Nerds for Humanity Substack Podcast

If you told me two years ago that one of the most compelling answers to America's broken democracy would come from a blockchain-savvy military veteran out of Orlando, I probably wouldn’t have guessed it. But that's exactly what I discovered in my recent conversation with Ramon Perez, founder of the Digital Democracy Project (DDP), during a Nerds for Humanity livestream that still has me thinking.

Perez is no idealist with a half-baked startup pitch. He's a 13-year military officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a data and AI consultant with a deep understanding of both how government works—and how it fails. And after January 6th, he knew he had to do something more.

“It was hard to stomach this sense that we’d spent 20 years trying to build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Perez told me, “and we were watching it fall apart here in the United States.”

From the Battlefield to the Ballot

That dissonance lit a fire under Perez. Leveraging his background in cybersecurity and AI, he partnered with a Boston-based startup called Voatz—best known for their blockchain-secure mobile voting platform. While Voatz originally focused on allowing military voters abroad to securely cast ballots from their phones, Perez saw a broader application.

“Why should we wait every four years to weigh in on public policy?” he asked. “Why not let people tell their representatives what they want, when they want?”

The result is the Digital Democracy Project. DDP allows voters to view active legislation in their state or in Congress, weigh in directly through the Voatz app, and see how their elected officials vote in comparison. No spin. No party filter. Just data.

How It Works

When you register on the app, your identity is verified using photo ID and facial recognition, cross-checked with your voter file. Then, you get access to real legislation and can vote on bills before they reach the floor.

Once the legislature acts, DDP matches each representative’s vote with the will of their constituents and gives every lawmaker a public scorecard. Think baseball cards for politicians, but instead of batting averages, you get alignment with the people.

As of this year, DDP is going national. What started as a Florida pilot will be scaled to all 50 states, with the potential to reshape civic engagement in America.

When the Will of the People Meets the Wall of Power

What happens when data shows that your representative consistently votes against the will of their constituents? You get names.

"Matt Gaetz was at the bottom of our Florida Congressional leaderboard," Perez said, with characteristic deadpan.

Interestingly, the divergence isn't always partisan. In the Florida State Legislature, Democrats often aligned more with constituent sentiment than Republicans. But at the federal level, party lines blurred. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican, scored near the top. Progressive darling Maxwell Frost? Near the bottom.

This discrepancy, Perez argues, proves that our tidy left-right dichotomy is mostly fiction.

“Party affiliation is an intellectual construct. It doesn't exist in the real world,” he said. “That’s not how most people think, and it’s not even how many legislators vote.”

A Quiet Threat to the Political-Industrial Complex

You might think lawmakers would run from a project that holds them this accountable. And some do. But others see it differently.

“We actually received bipartisan budget support in Florida—a Republican and a Democrat co-sponsored our funding bill,” Perez told me.

That bill passed the legislature. It was then vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis.

“Who knows why,” Perez said. But the potential was clear: when citizens gain power, entrenched interests push back.

And it’s not just DDP feeling the pressure.

Rank My Vote Florida: Buried Before It Bloomed

Perez also leads Rank My Vote Florida, which advocates for ranked choice voting (RCV). After local municipalities began adopting RCV and seeing positive results, the state legislature stepped in—and banned it.

“They smothered the infant in its crib,” Perez said.

Why? Because RCV helps consensus candidates win. In traditional elections, candidates can win with a mere plurality. That means you can become a member of Congress, or even governor, with just 20-30% support—if the field is crowded enough. RCV requires majority support and rewards broad appeal.

Case in point: Sarah Palin's loss in Alaska.

“In a first-past-the-post system, she likely would've won. But Alaska used RCV, and the voters chose someone else,” Perez explained. “That scared people.”

So ALEC, a conservative policy organization, began circulating bills to preemptively ban RCV. Florida, Tennessee, and a dozen other states have already adopted those bans.

Building a Parallel System

Since state legislatures have closed the door, Perez is working on building a window. He's exploring the idea of a "citizens election" in Florida—a parallel, unofficial election using Voatz and RCV.

The idea? Show what the results could have looked like with better voting infrastructure. Compare a Gaetz victory with a DDP winner. Let voters see the gap for themselves.

Why This Matters

For years, the story of American democracy has been one of decay. Gerrymandering. Voter suppression. Uncompetitive districts. Primary systems that reward extremism. Polarization that turns every compromise into betrayal.

And yet, this quiet, open-source, volunteer-powered movement is building something that just might work. It brings secure, authenticated mobile voting into the mainstream. It invites voters to participate continuously, not episodically. It creates pressure on legislators to respond to real constituent preferences, not just party bosses or lobbyists.

It’s easy to be cynical about American politics. But Perez is one of the few builders I’ve met who is doing something tangible, practical, and scalable.

As he put it: “We’ve only been a true representative republic for about 60 years. And in many ways, we’re already losing it. This technology helps us claw it back.”

A New Social Contract

Perez ended our chat with a vision: millions of voters across all 50 states using DDP to make their voices heard. Candidates running on a platform of following their scorecards. School boards, counties, and municipalities adopting digital engagement. And ultimately, a democracy that’s not defined by lobbying budgets, cable news cycles, or billionaire megadonors—but by real people, voting in real time.

He’s got about 24,000 users today. He’ll need millions. But then again, every movement starts small.

