Matt mentioned Democratic staffers who both sincerely (and correctly) think Trump is a threat to democracy and want to run against him. This really bothers me. If Nikki Haley became the nominee and beat Biden, I would be sad, but I think that ultimately the country would survive. I would not feel the same way if Trump won.
Right: it's possible Haley would perform no better in a general election than Trump AND it's pretty likely she's not willing to put all her energies into transforming the country's polity into a big version of Hungary.
(Although I do wonder: now that the autocracy cat is out of the bag and plenty of GOP operatives have been familiarizing themselves with the dark art of coups d'etat and subversion of elections, just how safe our democracy would be at this point even if a person Not Named Trump were leading the GOP.)
Hey guys! Was excited about the possibility of a podcast product, and appreciated the video element and informal tone. The length is just fine given interesting subject matter.
In the spirit of hopefully constructive criticism though, I'll share that after this episode I'm a little concerned about the topic of conversation remaining fresh week after week. I'm not super familiar with Brian's other writing (aside from Twitter), but the reason I am excited to read/listen to Matt's work is that I tend to hear interesting opinions on a variety of subjects that seem to have meaningful stakes - I learn a lot, which feels valuable.
Now, obviously this is a different product than Slow Boring and won't be The Weeds. But I'm concerned that topics like "Let's debate in what *precise* way we each think Democratic messaging isn't working" or "How *exactly* is the Orange Man bad? Is he more racist or authoritarian?" are not going to be terribly engaging or useful subjects for me as a listener to learn about. It also seems like a pretty well-served niche - lots of people and podcasts are talking about this stuff and the blow-by-blow election horserace as well. Right now, forgive me, but it's feeling a lot like "Hacks on Tap (with Beutler and Yglesias)." "The 2024 election" will not be underserved with punditry.
I've seen your debates about this online over the last few years on Twitter, and while the stakes of the election are very high, it seems like this specific conversation (unless your intended audience is well-placed Dem officials) is pretty low-stakes.
Wishing you all the success, and will definitely listen to a few more. Cheers!
Well-placed officials don't have time for podcasts. Even I don't, and I'm nobody. I don't really get why someone would turn to podcasts as a source of information. Low density & you can't cite anything or save good quotes.
But we're making a mistake - the appeal of the podcast is actually "friend simulator in guise of purportedly valuable infotainment." People think they're listening for the material, but really, the appeal is the comforting & illusory sensation of being in the same room as mildly important and mostly sensible people.
So this - and the universe of similar podcasts you describe - function not as calls to action, nor as political speech, but rather as an auditory pacifier for adult liberals, weekly to coo away their political anxieties, & to ameliorate any frightful feelings of personal duty on that front. "I'm doing my part - I'm educating myself!"
For all the excellent advice you have for Democrats, Matt ... have you guys ever met a republican?
The biggest idea of the first ten minutes is that Nikki Haley should proclaim she's a better candidate because she can at least guarantee that she'll be on the ballot in all fifty states, that she should say "if the New York Attorney General wants to make up some crimes about me, like, she could have done that. But like, she's not because there's no evidence because I did two crimes, right?"
Republicans are going to say "the New York Attorney General isn't attacking Nikki Haley because she doesn't matter." Is there a faster way to destroy Nikki Haley's candidacy than publicly encouraging Democrats to vote for her?
In a Republican primary, highlighting Trump's legal peril isn't attacking his weakness, it's attacking one of his biggest strengths! It's puffing him up, making him out to be the persecuted outsider, the only candidate so terrifying that the left will do anything to get rid of him.
For my money, this was a much better line of attack:
> But I think that that business of putting himself, not like putting an ideology above procedural fairness, but like putting himself above everything else. That's a very unusual Trump thing. Most high level politicians, like actually believe quite a bit in their ideas. And like, I often object to their ideas. But the thing about Trump is that he doesn't, right? Like it's bad for conservatism. That he's done this instead of just fading away. But like, he's vainglorious, he's egomaniacal, he wants to stay out of prison personally.
People can see these qualities with their own eyes and focusing on them might even make them think about the unlimited downside of putting a person like that into the presidency.
