vox--2020-02-18--How Democrats can negate the GOP’s “asshole advantage,” according to Dan Pfeiffer

Republicans have an “ asshole advantage ” when it comes to the types of tactics they ’ re willing to engage in to consolidate power .
What level of assholery should Democrats undertake in order to fight back ?
That ’ s the question Dan Pfeiffer , co-host of Pod Save America and former adviser to President Barack Obama , attempts to answer in his new book , Un-Trumping America : A Plan to Make America a Democracy Again .
Pfeiffer lays out a playbook for Democrats to combat Donald Trump and the Republican Party in the 2020 election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The Republican path to power is to surf a wave of cynicism because they know their base will turn out , ” he says .
“ We depend on less frequent voters .
And so if you can turn this thing into a cynical shitshow , then their voters will come , ours won ’ t , they will win .
That ’ s how they won in 2016.
” There have long been questions about how Democrats need to approach politics , tactics-wise , and whether the “ when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mantra needs replacing .
Democrats may not need to get into the trenches , but there are structural overhauls that would significantly level the playing field : eliminating the filibuster in the Senate , adding Washington , DC , as a state , and ending the Electoral College , among others .
“ For too long , Democrats , myself included , have been too shy about pushing for reforms and ideas that increase our political power , ” he says .
I recently spoke with Pfeiffer about how Democrats can regain power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie Sanders ’ s rise , former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg ’ s multi-million-dollar campaign , and why Pfeiffer ’ s old boss is , thus far , sitting the election out .
Our conversation , edited for length and clarity , is below .
Okay , so it is looking like Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner .
Who is the moderate closest to taking him on ?
To me , it just feels like Democrats are afraid they ’ ll lose and are going in every direction .
Most Democratic primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paralysis where we can ’ t really figure out who the “ best ” candidate to take on Trump would be , and I put myself in my category .
We have these two problems , which is we believe that Trump is an existential threat to the country and the planet , and 2016 undermines so much of what we thought we understood about politics .
So we don ’ t know who or what to trust .
We don ’ t trust our own guts .
People wake up every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the most likable candidate , ” and then by lunch they ’ re like , “ Well , maybe it ’ s Klobuchar.
” And by mid-afternoon snack time , it ’ s , “ What if it ’ s Warren.
” And then rinse and repeat every single day .
This whole situation massively advantages Sanders , because he has the highest core of any of the candidates .
He has the most dedicated group of supporters , which is getting him to somewhere between 25 and 28 percent in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if that ’ s the case , he ’ s both vulnerable in the sense that if you ’ re only getting the 25 to 28 percent , one person can clearly beat you , but no one can decide who that person is .
And it ’ s not clear to me that the process is going to winnow itself to that point in time for there to be a two-person race between Bernie Sanders and someone else .
Should Democrats be afraid of a Bernie nomination ?
You have James Carville @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some Democrats worrying about some of his supporters turning voters off or harassing people , like what happened with the Nevada culinary union .
How does he expand his support ?
If the question comes down to can Bernie Sanders when the White House , the answer is yes .
And I think that is true of every other candidate who is currently in the top five , plus Bloomberg .
Every one of them can win .
This is going to sound like a cop-out , but this is really more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m trying to bring to this after getting 2016 wrong .
The campaign is likely to be decided among 100,000 to 300,000 votes over four states .
And so once you get to that , anyone can do it .
Sanders definitely has vulnerabilities .
Trump is going to call every Democrat a socialist , but it ’ s easier to respond to that if you have not self-identified as that for decades .
And Sanders is going to need a better answer for that than he has put forward to date .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both legitimate and blown out of proportion .
If you go to a Bernie rally , it feels like it could be an Obama ’ 08 rally or a Warren ’ 20 rally .
It ’ s just a bunch of voters of all ages .
And so we ’ re obviously talking about a very specific , very vocal , very online part of Bernie ’ s support .
Bernie has been the candidate most vocally and most prominently in every speech saying that he will get behind the Democratic nominee if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s obviously easier to say when you ’ re winning than when you ’ re losing .
But I think Bernie Sanders himself and some of the top leadership of his campaign recognize that some Democrats that Bernie Sanders is going to need to win — both in the primary and the general — view he and his campaign as divisive , so they ’ re trying to address it .
I read some of the emails that were put out by the Culinary Union , and they ’ re quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly women and people of color , who have been on the receiving end of very aggressive attacks .
Certainly some of these people are anonymous trolls with three followers , and some of them are prominent supporters of the Sanders campaign with pretty large followings .
I ’ m not sure it ’ s a fatal problem in the general election , but I think it would be in the best interest of the Sanders campaign to try to do more if possible .
So to pivot a little , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in more ?
Barack Obama has not endorsed Joe Biden .
What ’ s going on ?
This is a very traditional role for a former president , and I think that particularly after 2016 , it is Obama ’ s view that the best thing for the party is to let the voters decide and not have major figures trying to put their thumb on the scale , particularly early in the process .
Also , Obama-land generally quite basically encompasses most people who ’ ve worked in Democratic politics at some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them are working for various candidates — Joe Biden , Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , Pete Buttigieg .
Others of us have a podcast where we made a decision to be neutral .
It ’ s not obvious who the “ most electable candidate ” was .
I can make a case for and against all of the major candidates .
We know a lot of them .
We ’ ve known them for a long time , and I ’ d take any of them , right ?
So let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you think about Mike Bloomberg , then ?
Here ’ s a guy who ’ s basically like , “ Hey , I have all of the money in the world , ” and wants to be president .
Is that fair ?
Bloomberg ’ s path is real , but narrow .
He can only win the nomination if he is one-on-one with Bernie Sanders very soon .
It doesn ’ t work with anyone else , I think .
And so if somehow Biden or Buttigieg emerge as the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or even Warren , the door closes on Bloomberg .
But his team is very , very smart .
They have unlimited resources , and they are spending at such an aggressive level that it is possible .