“We’re not trying to tweak the existing system,” Perez said. “We’re building a better one.”

If you're a Python developer, consider volunteering. If you're a voter, download the app. And if you're a citizen who still believes democracy is worth saving, this is one place to start.

If you found this conversation valuable, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. Memberships help cover the costs of production and get you a shoutout on every livestream.

Bye nerds.

Hello nerds,

After a steady stream of YouTube shorts and weekend content, I finally hopped back on the Nerds for Humanity livestream, and what a storm of absurdity we had to break down. If you're a center-left policy wonk, what follows may not make you feel better about the future of this country, but it'll make you feel like you're not going crazy for being outraged.

We covered three stories. Each was a peek through the cracked window of American democracy, filtered through the bizarre prism of the Trumpist revival. From the Qatari jet that smells like a bribe, to a trade "deal" that undoes Trump's own blunder, to a shockingly good policy idea on pharma that no one—including the New York Times—bothered to cover. Let me walk you through each.

Story 1: The $400 Million Jet From Qatar

Imagine the headlines if President Biden accepted a half-billion-dollar luxury jet from the Saudi royal family to use as Air Force One. Now imagine if that jet was offered as a "gift" from a foreign government with ties to Hamas, with the only assurance being that it would later be displayed at the Trump Presidential Library. Sound plausible? That's what’s on offer from Qatar to Donald Trump.

"You're going to disobey the order of the Supreme Court, deport people without due process, and accept a $400 million plane from a foreign government? That hurts your brain." — Me, in stunned disbelief

Trump defenders say it's a harmless donation. But even MAGA forums seemed uneasy. Fox News barely covered the story, and when they did, they quickly buried it. The idea that the future Air Force One—a flying command center during national crises—could be a foreign-made gift? That’s not just sus. It’s a Trojan Horse with wings.

"Didn’t the Trojans give a gift, too?" — My live commentary

The irony? This is the same base that cries foul about Hunter Biden’s art sales and corruption. Yet when Trump auctions face-time dinners via a crypto coin and deregulates crypto enforcement, it's apparently savvy business. When he accepts a potentially compromised aircraft from a regime that also hosts Taliban leaders, it’s not treason—it's branding.

Story 2: The Uncelebrated Win on Drug Pricing

Credit where it's due. In a rare moment of policy lucidity, Trump proposed a Most Favored Nation (MFN) pricing strategy for pharmaceuticals. The idea? The U.S. shouldn't pay more than other countries for the same drug. If this actually gets done—really done, not just tweeted and forgotten—it would be a substantive victory for Americans crushed by high drug costs.

"Obama talked about it, Biden tried Medicare negotiation, but Trump just said: screw it, we’re not paying more than Canada or the U.K."

Surprisingly, no one wanted to talk about it. Not Fox. Not the New York Times. The former, presumably because Trump’s win wasn’t culture war red meat. The latter? Maybe it doesn’t fit the preferred narrative.

"Poopy stinky. Freaking New York Times had Belichick’s girlfriend on the homepage before the pharma deal."

When both major media outlets fail to cover a story that affects the lives of tens of millions of Americans, it’s not just media bias—it’s systemic rot. We’d rather scream about TikTok bans and border clashes than do the hard work of evaluating policy.

Story 3: The China Deal That Wasn’t

Trump declared a "historic trade win" with China. The truth? He rolled back tariffs he imposed just a month prior. The markets cheered, but not because of a deal—because Trump stopped hurting them. There was no grand negotiation, no concession from China, just a chaotic game of poker where Trump folded and called it a win.

"This is your guy? The art of the deal? It's like he declared mango Gatorade the best flavor and MAGA was like ‘Oh yeah I’ve always loved mango.’"

What’s worse is the White House crowed about this as if it were the new Marshall Plan. It wasn’t. It was a Ctrl-Z of his own failed policy.

"The only people who thought this was a win were Trump and the Fox chyron writers."

The Real Takeaway

Let me be painfully honest: we're living in an era of selective outrage and performative governance. One side celebrates crimes if it’s their guy. The other side buries policy wins if it contradicts their narrative. Both parties play to their base, and media outlets amplify the rage bait because nuance doesn’t generate clicks.

"Flooding the zone isn't just a Bannon tactic. It’s a way to make Americans so overwhelmed they stop caring."

We should care. Because accepting a luxury plane from a foreign adversary is not normal. Because a policy that could reduce your grandma’s insulin cost should be front-page news. And because calling a self-inflicted trade mess a triumph is gaslighting the electorate.

Final Thoughts

Three takeaways, nerds:

* Yes to the Pharma Deal. If Trump can actually execute on MFN pricing and codify it into law, that would help millions. I’ll cheer it. Just don’t let it be another Trumpcare or wall that never gets built.

* Hell no to the Qatar Jet. That’s not a donation. It’s a golden leash from a foreign monarchy with interests diametrically opposed to ours. The idea that it could be used as Air Force One is reckless.

* Wake up to the media failures. When both Fox and the Times fail in opposite ways, we lose. We have to stop outsourcing our discernment to headline editors.

If you got this far, thank you. If you want to support the channel and help offset the cost of livestream software, thumbnail generators, and custom music, consider becoming a YouTube channel member. You’ll get a shout-out on every stream and help keep the nerd train rolling.

Bye nerds.