I suspect (fear) the Civil War brouhaha put the final nail in Haley's political coffin this cycle. Hers is the narrowest of paths to the nomination, and she needs everything to go right, especially in the early going. It was just enough to muddy the waters with respect to her supposed momentum...
But in any event I think her best line of attack should be something like: "This election is too important. We can't give another four years to Socialist Joe blah blah blah and I'm by far the Republican candidate most likely to win."
It's not necessarily the case that Haley looks stronger than Trump in a general election (per the polls), but the case nonetheless makes itself based on Trump's myriad legal problems. In other words, attack Trump obliquely—not by saying he's a crook but by stating he's being overwhelmed by legal woes that will hand the White House over to the Woke Socialists. And he lost the popular vote two times in a row: state this loud, and repeatedly!
I wouldn't be too concerned about any potential Haley voters hearing our liberal-sphere endorsements - but if you do feel the call to push Republicans on the subject in their spaces, a noble calling indeed, do consider putting on a different hat.
Dean P. Delastoy sounds like a respectable guy. (Middle name Porgdt.) I think he's a middle-aged lifelong Republican father of three who voted Trump in '16 but sat out '20 and now supports Haley. I think he posts comments of the sort you quoted in your last paragraph against Trump & for Haley on Chris Rufo's 'stack. I think he also occasionally explores the sphere of conservative 'stacks Rufo recommends, when he has has a few extra minutes on the clock, and a few extra pencils in his pocket.
Classic and lazy Democratic critique in that you frame the Biden strategy as Democrats being personally torn in their feelings about Trump instead of playing smart politics. Fact is Trump is the best candidate for Biden and the Democrats in 2024 as no other candidate represents the GOP's horrible policies and it's dedication to their 1% masters to the American people. The GOP is going to work hard, as they always have, to undermine our democracy regardless of Trump running. Half a prison camp is still a prison camp so we have to play it smart. Once Trump gets the nomination we will have to salt the earth and then hope for the best.
>Fact is Trump is the best candidate for Biden and the Democrats in 2024 as no other candidate represents the GOP's horrible policies<
That worked great in 2016!
I mean, seriously: the country could survive four years of Haley's trying to cut entitlements (and taxes for the rich). It would suck bigtime. But she might be less successful than is feared, who knows? (Entitlements are popular).
I'm honestly a bit astonished that there are apparently substantial numbers of Democrats who would prefer to run against Trump. Y'all realize it's possible the structural picture could strongly favor the Republicans next fall, right? The polls could look a lot different ten months from now, sure. But there's no particular reason to think that, if the structural picture were to worsen for Democrats (weakening economy, say, or a nastly flare up in geopolitical tensions), Biden's numbers would improve. Probably just the opposite.
I think it's fairly obvious Trump would have a very solid shot at victory if the election were held tomorrow. Add in worsening poll numbers for Joe Biden, and Trump becomes a heavy favorite. Being an optimist, I still think Biden probably wins next fall, but that's because I think the balance of forces more likely than not suggests an economy that will hold up (and memories of inflation fade). I don't kid myself enough persuadables will vote against Trump solely to save democracy: Democrats needs a positive big picture when it comes to national conditions. They may get that. They may not. No guarantees. Thus it is in the national interest that the GOP nominate a normal, non-dictatorial candidate. Unfortunately we're probably not going to see this transpire.
All your points are valid and you very well could be 100% right. I just think that Biden's/Dems approach to 2024 is to let Trump cinch the nomination and then run against him across all ballots. More people in the USA hate Trump than love him and that has proven out in every election since 2018. I think it is the best strategy a "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" approach. I just diagree with the framing of it being becuase Dem leaders/strategist are torn or scared and not a deliberate, thought out approach.
Well the approach where they deliver it or not should be good government and quality policy. Christ none of this is going to be relevant and every issue other than the eminent climate crisis extinction event rendered ancillary. Like the GOP, they’re not doing anything of significance to the issues that need it. As a matter fact I would rather have nothing than an insulting token.
