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.

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.

This week, Matt and Brian take a wide-angle view of new data showing inflation and violent crime way down:

* Why is good economic news so tricky for Joe Biden to capitalize on?

* How can Biden remind voters that Trump handed him a depressed economy with broken supply chains, and that Biden fixed both unemployment and inflation?

* Is it fair to tag Trump with the 2020 economic collapse and crime surge?

Then, behind the paywall, we home in specifically on the crime issue, where the case that Biden saved the country from Trump’s failures is strongest: Why did murders explode in 2020? To what extent is Trump to blame for fomenting criminal activity or for discouraging fair, legitimate policing? How did Biden manage to get a handle on both sides of that equation so quickly? 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:

* Research suggests accountable police do better policing, while police facing public blowback do worse policing.

* The best data we have shows violent crime collapsing under Biden.

* This strong new Biden campaign ad could provide a template for running against Trump’s other liabilities.

* Matt reminds the forgetful that Trump’s presidency was really bad.

* Brian argues Biden should simply assert he beat Trumpflation and the Trump crime wave.

This week, Matt and Brian discuss the flood of support Donald Trump has seen from shady rich guys since his felony convictions two weeks ago:

* Why do the owners and executives of big firms feel insulated from consequences for supporting a convicted white-collar felon who tried to overthrow the government?

* Do they actually stand to gain anything from a corrupt, inflationary Trump presidency?

* Can Joe Biden use their support for Trump as a wedge to win back more blue-collar voters?

Then, behind the paywall, we try to assess what’s driving this trend: To what extent are tech and finance bros actually red-pilled, versus just cynically advancing their shared desire for tax cuts? Have they even considered the ways Trump 2.0 would weaken U.S. business, or that they might not actually be able to call in any favors with him? And what, if anything, should Biden do to clarify the stakes for both the billionaires, and the working-class Americans who stand to lose if Trump returns to power. 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:

* Politico on how billionaires learned to stop worrying and love Trump.

* Reid Hoffman on how empowering a criminal would be bad for business.

* Ryan Grim’s book We Got People on the fight between pro-worker populism, which enjoys large organic support, and moneyed interests, which do not—a dichotomy that may be crumbling.

* Brian on why these business elites are so dumb!

This week, Matt and Brian discuss the solidifying Democratic response to Donald Trump’s felony convictions, and scratch their heads a bit:

* Why are Democrats demurring when the facts are the ground are so advantageous to them?

* How consistent is this with the party’s past practice of shrugging off Trump-accountability moments?

* What if any role should data play in these kinds of rapid response moments, when Trump’s widespread unpopularity is so consistent?

Then, behind the paywall, we break down the forces within the party that cut against a unified, vigorous response: Does taking it easy on Trump really help swing-state and swing-district Democrats? How do Democratic congressional leaders actually conceive of their jobs? Would progressive leaders rather talk about Trump’s status as a felony convict and rapist, or about their policy agendas? Plus, what do Matt and Brian think a savvy response to the convictions look like? 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 various tactics and strategies Democrats could deploy to keep reminders of Trump’s convictions above the fold.

* Josh Marshall with an important reminder to Dems and the media not to let the GOP’s affected aggression in the wake of the verdict mind trick them into allowing Republicans to set the terms of the discourse.

* A New York Times focus group suggests getting convicted of 34 felonies is not, in fact, good news for a presidential candidate.

SPECIAL EDITION: A New York jury declared Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts he faced, finding that he forged business records to cover up his illegal conduct in the 2016 election.

Matt and Brian:

* Review the case and the law and the controversy around it;

* Discuss the relevance of the news—particularly to new voters who may have been too young to hear the Access Hollywood tape, or know that Trump paid hush money to a porn star;

* Air out the many ways Democrats might and should talk about Trump’s new status as a felon, and the conduct he committed to earn that distinction.

Then, behind the paywall, we review official reaction to the verdict in “real time,” discuss how this might snowball into greater interest in the trial Trump has successfully managed to delay, and examine the nexus of the hush-money case to his abortion bans, and his work to eliminate reproductive rights nationwide.

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 why Alvin Bragg’s prosecution was righteous from the outset.

* Former Manhattan prosecutor Rebecca Roiphe explained to Politix listeners why Bragg’s liberal critics were wrong.

* Brian on why President Biden should lift his vow of silence and begin making political hay of Trump’s criminal exposure.

This week, with so many American liberals and leaders abroad worrying about what a second Trump term will mean for them, Matt and Brian examine the many political differences between fear and fearlessness. For instance:

* If Trump’s threats have become more literal and less figurative, how can liberals most effectively oppose him without sounding like panicky wimps?

