gaetz was confirmed.
I don’t want to come off as overly critical, as I really appreciate so many of Sarah & Beth’s conversations that helped me stay calm during the tumultuous campaign. The turn toward Republican apologetics is just really hard to stomach right now when they’re actively harming our institutions, our economy, our allies, and American citizens.
I just want to say, this episode was a miss for me as well. But I don’t view anything PSP is doing or saying as Republican apologetics. There’s a difference between saying “what dems have been doing isn’t working/getting through” and saying “what the republicans are doing is fine.” It’s very clear to me that no one at psp thinks the administration’s actions are fine. I’ll continue to come here and state clearly when a conversation hasn’t worked for me, and why… and I’ll also continue trusting to good intentions and high moral standards of this team.
I really like this framing. It helps me conceptualize their intentions more clearly. I agree that their messaging is focused on the Dems inability to break through, which is fine. The cheap shots at Dems, which have come mostly from guests, and the reluctance to even address what Republicans are doing
-or aren’t doing, in the case of the vast majority of GOP Congressional members- are a miss for me.
I disagree. I feel like the tone of the show is so free since the election. It feels like everything is on the table to discuss and that has been interesting.
Interesting that the conversations are hitting so differently for you. From reading this thread, it sounds like some other listeners are resonating with the pivot as well.
I fully acknowledge that it could be a me problem, but the messaging feels so off. I feel like many of the lies and outrageous decisions coming from the administration on a daily basis are being glazed over or largely ignored in favor of near constant critique of the Democratic Party. I am not a member of the DNC or even the Democratic Party, so the advice on which issues they should pivot on or who should be pushed out due to age gives me no sense of how I should be digesting our rapidly changing political reality.
You are correctly hearing that a big part of what we wanted to do with these whiteboard episodes (the interview with Ro Khanna - from California and the Bernie left, Greg Landsman - from Ohio and a purple moderate, Holly Page - from a bipartisan working group and the Clinton administration, and now Tyler Austin Harper - who is a contrarian, from the Bernie left, from academia, but also from outside the beltway - because we do act like only a moderate or 'Republican Lite' message resonates in purple areas and Harper vigorously disagrees with that) is talk to people from across the big tent of the Democratic party and really dig into what went wrong in 2024 and be ready for the 2026 midterms because NOW is the time for Democrats to decide what issues and which candidates they will run in the midterm elections. Now is the time when people are weighing whether they'll run for President in 2028.
We know a lot of people in our audience are in office or running for office, we know that there are congressional staff members who pass our episodes around. And we want to talk about what wins.
And, I think there's a confusion and grieving that you're hearing from Sarah especially about how this happened in the first place and what we can do not to repeat these mistakes. Many people are saying (I hate those words in that order, but...in this case, it's true) that we are descending into facism, there's been a coup, but I think it's more fair to say that we're Authoritarian-curious in America right now and winning the next election is crucial for those of us who care about there continuing to be an America. AND saying "this is the most important election of our lifetime" every election seems to turn people off.
I feel like with this episode we missed that framing about what we're getting at, who we're talking to and where we're coming from.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I hope that the new approach is helpful to candidates and DNC operatives who are looking for a path forward and can see how talking to people from a broad audience could help with that. I appreciate that we can’t treat everything like a 5 alarm fire, and I definitely don’t want that from PP. Your team’s ability to maintain focus and reserve outrage for things that actually matter has been the most valuable contribution I’ve benefited from prior to the election.
What is missing for me is the context for how to process the radical shifts that the Trump administration is enacting, the GOP’s nearly total capitulation to Trump, and the absolute barrage of disinformation and lies coming out of the administration. Harper was a big miss for me; he sounds like a disgruntled Bernie supporter who is demanding the Dems simultaneously moderate on certain issues, swing left on others, call out Trump’s failures w/out being seen as having Trump derangement syndrome, etc. Many of his comments also had undertones of ageism and misogyny. The Dems aren’t going to get everything perfect; they are a very broad coalition with diverse ideas and approaches. But why hammer the side that’s working to push back against disinformation and immense harm? This conversation felt like an exercise in self-flagellation and contrarianism rather than bringing fresh ideas to the board or highlighting the effective efforts many Democrats have been making.
I am realizing my reaction to a lot of these episodes is because I don’t have the stamina, patience or willingness to sit in conversations around what ‘the party’ should do. My family is directly impacted by many things being enacted by the administration and I just can’t with other things. Like you, I don’t want to be overly critical so I have been listening and trying to figure out why things were hitting me differently.
This episode really crystallized it for me because of how hard that they/them political ad hit in my home. And to hear it being discussed so casually as just one part of Trump’s strategy (that worked so well) had me fuming BUT I realized that was because big picture discussions are not the same as sharing the impact on my family. Though I would disagree with the analysis that the purpose wasn’t to demonize trans and non-binary people, I think that was a lot of the intent.
You legitimately need comfort, care, and support right now. So many people are in those shoes with you - whether it's from job loss, cancelled contracts, immigration uncertainty, economic precarity, or meanness directed at you and your people - you are in the center of a crisis, and we need to send care in and activism out. I do think that even just naming where we are and what the purpose is more clearly in our episodes can help people orient themselves to where they are. -m
Yes and I think it has taken time and intent for me to dig in to the why. I appreciated when Sarah shared a while ago her intent around wanting the Democrats to when again because losing is what let people down. I hear the care in the PP team always, which is what keeps me hanging in. How I feel now is not how I will always feel so I want to stay engaged at the levels that make sense.
I always skim through the newsletters but I didn’t click on that link, so I will definitely check it out.
We're ALL working through a lot right now. And I think there's a lot of value in the conversations, in hearing how it resonates, and hearing the pushback. In their public speaking, Sarah and Beth are almost always asked to talk about the value in disagreement, and if we can manage the discomfort, I think that noticing, feeling, and working through this tension is really really really productive. And I personally suspect that part of the reason it's been hard and rubbed people the wrong way is that the Democratic party hasn't had a primary in a long time. And because our opponent has been Donald Trump for almost a decade, I think we (I am including myself in that) haven't honed and challenged our own ideas and thinking because the alternative is so crass and gross that we didn't really have to.