If he ’ s the nominee , I certainly think he can win , but he ’ ll have real challenges with the Democratic base .
He ’ s been standing outside the process and hasn ’ t had to face , until recently , real questions about some of his policies in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens if and when he gets on a debate stage how he handles that .
He ’ s sitting as the billionaire generic Democrat right now , which is ironic considering he ’ s a former Republican mayor of New York .
Everyone likes everyone until some flaw is exposed and then they panic and move to someone else .
And right now , all they ’ re seeing is positive messaging from Bloomberg .
It is a fascinating experiment in what you can do with unlimited resources in politics .
So to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s this ongoing debate among Democrats about how “ low ” they should go in combating the Republican Party .
You talk about Republicans having what you call an “ asshole advantage , ” basically , the types of tactics they ’ re willing to engage in to gain power , and get into the question of what Democrats should do .
What level of “ assholery ” should Democrats embrace ?
There still remains among some parts of elected Democrats a naiveté about who the Republicans are and how we got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Biden argument , that Trump is this aberration , that if we get rid of him , Republicans will somehow resort to something more normal or less terrible .
And I just do not believe that to be the case .
Trump is the logical extension of what Republicans have become .
And all the incentives that made someone like Trump act the way he does and get to the point where he is will remain true .
Republicans are in a position where they need to double down on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue push policies that limit the political power of people of color in order to hold on to power .
The point for me of writing the book was to try to lay out a path where Democrats could take on what I think is the fundamental strategy of the Republican Party , which is minority rule , in a way that is aggressive but consistent with our values .
There ’ s nothing wrong with Democrats pushing ideas like getting rid of the filibuster or adding Washington , DC as a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too long , Democrats , myself included , have been too shy about pushing for reforms and ideas that increase our political power .
A lot of these things are difficult to achieve .
In a tactics level , are Democrats equipped to do it , given where the party is right now ?
That ’ s the question : Are we as a party tough enough to take on Trump ?
I think the answer to that is yes .
In the Obama years , we took on the Karl Rove machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the century and won twice .
And took on Fox News and all of that .
So it is possible .
I don ’ t think the problem is that Democrats haven ’ t been “ tough enough ” or “ mean enough.
” The question of can you be as big an asshole as Trump is the wrong question , because we just have different strategies .
The Republican path to power is to surf a wave of cynicism because they know their base will turn out .
We depend on less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can turn this thing into a cynical shit show , then their voters will come , ours won ’ t , they will win .
That ’ s how they won in 2016 .
We have to be tough , and we have to be smart , but we also have to be inspirational .
We have to give people a reason to believe that their vote is going to count , and that it ’ s going to matter .
This is going to take a long time .
Much in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive left has moved the Overton window on policy issues like universal health care , free college , etc.
, I think the Democrats also need to move the Overton window on democratic reforms .
We have to be aggressive about what we push for , and maybe we ’ ll get all of them , maybe we ’ ll get some of them .
But if we don ’ t start fighting for it , we ’ re going to get none of it .
We have spent so much time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do about health care and almost no time arguing about how we ’ re going to do it .
What is your plan , Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg , whoever else , to get this done in a world in which the filibuster exists ?
We have to deal with structural democratic reforms to have a chance to have a progressive policy in this country that reflects a progressive majority .
Do you think the American public cares enough ?
We just got through impeachment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There were not people in the streets .
Some people are very comfortable and look at the last four years and think it wasn ’ t that bad , though obviously that ’ s from a privileged position .
A lot of white people , particularly white men of means in this country , are very insulated from the worst parts of Trump ’ s policies .
They may even have gotten a tax cut .
And so they don ’ t necessarily always bring the same urgency to the matter as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or whose family and friends and community are at risk of deportation or are being targeted with anti-LGBTQ policies .
That is certainly true .
The high levels of interest in this election speak to the fact that an overwhelming majority of the American people on both sides think this is an incredibly important election and understand there are very high stakes .
It certainly did not manifest itself in the street protests .
And I think that comes from two things , and this is just a guess on my part .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that in the first couple of years of the Trump administration , the March for Our Lives , the Women ’ s March , the airport protests .
Another is that what ended up being the thing that really mattered in the ability to at least put some checks on Trump was an election , and we ’ re sitting in an election year .
There may be a sense of exhaustion that we can ’ t really force these Republicans to do anything they don ’ t want to do through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to do it is through electoral action .
And there is just an incredibly high interest level and donations and volunteers with all the grassroots groups , which are positive signs .
I do worry , if Democrats don ’ t win the election , what message it will send to the people who ’ ve gotten so engaged since 2016 .
Do they check out because they feel like it wasn ’ t worth it ?
And that ’ s what puts us in a very dangerous position .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise the stakes for this election and make people understand why it matters so much .
We have to do that .
If we make it about small things , we ’ re going to get a response that is commensurate with a typical election as opposed to the one that most of us think is perhaps the most important in our lifetimes .
Do you think that voters care about policies ?
Some do .
There are some voters for whom there are red line litmus test issues .
But , generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types like ourselves think .
We think there ’ s a liberal lane and a moderate lane , and then you realize that when Elizabeth Warren lost support in New Hampshire , most of that support seemed to either go to Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg as opposed to Bernie Sanders .
When Biden lost support , a lot of that went to Sanders .
And so as your colleague , Ezra Klein , wrote in his book , [ Why We ’ re Polarized ] , politics is much more about identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good candidate uses policy to tell a story about values .
The most important question that a lot of voters take into the ballot box with them is : Who is this person fighting for ?
Are they fighting for me or are they fighting for others ?
Policy is a proxy for values and character .
And then you get into the White House and everyone , including your voters , holds you to account for whether you ’ re going to pass something you talked about on the campaign trail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about birtherism and wonder whether Democrats would have been better able to push back on that if they had the technological tools we have today .
That struck me , because I sort of think it would be the opposite .