There are two things that are just ridiculously apparent in this paradigm. I can’t believe the democratic party constituents are going to consent to Joe when there were 21 out of the 23 primary candidates a better nomination in 2020. #WarrenPorter2024
And no one is addressing the cheat factor. If you all forgot that the only reason they lost in 20 was Covid and the mail in ballots? What do you think they were so adamantly against the process? Because they didn’t have it rig. Doing the same thing over and over and over expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. Democratic party constituents are truly deranged. Granted, much more interesting than Bag o hammers box of rocks dumb but not exactly removing us from the Third World shell status
Production values: much better, it really is A Real Podcast now, much appreciate. Lengthwise, that was so long that Substack logged me out for security purposes...and on the one hand I don't really mind just listening to shooting the shit from the hip sometimes, but on the other hand I'm having a hard time accounting for where the time went. Hoping that future episodes are more concretely focused and differentiated, especially as a paid product. Election discourse is a dozen for a dime, buyer's market...
Haleygate actually brought to mind a different widely-publicized gaffe for me, which Republicans continue to make great hay out of years later: that one judge(?) confirmation that involved asking "what is a woman?" and accompanying retreat into academic claptrap for fear of offending the coalition. Even if the accompanying issue set didn't end up being a midterms winner, message discipline self-owns are just...really bad. Cause one party is never afraid to play hardball political jabbing, and it's not the one that didn't deck itself in glory that day.
Nb: Politix sounds like some kind of new breakfast cereal. With little toasted oat donkeys and elephants that stay crunchy, even in milk. Brought to you by the makers of Obama-Os.
This may be out of y'all's hands, but for a 90-minute vlog, an option to speed up playback to 1.5x would be useful. (Sorry! It's 2024, what can I say.)
Compliment sandwich from a guy who listens to way too many podcasts!
First of all, very enjoyable conversation. Too many political podcasts seem overly concerned with the hosts disagreeing, but on the other hand it’s no fun to listen to bickering. You’ve got a good balance here, where you’re aligned in values, but disagree on a lot of the details. That’s the sweet spot. I love listening to smart people nerd out about stuff they’re passionate about, and if that’s the show, I’m in. I’m new to Matt, but despite disagreeing with him on some things I found a lot of his takes insightful/fun. I know one of the top comments is about there being too much focus on minutiae, but that’s the kind of nerdy stuff I like. Arguing the microscopic margins of what specific words a politician should say is my vibe.
I do have a couple suggestions, and I’m a paid subscriber so I mean this to be constructive not complainy: Politix is probably the worst name for a political podcast ever lol. (Well, tied with “The Next Level” from the Bulwark, a title so vague it’s literally already the name of several video game channels and podcasts). Brian is the punmaster general, I think we can top “the thing, but with an X on the end.” IMO a good name sets the tone for the whole show, and a bad name sets a tone of “I guess we’ll call it this? Meh.” Positively Dreadful? A positive spin on dreadful topics, perfect. But it’s a little unclear what the goal/format of THIS show is, if any, and the vague name kind of reflects that. Like, at times it felt like Brian was just interviewing Matt, I don’t think Matt asked any questions in return. Which isn’t to say I didn’t like what was said, I just don’t get the sense that’s what you’re going for. So maybe you could alternate back and forth between who hosts each episode? I know it’s early days and podcasts have to find their footing, that’s just a suggestion.
All in all, you guys are fun to listen to, and importantly, you sound like real people who can have an actual conversation, and not weird robots programmed by the DNC. Looking forward to the next ep.
Not offering good government, quality policy, settling for slightly better than a really really really shitty ongoing criminal enterprise for an opposition, and nominating the wrong candidate consistently as a political party has consequences......
Matt mentioned Democratic staffers who both sincerely (and correctly) think Trump is a threat to democracy and want to run against him. This really bothers me. If Nikki Haley became the nominee and beat Biden, I would be sad, but I think that ultimately the country would survive. I would not feel the same way if Trump won.
Also it's not necessarily a safe assumption that Trump is the easiest candidate to beat in a general election: https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1742684334061162808
shows Trump polling stronger against Biden than Desantis, although weaker than Haley
Right: it's possible Haley would perform no better in a general election than Trump AND it's pretty likely she's not willing to put all her energies into transforming the country's polity into a big version of Hungary.