The Hangover After Harris

If you're a center-left political junkie, you probably still feel the sting of November 2024. In our recent Nerds for Humanity livestream, I sat down again with my longtime political sparring partner Phil K to make sense of what went wrong—and, maybe more importantly, what comes next.

Phil and I have been analyzing the 2024 cycle from start to bitter end: from our fierce debates over Biden’s electability to the odd bedfellows MAGA made with Eric Adams. But this conversation felt different. We weren’t just talking about polls and primary narratives. We were, in essence, performing a political autopsy on a movement that once inspired hope—and ended up roadblocked by its own legacy.

Let’s not bury the lead: Joe Biden’s decision to run for re-election was a catastrophic misjudgment. And the cascade of events that followed—his late withdrawal, the elevation of Kamala Harris, and her inability to pivot away from the baggage of his administration—set the stage for what Phil aptly described as “just such an insane answer to give.”

Harris’s campaign felt stuck. “There should be no daylight,” Biden reportedly told her—meaning: no separation, no contrast, no acknowledgment that the economic and immigration struggles of his presidency were weighing her down like an anvil strapped to a lifeboat. Even when offered an opportunity to differentiate herself gently, she flubbed it. “I wouldn’t change anything,” she said in an interview—a sound bite that Phil called a turning point. “It was at that point I started to say… I don’t know.”

Instead of drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Biden handled COVID, I’ll handle affordability,” Harris appeared more loyal than strategic. Biden’s ask was understandable—after all, no one wants their legacy attacked by their own VP—but it was a misstep. As I put it during the stream: “This is a full-contact sport. We gotta win this thing.”

The Opposite of Trump

Despite the mess of 2024, Phil and I are genuinely optimistic about 2028—and that optimism starts with an old favorite: Pete Buttigieg.

Yes, Pete. The former Secretary of Transportation, Afghanistan vet, Rhodes Scholar, policy nerd, and unflinchingly authentic presence. To paraphrase Phil, Pete doesn’t pretend to be one of the bros—he leans into the nerdiness, and that’s what makes him effective.

We spent time analyzing a now-viral clip from a three-hour interview Pete did recently. In it, he reframes freedom—not as freedom from government, but freedom through government. The right to clean air, good schools, parental leave, and a safe neighborhood. “That’s the life I want everybody to be able to live,” he said with conviction, without raising his voice, and with enough substance behind the sentiment that you know he could explain how each policy would actually work.

“He hits on an emotional level without being hysterical. That’s why it works,” I said during the stream.

Pete has both the governing chops and rhetorical skill to reclaim values like freedom and patriotism for the left. As Phil put it, “Whoever the next president is needs a clear idea of how to make government effective. Pete has that.” And that’s not just about management—it’s about rebuilding public trust in federal institutions that Trump’s administration, especially during his second term, is likely to shred further.

The Case for Shapiro (and His Baggage?)

Of course, Pete isn’t the only contender. Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, also looms large. Phil praised his focus on efficiency, citing Shapiro’s record on expediting small business licenses and rebuilding a major bridge in just 12 days.

But Shapiro has vulnerabilities. First, his oratory style is a little too Obama-esque—his cadence, his tone. “If I close my eyes,” I joked, “is this the third Obama term?”

More seriously, there’s the Israel-Gaza situation. Shapiro is Jewish and has made clear statements critical of Netanyahu, calling him “one of the worst leaders of all time.” Yet some perceive him as overly aligned with pro-Israel hardliners. As I put it, “Politics isn’t fair. That’s why he needs to be clear about his position.” In a post-Gaza Democratic Party increasingly fractured over foreign policy, clarity will matter more than tribal allegiance.

Phil made an important point: “Everyone has to do this. Kamala had to prove she wasn’t just for Black people. Shapiro might have to do the same with Israel.” It’s unfortunate, but real.

The Wildcards: Moore, AOC, and Sister Souljah Moments

West Moore of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also came up. Moore brings executive experience, charisma, and battlefield service. AOC brings a movement—and the energy of the party’s left flank. But in either case, a potential ticket with Pete would be… electric.

Still, I cautioned about triggering MAGA. “A Buttigieg-AOC ticket might be too much—it would feel like their whole world is collapsing.” But then again, maybe that’s the point?

Both Pete and Shapiro have opportunities for “Sister Souljah moments.” For Pete, that could mean taking a nuanced stance on trans athletes in women’s sports—something grounded in compassion but rooted in fairness. For Shapiro, it might mean confronting Israeli settlement expansion head-on.

“Pete can say: Let sports leagues figure it out.” Phil proposed during the stream.

The point isn’t to alienate allies—it’s to demonstrate independence, courage, and authenticity. Voters crave that more than ever, especially after a Trump presidency driven by loyalty tests and cult-of-personality rule.

Republican Bench: The Vance Variable

Phil and I aren’t Republican strategists, but from a clinical lens, we dissected what 2028 might look like for the GOP.

It’s clear: JD Vance is the frontrunner.

As Trump’s VP, Vance will have the donor network, MAGA credibility, and perhaps Trump’s own endorsement. “The whole ballgame is Trump’s nod,” Phil said. Unless Vance catastrophically fails during the second Trump term, he’s likely to coast to the nomination.

There’s one wildcard: the economy. If Trump’s second term tanks—if unemployment spikes, inflation returns, or there's foreign policy disaster—Vance could be stuck defending a mess. He could become, as I put it, “the Kamala Harris of the Republican Party.”

