Politix

This week, Matt and Brian survey the news periphery for various black swans and Chekhov’s guns that might change the trajectory of the race. They discuss:

* How Kamala Harris’s joy-themed campaign might affect economic sentiment, and whether the economy itself is at risk of contraction;

* Donald Trump’s coverup of a $10 million bribe (or attempted bribe) dangled during the 2016 campaign by the Egyptian government;

* The campaign press corps’ increasing impatience with Harris over press access.

Then, behind the paywall, a deep dive into the apparent hack and theft of Trump campaign emails, and why the news outlets that have obtained them have so far not published any stories about their contents. Is the political media establishing a new set of rules meant to benefit Donald Trump? Will these emails eventually appear online, unfiltered, just as Clinton campaign emails did eight years ago? Can mainstream outlets quietly decide to show restraint over Trump emails, without bothering to explain to the public why their standards changed and what they got wrong in 2016?

All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian on what the New York Times and other outlets that drove the EMAILS frenzy in 2016 owe their readers now.

* Matt on whether Harris should talk to the press, and how the press can do a better job with their access.

* Brian on why Joe Biden should declassify the government’s Trump files.

This week, Matt and Brian offer near-instant reaction to the news that Kamala Harris has nominated Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the vice presidency. They discuss:

* The pros and cons of this decision;

* The factors that likely persuaded Harris to select Walz rather than a swing-state or red-state governor;

* How adding Walz to the ticket might shape the race and the future of the Democratic Party.

Then, behind the paywall, Politix looks at the veepstakes in a wider context of developments that might shape affect the outcome of the election. Will anything about this decision really matter if economic headwinds weaken the U.S. economy over the next three months? Is it more or less significant to domestic politics than a potential regional conflict in the Middle East? If it’s ultimately insignificant to politics, why did people factionalize around various vice-presidential contenders?

All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian’s 24 thoughts on the Harris veepstakes.

* Matt on the politics of weirdness.

* Walz’s interview with Ezra Klein.

This week, Matt and Brian delve into the new discourse, ignited by vice-presidential shortlister Tim Walz, about the inherent weirdness of MAGA leaders.

* What do Democrats mean when they say Republicans like Donald Trump and JD Vance are “weird”?

* How normal are Democrats, actually?

* Having drawn this line, can Democrats now concede anything to “weird” Republicans as they appeal to swing voters?

Then, behind the paywall, a wide-ranging discussion about whether this salvo, which has put Republicans back on their heels, entitles Walz to special consideration as Kamala Harris considers her running mate. Would Walz’s gruff, non-nonsense vibe more effectively balance the ticket than other, more moderate contenders? Does he offer lasting coalition unity, or just a bandaid on factional rifts that are bound to burst back open? Do data-rooted, Pennsylvania-centric considerations dwarf hazier ideas about which ticket makes the best avatar for the Democratic Party?

All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Greg Sargent on how the politics of immigration don’t all work to Republicans’ advantage.

* Brian on the downward (and likely very weird) spiral Republicans will enter if Harris claims a meaningful lead.

* Matt on how Harris can and should position herself as more moderate than Biden.

This week, Matt and Brian discuss the Democrats brand new presumptive presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, and how she might end up on top after the dust from this shakeup settles.

* What can and should Harris do to broaden her appeal relative to Joe Biden, given that she’s both inheriting his campaign and is viewed to be more left wing than he is.

* Can she maintain renewed youth and non-white voter enthusiasm and disarm skeptical swing voters simultaneously?

* Are Democrats ready for coming Republican attacks on Harris—the ones that might actually do some damage?

Then, a whole lot more behind the paywall. Is the lesson of Hillary Clinton and now Joe Biden that the Republican smear machine has grown so big and unchallenged that it can make any leading Democrat politically unviable in a short amount of time? What kinds of structural changes to the progressive firmament might help Democrats weather these attacks and land agenda-setting attacks of their own? How can any Democrat succeed in this environment if Democrats do’t change anything?

All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian wonders whether we’ve entered a new period where Democrats will have to get used to their presidents serving a single term, during which they'll be cannon fodder in right-wing dominated media.

* Matt’s 17 thoughts on the newly transformed race.

* Ron Brownstein on whether Harris’s coalition will look more like Biden’s, Barack Obama’s, or somewhere in between.

After weeks of internal recriminations over the Democratic Party’s crisis of confidence in Joe Biden’s ability to mount a winning campaign against Donald Trump Biden announced that he will not accept the Democratic nomination for president. In short order, he announced his endorsement of Kamala Harris, making her the runaway favorite to top the Democratic ticket.

In this emergency episode, Brian and Matt discuss:

* Whether a contested convention would do more harm than good, even if it resulted in the nomination of a more popular ticket.

* Why progressive stalwarts like Bernie Sanders and AOC stuck by Biden to the end.

* Who would make the Harris’s best running mate?

* How Harris should parry against inevitable sexist and racist attacks from the right.

It’s a brand new election! This episode is free to all, but if you’re interested in our follow on coverage and in accessing our full archive, we hope you’ll consider upgrading your subscription.

This week, Matt and Brian assess a shocking week in politics.

* Are we really going to move on from the Trump shooting attempt if it turns out, as seems possible, that the shooter was an accelerationist right-wing fanatic?

* Will Democratic leaders use the attempted shooting as an offramp from their efforts to find a stronger presidential candidate?

* Does Nancy Pelosi still have the clout and skill to help get Joe Biden to think beyond his ego?