(Although I do wonder: now that the autocracy cat is out of the bag and plenty of GOP operatives have been familiarizing themselves with the dark art of coups d'etat and subversion of elections, just how safe our democracy would be at this point even if a person Not Named Trump were leading the GOP.)
Hey guys! Was excited about the possibility of a podcast product, and appreciated the video element and informal tone. The length is just fine given interesting subject matter.
In the spirit of hopefully constructive criticism though, I'll share that after this episode I'm a little concerned about the topic of conversation remaining fresh week after week. I'm not super familiar with Brian's other writing (aside from Twitter), but the reason I am excited to read/listen to Matt's work is that I tend to hear interesting opinions on a variety of subjects that seem to have meaningful stakes - I learn a lot, which feels valuable.
Now, obviously this is a different product than Slow Boring and won't be The Weeds. But I'm concerned that topics like "Let's debate in what *precise* way we each think Democratic messaging isn't working" or "How *exactly* is the Orange Man bad? Is he more racist or authoritarian?" are not going to be terribly engaging or useful subjects for me as a listener to learn about. It also seems like a pretty well-served niche - lots of people and podcasts are talking about this stuff and the blow-by-blow election horserace as well. Right now, forgive me, but it's feeling a lot like "Hacks on Tap (with Beutler and Yglesias)." "The 2024 election" will not be underserved with punditry.
I've seen your debates about this online over the last few years on Twitter, and while the stakes of the election are very high, it seems like this specific conversation (unless your intended audience is well-placed Dem officials) is pretty low-stakes.
Wishing you all the success, and will definitely listen to a few more. Cheers!
Well-placed officials don't have time for podcasts. Even I don't, and I'm nobody. I don't really get why someone would turn to podcasts as a source of information. Low density & you can't cite anything or save good quotes.
But we're making a mistake - the appeal of the podcast is actually "friend simulator in guise of purportedly valuable infotainment." People think they're listening for the material, but really, the appeal is the comforting & illusory sensation of being in the same room as mildly important and mostly sensible people.
So this - and the universe of similar podcasts you describe - function not as calls to action, nor as political speech, but rather as an auditory pacifier for adult liberals, weekly to coo away their political anxieties, & to ameliorate any frightful feelings of personal duty on that front. "I'm doing my part - I'm educating myself!"
For all the excellent advice you have for Democrats, Matt ... have you guys ever met a republican?
The biggest idea of the first ten minutes is that Nikki Haley should proclaim she's a better candidate because she can at least guarantee that she'll be on the ballot in all fifty states, that she should say "if the New York Attorney General wants to make up some crimes about me, like, she could have done that. But like, she's not because there's no evidence because I did two crimes, right?"
Republicans are going to say "the New York Attorney General isn't attacking Nikki Haley because she doesn't matter." Is there a faster way to destroy Nikki Haley's candidacy than publicly encouraging Democrats to vote for her?
In a Republican primary, highlighting Trump's legal peril isn't attacking his weakness, it's attacking one of his biggest strengths! It's puffing him up, making him out to be the persecuted outsider, the only candidate so terrifying that the left will do anything to get rid of him.
For my money, this was a much better line of attack:
> But I think that that business of putting himself, not like putting an ideology above procedural fairness, but like putting himself above everything else. That's a very unusual Trump thing. Most high level politicians, like actually believe quite a bit in their ideas. And like, I often object to their ideas. But the thing about Trump is that he doesn't, right? Like it's bad for conservatism. That he's done this instead of just fading away. But like, he's vainglorious, he's egomaniacal, he wants to stay out of prison personally.
People can see these qualities with their own eyes and focusing on them might even make them think about the unlimited downside of putting a person like that into the presidency.
I suspect (fear) the Civil War brouhaha put the final nail in Haley's political coffin this cycle. Hers is the narrowest of paths to the nomination, and she needs everything to go right, especially in the early going. It was just enough to muddy the waters with respect to her supposed momentum...