With the levels of disinformation and misinformation we ’ re seeing right now , how would it not be 100 times worse ?
And Democrats don ’ t seem especially prepared for the onslaught .
If we had had the capacity to , at scale , get counter information out , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped what is now the MAGA base from believing that Obama wasn ’ t born in the United States .
But we were doing hand-to-hand combat with Democrats in Iowa , who loved Obama , but were afraid they would find out later he was ineligible for the presidency because he was born in Kenya .
That was all happening with right-wing radio , some Fox News stuff , and email forwards .
If we ’ d the ability at scale through Facebook and other social media to push back in a targeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic , independent , and some Republican voters .
We wouldn ’ t have stopped it at its root , because long before Facebook showed up and made everything worse , conspiracy theories have had a long history in American politics and particularly on the far right .
Are Democrats prepared to take on disinformation ?
No , but they ’ re at a massive disadvantage : Facebook controls this more than anyone else , and they ’ ve decided that they will be a disinformation platform .
We are fighting this with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A lot of the party , particularly in how we think about reaching voters , is still more old world than new world .
And we have to think more creatively about what it means to communicate in the social media age .
The view of how we get our message out is still very traditional press heavy .
We spend all this time thinking about where we ’ re going to get the story placed and what interview we ’ re going to do instead of how we get a piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters we care about .
But digital is not the solution to all of our problems .
We already have a huge infrastructure disadvantage to the Republicans because in some cases it ’ s we haven ’ t been focused on it enough .
In other cases , it ’ s simply a dollars issue .
It ’ s not that no one had the idea that we should have ads to give air cover to vulnerable Democrats on impeachment .
It ’ s that there wasn ’ t money for it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be running anti-Trump ads in Wisconsin .
And so we exist in a massive funding infrastructure disadvantage , which is broader than technology , but also includes technology .
And instead you ’ ve got two Democratic billionaires running for president .
Yes , exactly .
That is exactly right .
Their billionaires pay for party infrastructure , our billionaires run for president .
It ’ s a real disadvantage .

Republicans have an “asshole advantage” when it comes to the types of tactics they’re willing to engage in to consolidate power. What level of assholery should Democrats undertake in order to fight back? That’s the question Dan Pfeiffer, co-host of Pod Save America and former adviser to President Barack Obama, attempts to answer in his new book, Un-Trumping America: A Plan to Make America a Democracy Again.
Pfeiffer lays out a playbook for Democrats to combat Donald Trump and the Republican Party in the 2020 election, as well as what to do after.
“The Republican path to power is to surf a wave of cynicism because they know their base will turn out,” he says. “We depend on less frequent voters. And so if you can turn this thing into a cynical shitshow, then their voters will come, ours won’t, they will win. That’s how they won in 2016.”
There have long been questions about how Democrats need to approach politics, tactics-wise, and whether the “when they go low, we go high” mantra needs replacing. Democrats may not need to get into the trenches, but there are structural overhauls that would significantly level the playing field: eliminating the filibuster in the Senate, adding Washington, DC, as a state, and ending the Electoral College, among others.
“For too long, Democrats, myself included, have been too shy about pushing for reforms and ideas that increase our political power,” he says.
I recently spoke with Pfeiffer about how Democrats can regain power pre- and post-Trump as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders’s rise, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s multi-million-dollar campaign, and why Pfeiffer’s old boss is, thus far, sitting the election out.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Emily Stewart
Okay, so it is looking like Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner. Who is the moderate closest to taking him on? To me, it just feels like Democrats are afraid they’ll lose and are going in every direction.
Dan Pfeiffer
Most Democratic primary voters exist in a state of paranoid paralysis where we can’t really figure out who the “best” candidate to take on Trump would be, and I put myself in my category.
We have these two problems, which is we believe that Trump is an existential threat to the country and the planet, and 2016 undermines so much of what we thought we understood about politics. So we don’t know who or what to trust. We don’t trust our own guts. People wake up every day, they say, “Maybe Bernie is the most likable candidate,” and then by lunch they’re like, “Well, maybe it’s Klobuchar.” And by mid-afternoon snack time, it’s, “What if it’s Warren.” And then rinse and repeat every single day.
This whole situation massively advantages Sanders, because he has the highest core of any of the candidates. He has the most dedicated group of supporters, which is getting him to somewhere between 25 and 28 percent in the early states and potentially nationally. And if that’s the case, he’s both vulnerable in the sense that if you’re only getting the 25 to 28 percent, one person can clearly beat you, but no one can decide who that person is. And it’s not clear to me that the process is going to winnow itself to that point in time for there to be a two-person race between Bernie Sanders and someone else.
Emily Stewart
Should Democrats be afraid of a Bernie nomination? You have James Carville out here sounding the alarms about him, some Democrats worrying about some of his supporters turning voters off or harassing people, like what happened with the Nevada culinary union. How does he expand his support?
Dan Pfeiffer
If the question comes down to can Bernie Sanders when the White House, the answer is yes. And I think that is true of every other candidate who is currently in the top five, plus Bloomberg. Every one of them can win. This is going to sound like a cop-out, but this is really more a product of whatever humility I’m trying to bring to this after getting 2016 wrong. The campaign is likely to be decided among 100,000 to 300,000 votes over four states. And so once you get to that, anyone can do it.
Sanders definitely has vulnerabilities. Trump is going to call every Democrat a socialist, but it’s easier to respond to that if you have not self-identified as that for decades. And Sanders is going to need a better answer for that than he has put forward to date.
I think the Sanders supporters issue is both legitimate and blown out of proportion. If you go to a Bernie rally, it feels like it could be an Obama ’08 rally or a Warren ’20 rally. It’s just a bunch of voters of all ages. And so we’re obviously talking about a very specific, very vocal, very online part of Bernie’s support.