In that case, someone like DeSantis—who kept one MAGA boot on and one off—could reemerge. He’s the ultimate hybrid: not fully Trumpist, but not anti-Trump either. Nikki Haley? Probably too “Romney Republican” for today’s GOP.

The Media Candidate Temptation

What about non-traditional candidates like Stephen A. Smith?

We entertained the idea for a moment—he’s charismatic, direct, and commands an audience. But we both agreed: “Government is hard. It’s not a cable news segment.” Voters may not want another president learning on the job, especially after the chaos of Trump 2.0.

Still, Smith—or someone like him—could play the role of kingmaker. A nod from a beloved media figure could swing perception in a crowded Democratic primary, especially for someone like Pete who’s trying to cut through noise with substance.

Final Predictions

Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, Phil and I share the view that Democrats are likely to retake the House, maybe even comfortably. But the Senate? That’s trickier. The map is brutal. We might hold at 50 or 51 seats—if we’re lucky.

But none of that matters if our institutions continue to erode.

The Supreme Court is being ignored. Congress is fragmented. Trump is experimenting with post-constitutional governance. “If you have a situation where the president says, ‘I don’t care what the court says,’ and Congress won’t check him… we’re in serious trouble,” Phil warned.

And he’s right.

Reclaiming the Narrative

If there’s one recurring theme from our conversation, it’s this: Democrats cannot run on technocracy and process. We must speak in values.

Freedom. Family. Opportunity. Patriotism.

Pete Buttigieg gets this. He doesn’t yell. He doesn’t dodge. He meets voters where they are and explains how clean water and strong parental leave are …

I wasn’t sure what to expect when I brought Michael Maxsenti back to the Nerds for Humanity livestream. Last time he was on the show, he was trying to get the Common Sense Party off the ground. A few years later, not only is he still in the fight, but he’s taken it to a new level: running for Congress.

What followed was a 90-minute conversation that took me from cautiously curious to unexpectedly moved. In Maxsenti, you hear a voice that is at once disillusioned and hopeful, patriotic and critical, conservative in values but radical in his diagnosis of what’s broken in Washington. And most interesting of all? He’s running as a Republican—not because he agrees with Trumpism, but because he wants to infiltrate the system with a rebel conscience.

As someone who leans center-left, who has been skeptical of the GOP's current direction, and who is deeply worried about the future of democracy, I found myself both inspired and uneasy.

Here’s what I learned, what stood out, and why Maxsenti’s campaign might be more important than it first appears.

1. The Most Evenly Split District in America

Maxsenti is running in California's 47th Congressional District, a place he describes as "probably the most evenly divided district in the country."

"There are about 540,000 registered voters, and only 3,000 votes separate Democrats and Republicans."

That gives him a unique platform to speak to a true microcosm of America. It’s not deep red, not deep blue—it’s a test tube for whether post-partisan, reform-oriented politics can actually win.

And that’s part of what makes this campaign worth watching.

2. The Case for Citizens Assemblies

One of Maxsenti’s most compelling ideas was something that rarely gets airtime: citizens assemblies.

"I'm tired of people saying they want your voice, but then giving nothing more than lip service. Citizens assemblies would be a way to truly engage the people in shaping laws."

He described a process where average citizens are selected demographically and at random to deliberate over key legislation, hear from experts, and issue binding recommendations to lawmakers. Think jury duty, but for lawmaking.

It’s working in places like Ireland, Petaluma (yes, here in California), and 124 countries around the world.

For anyone who believes Congress is too beholden to special interests, this is a breath of fresh air. It’s the kind of structural reform that transcends party politics.

And yet, it’s barely discussed in American campaigns.

3. A Republican by Necessity, Not Identity

Maxsenti’s decision to run as a Republican wasn’t made lightly. He left the party decades ago, disgusted by what he called its embrace of “racists and bigots” in the 90s. But he rejoined, reluctantly, after mentors and allies convinced him that it was the only viable way to get elected.

"My decision to rejoin the Republican Party wasn't about joining Trumpism. It was about creating a beachhead for populist reform from the inside."

He described a personal transformation—from a former CEO who lost everything in pursuit of political reform, to someone who drove Uber for years just to stay in the fight.

Is it performative? I didn’t get that sense.

This is a man who literally carries around a 1993 Republican Party pamphlet, detailing beliefs like equal rights, responsible spending, and broad-minded policy. The kind of values Eisenhower Republicans would nod to. He wants to reclaim that tradition—not to replicate the past, but to re-anchor in principle.

But here’s the tension: can a populist reformer thrive in a party that increasingly seems allergic to policy, addicted to grievance, and organized around one man?

4. A Disruptor with Sobering Blind Spots

While I admired much of Maxsenti’s platform, some of his positions gave me pause.

He expressed admiration for RFK Jr. and frustration with the "uniparty," including both Democrats and establishment Republicans. He defended Trump’s disruptive style—arguing that it's strategic bluster designed to force negotiation.

"We’re at the demolition stage of our country. Trump is like a contractor tearing down drywall. It’s ugly, but maybe necessary."

That metaphor may resonate for those who see the system as irreparably corrupt. But for those of us who worry about creeping authoritarianism, selective law enforcement, and attacks on democratic norms, it sounds like rationalization.