So, I am also feeling that the ideas in the democratic party are a little like a neglected and overgrown garden, and we have to figure out what we want to hang onto and what we need to let go so more things can grow. Because our biggest idea is "Donald Trump is the WORST" (which is not all wrong), but that doesn't seem to be a compelling vision for the future, so what IS that compelling vision?
I like the idea of it being like a garden and I am also scared about issues I care about being trimmed out. It can’t be everything to everyone, though - which is part of why I am trying to do local things that matter to me.
My hope is that we will start to see those in power start to solidify something we can stand behind as a broader message again.
Replying to myself to say - my lack of patience / desire is a me thing and I have zero expectations of the PP team. I am trying to still engage and then look other places to meet other needs I have around different topics.
I think it was absolutely the intent, as evidenced by their actions post election. I also don’t think it’s fair to say that republicans believe it’s a tiny fraction of the population or why are they so focused on it?
This conversation rubbed me like coarse sandpaper. I found the majority of his comments and “solutions” to be reductive and/or oversimplified, sometimes verging on misogynistic. (Beth, thank you for challenging him on the double standard about masculinity because I was definitely “that listener” that you would have heard an earful from based on his comments… I didn’t find his response to that to be productive or address your point at all). Then it got to the end and he said IM AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROFESSOR, and I was like why the hell did I just waste my time listening to this dude’s ranting, obtuse opinions and personal vibecheck when he doesn’t have any specialized expertise in politics, law, public policy, history, international studies, etc etc etc?! I’m all for a whiteboard, guys, but this one felt like it missed the mark by miles.
I mean, I’m glad y’all got something out of this, and I’m not saying non experts can never have interesting opinions. But this is a political podcast. One of the reasons I’ve been on this ride with PSP since the very beginning is the quality of their discussions and their commitment to having hard conversations - with experts. I have informed and thoughtful opinions on a variety of topics too—you might be interested to hear me talk about chronic illness, parenting children with mental health issues, the death penalty or law / the federal court system generally because those are areas I have expertise and experience in… but I doubt yall want me on the pod for an hour sharing my opinions on Ukraine or environmental policy or the future of AI. The way he presented his opinions was with the air of an expert, which really bothered me.
Again, if y’all got some quality insight from this discussion, great. But this is one of maybe 5 episodes in the entire history of PSP that I left with a really bad taste in my mouth, and on the rare occasions when I feel that way, I’m going to share my perspective here. I’ve read other peoples negative comments about episodes that I found interesting and helpful, with the knowledge and understanding that, as a community, we help each other and the PSP team by sharing feedback, even when that feedback isn’t a universal rave. (And as you can see, others have liked my post meaning that I’m not the only one who feels this way.)
I appreciated hearing from someone outside of the political class for this, and nothing he said sounded like a rant to me - he was answering the questions he was asked, on a podcast he was asked to be on. He has a unique perspective that reflects the perspective of many people that I know. Not everyone has to be an expert.
I'll probably have to comment in multiple posts to digest this episode. But I did want to quickly comment on the factoid Sarah made about the number of staff at Harvard per student. I immediately thought, I don't think that's right. I've worked in academia as professional staff pretty much my entire career and am currently at Harvard. Here's the latest factbook with all the demographic stats. I think that number Sarah quoted combined faculty and staff per student. And that's really not a good comparison. There's a huge difference (in soooo many good and bad ways) between the roles of faculty and staff. Then you mix in "staff" who are research focused vs administrative, support staff, service staff, etc. I could go on, but I have a meeting to go to!!!! Here's the factbook https://oira.harvard.edu/factbook/fact-book-faculty-staff/
I found it! From New Yorker article “will Harvard Bend or Break?” at Harvard administrative staffers outnumber the faculty around three to one and the most recent count. There is about a one-to-one ratio of undergraduate to administrative staffers at the university.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/10/will-harvard-bend-or-break
Don't have a New Yorker subscription :( I still think that's a really difficult statistic to generalize. For example, I work at a research center and we sometimes pay for part-time staff support for faculty who wouldn't otherwise get it through their department. And a lot of the time, those part-time staff, might be split between multiple faculty or other support type jobs to make up one full-time position. So they are "Harvard staff" but they aren't just paid out of the main budgets of various departments. A lot of that kind of stuff goes on. I've been there for twenty years and have never thought to myself that some department/division/etc. seems over-staffed or it's somehow bloated in comparison to the number of students. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to critique about higher education, but the vast majority of the staff are hard-working, talented, and giving up a lot of money they could make in the corporate world for being in that kind of environment. ....kinda like myself. I did the corporate thing and busted my butt for selling shit to people, or getting them to buy services they didn't need. I'd much rather my energy go toward things that might actually make a difference in the world.
Regarding Americans’ loss of faith in universities over the last fifteen or so years, I’m going to express a thought that might sound a little out of left field but haven’t seen anybody else propose: I wonder if the anti-religion (ie. “New Atheist”) movement that was in vogue particularly during George W. Bush’s second term might have also had a small-but-not-insignificant hand in souring a lot of people on universities and academia.
That was a movement largely driven by elite academics like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. And its messaging was basically “you’re stupid and/or irrational if you believe in God or follow any kind of religion.” Which, of course, played into the conservative stereotype of universities being hostile towards religion and religious identity. And probably left a lot of would-be-college-goers feeling ostracized.
There’s been a lot of talk about how the Democrats have this “big tent” that’s maybe too big (trying to keep so many people aligned and happy isn’t working). So are we trying to make it even bigger, or are we kicking out liberal academics and ultra-progressives to make room for working class moderates and “traditionally masculine” voters?
On the “primary everyone” idea with a progressive version of the tea party - wouldn’t that be the ultra-progressive wing that earlier in the conversation, everyone agreed is hamstringing the party?