Bernie has been the candidate most vocally and most prominently in every speech saying that he will get behind the Democratic nominee if it’s not him. Now that’s obviously easier to say when you’re winning than when you’re losing. But I think Bernie Sanders himself and some of the top leadership of his campaign recognize that some Democrats that Bernie Sanders is going to need to win — both in the primary and the general — view he and his campaign as divisive, so they’re trying to address it.
I read some of the emails that were put out by the Culinary Union, and they’re quite disturbing. And I know many people, particularly women and people of color, who have been on the receiving end of very aggressive attacks. Certainly some of these people are anonymous trolls with three followers, and some of them are prominent supporters of the Sanders campaign with pretty large followings. I’m not sure it’s a fatal problem in the general election, but I think it would be in the best interest of the Sanders campaign to try to do more if possible.
Emily Stewart
So to pivot a little, why isn’t Obama or Obama-land weighing in more? Barack Obama has not endorsed Joe Biden. What’s going on?
Dan Pfeiffer
This is a very traditional role for a former president, and I think that particularly after 2016, it is Obama’s view that the best thing for the party is to let the voters decide and not have major figures trying to put their thumb on the scale, particularly early in the process.
Also, Obama-land generally quite basically encompasses most people who’ve worked in Democratic politics at some level in the last decade. Many of them are working for various candidates — Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg. Others of us have a podcast where we made a decision to be neutral.
It’s not obvious who the “most electable candidate” was. I can make a case for and against all of the major candidates. We know a lot of them. We’ve known them for a long time, and I’d take any of them, right? So let the process play itself out.
Emily Stewart
How do you think about Mike Bloomberg, then? Here’s a guy who’s basically like, “Hey, I have all of the money in the world,” and wants to be president. Is that fair?
Dan Pfeiffer
Bloomberg’s path is real, but narrow. He can only win the nomination if he is one-on-one with Bernie Sanders very soon. It doesn’t work with anyone else, I think. And so if somehow Biden or Buttigieg emerge as the new front runner because of what happens next or even Warren, the door closes on Bloomberg. But his team is very, very smart. They have unlimited resources, and they are spending at such an aggressive level that it is possible.
If he’s the nominee, I certainly think he can win, but he’ll have real challenges with the Democratic base. He’s been standing outside the process and hasn’t had to face, until recently, real questions about some of his policies in New York. And we’ll see what happens if and when he gets on a debate stage how he handles that.
He’s sitting as the billionaire generic Democrat right now, which is ironic considering he’s a former Republican mayor of New York. Everyone likes everyone until some flaw is exposed and then they panic and move to someone else. And right now, all they’re seeing is positive messaging from Bloomberg. It is a fascinating experiment in what you can do with unlimited resources in politics.
Emily Stewart
So to pivot to the book, there’s this ongoing debate among Democrats about how “low” they should go in combating the Republican Party. You talk about Republicans having what you call an “asshole advantage,” basically, the types of tactics they’re willing to engage in to gain power, and get into the question of what Democrats should do. What level of “assholery” should Democrats embrace?
Dan Pfeiffer
There still remains among some parts of elected Democrats a naiveté about who the Republicans are and how we got to this moment. This is a core of the Biden argument, that Trump is this aberration, that if we get rid of him, Republicans will somehow resort to something more normal or less terrible.
And I just do not believe that to be the case. Trump is the logical extension of what Republicans have become. And all the incentives that made someone like Trump act the way he does and get to the point where he is will remain true. Republicans are in a position where they need to double down on a diminishing white base and with racial fear-mongering continue push policies that limit the political power of people of color in order to hold on to power.
The point for me of writing the book was to try to lay out a path where Democrats could take on what I think is the fundamental strategy of the Republican Party, which is minority rule, in a way that is aggressive but consistent with our values. There’s nothing wrong with Democrats pushing ideas like getting rid of the filibuster or adding Washington, DC as a state that increase our political power. For too long, Democrats, myself included, have been too shy about pushing for reforms and ideas that increase our political power.
Emily Stewart
A lot of these things are difficult to achieve. In a tactics level, are Democrats equipped to do it, given where the party is right now?
Dan Pfeiffer
That’s the question: Are we as a party tough enough to take on Trump? I think the answer to that is yes. In the Obama years, we took on the Karl Rove machine that had killed Democrats for much of the century and won twice. And took on Fox News and all of that. So it is possible.
I don’t think the problem is that Democrats haven’t been “tough enough” or “mean enough.” The question of can you be as big an asshole as Trump is the wrong question, because we just have different strategies.
The Republican path to power is to surf a wave of cynicism because they know their base will turn out. We depend on less frequent voters. And so if you can turn this thing into a cynical shit show, then their voters will come, ours won’t, they will win. That’s how they won in 2016.
We have to be tough, and we have to be smart, but we also have to be inspirational. We have to give people a reason to believe that their vote is going to count, and that it’s going to matter.
This is going to take a long time. Much in the way in which Bernie Sanders and the progressive left has moved the Overton window on policy issues like universal health care, free college, etc., I think the Democrats also need to move the Overton window on democratic reforms. We have to be aggressive about what we push for, and maybe we’ll get all of them, maybe we’ll get some of them. But if we don’t start fighting for it, we’re going to get none of it.
We have spent so much time in 2020 arguing about what we’re going to do about health care and almost no time arguing about how we’re going to do it. What is your plan, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, whoever else, to get this done in a world in which the filibuster exists? We have to deal with structural democratic reforms to have a chance to have a progressive policy in this country that reflects a progressive majority.
Emily Stewart
Do you think the American public cares enough? We just got through impeachment, and it kind of landed like, eh. There were not people in the streets. Some people are very comfortable and look at the last four years and think it wasn’t that bad, though obviously that’s from a privileged position.
Dan Pfeiffer
A lot of white people, particularly white men of means in this country, are very insulated from the worst parts of Trump’s policies. They may even have gotten a tax cut. And so they don’t necessarily always bring the same urgency to the matter as people whose reproductive freedoms are at risk or whose family and friends and community are at risk of deportation or are being targeted with anti-LGBTQ policies. That is certainly true.