When I pressed him on specific Trump-era policies—like border deportations that ignored court rulings, or tariffs that raised prices on consumers while missing strategic targets—he acknowledged problems but often pivoted to broader critiques of systemic decay.

In other words, the diagnosis was sharp, but the prescriptions sometimes felt vague or misaligned with reality.

5. The Promise of a Fulcrum Caucus

One of Maxsenti’s boldest visions is the idea of an independent congressional caucus.

"We don’t need 50 seats. We just need 5 people in the House who are independent of party leadership. That creates a fulcrum. No one can pass anything without us."

He’s working with others across the political spectrum—including Yang, Tulsi, Williamson, and others—to build this coalition.

Imagine if neither party could pass legislation without the support of a centrist, reform-minded, integrity-tested group. The implications for legislation, oversight, and compromise are enormous.

But it depends on winning. And on discipline. And on resisting the seduction of partisan perks and media attention once in office.

6. A Platform That Deserves Air

Maxsenti’s website outlines eight priorities, but the ones he highlighted most were:

* Citizens assemblies

* Balanced budget amendment

* Ending insider trading for members of Congress

* Zero-based budgeting

* Healthcare reform focused on chronic disease prevention (the "MAHA" agenda)

None of these are MAGA talking points. None of these are even front-burner issues for mainstream Republicans or Democrats.

And that’s exactly why they matter.

7. A Campaign Built on Sacrifice

Maxsenti’s personal story stuck with me. He sacrificed financial security to pursue reform. He went from a well-off businessman in Laguna Beach to driving Uber and renting in Irvine. He kept showing up at events. He helped others run for office. He stayed in the arena.

"My wife and I got a small inheritance. Instead of saving it, we decided to invest it in this campaign. We believe this is our calling."

It’s hard not to respect that. And in a political era dominated by opportunism and careerism, it’s refreshing to hear from someone who sees public service as a capstone, not a launchpad.

Final Thoughts: Should the Center-Left Root for Maxsenti?

If you believe in democracy, institutional reform, and ethical leadership, it’s hard not to root for someone like Michael Maxsenti.

But it’s also hard to ignore the risks.

Running as a Republican in 2025 carries baggage. You inherit a brand that has become synonymous with Trump, election denial, culture war dog whistles, and a disdain for democratic guardrails. Even if you don’t believe those things, you may be expected to vote with them.

That’s the tightrope Maxsenti is walking.

But here’s the thing: the only way to fix our politics is to get reformers into office. Whether they wear a blue, red, or purple jersey is secondary.

If Maxsenti stays true to his message, speaks uncomfortable truths, and helps form that independent fulcrum, he might just be one of the few candidates worth rooting for from either side of the aisle.

If you found this interview valuable, consider supporting my Nerds for Humanity livestream and Substack. Become a YouTube channel member to help cover production costs and get a shout-out on every stream.

And as always...

Bye nerds.

Hey nerds,

We haven’t done one of these deep dives in a while, but this one’s going to be worth the wait.

I recently unpacked an incredible dataset on my Nerds for Humanity livestream that helps explain, in stark and sometimes painful clarity, how and why the Republican Party beat the Democrats in 2024. This wasn’t just a fluke or a one-off; this was a structural unraveling of core Democratic coalitions—and we have the data to prove it.

If you're wondering how Trump, a twice-impeached, criminally indicted former president with negative favorables, could come back and win a general election… buckle up.

This is the data story the major networks won’t tell you. But I will—because that’s what we do on Nerds for Humanity.

Why We Lost: The Data is Devastating

Let’s start with this: the numbers were available. The insights were out there. But too many Democratic leaders refused to listen.

All of the charts I covered come from the Blue Rose Research Group, a Democratic-leaning analytics org led by David Shor. These aren’t MAGA polls or right-wing talking points—this is our data, and it paints a brutal picture.

Let’s start with a quote that stopped me in my tracks:

“Harris only got 58% of Hispanic moderates and just 67% of Asian moderates… Hillary got 81% of Hispanic moderates just eight years earlier.”

That’s a collapse, folks. There’s no other way to describe it. The Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging support among moderate Hispanics and Asians—two demographics that were once reliably blue. These aren’t tiny slivers of the electorate either. Combined, moderate Hispanic and Asian voters make up 9% of registered voters. That’s not niche. That’s decisive.

And if you’re thinking this was just a Harris problem, not a Biden problem, think again. Biden himself had already lost ground with these voters in 2020. The trend line goes back to Clinton ‘16. The bottom fell out in 2024.

A Coalition in Collapse

The Democratic Party has long relied on a patchwork coalition: people of color, young voters, urban professionals, and working-class moderates. But that quilt is unraveling.

Let’s take another sobering look at what’s happening with naturalized immigrants:

“Trump likely won naturalized citizen voters who were born outside the U.S… they swung from Biden +27 to Trump +1.”

If you’ve been telling yourself that Democrats are the party of immigrants, this stat should give you serious pause. Naturalized citizens make up 10% of the electorate—and Trump won them. Think about that. A guy who called Mexicans rapists and pushed Muslim bans won the immigrant vote.

What happened?

For many of these voters, especially those who came here legally through a structured process, the Democratic messaging around open borders and asylum chaos rang alarm bells. My own parents came to the U.S. on H-1 visas in the late 1960s. They’re legal immigrants who value law and order. They are not sold on the current Democratic approach to immigration.