“Democrats just need to apologize and admit when they got it wrong” - yeah, that’s the winning strategy that made Trump so popular. I don’t want them to start mimicking his tactics and strategies, but let’s not pretend that begging for forgiveness will impress his supporters at this point.
And open water night fishing? Absolutely not. No thank you. Good for him, not for me.
I want to pipe in and say that I think Tyler Austin Harper would include himself in the progressive far left. He is a Bernie/AOC guy who feels like people put ideas on his wing of the party that are not central to the actual policy priorities of the progressive left. From what I've read of him, he's frustrated that Trump and the MAGA right so successfully co-opted Bernie’s message with no intent to implement his policy when Democrats had the real live Bernie Sanders running for President in two of the last 3 elections.
Thanks for sharing that - I hadn’t heard of him before this episode. It’s starting to feel like we/democrats really can’t function unless we’re scolding someone, and some in the party are just shifting the scolding to the liberal academics.
And I’m carrying my own baggage where I’m sick and tired of being told, for at least the last 8 years, that I’m not a “real American” because I live on the coast, and now I’m even more part of the problem because I have a college degree. (Yes it’s a BA in English, but I went to a state polytechnic university with huge agriculture and business schools. When I was there, it was at least a 50/50 split liberal/conservative, if not slightly more conservative. I agree with some other people here saying we’ve got to stop talking about colleges/universities as if they’re all the Ivies or traditionally liberal campuses like Berkeley.)
Is it possible for Democrats to reach one group without alienating another? Trump seems (as always) to get away with it. You hear all the time about people who say they don’t really like him, or don’t approve of his rhetoric, but still vote for him. I’ve never heard someone say “I don’t like Kamala that much but I voted for her anyway.”
I have not finished the episode yet, but his utter dismissal of Pete really bothered me. I also completely disagree that anyone who held office during Covid (so what, in the last 5 years?) should be eliminated from consideration. The republicans may have a lot of new people but by and large they are immature fools. I do not want that in the Democratic Party. At all.
To answer Beth's question about the Holocaust and DEI, our public library is a DoD facility. There was a Holocaust exhibit up with Diary of a Young girl and similar books in the children's section (it was near Holocaust memorial day), and the exhibit was removed following the executive order. Books are also actively being pulled from the DoDEA libraries for review, but they won't tell us which ones. Students report To Kill a Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye fell off some shelves.
I’ve been reading Money, Lies, and God by Katherine Stewart (which would make for an excellent Pantsuit Politics book report) and in the part about schools and Moms for Liberty, she talks about the book banning fervor and says that Diary of a Young Girl has been removed from many libraries because of the scene where she and her friend talk about their breasts and also her complicated adolescent relationship that involves some kissing with Peter Van Pels. So not necessarily banned for “DEI” but banned under the umbrella of “pornography.” As someone who had the privilege to fulfill a lifelong dream and visit the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam last summer, this breaks my heart into a million pieces. The diary was one of my favorite books growing up and Anne’s story is so important to me for many reasons. Ugh it’s all so frustrating.
That makes sense. I was actually reading the book with my 14 year-old daughter when all of it happened and the newer versions that include those portions do all include warnings.
I am shocked to learn they have warnings. They’re such innocent, typical adolescent scenes and aren’t the sole focus of the book. Not sure how I feel about that. 🤔😵💫
I enjoyed this conversation but as someone with a PhD who works in academia I did frown a bit at the over generalizations.
I also find myself wanting to jump in to defend Kamala Harris. I was very proud to vote for her and still am. I recognize there were a few missteps, including how money was utilized. My biggest frustration was that she was not able to clearly differentiate herself from Joe Biden, though I also understood that given the nature of how she became the nominee and the fact that she was the sitting VP, that was extra tough. But I don’t by any means think she is exactly like him or would have operated the same way he did. The administration used her very poorly.
I feel nervous about the talk about who will become our next presidential candidate. The way Tyler is talking it sounds like it might end up being a liberal Trump type celebrity character and I just flat out don’t want that. We are going to have a gigantic mess to clean up and that requires someone steady, knowledgeable, and experienced to figure out how to do that in hopefully the least chaotic way possible. I don’t want flash. I want reliable. I want someone I trust so I don’t have to obsess about headlines all day long. Not that I want to disengage. But wow I should not have to think about POTUS 30 times per day. I will say it is very important that our next candidate strongly focuses on healthcare which sadly was not addressed well this time around. Our country is at a major crisis point from a healthcare perspective and we need people with great ideas who are willing to collaborate to make substantial progress there. I would personally be very happy with a President Buttigieg and could care less that he was associated with this administration. I won’t if the folks that are saying they don’t want anything to do with people associated with our last administration will feel differently two years down the road if some of those folks step up to provide good leadership to get us through the Trump years. I hope we don’t throw away our highly talented and knowledgeable people just because they were in Joe Biden’s cabinet.
I feel like her candidacy was a glass cliff (for anyone) which is why no one fought her for the opportunity. If she won (great) and if she lost, it was going to be so easy to find the gaps in her campaign and be the death of that person's chance at a Presidential run again. And of course she had gaps & missteps, she had the least amount of time in modern history to put together a campaign, how to run it, execute it, etc. while running against someone who had literally been running for a full 4 years prior. I am so proud of her and regret my vote zero, and I am glad I got the chance to vote for her and not cast another vote for Joe Biden. I'm less interested in blaming anyone for her loss but if I do start to point fingers it's actually not at her. It's first Joe Biden and then Democratic leadership that did not persuade/force him not to run a 2nd time when they had the chance. I don't know if Kamala would've won a primary or even thrown her name in the hat, but we deserved/wanted a primary. But then she did the best she could with the time she had.
Agree with both of you. I’ve not been so proud to cast a vote for anyone in my lifetime of voting as I was for her. I don’t fault her or her campaign AT ALL and I still feel defensive of her. The only things I could see she could have done differently (like differentiating from Biden more) are so small compared to the gross errors the trump campaign made EVERY SINGLE DAY. It feels unfair to have held Harris to an impossible standard while the republicans bumbled into that win. So I won’t do it.