The high levels of interest in this election speak to the fact that an overwhelming majority of the American people on both sides think this is an incredibly important election and understand there are very high stakes.
It certainly did not manifest itself in the street protests. And I think that comes from two things, and this is just a guess on my part. One is that there was so much of that in the first couple of years of the Trump administration, the March for Our Lives, the Women’s March, the airport protests. Another is that what ended up being the thing that really mattered in the ability to at least put some checks on Trump was an election, and we’re sitting in an election year.
There may be a sense of exhaustion that we can’t really force these Republicans to do anything they don’t want to do through civil disobedience, and so the best way to do it is through electoral action. And there is just an incredibly high interest level and donations and volunteers with all the grassroots groups, which are positive signs.
I do worry, if Democrats don’t win the election, what message it will send to the people who’ve gotten so engaged since 2016. Do they check out because they feel like it wasn’t worth it? And that’s what puts us in a very dangerous position.
It’s also on the Democratic nominee to raise the stakes for this election and make people understand why it matters so much. We have to do that. If we make it about small things, we’re going to get a response that is commensurate with a typical election as opposed to the one that most of us think is perhaps the most important in our lifetimes.
Emily Stewart
Do you think that voters care about policies?
Dan Pfeiffer
Some do. There are some voters for whom there are red line litmus test issues. But, generally, voters are less ideological than political types like ourselves think. We think there’s a liberal lane and a moderate lane, and then you realize that when Elizabeth Warren lost support in New Hampshire, most of that support seemed to either go to Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg as opposed to Bernie Sanders. When Biden lost support, a lot of that went to Sanders.
And so as your colleague, Ezra Klein, wrote in his book, [Why We’re Polarized], politics is much more about identity than ideology. A good campaign and a good candidate uses policy to tell a story about values. The most important question that a lot of voters take into the ballot box with them is: Who is this person fighting for? Are they fighting for me or are they fighting for others?
Policy is a proxy for values and character. And then you get into the White House and everyone, including your voters, holds you to account for whether you’re going to pass something you talked about on the campaign trail.
Emily Stewart
In your book, you talk about birtherism and wonder whether Democrats would have been better able to push back on that if they had the technological tools we have today. That struck me, because I sort of think it would be the opposite. With the levels of disinformation and misinformation we’re seeing right now, how would it not be 100 times worse? And Democrats don’t seem especially prepared for the onslaught.
Dan Pfeiffer
If we had had the capacity to, at scale, get counter information out, I don’t think we would have stopped what is now the MAGA base from believing that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. But we were doing hand-to-hand combat with Democrats in Iowa, who loved Obama, but were afraid they would find out later he was ineligible for the presidency because he was born in Kenya.
That was all happening with right-wing radio, some Fox News stuff, and email forwards. If we’d the ability at scale through Facebook and other social media to push back in a targeted fashion, that could have helped with Democratic, independent, and some Republican voters. We wouldn’t have stopped it at its root, because long before Facebook showed up and made everything worse, conspiracy theories have had a long history in American politics and particularly on the far right.
Are Democrats prepared to take on disinformation? No, but they’re at a massive disadvantage: Facebook controls this more than anyone else, and they’ve decided that they will be a disinformation platform. We are fighting this with both hands tied behind our back.
A lot of the party, particularly in how we think about reaching voters, is still more old world than new world. And we have to think more creatively about what it means to communicate in the social media age. The view of how we get our message out is still very traditional press heavy. We spend all this time thinking about where we’re going to get the story placed and what interview we’re going to do instead of how we get a piece of information or content from the interview to the voters we care about.
But digital is not the solution to all of our problems. We already have a huge infrastructure disadvantage to the Republicans because in some cases it’s we haven’t been focused on it enough. In other cases, it’s simply a dollars issue. It’s not that no one had the idea that we should have ads to give air cover to vulnerable Democrats on impeachment. It’s that there wasn’t money for it. We barely have enough money to be running anti-Trump ads in Wisconsin. And so we exist in a massive funding infrastructure disadvantage, which is broader than technology, but also includes technology.
Emily Stewart
And instead you’ve got two Democratic billionaires running for president.
Dan Pfeiffer
Yes, exactly. That is exactly right. Their billionaires pay for party infrastructure, our billionaires run for president. It’s a real disadvantage.


vox--2020-02-18--1 in 4 rural hospitals is vulnerable to closure, a new report finds

The financial crisis for America ’ s rural hospitals is getting worse .
A new report from the Chartis Center for Rural Health puts the situation in dire terms : 2019 was the worst year for rural hospital closures this decade , with 19 hospitals in rural America shutting their doors .
Nearly one out of every four open rural hospitals has early warning signs that indicate they are also at risk of closing in the near future .
Since 2010 , 120 rural hospitals have closed , according to the center ’ s research .
And today , 453 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country should be considered vulnerable for closure .
The Chartis researchers sought to identify key risk factors that precipitated rural hospital closures and then used those indicators to project which hospitals are at risk of closing soon .
Some of the criteria was obvious , like changes in revenue or how many beds are occupied on average .
But there was one other leading indicator that has an obvious political explanation and which should be entirely avoidable : whether the hospital is in a state that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicaid expansion state decreases by 62 percent the likelihood of a rural hospital closing .
Conversely , being in a non-expansion state makes it more likely a rural hospital will close .
The states that have experienced the most rural hospital closures over the last 10 years ( Texas , Tennessee , Oklahoma , Georgia , Alabama , and Missouri ) have all refused to expand Medicaid through the 2010 health care law .
It seems their rural hospitals are paying the price .
Of the 216 hospitals that Chartis says are most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in non-expansion states .
Those 216 hospitals have an operating margin of negative 8.6 percent .
Research has consistently shown Medicaid expansion improves hospitals ’ financial performance by reducing the amount of uncompensated care .