The Republicans saw an opening and exploited it. Democrats, meanwhile, either assumed they had immigrant loyalty or were afraid to even talk about border enforcement.

Result? Trump wins the immigrant vote.

Gen Z Isn’t a Lock, Either

Let’s bust another myth: that young people are a guaranteed Democratic firewall. It’s not true anymore.

The data shows clearly:

“Young voters have become more Republican.”

Let me say that again. More Republican.

If you’re a 20-year-old white man in America, you are very unlikely to support the Democratic Party. For young men of color, it’s basically a coin flip. The only demographic under 25 that still solidly supports Democrats? Young women of color.

This is not sustainable. Not if you want to build a winning coalition.

We also saw a doubling of the gender gap in democratic support among under-25 voters. That’s a generational time bomb. The party is becoming increasingly reliant on a narrower and narrower base—and losing traction everywhere else.

We need to be real about this. You cannot build a durable national majority on the support of college-educated urbanites and young women of color alone. Not in this country.

The Disengaged Showed Up—for Trump

This next one floored me:

“Among voters who didn’t vote in 2020 but did in 2024, Trump was +14.”

Let that sink in. The folks who sat out 2020 and came off the bench in 2024? They weren’t inspired by the Democrats. They didn’t show up to protect democracy. They voted for Trump. In droves.

This demolishes the fantasy that the more we expand turnout, the better it is for Democrats. It turns out, the disengaged aren’t necessarily progressive idealists. A lot of them are politically cynical, angry at institutions, and drawn to chaos agents.

Which brings us to the most jarring insight of the dataset:

“Most voters agreed that what’s needed is a major change and a shock to the system.”

Fifty-three percent of Americans wanted a political earthquake. Not stability. Not a return to norms. Not even democracy protection. A wrecking ball.

Democrats tried to run on continuity and calm. Trump ran on disruption. Guess which one the voters wanted?

Kamala’s Image Problem

Let’s talk about Kamala Harris for a minute.

The numbers are ugly. According to the Blue Rose data:

“Biden had +6 favorability in 2020. Harris had -6 in 2024.”

That’s a 12-point swing.

Now, some of that is due to unrelenting right-wing attacks, and yes, likely some latent racism and sexism. But that can’t explain it all. The cold truth is that many voters—especially moderates—saw Harris as ideologically extreme.

“Voters saw Harris as more ideologically extreme than Trump.”

Think about that. Trump, who tried to overturn an election, whose administration was a firehose of far-right policy, was seen as closer to voters’ own views than Kamala Harris.

And you can’t blame all of this on Fox News. The Harris campaign failed to define her as a pragmatic leader. She didn’t establish credibility on issues that matter to swing voters—like the economy, immigration, or public safety. Her prosecutorial past alienated the left. Her perceived progressivism scared the center. It was a no-man’s-land candidacy.

The Economy Was Everything

The most lopsided data point in the entire report might be this one:

“Cost of living versus abortion: 79% said cost of living was more important.”

Now repeat that with every issue:

* Cost of living vs student debt: 94–6

* Cost of living vs race relations: 87–13

* Cost of living vs climate change: 83–17

* Cost of living vs border security: 54–46

Every time, the cost of living wins. Every. Time.

Democrats ran on abortion rights, student debt relief, climate action, and social justice. Voters wanted relief from inflation.

And worse: when asked which party they trust more on cost of living? Republicans won.

That’s a catastrophe. If you’re losing trust on the most important issue, you’re going to lose elections.

What’s Next: A New Center-Left Realignment?

So where do we go from here?

Three takeaways:

1. The Democratic Party is becoming a second-tier party.It’s bleeding moderates, struggling with young voters, losing naturalized immigrants, and falling out of touch with economic pain. The coalition that elected Obama twice is gone.

2. Trump isn’t popular—he just looks like the only alternative.Most Americans still disapprove of Trump. He didn’t win because he became more likable. He won because Democrats offered no compelling alternative.

3. There’s a path forward—but it requires a bold reset.We need a center-left revival. Think Midwest governors. Think economic populism without culture war baggage. Think real solutions on healthcare, education, wages, and immigration. Think pragmatic progressivism.

As I said on the stream:

“We can be a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That shouldn’t be some exclusive position of the Republican Party.”

The Democratic Party must stop running scared from the center. We need to own a vision for responsible reform. Medicare option for all. Higher minimum wage. Immigration reform with integrity. Fiscal sustainability.

Because if we don’t, the electora…

12 pieces of data that explain why.

Hello nerds,

It’s been a while since my last live stream, but this conversation was too important to pass up. I recently sat down with a political insider who goes by the handle Maine Wonk on Twitter. He’s an Obama-era campaign veteran turned policy analyst who, like many of us, has spent the past few years trying to make sense of the increasingly chaotic state of American politics.

We covered a lot of ground—from Trump’s governing style to Biden’s decision to run again, the future of the Democratic Party, and the historical parallels that suggest we may be on the cusp of another major political realignment. It was a sobering, insightful, and at times even hopeful discussion.

Let’s break it down.

Trump’s Chaos Doctrine: Governing as a Sales Pitch

Maine Wonk didn’t mince words when describing Trump’s leadership style. He called it what it is: a performance, not governance.

“All Trump wants is a virtual win. He doesn’t care about the quality of the deal. He just wants to get on TV and tell his base that he got one.”