I don’t know what that means for the future of the Democratic Party. But I’m not going to blame Harris.
I wish we spent less time with asking what her campaign did wrong and just stop and say, she lost because Joe Biden insisted on running for a 2nd time. Period. That is why she lost.
That's interesting! My first reaction to the presidential candidate speculation was that's how Obama came onto the scene so I had very positive feelings about that bet.
Democrats award elected party members positions of power, like committee chairmanship, based on seniority. There's a deal they have with each other: keep the political entrepreneurship to a minimum and vote with us when we need you, and in return we'll defend you against primary challenges and we'll eventually award you with a position of real power. This has clear advantages. We are the party that can govern, and we have few (if any) true cranks in positions of influence. On the other hand, it keeps fresh young ideas and leaders from rising, and it means our members who do lead used to make phone calls by asking for the operator.
Maybe it's time to relax this system. To be clear, it's not obvious that we'll come out ahead if we do. Under the current system we still have The Squad, a group that is so easily demagogued by the right. But right now, prominence and power within the party is mostly tied to being a good team player and keeping your head down. What if power was more directly linked to getting attention? What if every Democrat with ambitions for power got the message that the only way to get what they wanted was to get attention instead of waiting out their elders?
This is a helpful framing for this issue. I swear to God if I hear one more person say that Democrats have a deep bench, I'm going to scream: "Well where the f*** are they then?!"
I am seeing very little Leadership with a capital L in the Democratic party, but this helps frame the issue - we may both have a deep bench and a party context that does not incentivize any real leadership that could be demonstrated by the mythical deep bench I keep hearing about. But then, I would expect a real leader to be able to come in, articulate a vision and get people on board. It is SO frustrating!!!
I love the outside of politics segment every episode and I loved hearing about night fishing. I grew up fishing for striped bass, we called them Rockfish, with my grandfather in the Chesapeake Bay. This was so fun.
I am really enjoying these whiteboard conversations. Conversations directly about Trump and Musk are hard right now. It's hard to keep up with all the things (Trump's orders, court injunctions, DOGE, court injunctions, withdrawals of orders) and it's hard to have any reaction but outrage. I appreciate PP when Sarah and Beth bring something besides outrage, which I can get anywhere. I find myself not wanting to listen when it's all vibes and feelings about Trump. The whiteboard conversations, whether I agree with the interviewee or not, feel like we, as a community, are thinking beyond the day-to-day horrors of this administration to what we could do next. I understand there are people more directly impacted by Trump's actions than I am, but I also don't see how PP leaning into expressing outrage moves the needle.
Reading the replies to this episode is training me and preparing me for the criticism that comes with trying to have a frank and forthright conversation that bridges gaps and makes people challenge their dearest beliefs and assumptions.
You can say something in the most high brow, nuanced, academically informed way - but you'll alienate the lower info, high school educated crowd who just want you to speak plainly about the problems they see in front of them.
You can put the problems in clear and simple terms, using plain language and real world examples (that sneakily demonstrate a more complex point) - and you'll alienate or anger the higher educated, "discourse" crowd that want you to include every caveat and every finer point in every conversation.
To be clear, this community is my home. Y'all are my people. I've loved Sarah and Beth and their followers for almost a decade. Every point you've made here resonates with me.
But I listened to this podcast and said "Yes!" and nodded my head vehemently at almost every single point. Even when it was Tyler saying something...and then Beth or Sarah immediately pushing back! I nodded my head to both!
I've lived with a right-leaning Mexican man for over 5 years. Who listens to Joe Rogan podcasts and is "sick of woke." My sister and friends are so anti-Trump they get hives at the mere sight of a MAGA flag. Many of my uncles and cousins (in central Illinois, Indiana, even Kentucky) are the middle class, traditionally masculine, blue collar men that the Democratic party "loses" or "misses" so often. I've had political conversations with ALL of them. I've heard what frustrates them and what they like to hear from a candidate.
I deeply valued the conversation in this episode. And I think...if we want to gain any ground with the people that have felt overlooked by the Democratic party - we need to be willing to cede a little ground (just here and there), and include more people in the conversation by not being such sticklers for getting every little thing exactly right. It's meant to be inclusive, but it actually ends up leaving a lot of people out. And can be paralyzing or exclusionary - leaving people lost for how to engage. "This person with expertise and eloquence just got eviscerated for saying something about this issue. Why on earth would I try to say anything? They'll attack me, too."
Again, all of this said with love. And if there is any place for us to have the more nuanced conversations and tack on some context and caveats to be in conversation with Sarah and Beth (and their guests) it is here. <3 I love this community. And the patience that Sarah and Beth bring and the big feelings (and willingness to be challenged) that most of you bring. <3
From Pete’s instagram this morning. I really liked what he said about providing a new vision and thought it went along nicely with this conversation (I intended to screenshot the third slide but since I can’t add a picture here’s the link)
https://www.instagram.com/p/DHJMJhXxhJB/?img_index=2&igsh=ZW9nbzY3eDV3cDJm
I agree that the economy could be a helpful building tool in the future. I don’t think there can be a strong “reset” on the general public’s views of the Democratic Party until a significant portion of our population faces the natural consequences of the current admin. This is disturbing, as so many people are currently being harmed, but I believe it is reality. From my perspective, the Democratic party leadership’s focus each day should be doing what they can to protect democracy and the constitution. Everyone non-MAGA should also have this focus. If we want to preserve a government by and for the people, we all need to keep at it. I think it all counts. Every action shows that people are paying attention and won’t go down quietly. One person speaking up makes it easier for the next. You never know who or what will change someone’s perspective.
The idea of more “traditionally masculine” people in the party brought to mind Lucas Kunce. He fits the mold pretty well and ran a campaign that really showed out his “masculine” side, but he lost to Josh Hawley. In this same election, MO voters approved Amendment 3, to overturn the state’s abortion ban. State legislators are now trying to overturn the overturned ban…. I really don’t understand what humans want these days. We are conflicted beings.