The only question is by how much , as Medicaid payments can sometimes not be enough to match the cost of providing care to Medicaid patients , which can partially offset the savings in uncompensated care .
Nevertheless , here is how the Kaiser Family Foundation summarized the available research : As you can see , the consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful for rural hospitals .
And yet a state like Texas , where more than half of its rural hospitals are vulnerable to closure , still refuses to accept the generous federal funding that covers 90 percent of the costs for Medicaid expansion .
Hospitals have always been among the biggest advocates of Medicaid expansion .
In some states , they ’ ve even been willing to chip in by paying new fees or taxes to cover the state ’ s 10 percent share of the expansion costs .
It ’ s worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal funding that will come in and pad their bottom lines .
The problems for rural hospitals are bigger than Medicaid expansion .
By definition , these are facilities that serve smaller populations that often have unique challenges in accessing primary care that can stave off bigger health problems ( which are more expensive to treat once they get to the hospital ) .
According to the Chartis researchers , the simple age of the physical hospital building is a risk factor for closure .
But some of those problems are just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities .
States had a choice about expanding Medicaid , and so far , 14 states have rejected the offer .
They ’ ve left 2.3 million people uninsured .
And they are putting the future of their rural hospitals at risk .
This story appears in VoxCare , a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news .
Are you interested in more discussions around health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation and updates .

The financial crisis for America’s rural hospitals is getting worse.
A new report from the Chartis Center for Rural Health puts the situation in dire terms: 2019 was the worst year for rural hospital closures this decade, with 19 hospitals in rural America shutting their doors. Nearly one out of every four open rural hospitals has early warning signs that indicate they are also at risk of closing in the near future.
Since 2010, 120 rural hospitals have closed, according to University of North Carolina researchers. And today, 453 of the 1,844 rural hospitals still operating across the country should be considered vulnerable for closure.
The Chartis researchers sought to identify key risk factors that precipitated rural hospital closures and then used those indicators to project which hospitals are at risk of closing soon. Some of the criteria was obvious, like changes in revenue or how many beds are occupied on average.
But there was one other leading indicator that has an obvious political explanation and which should be entirely avoidable: whether the hospital is in a state that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare.
According to Chartis, being in a Medicaid expansion state decreases by 62 percent the likelihood of a rural hospital closing. Conversely, being in a non-expansion state makes it more likely a rural hospital will close.
The states that have experienced the most rural hospital closures over the last 10 years (Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri) have all refused to expand Medicaid through the 2010 health care law. It seems their rural hospitals are paying the price. Of the 216 hospitals that Chartis says are most vulnerable to closure, 75 percent are in non-expansion states. Those 216 hospitals have an operating margin of negative 8.6 percent.
Research has consistently shown Medicaid expansion improves hospitals’ financial performance by reducing the amount of uncompensated care. The only question is by how much, as Medicaid payments can sometimes not be enough to match the cost of providing care to Medicaid patients, which can partially offset the savings in uncompensated care.
Nevertheless, here is how the Kaiser Family Foundation summarized the available research:
Studies demonstrate that Medicaid expansion has significantly improved hospital operating margins and financial performance. A study published in January 2018 found that Medicaid expansion was associated with improved hospital financial performance and significant reductions in the probability of hospital closure, especially in rural areas and areas with higher pre-ACA uninsured rates. Another analysis found that expansion’s effects on margins were strongest for small hospitals, for-profit and non-federal-government-operated hospitals, and hospitals located in non-metropolitan areas. A third study found larger expansion-related improvements in operating margins for public (compared to nonprofit or for-profit) hospitals and rural (compared to nonrural) hospitals.
As you can see, the consistent conclusion is that Medicaid expansion is particularly helpful for rural hospitals. And yet a state like Texas, where more than half of its rural hospitals are vulnerable to closure, still refuses to accept the generous federal funding that covers 90 percent of the costs for Medicaid expansion.
Hospitals have always been among the biggest advocates of Medicaid expansion. In some states, they’ve even been willing to chip in by paying new fees or taxes to cover the state’s 10 percent share of the expansion costs. It’s worth it to them because of the new federal funding that will come in and pad their bottom lines.
The problems for rural hospitals are bigger than Medicaid expansion. By definition, these are facilities that serve smaller populations that often have unique challenges in accessing primary care that can stave off bigger health problems (which are more expensive to treat once they get to the hospital). According to the Chartis researchers, the simple age of the physical hospital building is a risk factor for closure.
But some of those problems are just a byproduct of providing health care in rural communities. States had a choice about expanding Medicaid, and so far, 14 states have rejected the offer. They’ve left 2.3 million people uninsured.
And they are putting the future of their rural hospitals at risk.
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter VoxCare Dylan Scott guides you through the fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and the health care policies that matter most. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Join the conversation
Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy? Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.


vox--2020-02-18--Walmart paid Wall Street investors $12 billion last year to keep them happy. Amazon paid $0.

If there ’ s one retailer that has a chance to be a legitimate online competitor to Amazon in the United States , it ’ s Walmart , the dominant retail giant of a past generation and the US leader in online grocery sales today .
But Walmart ’ s past success — and the practices it made commonplace as a result of that success — also hamstring the brick-and-mortar giant today .
The latest example : Walmart revealed on Tuesday that it spent $ 11.8 billion in the last year on dividends — payments it makes to every shareholder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buying back shares of stock from its shareholders .
Over that same period of time , you might be able to guess how much Amazon spent on the same practices : exactly $ 0 , despite Amazon generating $ 13 billion more than Walmart in cash from core business operations .
The discrepancy highlights how Walmart ’ s longtime relationship with its Wall Street investors is both a blessing and a curse , while Amazon ’ s own ties to investors is one of its key advantages .
For Walmart , the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors over a long period of time , but those same investors expect things like dividends and share buybacks , potentially siphoning off cash that could be used to better compete with Amazon or to invent new business lines that could attract new customers .