But in any event I think her best line of attack should be something like: "This election is too important. We can't give another four years to Socialist Joe blah blah blah and I'm by far the Republican candidate most likely to win."
It's not necessarily the case that Haley looks stronger than Trump in a general election (per the polls), but the case nonetheless makes itself based on Trump's myriad legal problems. In other words, attack Trump obliquely—not by saying he's a crook but by stating he's being overwhelmed by legal woes that will hand the White House over to the Woke Socialists. And he lost the popular vote two times in a row: state this loud, and repeatedly!
I wouldn't be too concerned about any potential Haley voters hearing our liberal-sphere endorsements - but if you do feel the call to push Republicans on the subject in their spaces, a noble calling indeed, do consider putting on a different hat.
Dean P. Delastoy sounds like a respectable guy. (Middle name Porgdt.) I think he's a middle-aged lifelong Republican father of three who voted Trump in '16 but sat out '20 and now supports Haley. I think he posts comments of the sort you quoted in your last paragraph against Trump & for Haley on Chris Rufo's 'stack. I think he also occasionally explores the sphere of conservative 'stacks Rufo recommends, when he has has a few extra minutes on the clock, and a few extra pencils in his pocket.
Video!!!!
So I'm a Slow boring subscriber... do I need to pay additional fees to Politix to hear it? Or am I good to go?
Classic and lazy Democratic critique in that you frame the Biden strategy as Democrats being personally torn in their feelings about Trump instead of playing smart politics. Fact is Trump is the best candidate for Biden and the Democrats in 2024 as no other candidate represents the GOP's horrible policies and it's dedication to their 1% masters to the American people. The GOP is going to work hard, as they always have, to undermine our democracy regardless of Trump running. Half a prison camp is still a prison camp so we have to play it smart. Once Trump gets the nomination we will have to salt the earth and then hope for the best.
>Fact is Trump is the best candidate for Biden and the Democrats in 2024 as no other candidate represents the GOP's horrible policies<
That worked great in 2016!
I mean, seriously: the country could survive four years of Haley's trying to cut entitlements (and taxes for the rich). It would suck bigtime. But she might be less successful than is feared, who knows? (Entitlements are popular).
I'm honestly a bit astonished that there are apparently substantial numbers of Democrats who would prefer to run against Trump. Y'all realize it's possible the structural picture could strongly favor the Republicans next fall, right? The polls could look a lot different ten months from now, sure. But there's no particular reason to think that, if the structural picture were to worsen for Democrats (weakening economy, say, or a nastly flare up in geopolitical tensions), Biden's numbers would improve. Probably just the opposite.
I think it's fairly obvious Trump would have a very solid shot at victory if the election were held tomorrow. Add in worsening poll numbers for Joe Biden, and Trump becomes a heavy favorite. Being an optimist, I still think Biden probably wins next fall, but that's because I think the balance of forces more likely than not suggests an economy that will hold up (and memories of inflation fade). I don't kid myself enough persuadables will vote against Trump solely to save democracy: Democrats needs a positive big picture when it comes to national conditions. They may get that. They may not. No guarantees. Thus it is in the national interest that the GOP nominate a normal, non-dictatorial candidate. Unfortunately we're probably not going to see this transpire.
All your points are valid and you very well could be 100% right. I just think that Biden's/Dems approach to 2024 is to let Trump cinch the nomination and then run against him across all ballots. More people in the USA hate Trump than love him and that has proven out in every election since 2018. I think it is the best strategy a "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" approach. I just diagree with the framing of it being becuase Dem leaders/strategist are torn or scared and not a deliberate, thought out approach.
Well the approach where they deliver it or not should be good government and quality policy. Christ none of this is going to be relevant and every issue other than the eminent climate crisis extinction event rendered ancillary. Like the GOP, they’re not doing anything of significance to the issues that need it. As a matter fact I would rather have nothing than an insulting token.