I’ve come mostly to defend Tyler although I do disagree with him on some big issues that annoy me. I had a bit of a Tyler deep dive before the episode when I found out who was going to be on it from insta. Broadly this is my impression of him. First I’m going to point out what annoys me. 🙃 He’s very quick to dismiss DEI etc. He seems to think we’ve focused too much on the interpersonal aspects of these issues that have been raised and centered in the social sciences at universities. Though this may be true to a point, I find issue with completely dismissing the work of things such as racial reconciliation and working on things internally and recognizing bias, privilege etc. He’s a black biracial man (I believe) and as a black biracial woman it’s completely beyond me to dismiss the importance of this. While I don’t think changing hearts and minds is the main way to root out structural racism or prejudice for example, I don’t think that skipping that part makes much sense either. He points out that many corporations have taken on DEI as a cover to just be seen as good while doing things like union busting. I think this is a good point. His main thing I agree with is that he values structural change in systems instead of simply branding and talking about things. I think he sees this as more effective and I don’t disagree. This is why he’s been a Bernie guy, he wants big structural changes that focus on cost of living, healthcare, taxing corporations/rich etc. He sees making this the focus as being a more effective way to reach working class voters at large and to stop losing male POC voters, as many of them are more conservative socially. He doesn’t think DEI is the main reason we lost the election and he doesn’t think we should turn our backs on minority groups. He just thinks that putting more emphasis on wealth disparity, the rich stealing from you, housing etc will be more effective and a better strategy politically in getting everybody back on board and becoming the party of the working class again. I don’t disagree with him on this main point and I think he’s right. So overall I’ve valued listening to his input. *sorry this was a novel*
Always love a novel length comment!
Ok, I’ve finished the episode. And I want to say that I do really appreciate PP having different viewpoints on the show. I don’t agree with a lot of what Mr. Austin said, but I do think he made some valid points. I think it was the way he made the points that ruffled me. Believing we need more masculinity in the party, ok - saying Tim Walz isn’t a good example? The football coach? Is he just too nice? I also agree with the other commenters that I was incredibly proud to vote for Kamala and I think she was a great candidate.
Then I discovered he was crazy in outside politics and everything made sense 😂. Swimming alone in the dark with sharks is basically my worst nightmare.
I was thinking about Coach Walz just now. How is he not masculine enough? It reminds me of how every veteran who's a Democrat is not a good enough veteran. (See: John Kerry.)
I am really struggling with the overall direction of Pantsuit Politics since the election. Maybe it’s a me problem, and I just need to find different outlets, but inviting people on to critique every move that Democrats make is wearing pretty thin for me.
Huge policy changes that are affecting millions of people’s lives are happening on a daily basis, and rather than thoughtfully explaining what is happening, whether or not it’s legal, what the long-term consequences will be, etc., Pantsuit Politics seems to be zeroed in on messaging to Democratic leadership.
I distinctly remember hearing PP talk about how they’re not going to freak out about the clown show of cabinet nominees until they actually got confirmed. Maybe I missing it, but I never heard those critiques when every single one of the nominees save Matt Gaetz was confirmed.
I don’t want to come off as overly critical, as I really appreciate so many of Sarah & Beth’s conversations that helped me stay calm during the tumultuous campaign. The turn toward Republican apologetics is just really hard to stomach right now when they’re actively harming our institutions, our economy, our allies, and American citizens.
I just want to say, this episode was a miss for me as well. But I don’t view anything PSP is doing or saying as Republican apologetics. There’s a difference between saying “what dems have been doing isn’t working/getting through” and saying “what the republicans are doing is fine.” It’s very clear to me that no one at psp thinks the administration’s actions are fine. I’ll continue to come here and state clearly when a conversation hasn’t worked for me, and why… and I’ll also continue trusting to good intentions and high moral standards of this team.
I really like this framing. It helps me conceptualize their intentions more clearly. I agree that their messaging is focused on the Dems inability to break through, which is fine. The cheap shots at Dems, which have come mostly from guests, and the reluctance to even address what Republicans are doing
-or aren’t doing, in the case of the vast majority of GOP Congressional members- are a miss for me.
I disagree. I feel like the tone of the show is so free since the election. It feels like everything is on the table to discuss and that has been interesting.
Interesting that the conversations are hitting so differently for you. From reading this thread, it sounds like some other listeners are resonating with the pivot as well.
I fully acknowledge that it could be a me problem, but the messaging feels so off. I feel like many of the lies and outrageous decisions coming from the administration on a daily basis are being glazed over or largely ignored in favor of near constant critique of the Democratic Party. I am not a member of the DNC or even the Democratic Party, so the advice on which issues they should pivot on or who should be pushed out due to age gives me no sense of how I should be digesting our rapidly changing political reality.
You are correctly hearing that a big part of what we wanted to do with these whiteboard episodes (the interview with Ro Khanna - from California and the Bernie left, Greg Landsman - from Ohio and a purple moderate, Holly Page - from a bipartisan working group and the Clinton administration, and now Tyler Austin Harper - who is a contrarian, from the Bernie left, from academia, but also from outside the beltway - because we do act like only a moderate or 'Republican Lite' message resonates in purple areas and Harper vigorously disagrees with that) is talk to people from across the big tent of the Democratic party and really dig into what went wrong in 2024 and be ready for the 2026 midterms because NOW is the time for Democrats to decide what issues and which candidates they will run in the midterm elections. Now is the time when people are weighing whether they'll run for President in 2028.
We know a lot of people in our audience are in office or running for office, we know that there are congressional staff members who pass our episodes around. And we want to talk about what wins.
And, I think there's a confusion and grieving that you're hearing from Sarah especially about how this happened in the first place and what we can do not to repeat these mistakes. Many people are saying (I hate those words in that order, but...in this case, it's true) that we are descending into facism, there's been a coup, but I think it's more fair to say that we're Authoritarian-curious in America right now and winning the next election is crucial for those of us who care about there continuing to be an America. AND saying "this is the most important election of our lifetime" every election seems to turn people off.