Then, behind the paywall—a whole bunch more. Does Pelosi’s emergence as the leader of the Dems’ replace-Biden effort make Brian reconsider his long misgivings about Pelosi’s leadership? Does Biden’s political failures make Matt reconsider his assessment of Biden’s political instinct and the wisdom of the centrist establishment? How was the public more clear eyed about Joe Biden’s limitations than liberal elites? Also, what’s the significance of JD Vance’s rise and potential vice presidency?

All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Pelosi lieutenant Adam Schiff: “I think if [Biden] is our nominee, I think we lose. And we may very, very well lose the Senate and lose our chance to take back the House.”

* Brian takes stock, after three disorienting week, of the bleak new political landscape.

* Matt on how we (including Joe Biden and current Democratic leaders) have more agency to shape future events than we’re comfortable with.

This week, Matt and Brian assess the downward spiral of the Biden campaign and look for signs that Democrats won’t just give up on the race.

* Has Biden really ruled out suspending his campaign, or is he just being pragmatic: 100 percent in until he’s 100 percent out?

* Are the influential Democrats who’ve rallied to Biden’s side speaking definitively, or have they left themselves enough wiggle room to revisit the question in the days ahead, after this week’s NATO summit?

* Is Biden world deluding itself with bad arguments and data analysis, or his advisers just vying for time while they evaluate their options?

Then, behind the paywall, we look at recent historical evidence suggesting Dems, and an alternate presidential candidate, would get a bounce simply by heeding public opinion and swapping Biden out for someone younger and in control of their rhetorical faculties. Are public impressions of Kamala Harris that formed five years ago really frozen in place? Would she be able to hold the anti-Trump coalition together better than Biden simply by dint of being able to attack, defend, and inspire extemporaneously? Could Democrats organize a hero’s exit for Biden appealing enough to tempt him off the path to world historical disgrace?

All that, plus the full Politix archive and Thursday’s live chat are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian on how coffee-table historians might suddenly be the most influential people in America.

* Matt: “I was wrong about Joe Biden.”

* James Fallows writes the remarks Biden should deliver.

Just days after the first presidential debate, which has plunged Democrats into a crisis of confidence, the Supreme Court has intervened to declare that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for any actions they take with their exclusive and plenary powers, and even presumptive immunity for their other official acts.

We’d viewed this case mainly with an eye to its impact on the criminal prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election. But that’s only because we (like most people) imagined the Supreme Court might delay the trial without radically altering the balance of power between the branches. They instead went much, much further.

With Matt on vacation, Brian welcomes former Solicitor General Don Verrilli as this week’s special guest. Brian and Don discuss:

* How the court’s ruling creates two sets of rules: One for law-abiding presidents and one for Donald Trump and his imitators;

* Whether and how Joe Biden can use this new ruling for good;

* What if anything Congress can do about it short of amending the constitution or packing the Supreme Court.

If you aren’t yet a paid subscriber to Politix, you can listen to the whole conversation by upgrading to a paid subscription.

Folks, it did not go well. Joe Biden definitively lost the first of two scheduled presidential debates against Donald Trump. Worse, he did so in a way that will inevitably rekindle questions about his candidacy, and not just from bloggers and columnists, but likely from some of the most influential Democrats in America.

In this free post-debate episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Who swapped out Biden’s PEDs for sugar pill?

* Is there anything Biden, his campaign, the White House, and leading Democrats can do to steady the ship, given the magnitude of the fuck up?

* What would the process of convincing Biden to end his campaign out of patriotic duty look like in practice.

* Would he necessarily have to hand the baton to Kamala Harris, or would he be able to anoint an entirely new ticket.

If you’re new to Politix, welcome! We hope you’ll continue to listen, and consider upgrading to a paid subscription.

Special announcement from Matt and Brian: We will be hosting a live chat during Thursday night’s debate for paid Politix subscribers. If you’d like to ride shotgun with us, or need moral support to get through the event, be on the lookout for an email invitation to joint the chat just as the debate begins at 9 p.m. ET Thursday.

In that spirit, for this week’s regular episode, Matt and Brian rattled off a few debate predictions—listen for those and see how well they hold up. But mostly this is an episode about the incoherence and opportunism of the Trump/MAGA foreign policy vision.

* Is there any way to make sense of Trump’s biggest global affairs interventions?

* To what extent has Biden been reaping the consequences of Trump’s bluster and blunders?

* What do people like J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, Robert O’Brien, et al—people who want to ride Trump’s coattails—think they’re getting out of Trump’s foreign policy of self-aggrandizement and predation?

Then, behind the paywall, a longer discussion about how the nature of Trump’s foreign-policy corruption makes the world more ungovernable, even when he’s out of power. To what extent have foreign autocrats made decisions about war and trade and diplomacy with an eye toward helping Trump return to power? Is it even possible for the world to run through official channels when the leader of a major U.S. political party has a shadow cabinet trotting the globe soliciting favors and bribes? And are there signs that Trump’s autocratic partners around the world have grown wary of the risk of using Trump to advance their interests and degrade democracy?

All that, plus the full Politix archive and Thursday’s live chat are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Ross Douthat’s interview with J.D. Vance.

* Brian on why right-wing leaders around might be more tempted to engage in foreign mischief when the U.S. president is a liberal Democrat rather than a Republican kleptocrat.

* Matt on the foreign policy bombs Trump set.

* Trump-loyalist Robert O’Brien admits his and Trump’s China policy failed.