Politix

WOW that was good. We need a cigarette.

Democrats won a historic realignment landslide on Tuesday, possibly the biggest many of us will see in our lifetimes.The dust is still settling, so there aren’t too many things to be conclusive about, but we do know enough to discuss:

* How our predictions held up;

* How various candidates performed relative to the party overall;

* How a huge victory might lower the temperature in the Democratic factional war.

Then, almost by definition, once-in-a-lifetime realignment elections are not driven by gas prices. This was a repudiation of Trump and the political world he’s brought into existence. So what can Democrats do to start dismantling the MAGAstocracy, starting now? Why are Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer already downplaying backward looking accountability? Do they not think this runs deeper than slightly above-trend inflation? What would it look like if they took the hue and cry for accountability seriously? And what can we (in the takes game, and in the broader public) do to make them change their approach?

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. The first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian argues Dems are already reading their mandate too narrowly.

* Matt’s 17 thoughts on an epic repudiation of Donald Trump.

* Brian thinks we, as citizens, can begin the work of democracy reconstruction today, but we’ll need the pro-democracy movement to drag the Democratic leadership along.

* Matt on the way forward, including a call for moderates to run political risks for accountability.

Haha, made you look!

The wave is still on, the only real question: will it be big enough to deliver Dems a John Fetterman-proof Senate majority.

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Whether any nagging doubt are harshing otherwise good vibes;

* Is the right heuristic here the history and circumstances of past wave elections, or the tea leaves of this election?

* Why the hard shift in public opinion against Trump and Trumpism is real, even if Republicans manage to cheat and spend their way to holding the closest battlegrounds.

Then, predictions!

How many seats will Democrats win in the House? The Senate? How many new state trifectas will they win? Will they complete the unfinished business of mid-Census gerrymandering next year? Will they embargo Trump’s judicial nominees? What unlikely scenarios are we eyeing? What dirty tricks will Trump pull? And what bellwethers will we anticipating as polls close?

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. Only the first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian argues Dems should call out Trump and his cheating oligarchs for all their cheating now in case the cheating helps Republican hold crucial seats.

* Halina Bennet on the state of the race.

* The Split Ticket model.

It’s really hard to upset the dynamics of an election this late in the game; but Donald Trump and the corrupt forces that fear accountability are desperate and very powerful.

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The Trump-Vladimir Putin-Elon Musk troika making moves before the voters weigh in;

* TikTok and Meta meddling in political discourse and organizing before the voters weigh in;

* Republicans trying to discredit the concept of oversight, and smear Elissa Slotkin, before the voters weigh in.

Then, why have the narrative stakes of the Michigan Senate race become so freighted? Abdul el-Sayed is on track to win, and everyone is extremely invested in telling a story about why this is or isn’t a huge deal. Does AOC really mean it when she says that if el-Sayed can win in Michigan, progressives can play anywhere? Why don’t progressives simply argue that every state and district should aim to nominate the most progressive viable candidate in the field? Also, what happens if Angie Nixon turns out to be the best progressive overperformer on the Democratic ticket? Brian and Matt offer complementary theories on what’s driving the thunderdome politics of Democratic factional infighting.

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. Only the first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Matt takes an optimistic look at the Senate Democrats on the frontline.

* Brian defends Senator Elissa Slotkin for donning the mantle of accountability, against all the scumbags lying about her.

* Brian argues progressives have applied the wrong litmus tests to their recruits, if their goal is to set the table for transformative policy change in the future.

Polls still look good for Democrats. They’re on the offensive in debates, and their opponents have no good answers. Sucks to be them!

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Is the picture for Democrats getting rosier, or have they plateaued?

* Should Democrats be trying to expand the map, by moving money into Florida and other reach states, or is their risk-averse approach the right one?

* What fits the facts better: Quiet Trump support, going undetected in survey data, or Trump fatigue, even among three-time Trump voters?

* Is dominance a method of persuasion in and of itself?

Then, candy: Republican desperation takes many forms. One form is the orchestrated Republican smear campaign against James Talarico, which disintegrated instantly. Another is Trump’s repeated, unpopular attempt to bribe voters with $5,000—so long as they elect Republicans. A third is Trump’s desperate capitulation to Vladimir Putin, and his offer of a pittance of diesel fuel. A fourth is the Homeland Security raid on Ilhan Omar’s DC home. A fifth is the promise of a livestreamed firing-squad execution. What’s behind all these stories? What do they have to do with one another? And how should Democrats respond?

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. Only the first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian on the unlikely, hopium-poisoned case for the fever finally breaking.

* Matt on the dream of blue Texas.

* Will Sommer and Andrew Egger debunk the Talarcio smear artists.

Former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert died this week, and it’s almost like he never molested a bunch of children then got busted for buying their silence.

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The told and untold story of Denny Hastert;

* Did Democrats agree to sweep it all under the rug because they had fond professional memories of Hastert, specifically? Or is this part of a broader asymmetry?

* How does it all portend for the post-election and post-Trump worlds, when Democrats will probably have to be quite partisan, if they mean to revive liberal democracy in America.

Then, what’s the deal with the bipartisan permitting bill that Sheldon Whitehouse helped spearhead in the Senate? Why are environmental organizations split on it? Why do Republicans support it? How many of them are unexposed sexual predators? And what’s the best case, if there is one, for Democrats to walk away from this deal?

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. Only the first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Matt’s case for the permitting deal.

* Brian huffs hopium, and then buzzkills with a does of realism.

* Reflections from the Mark Foley scandal and the end of the Hastert speakership.