I feel like with this episode we missed that framing about what we're getting at, who we're talking to and where we're coming from.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I hope that the new approach is helpful to candidates and DNC operatives who are looking for a path forward and can see how talking to people from a broad audience could help with that. I appreciate that we can’t treat everything like a 5 alarm fire, and I definitely don’t want that from PP. Your team’s ability to maintain focus and reserve outrage for things that actually matter has been the most valuable contribution I’ve benefited from prior to the election.
What is missing for me is the context for how to process the radical shifts that the Trump administration is enacting, the GOP’s nearly total capitulation to Trump, and the absolute barrage of disinformation and lies coming out of the administration. Harper was a big miss for me; he sounds like a disgruntled Bernie supporter who is demanding the Dems simultaneously moderate on certain issues, swing left on others, call out Trump’s failures w/out being seen as having Trump derangement syndrome, etc. Many of his comments also had undertones of ageism and misogyny. The Dems aren’t going to get everything perfect; they are a very broad coalition with diverse ideas and approaches. But why hammer the side that’s working to push back against disinformation and immense harm? This conversation felt like an exercise in self-flagellation and contrarianism rather than bringing fresh ideas to the board or highlighting the effective efforts many Democrats have been making.
I am realizing my reaction to a lot of these episodes is because I don’t have the stamina, patience or willingness to sit in conversations around what ‘the party’ should do. My family is directly impacted by many things being enacted by the administration and I just can’t with other things. Like you, I don’t want to be overly critical so I have been listening and trying to figure out why things were hitting me differently.
This episode really crystallized it for me because of how hard that they/them political ad hit in my home. And to hear it being discussed so casually as just one part of Trump’s strategy (that worked so well) had me fuming BUT I realized that was because big picture discussions are not the same as sharing the impact on my family. Though I would disagree with the analysis that the purpose wasn’t to demonize trans and non-binary people, I think that was a lot of the intent.
I mentioned this in the comments in our newsletter last week. I find the idea of "ring theory" to be super helpful.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/promoting-hope-preventing-suicide/201705/ring-theory-helps-us-bring-comfort-in
You legitimately need comfort, care, and support right now. So many people are in those shoes with you - whether it's from job loss, cancelled contracts, immigration uncertainty, economic precarity, or meanness directed at you and your people - you are in the center of a crisis, and we need to send care in and activism out. I do think that even just naming where we are and what the purpose is more clearly in our episodes can help people orient themselves to where they are. -m
Yes and I think it has taken time and intent for me to dig in to the why. I appreciated when Sarah shared a while ago her intent around wanting the Democrats to when again because losing is what let people down. I hear the care in the PP team always, which is what keeps me hanging in. How I feel now is not how I will always feel so I want to stay engaged at the levels that make sense.
I always skim through the newsletters but I didn’t click on that link, so I will definitely check it out.
We're ALL working through a lot right now. And I think there's a lot of value in the conversations, in hearing how it resonates, and hearing the pushback. In their public speaking, Sarah and Beth are almost always asked to talk about the value in disagreement, and if we can manage the discomfort, I think that noticing, feeling, and working through this tension is really really really productive. And I personally suspect that part of the reason it's been hard and rubbed people the wrong way is that the Democratic party hasn't had a primary in a long time. And because our opponent has been Donald Trump for almost a decade, I think we (I am including myself in that) haven't honed and challenged our own ideas and thinking because the alternative is so crass and gross that we didn't really have to.
So, I am also feeling that the ideas in the democratic party are a little like a neglected and overgrown garden, and we have to figure out what we want to hang onto and what we need to let go so more things can grow. Because our biggest idea is "Donald Trump is the WORST" (which is not all wrong), but that doesn't seem to be a compelling vision for the future, so what IS that compelling vision?
I like the idea of it being like a garden and I am also scared about issues I care about being trimmed out. It can’t be everything to everyone, though - which is part of why I am trying to do local things that matter to me.
My hope is that we will start to see those in power start to solidify something we can stand behind as a broader message again.
Replying to myself to say - my lack of patience / desire is a me thing and I have zero expectations of the PP team. I am trying to still engage and then look other places to meet other needs I have around different topics.
I think it was absolutely the intent, as evidenced by their actions post election. I also don’t think it’s fair to say that republicans believe it’s a tiny fraction of the population or why are they so focused on it?
This conversation rubbed me like coarse sandpaper. I found the majority of his comments and “solutions” to be reductive and/or oversimplified, sometimes verging on misogynistic. (Beth, thank you for challenging him on the double standard about masculinity because I was definitely “that listener” that you would have heard an earful from based on his comments… I didn’t find his response to that to be productive or address your point at all). Then it got to the end and he said IM AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES PROFESSOR, and I was like why the hell did I just waste my time listening to this dude’s ranting, obtuse opinions and personal vibecheck when he doesn’t have any specialized expertise in politics, law, public policy, history, international studies, etc etc etc?! I’m all for a whiteboard, guys, but this one felt like it missed the mark by miles.
I feel like people without those backgrounds can have informed and thoughtful opinions too.
I mean, I’m glad y’all got something out of this, and I’m not saying non experts can never have interesting opinions. But this is a political podcast. One of the reasons I’ve been on this ride with PSP since the very beginning is the quality of their discussions and their commitment to having hard conversations - with experts. I have informed and thoughtful opinions on a variety of topics too—you might be interested to hear me talk about chronic illness, parenting children with mental health issues, the death penalty or law / the federal court system generally because those are areas I have expertise and experience in… but I doubt yall want me on the pod for an hour sharing my opinions on Ukraine or environmental policy or the future of AI. The way he presented his opinions was with the air of an expert, which really bothered me.
Again, if y’all got some quality insight from this discussion, great. But this is one of maybe 5 episodes in the entire history of PSP that I left with a really bad taste in my mouth, and on the rare occasions when I feel that way, I’m going to share my perspective here. I’ve read other peoples negative comments about episodes that I found interesting and helpful, with the knowledge and understanding that, as a community, we help each other and the PSP team by sharing feedback, even when that feedback isn’t a universal rave. (And as you can see, others have liked my post meaning that I’m not the only one who feels this way.)