There are two things that are just ridiculously apparent in this paradigm. I can’t believe the democratic party constituents are going to consent to Joe when there were 21 out of the 23 primary candidates a better nomination in 2020. #WarrenPorter2024
And no one is addressing the cheat factor. If you all forgot that the only reason they lost in 20 was Covid and the mail in ballots? What do you think they were so adamantly against the process? Because they didn’t have it rig. Doing the same thing over and over and over expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. Democratic party constituents are truly deranged. Granted, much more interesting than Bag o hammers box of rocks dumb but not exactly removing us from the Third World shell status
Wait, what? Go back to 8chan, Big Fella.
Production values: much better, it really is A Real Podcast now, much appreciate. Lengthwise, that was so long that Substack logged me out for security purposes...and on the one hand I don't really mind just listening to shooting the shit from the hip sometimes, but on the other hand I'm having a hard time accounting for where the time went. Hoping that future episodes are more concretely focused and differentiated, especially as a paid product. Election discourse is a dozen for a dime, buyer's market...
Haleygate actually brought to mind a different widely-publicized gaffe for me, which Republicans continue to make great hay out of years later: that one judge(?) confirmation that involved asking "what is a woman?" and accompanying retreat into academic claptrap for fear of offending the coalition. Even if the accompanying issue set didn't end up being a midterms winner, message discipline self-owns are just...really bad. Cause one party is never afraid to play hardball political jabbing, and it's not the one that didn't deck itself in glory that day.
Nb: Politix sounds like some kind of new breakfast cereal. With little toasted oat donkeys and elephants that stay crunchy, even in milk. Brought to you by the makers of Obama-Os.
No need to make them shorter.
Excellent insights. The comments @ 19:30 - yes! That's exactly what Joe needs to do.
Joe needs to step down and endorse #WarrenPorter2024
This may be out of y'all's hands, but for a 90-minute vlog, an option to speed up playback to 1.5x would be useful. (Sorry! It's 2024, what can I say.)
The theme for Biden’s campaign that you guys were grasping for is obviously “No Malarkey!”
Are Haley and Desantis not just running for VP?
Desantis would find it awkward constitutionally to be Trump's VP.
Compliment sandwich from a guy who listens to way too many podcasts!
First of all, very enjoyable conversation. Too many political podcasts seem overly concerned with the hosts disagreeing, but on the other hand it’s no fun to listen to bickering. You’ve got a good balance here, where you’re aligned in values, but disagree on a lot of the details. That’s the sweet spot. I love listening to smart people nerd out about stuff they’re passionate about, and if that’s the show, I’m in. I’m new to Matt, but despite disagreeing with him on some things I found a lot of his takes insightful/fun. I know one of the top comments is about there being too much focus on minutiae, but that’s the kind of nerdy stuff I like. Arguing the microscopic margins of what specific words a politician should say is my vibe.
I do have a couple suggestions, and I’m a paid subscriber so I mean this to be constructive not complainy: Politix is probably the worst name for a political podcast ever lol. (Well, tied with “The Next Level” from the Bulwark, a title so vague it’s literally already the name of several video game channels and podcasts). Brian is the punmaster general, I think we can top “the thing, but with an X on the end.” IMO a good name sets the tone for the whole show, and a bad name sets a tone of “I guess we’ll call it this? Meh.” Positively Dreadful? A positive spin on dreadful topics, perfect. But it’s a little unclear what the goal/format of THIS show is, if any, and the vague name kind of reflects that. Like, at times it felt like Brian was just interviewing Matt, I don’t think Matt asked any questions in return. Which isn’t to say I didn’t like what was said, I just don’t get the sense that’s what you’re going for. So maybe you could alternate back and forth between who hosts each episode? I know it’s early days and podcasts have to find their footing, that’s just a suggestion.
All in all, you guys are fun to listen to, and importantly, you sound like real people who can have an actual conversation, and not weird robots programmed by the DNC. Looking forward to the next ep.
Not offering good government, quality policy, settling for slightly better than a really really really shitty ongoing criminal enterprise for an opposition, and nominating the wrong candidate consistently as a political party has consequences......
Might it be possible for $500/year Slow Boring subscribers to get comped on this podcast subscription? I'd prefer that to a coffee mug.
Are you going to publish a transcript?