* Have Trump-curious business elites taken leave of their senses, or do they really think Trump can’t possibly harm American capitalism more than huge corporate tax cuts will “help”?

* Do progressives agree that Trump is an existential threat to democracy? And if so, are they receptive to muscular “bring it on” politics, or are crisis and doom the only appeals that speak to them.

Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt take a look at global and domestic developments—from the Mexican election to diplomacy in the Middle East and the zombie border bill in Congress—to assess how actors with everything on the line are changing their behavior and contingency planning for a second Trump term. If they’re freaking out, why shouldn’t we be? If the situation is so dire, shouldn’t Biden entertain more drastic measures? Can U.S. leaders be simultaneously clear eyed in planning for the worst and resolute (rather than cowering) in their resistance?

Answers to all those questions, 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:

* Matt, on how Trump’s scams will only get worse in a second term.

* Brian on why progressive activists should lay off murder-suicide threats as “leverage.”

* Greg Sargent on the Trump movement’s many sadistic fantasies.

* Jamelle Bouie on the people (immigrants) who will bear the brunt of this sadism.

This week, Matt and Brian explore the revelation that Justice Samuel Alito flew a Stop the Steal flag over his house in the days after January 6 as a window into broader differences between the right and left. For instance:

* Why are Republican-appointed judges so often former Republican operatives, while Democratic-appointed judges hail from Big Law or academia or various prosecutors offices;

* Is Alito remorseless because he’s a good Federalist Society soldier, or because he knows Democrats in Congress won’t even try to hold him accountable?

* Are Democrats really so habituated to GOP dominance of the Supreme Court, and to the Court being a more galvanizing issue for Republicans, that they’ve forgotten liberal anger over the Garland seat, and the Ruth Bader-Ginsburg seat, and the decision in Dobbs?

Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt rant about the failure of both Democratic leaders in Congress, liberal justices, and progressive issue activists to take the fate of the court seriously. Why doesn’t Sonia Sotomayor think retiring now is the obvious thing to do? Why to so many Democrats in Congress seemingly want her to place her seat at risk? Why don’t progressive activists work toward constructive goals like strategic retirements and whipping up outrage over Alito? Also, what does any of this have to do with Donald Trump’s new aspiration to create what his campaign calls a “Unified Reich”? Answers to all those questions, 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 reminds Senate Democrats (cough, Dick Durbin, cough) that they can squeeze Samuel Alito, including by exposing his secret role helping Donald Trump sweep the insurrection under the rug.

* Maya Sen on diversity in the judiciary.

* Mehdi Hasan on why Sotomayor should retire.

This week, Matt and Brian take a granular look at the latest New York Times/Siena data, which finds Joe Biden losing most swing states, and well behind in the sunbelt states of Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, which he won in 2020. They discuss whether:

* Biden’s post-State of the Union poll bounce was illusory, or a hint at what might help him turn the election around;

* Post-inflation grumpiness is hamstringing Biden, just like other world leaders, or if something unique to Biden (his age, the U.S. information environment) explains his peculiar unpopularity;

* The issues voters say they’re fixed on (inflation, immigration, and crime) are creating genuine problems in their lives, or are merely evidence of successful, unopposed, Republican propaganda.

Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt interpret the poll data per se: What’s the optimistic read of the numbers? What’s the pessimistic read? Is it time to revive the debate over whether Biden should yield to a younger candidate with less baggage? Or does he still have time to prove the doubters and haters wrong? Answers to all those questions, 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 Democrats’ mysterious aversion to setting the national discourse agenda, and how it hurts them badly.

* Learning From Loss by Seth Masket.

* Matt on the misinformation that truly matters.

This week, Matt and Brian break down the growing tension between Joe Biden and the New York Times and try to assess what impact it will have on the 2024 election and the deteriorating relationship between Democrats and mainstream media generally.

* Is Biden right to be frustrated with the way the national political media has covered the election so far?

* Should newspapers outsource editorial judgment to issue polls?

* What, beyond blinkering their coverage of politics, could mainstream news outlets do to increase their appeal among conservative consumers?

Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt take a more abstract look at the challenge facing non-partisan media in the Trump era. Should mainstream journalism outlets be tribunes for democracy, as part of their larger advocacy for the free press? Can institutions like the Times be openly pro-democracy without being openly engaged in an effort to help Joe Biden win the election? What would an incarnation of the Times that made an effort to address its critics look like? Answers to all those questions, 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 whether outlets like the Times do such a bad job addressing well-developed liberal criticisms because they don’t have good answers.

* Ben Smith’s (widely criticized) interview with Times executive editor Joe Kahn.

* Dan Pfeiffer responds to their mischaracterization of his earlier Times critique.