I appreciated hearing from someone outside of the political class for this, and nothing he said sounded like a rant to me - he was answering the questions he was asked, on a podcast he was asked to be on. He has a unique perspective that reflects the perspective of many people that I know. Not everyone has to be an expert.
I'll probably have to comment in multiple posts to digest this episode. But I did want to quickly comment on the factoid Sarah made about the number of staff at Harvard per student. I immediately thought, I don't think that's right. I've worked in academia as professional staff pretty much my entire career and am currently at Harvard. Here's the latest factbook with all the demographic stats. I think that number Sarah quoted combined faculty and staff per student. And that's really not a good comparison. There's a huge difference (in soooo many good and bad ways) between the roles of faculty and staff. Then you mix in "staff" who are research focused vs administrative, support staff, service staff, etc. I could go on, but I have a meeting to go to!!!! Here's the factbook https://oira.harvard.edu/factbook/fact-book-faculty-staff/
I found it! From New Yorker article “will Harvard Bend or Break?” at Harvard administrative staffers outnumber the faculty around three to one and the most recent count. There is about a one-to-one ratio of undergraduate to administrative staffers at the university.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/03/10/will-harvard-bend-or-break
"administrative staffer" confuses me...maybe Harvard has different designations than are common in higher ed
Don't have a New Yorker subscription :( I still think that's a really difficult statistic to generalize. For example, I work at a research center and we sometimes pay for part-time staff support for faculty who wouldn't otherwise get it through their department. And a lot of the time, those part-time staff, might be split between multiple faculty or other support type jobs to make up one full-time position. So they are "Harvard staff" but they aren't just paid out of the main budgets of various departments. A lot of that kind of stuff goes on. I've been there for twenty years and have never thought to myself that some department/division/etc. seems over-staffed or it's somehow bloated in comparison to the number of students. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to critique about higher education, but the vast majority of the staff are hard-working, talented, and giving up a lot of money they could make in the corporate world for being in that kind of environment. ....kinda like myself. I did the corporate thing and busted my butt for selling shit to people, or getting them to buy services they didn't need. I'd much rather my energy go toward things that might actually make a difference in the world.
I also wondered whether the “staff” number includes employed students (ie, RAs and the like)—if so, that ratio is wildly inflated
Regarding Americans’ loss of faith in universities over the last fifteen or so years, I’m going to express a thought that might sound a little out of left field but haven’t seen anybody else propose: I wonder if the anti-religion (ie. “New Atheist”) movement that was in vogue particularly during George W. Bush’s second term might have also had a small-but-not-insignificant hand in souring a lot of people on universities and academia.
That was a movement largely driven by elite academics like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. And its messaging was basically “you’re stupid and/or irrational if you believe in God or follow any kind of religion.” Which, of course, played into the conservative stereotype of universities being hostile towards religion and religious identity. And probably left a lot of would-be-college-goers feeling ostracized.
On the other hand, Christian anti-intellectualism has been an issue before that, dating back to the early 20th century and the rise of fundamentalism.
Just a few thoughts and reactions on this one…
There’s been a lot of talk about how the Democrats have this “big tent” that’s maybe too big (trying to keep so many people aligned and happy isn’t working). So are we trying to make it even bigger, or are we kicking out liberal academics and ultra-progressives to make room for working class moderates and “traditionally masculine” voters?
On the “primary everyone” idea with a progressive version of the tea party - wouldn’t that be the ultra-progressive wing that earlier in the conversation, everyone agreed is hamstringing the party?
“Democrats just need to apologize and admit when they got it wrong” - yeah, that’s the winning strategy that made Trump so popular. I don’t want them to start mimicking his tactics and strategies, but let’s not pretend that begging for forgiveness will impress his supporters at this point.
And open water night fishing? Absolutely not. No thank you. Good for him, not for me.
I want to pipe in and say that I think Tyler Austin Harper would include himself in the progressive far left. He is a Bernie/AOC guy who feels like people put ideas on his wing of the party that are not central to the actual policy priorities of the progressive left. From what I've read of him, he's frustrated that Trump and the MAGA right so successfully co-opted Bernie’s message with no intent to implement his policy when Democrats had the real live Bernie Sanders running for President in two of the last 3 elections.
Thanks for sharing that - I hadn’t heard of him before this episode. It’s starting to feel like we/democrats really can’t function unless we’re scolding someone, and some in the party are just shifting the scolding to the liberal academics.
And I’m carrying my own baggage where I’m sick and tired of being told, for at least the last 8 years, that I’m not a “real American” because I live on the coast, and now I’m even more part of the problem because I have a college degree. (Yes it’s a BA in English, but I went to a state polytechnic university with huge agriculture and business schools. When I was there, it was at least a 50/50 split liberal/conservative, if not slightly more conservative. I agree with some other people here saying we’ve got to stop talking about colleges/universities as if they’re all the Ivies or traditionally liberal campuses like Berkeley.)
Is it possible for Democrats to reach one group without alienating another? Trump seems (as always) to get away with it. You hear all the time about people who say they don’t really like him, or don’t approve of his rhetoric, but still vote for him. I’ve never heard someone say “I don’t like Kamala that much but I voted for her anyway.”
I think he means ultra progressive economically speaking when referencing a progressive tea party.
I have not finished the episode yet, but his utter dismissal of Pete really bothered me. I also completely disagree that anyone who held office during Covid (so what, in the last 5 years?) should be eliminated from consideration. The republicans may have a lot of new people but by and large they are immature fools. I do not want that in the Democratic Party. At all.
To answer Beth's question about the Holocaust and DEI, our public library is a DoD facility. There was a Holocaust exhibit up with Diary of a Young girl and similar books in the children's section (it was near Holocaust memorial day), and the exhibit was removed following the executive order. Books are also actively being pulled from the DoDEA libraries for review, but they won't tell us which ones. Students report To Kill a Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye fell off some shelves.