This isn’t new. Trump has always approached politics like a business deal in which he can create an illusion of success, regardless of the actual impact on policy or the country. The tariffs fiasco is a prime example—he’ll declare a hardline stance one day, only to capitulate the next after a single phone call.

“It’s the worst negotiation tactic ever. He demands everything, freaks out the markets, and then backs down immediately, thinking nobody will notice.”

The problem? This volatility isn’t just a Trump quirk—it’s now the modus operandi of the Republican Party. They thrive on chaos, and they’ve become experts at weaponizing it.

Democrats Need to Stop Swinging at Every Pitch

One of the most interesting takeaways from our conversation was the idea that Democrats need to stop reacting to Trump’s every move.

“Hakeem Jeffries said it best—don’t swing at every pitch. Trump’s entire playbook is to flood the zone with nonsense so no one can focus on any one scandal or failure for too long.”

In other words, Democrats shouldn’t waste energy chasing every inflammatory tweet or ridiculous claim. Instead, they should let Republicans bear the burden of governing—and watch as their own base turns on them.

“The first time since 1928 that one party has controlled the White House, Senate, House, Supreme Court, governorships, and state legislatures. You know what happened after that? Hoover. And then FDR.”

History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. The last time the GOP held this much power, they tanked the economy with protectionist policies and isolationism. Two years later, Democrats swept into power, and FDR reshaped American politics for a generation.

Biden’s Biggest Mistake: Not Being a Bridge President

Maine Wonk had some sharp criticism for Biden’s decision to seek re-election.

“If he had announced in 2020 that he was only going to serve one term, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We could have had a wide-open primary, given the party a chance to reset, and built a stronger bench.”

Instead, Democrats were left scrambling in 2024, which left voters uninspired and allowed Trump to waltz back into the White House. Worse, it created a situation where Kamala Harris—who had little opportunity to define her own vision—was forced into an impossible position.

“Kamala had 100 days. Trump had four years to prepare. That’s the difference.”

The Democratic Bench: Who’s Next?

While some despair about the lack of strong Democratic candidates, Maine Wonk is optimistic. He sees potential in several rising stars:

* Andy Beshear (Kentucky) – A Democrat who won in deep red territory.

* Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan) – A proven leader who knows how to win swing states.

* Pete Buttigieg – A master communicator with deep policy knowledge.

* Wes Moore (Maryland) – A fresh face with a compelling personal story.

But the biggest wildcard? Someone we’re not talking about yet.

“Nobody saw Barack Obama coming in 2007. Someone will emerge. They always do.”

The Future of the Democratic Party: Stop the Navel-Gazing

One of the most blunt moments of our conversation came when discussing the Democratic Party’s messaging problem.

“We need to stop obsessing over identity politics. Not because those issues don’t matter, but because they’re not the foundation of a winning coalition.”

Instead, he argued, Democrats need to refocus on economic populism, government efficiency, and national security. Ironically, these are areas where they already hold the high ground—but they often fail to communicate it effectively.

“Democrats are now the party of the military and democracy. Republicans are the party of Putin. Think about that shift.”

Predictions for 2026: The House Flips Blue

Despite the bleakness of the moment, Maine Wonk believes the midterms will be a reckoning for the GOP.

“Republicans own every part of the government right now. They can’t blame Biden anymore. The economy will be worse, wages will be down, inflation will be up—and they’ll have to run on that record.”

If Democrats play their cards right, they will take back the House in 2026, setting the stage for a major comeback in 2028.

Final Thoughts: Focus on What Matters

To wrap up, here’s what I’ll leave you with:

* Ignore the noise. Judge Trump on his actual results, not his tweets. Is the economy better? Is the deficit down? Are wages up? That’s what matters.

* Democrats need to embrace smart, competent governance. No more over-intellectualizing. No more purity tests. Solve problems. Get things done.

* Watch Pete Buttigieg. Call it a hunch, but I think he’s going places.

If you found this discussion valuable, consider supporting my work by becoming a YouTube channel member. It helps cover operating costs, and you’ll get a shoutout on every livestream.

Thanks for reading.

Bye nerds.

Welcome, Nerds!The 2028 election may feel far away, but as we saw in the last few election cycles, early conversations can shape the narrative for candidates long before ballots are cast. In this latest Nerds for Humanity livestream, we analyzed the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination and explored how they stack up on policy, electability, and appeal to voters.

Using video clips, discussion, and a live rank-choice voting poll, we created a snapshot of the Democratic bench and imagined how they might fare on the national stage.

The Format

The livestream aimed to create an engaging, interactive environment where viewers could rank candidates in real-time, with results reshuffled across rounds of rank-choice voting.

We examined eight prominent candidates:

* Gavin Newsom

* Josh Shapiro

* Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)

* Pete Buttigieg

* Wes Moore

* Kamala Harris

* Gretchen Whitmer

* Rohit (Ro) Khanna

We also briefly considered some honorable mentions, including Katie Porter. Below, we summarize the discussion around each candidate and reveal the rank-choice voting results.

The Candidates: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Highlights

1. Gavin Newsom

The charismatic governor of California took center stage early in the discussion.

* Strengths: Newsom boasts a progressive track record on climate, minimum wage, and public health, making him an attractive candidate for left-leaning voters. His photogenic, camera-ready presence and ability to speak with authority add to his appeal.