Amazon , on the other hand , has meticulously trained Wall Street to value revenue growth and moving into new business lines over large profits , which for decades allowed Jeff Bezos the unique advantage of operating according to a playbook much different from almost every other competitor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon as they do Walmart , it ’ s possible that inventions like Alexa or Amazon Web Services never would have seen the light of day .
Walmart has been paying dividends since it announced a 5-cents-per-share annual payment in 1974 , both to reward existing shareholders and attract future ones looking for stable and cash-paying stocks .
Today , Walmart pays out more than $ 2 per share annually to its investors , which would work out to more than $ 6 billion alone in dividends based on its current number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other hand , has never paid a dividend .
The company ’ s promise to investors has instead been built around the idea that as Amazon grows , eats up business in new markets , and starts generating meaningful profit , investors will get more excited about buying the stock , pushing the price up .
It ’ s a virtuous cycle that has seen Amazon ’ s stock price increase around 5.5 times from this same point five years ago .
This is not to say that Walmart fails to recognize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success .
At its annual investor day on Tuesday , in fact , Walmart CEO Doug McMillon cited the influence on him of Clay Christensen ’ s seminal business book The Innovator ’ s Dilemma , which highlights the challenges incumbent businesses face in adapting and innovating when faced with threats from upstart competitors .
And Walmart has spent more than $ 20 billion over the past few years alone on acquisitions of such competitors , with deals for Jet.com in the US and Amazon ’ s biggest rival in India , Flipkart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company ’ s traditional store business and its emerging e-commerce business , as revealed by Recode , showcased the challenge of altering a company ’ s DNA .
The store team was “ frustrated by some of the company ’ s money-losing forays into building in-house startups that seem unlikely to ever reach mass scale or grow large enough to move the needle for Walmart ’ s overall business , ” I wrote at the time .
Walmart announced last week that one of those startups , called JetBlack , would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head Marc Lore told investors on Tuesday that the company would “ leverage insights ” from JetBlack in a test of a new service for Walmart.com shoppers in three cities . )
For Walmart ’ s McMillon and his leadership team , it ’ s a tightrope act : give your longtime investors enough of what they expect to keep them around , while investing and innovating enough to survive and thrive amid the rise of Amazon .
But spending $ 12 billion just to keep investors happy seems like a large price @ @ @

If there’s one retailer that has a chance to be a legitimate online competitor to Amazon in the United States, it’s Walmart, the dominant retail giant of a past generation and the US leader in online grocery sales today.
But Walmart’s past success — and the practices it made commonplace as a result of that success — also hamstring the brick-and-mortar giant today.
The latest example: Walmart revealed on Tuesday that it spent $11.8 billion in the last year on dividends — payments it makes to every shareholder every three months — as well as buying back shares of stock from its shareholders. Over that same period of time, you might be able to guess how much Amazon spent on the same practices: exactly $0, despite Amazon generating $13 billion more than Walmart in cash from core business operations.
The discrepancy highlights how Walmart’s longtime relationship with its Wall Street investors is both a blessing and a curse, while Amazon’s own ties to investors is one of its key advantages. For Walmart, the company has built up credibility and trust among investors over a long period of time, but those same investors expect things like dividends and share buybacks, potentially siphoning off cash that could be used to better compete with Amazon or to invent new business lines that could attract new customers.
Amazon, on the other hand, has meticulously trained Wall Street to value revenue growth and moving into new business lines over large profits, which for decades allowed Jeff Bezos the unique advantage of operating according to a playbook much different from almost every other competitor. If investors expected similar things from Amazon as they do Walmart, it’s possible that inventions like Alexa or Amazon Web Services never would have seen the light of day.
Walmart has been paying dividends since it announced a 5-cents-per-share annual payment in 1974, both to reward existing shareholders and attract future ones looking for stable and cash-paying stocks. Today, Walmart pays out more than $2 per share annually to its investors, which would work out to more than $6 billion alone in dividends based on its current number of outstanding shares.
Amazon, on the other hand, has never paid a dividend. The company’s promise to investors has instead been built around the idea that as Amazon grows, eats up business in new markets, and starts generating meaningful profit, investors will get more excited about buying the stock, pushing the price up. It’s a virtuous cycle that has seen Amazon’s stock price increase around 5.5 times from this same point five years ago.
This is not to say that Walmart fails to recognize the constraints and challenges created by its past success. At its annual investor day on Tuesday, in fact, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon cited the influence on him of Clay Christensen’s seminal business book The Innovator’s Dilemma, which highlights the challenges incumbent businesses face in adapting and innovating when faced with threats from upstart competitors. And Walmart has spent more than $20 billion over the past few years alone on acquisitions of such competitors, with deals for Jet.com in the US and Amazon’s biggest rival in India, Flipkart.
Related Walmart is done trying to buy small retailers to compete with Amazon
But internal tension last year between the company’s traditional store business and its emerging e-commerce business, as revealed by Recode, showcased the challenge of altering a company’s DNA. The store team was “frustrated by some of the company’s money-losing forays into building in-house startups that seem unlikely to ever reach mass scale or grow large enough to move the needle for Walmart’s overall business,” I wrote at the time. Walmart announced last week that one of those startups, called JetBlack, would be shut down. (Walmart US e-commerce head Marc Lore told investors on Tuesday that the company would “leverage insights” from JetBlack in a test of a new service for Walmart.com shoppers in three cities.)
For Walmart’s McMillon and his leadership team, it’s a tightrope act: give your longtime investors enough of what they expect to keep them around, while investing and innovating enough to survive and thrive amid the rise of Amazon. But spending $12 billion just to keep investors happy seems like a large price to pay.


vox--2020-02-18--The Rod Blagojevich scandal and Trump’s commutation of his sentence, explained

President Donald Trump commuted the remainder of the sentence of former Illinois Gov .