I’ve been reading Money, Lies, and God by Katherine Stewart (which would make for an excellent Pantsuit Politics book report) and in the part about schools and Moms for Liberty, she talks about the book banning fervor and says that Diary of a Young Girl has been removed from many libraries because of the scene where she and her friend talk about their breasts and also her complicated adolescent relationship that involves some kissing with Peter Van Pels. So not necessarily banned for “DEI” but banned under the umbrella of “pornography.” As someone who had the privilege to fulfill a lifelong dream and visit the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam last summer, this breaks my heart into a million pieces. The diary was one of my favorite books growing up and Anne’s story is so important to me for many reasons. Ugh it’s all so frustrating.
That makes sense. I was actually reading the book with my 14 year-old daughter when all of it happened and the newer versions that include those portions do all include warnings.
I am shocked to learn they have warnings. They’re such innocent, typical adolescent scenes and aren’t the sole focus of the book. Not sure how I feel about that. 🤔😵💫
I agree- the level of questions and curiosity that Anne is showing is very age-appropriate, and I think it gave ny daughter more empathy for her.
And, to revise my original comment, full books on the Holocaust were removed- not just Anne Frank. In that sense, the action seemed very DEI to me.
Things like that make me go wt actual f.
When are they going to ban like.... the Bible for sexual violence. Oh wait, they won't.
I enjoyed this conversation but as someone with a PhD who works in academia I did frown a bit at the over generalizations.
I also find myself wanting to jump in to defend Kamala Harris. I was very proud to vote for her and still am. I recognize there were a few missteps, including how money was utilized. My biggest frustration was that she was not able to clearly differentiate herself from Joe Biden, though I also understood that given the nature of how she became the nominee and the fact that she was the sitting VP, that was extra tough. But I don’t by any means think she is exactly like him or would have operated the same way he did. The administration used her very poorly.
I feel nervous about the talk about who will become our next presidential candidate. The way Tyler is talking it sounds like it might end up being a liberal Trump type celebrity character and I just flat out don’t want that. We are going to have a gigantic mess to clean up and that requires someone steady, knowledgeable, and experienced to figure out how to do that in hopefully the least chaotic way possible. I don’t want flash. I want reliable. I want someone I trust so I don’t have to obsess about headlines all day long. Not that I want to disengage. But wow I should not have to think about POTUS 30 times per day. I will say it is very important that our next candidate strongly focuses on healthcare which sadly was not addressed well this time around. Our country is at a major crisis point from a healthcare perspective and we need people with great ideas who are willing to collaborate to make substantial progress there. I would personally be very happy with a President Buttigieg and could care less that he was associated with this administration. I won’t if the folks that are saying they don’t want anything to do with people associated with our last administration will feel differently two years down the road if some of those folks step up to provide good leadership to get us through the Trump years. I hope we don’t throw away our highly talented and knowledgeable people just because they were in Joe Biden’s cabinet.
I feel like her candidacy was a glass cliff (for anyone) which is why no one fought her for the opportunity. If she won (great) and if she lost, it was going to be so easy to find the gaps in her campaign and be the death of that person's chance at a Presidential run again. And of course she had gaps & missteps, she had the least amount of time in modern history to put together a campaign, how to run it, execute it, etc. while running against someone who had literally been running for a full 4 years prior. I am so proud of her and regret my vote zero, and I am glad I got the chance to vote for her and not cast another vote for Joe Biden. I'm less interested in blaming anyone for her loss but if I do start to point fingers it's actually not at her. It's first Joe Biden and then Democratic leadership that did not persuade/force him not to run a 2nd time when they had the chance. I don't know if Kamala would've won a primary or even thrown her name in the hat, but we deserved/wanted a primary. But then she did the best she could with the time she had.
Agree with both of you. I’ve not been so proud to cast a vote for anyone in my lifetime of voting as I was for her. I don’t fault her or her campaign AT ALL and I still feel defensive of her. The only things I could see she could have done differently (like differentiating from Biden more) are so small compared to the gross errors the trump campaign made EVERY SINGLE DAY. It feels unfair to have held Harris to an impossible standard while the republicans bumbled into that win. So I won’t do it.
I don’t know what that means for the future of the Democratic Party. But I’m not going to blame Harris.
Fully agree with everything you said and I also regret my vote zero as well.
I wish we spent less time with asking what her campaign did wrong and just stop and say, she lost because Joe Biden insisted on running for a 2nd time. Period. That is why she lost.
That's interesting! My first reaction to the presidential candidate speculation was that's how Obama came onto the scene so I had very positive feelings about that bet.
The person that came to mind as a contender was Mark Cuban. He’s been very vocal over on Bluesky about Trump.
Democrats award elected party members positions of power, like committee chairmanship, based on seniority. There's a deal they have with each other: keep the political entrepreneurship to a minimum and vote with us when we need you, and in return we'll defend you against primary challenges and we'll eventually award you with a position of real power. This has clear advantages. We are the party that can govern, and we have few (if any) true cranks in positions of influence. On the other hand, it keeps fresh young ideas and leaders from rising, and it means our members who do lead used to make phone calls by asking for the operator.
Maybe it's time to relax this system. To be clear, it's not obvious that we'll come out ahead if we do. Under the current system we still have The Squad, a group that is so easily demagogued by the right. But right now, prominence and power within the party is mostly tied to being a good team player and keeping your head down. What if power was more directly linked to getting attention? What if every Democrat with ambitions for power got the message that the only way to get what they wanted was to get attention instead of waiting out their elders?
This is a helpful framing for this issue. I swear to God if I hear one more person say that Democrats have a deep bench, I'm going to scream: "Well where the f*** are they then?!"
I am seeing very little Leadership with a capital L in the Democratic party, but this helps frame the issue - we may both have a deep bench and a party context that does not incentivize any real leadership that could be demonstrated by the mythical deep bench I keep hearing about. But then, I would expect a real leader to be able to come in, articulate a vision and get people on board. It is SO frustrating!!!