* Weaknesses: Critics see him as "too slick" and polarizing, especially when it comes to homelessness and wildfires in California. His handling of crises in the largest U.S. state is sure to be heavily scrutinized.

2. Josh Shapiro

Often dubbed the "White Obama," Pennsylvania's governor earned high marks for his bridge-building efforts (literally and figuratively).

* Strengths: Shapiro’s moderate stance and ability to appeal to suburban voters in battleground states make him a strong contender for the general election. His oratory skills also stood out in video clips, showcasing his ability to connect with audiences.

* Weaknesses: While popular in Pennsylvania, his national name recognition is still limited. His pro-Israel stance could create friction with progressive voters concerned about U.S. foreign policy.

3. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)

A darling of the progressive wing, AOC brought her grassroots energy and social media prowess to the table.

* Strengths: As a younger candidate with a significant online following, AOC can energize young voters and the progressive base. Her confidence and communication skills were evident in her interviews.

* Weaknesses: Critics noted that her fiery rhetoric might alienate moderate voters in a general election. Some viewers preferred her conversational podcast tone over her louder, rally-style speeches.

4. Pete Buttigieg

The former South Bend mayor and current Secretary of Transportation was a favorite among many livestream participants.

* Strengths: Pete’s intelligence (Rhodes Scholar), military background, and effectiveness as a communicator shone through in clips of him taking on Fox News hosts and delivering powerful speeches.

* Weaknesses: Concerns remain about whether America is ready for an openly gay president. Additionally, his time as Secretary of Transportation has not been without controversy, with critics questioning his effectiveness during crises like the supply chain debacle.

5. Wes Moore

The newly elected governor of Maryland is a rising star.

* Strengths: Moore’s inspirational life story, veteran background, and success in a key state make him an intriguing candidate. His ability to communicate optimism and vision could set him apart.

* Weaknesses: Limited national recognition and experience at the executive level compared to other contenders.

6. Kamala Harris

As the sitting vice president, Harris naturally made the list.

* Strengths: Her historical significance as the first woman and person of color to serve as vice president remains a major asset. She also brings a blend of moderate and progressive appeal.

* Weaknesses: Her lackluster performance in the 2020 primaries and low favorability ratings make her a divisive figure within the party.

7. Gretchen Whitmer

Michigan’s governor emerged as a dark horse favorite in the livestream.

* Strengths: Whitmer’s leadership in a critical swing state, her ability to address key infrastructure issues ("fix the damn roads"), and her steady demeanor during crises like COVID-19 earned her praise. She projects strength without polarizing energy.

* Weaknesses: While compelling, some worry her Midwestern appeal might not translate as effectively on the national stage.

8. Ro Khanna

The congressman from California was a late addition to the livestream lineup.

* Strengths: Known for his progressive stances and focus on the future of American industry, Khanna demonstrated his policy chops in both interviews and speeches.

* Weaknesses: Khanna’s limited executive experience and low name recognition outside of California could be significant hurdles.

Rank-Choice Voting: The Results

The most exciting part of the livestream was revealing the results of the rank-choice voting, where viewers ranked their preferred candidates.

Initial Round Results

* AOC led the first round with significant support from progressives.

* Whitmer, Buttigieg, and Shapiro rounded out the top four.

* Lower-ranked candidates, including Harris and Moore, were eliminated early, redistributing their votes to remaining contenders.

Final Rounds

As votes were redistributed, a fascinating dynamic emerged:

* Whitmer gained substantial support from Buttigieg and Shapiro voters, propelling her to victory in the final round.

* AOC’s early lead dwindled as she failed to pick up significant support from eliminated candidates’ voters.

Winner: Gretchen Whitmer emerged as the consensus choice for the 2028 Democratic nominee.

Key Takeaways

* Diverse Bench Strength: The Democratic Party has an impressive lineup of candidates with unique backgrounds, skills, and appeal.

* The Power of Rank-Choice Voting: This format highlighted how second and third preferences matter, ultimately producing a nominee with broad support.

* Whitmer’s Rising Star: The Michigan governor’s combination of executive experience and relatability resonated with a majority of participants.

Final ThoughtsWhile it’s impossible to predict how the 2028 race will unfold, this livestream demonstrated the value of early discussions and voter engagement. Gretchen Whitmer may have won our rank-choice experiment, but other candidates like Buttigieg, Shapiro, and even AOC bring their own unique strengths to the table.

Stay tuned for more deep dives into politics, policy, and beyond on Nerds for Humanity!

What do you think? Who should the Democratic Party rally behind in 2028? Vote on my RCV ballot and see the latest results here: https://app.rankedvote.co/rv/hgat5trpry84suzthc/vote

Exploring Top Contenders for the Next Democratic Presidential Candidate with Live Rank-Choice Voting Insights. oin Nerds for Humanity in a dynamic livestream analyzing potential Democratic nominees for the 2028 presidential race. From Gavin Newsom's record on climate to Pete Buttigieg's sharp debate skills, Gretchen Whitmer's leadership, and AOC's grassroots energy, we delve into their strengths and challenges. Participate in our rank-choice voting to help shape the conversation and see who comes out on top. Don't miss this engaging discussion packed with video clips, analysis, and interactive fun! Cast your own vote here: https://app.rankedvote.co/rv/hgat5trpry84suzthc/vote

Full audio of all the Democratic Party Senators cross examining President Elect Trump's nominee for the Secretary of Defense.