Can Republicans really run against Mary Peltola being interpersonally mean? Or Troy Jackson enjoying something effeminate like i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶i̶o̶r̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶o̶r̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ drinking bubble tea?

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The Mary Peltola bad boss scandal;

* Why are Democratic operatives seemingly trying to tank her campaign? Could there be more too it than hard feelings and ideological litmus testing?

* What’s really going on in Maine?

Then, what would it look like for Democrats to successfully check Donald Trump next year, to where Democrats could credibly contend to have met the moment, notwithstanding the constraints of divided government. Do they need to be prepared to hold the line through lengthy government shutdowns? If not, how will they meet campaign promises to end the Iran war, and hold him accountable for the kinds of things Republicans have let him get away with?

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. Only the first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian on what could be a lame-duck session from hell.

* Matt on why staffers should suck it up and feed the lizard.

* The trailer Elon Musk doesn’t want you to see…

It’s getting so bad out there for Republicans that some of them are even pretending to oppose war and corruption! So naturally moderate Democrats are endorsing Republicans, and one of them might switch parties!

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The nature and extent of Republican peril;

* Whether Democrats are optimally capitalizing on Republican weakness and Donald Trump’s toxically unpopular agenda;

* Is the Democratic Party too solicitous of frontline members, or not solicitous enough?

Then, thanks to Matt’s dying laptop battery and lack of charger, a packed overview of the sudden controversy surrounding effective altruism. What is E.A.? Why is it weird? Why is it suddenly at the epicenter of political debates over whether and how to regulate artificial intelligence? And, quite apart from efforts to scapegoat them, is it a good idea to put people who have immense faith in the power to optimize systems in charge of a technology that leaves no room for error?

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. Only the first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Matt on whether there’s reason to doubt the blue wave forecast.

* Brian’s 30 thoughts on the (valid) A.I. freakout.

* Carolyn Fiddler runs the math on how many statehouse seats Democrats need to win to build new trifectas. (Spoiler: 22 seats to win five trifectas.)

* Jared Golden endorses Mike Lawler. (🖕)

* Joe Manchin endorses Susan Collins. (🖕)

Hours after last week’s politics was in the can, all hell broke loose in the world of A.I. development.

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* What’s happened over the past week, and where does it leave us?

* Are we anywhere close to a place where we can learn to stop worrying and love A.I.?

* What can A.I. safety really look like with Donald Trump and his rich V.C. buddies in charge, and how should Democrats navigate the politics?

Then, the same deliberativeness that makes Dems slow to embrace the cause of A.I. safety makes them hard pressed to think outside the box ahead of elections. Fortunately, the world Donald Trump built seems to be collapsing on him. Between leaks and adverse Supreme Court rulings, will he be able to alter the trajectory of the election before November? Is he now purely at the mercy of forces he unleashed (in the Middle East, Canada, and elsewhere)? Should Democrats fly an airplane into the border wall?

Answers are available in full to paid subscribers. Only the first half’s available to freeloaders and viewers on YouTube. Upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian goes full-Bernie on frontier A.I. research.

* Matt’s somewhat more restrained plan to save the world from runaway A.I.

* Lina Khan’s interim measures, already on the books, that could discipline A.I. companies before they build killer robots.

* Brian also thinks Talaricomentum is real, and not an artifact of “shy” Ken Paxton voters.

It’s Trumpapalooza; it’s the Charlie Kirkaversary; it’s been 25 years since 9/11. And that has everyone asking: Have Democrats sufficiently denounced antisemitism?

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Donald Trump’s seemingly deteriorating mental state;

* The political valence of antisemitism vs. Islamophobia;

* Why institutional opponents of antisemitism don’t hold Republicans to any standard.

Then, should there be a moratorium on artificial intelligence development? The nature of the risks suggest yes, but the logistical and political challenges seem insurmountable. But, then, shouldn’t A.I. developers be taking a firmer stand? Why do they make dire warnings about A.I. risk out of one side of their mouth, but then devote all of their political efforts to attacking candidates who support A.I. regulation. Will there be a grand settlement before something terrible happens? Or will catastrophe be what spurs action, and we just have to hope it doesn’t come too late?

Answers are available in full to listeners and viewers on YouTube. Check out our new channel, or upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Matt on the known unknowns about data centers.

* Brian goes insane.

* Jacob Pachoki—chief scientist at Open AI, whose president funds the big A.I. Super PAC—on A.I. risk.

Donald Trump says everyone should start learn to stop worrying and love data centers. Democrats say, “hey, thanks!”

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Why is Donald Trump clinging so hard to the wrong side of a 25-75 issue?

* Is free-floating data-center hatred a good thing, or is the public making a mistake?

* What’s the right line for Democrats ahead of the election—and in the new Congress?

Then, Hakeem Jeffries hinted this week that Democrats would run on a simple agenda: End Trump’s Iran war; end his trade wars; end his war on people’s pocketbooks. But he has not provided similar specificity about the Democratic oversight agenda. Are Democrats going to repeat the mistakes of 2019 and 2020, when they were too eager to work with Trump substantively, and too reluctant to check and expose him? Is the spirit of Resistance One really dead, or are Democratic voters mostly just frustrated by the lack of follow through.

Answers are available in full to listeners and viewers on YouTube. Check out our new channel, or upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian argues that Democrats will regret it if they think their voters no longer want them to wage “resistance” style politics.

* Matt argues Democrats should promise to surrender to Canada in the trade war.

* David Wallace-Wells on what the data-center backlash is really about.