Rod Blagojevich ( D ) on corruption charges , he announced Tuesday — meaning Blagojevich , who has been in prison for nearly eight years , will be freed .
Blagojevich was convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges related to his attempts to essentially sell the Senate seat Barack Obama left open when he won the presidential election in 2008 .
Blagojevich was also convicted of trying to extort a children ’ s hospital CEO and a racetrack executive for campaign contributions in exchange for policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the FBI .
It may seem odd that Trump helped out a corrupt Democrat .
But Blagojevich had one major thing going for him : After his ouster from the governorship but before his trials , he appeared as a contestant on the Trump-hosted reality show The Celebrity Apprentice .
Since then , Trump has mused several times that Blagojevich got too harsh a sentence , often giving flat-out false descriptions of the case and the evidence against him .
For instance , Trump said last August that Blagojevich has “ been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone call where nothing happens — over a phone call which he shouldn ’ t have said what he said , but it was braggadocio you would say.
” This is not at all what happened .
Prosecutors laid out wiretap evidence and witness testimony that , in many conversations spanning over a month , Blagojevich had schemed about what he could get in return for naming particular people to the Senate seat .
Among the possibilities he dangled were financial benefits for himself and his family — highly paid nonprofit gigs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or corporate board seats for his wife .
Plus , he was convicted of other corruption offenses having nothing to do with the Senate seat .
( You will note that Trump reprised that same basic “ it was just one phone call ” argument in his own defense , also misleadingly , during impeachment proceedings . )
But Trump has enjoyed using his pardon ( and in this case , commutation ) power to forgive somewhat notorious , politically controversial individuals : former Maricopa County , Arizona , Sheriff Joe Arpaio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Souza , and former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby .
And indeed , alongside the commutation for Blagojevich , Trump announced he was granting clemency to former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik and “ junk bond king ” Michael Milken .
And these latest moves are playing out amid controversy over the impending sentencings for Trump allies Michael Flynn and Roger Stone .
So they could well serve another purpose — further normalizing the granting of pardons and commutations to Trump ’ s friends , so Trump can eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the law but remained “ loyal ” to him .
Because if you give clemency to the corrupt Democratic governor who tried to sell Obama ’ s Senate seat , who won ’ t you give clemency to ?
What was the Rod Blagojevich scandal ?
After Blagojevich served as a Chicago-based prosecutor , state legislator , and Congress member , his political career peaked when he was elected governor of Illinois in 2002 and then won a second term in 2006 .
But he was quickly overshadowed by another Democratic rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who won a Senate seat in 2004 and then the presidency in 2008 .
That latter win meant that Obama would have to resign his Senate seat — and that Gov .
Blagojevich would get to appoint his replacement .
Media reports claimed that Obama wanted his adviser Valerie Jarrett to get the spot .
But Blagojevich had other ideas .
The Senate seat , he told an adviser , “ is a fucking valuable thing , you just don ’ t give it away for nothing.
” In another conversation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got this thing and it ’ s fucking golden and , uh , uh , I ’ m just not giving it up for fuckin ’ nothing.
” He also complained that his consultants were telling him to “ suck it up ” and give this “ motherfucker ” — Obama — “ his senator.
” He added : “ For nothing ?
Fuck him.
” ( All of these conversations were wiretapped by the FBI . )
So what did Blagojevich want in return for naming Jarrett to the seat ?
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential appointment for him , preferably health and human services secretary • Obama could get him named the head of a private foundation ( though it had to be for a large salary ) • Obama could get “ Warren Buffett types ” to give millions in funding to a new nonprofit that Blagojevich would then run ( with a substantial salary ) Blagojevich had his advisers get in touch with Obama ’ s to try to convey this information to them .
But he didn ’ t hear back anything encouraging .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jesse Jackson Jr. , who wanted Jackson to get the Senate seat — asking them for $ 1.5 million in “ fundraising ” in exchange for the appointment ( and since Blagojevich had already decided not to run for a third term , prosecutors argued he wanted the money for his personal use ) .
He even mused about naming himself to fill the vacancy .
But on December 5 , the scheme came to a halt when the Chicago Tribune reported that Blagojevich had been recorded as part of a criminal investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with various offenses related to trying to sell the Senate seat as well as other alleged incidents of corruption ( it turns out this incident was representative of how Blagojevich tended to do business generally ) .
The news caused a national sensation — in part because of the scandal was close to the newly elected president and in part because those Blagojevich wiretap quotes above were so over the top .
Blagojevich refused calls from Obama and others for his resignation and named former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in January 2009 , the state legislature impeached Blagojevich and removed him from office .
Then Blagojevich went on The Celebrity Apprentice Later that year , while awaiting trial , the former governor made what could prove to be one of the most important decisions of his life : He became a contestant on Donald Trump ’ s reality TV show , The Celebrity Apprentice .
Blagojevich made it four weeks but stumbled in a challenge to design a Harry Potter 3D experience for Universal Studios .
His team ’ s display called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Hogwards ” rather than “ Hogwarts ” and referred to “ classes ” rather than “ houses.
” “ Your Harry Potter facts were not accurate !
” Trump thundered .
“ Who did the research ?
” “ I wrote a lot of the text , ” Blagojevich admitted .
“ I was the one who said ‘ houses ’ and ‘ classes ’ interchangeably , because I was trying to be more explicit , so people can get a concept of it .
But it ’ s Slithering ( sic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s Ravencloth ( sic ) ... ” Anyway , he was fired , but the point is he got to spend some quality time with the future president .
What Blagojevich ended up convicted for In 2010 , Blagojevich had what turned out to be his first trial .
There , he was convicted on one count of making false statements to the FBI ( he had told them he didn ’ t keep track of who gave him campaign donations ) , but the jury couldn ’ t reach a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A juror told the New York Times that some jurors concluded Blagojevich had just been “ doing a lot of talking.
” ) But the deadlocked jury meant prosecutors had the opportunity to try Blagojevich again .
They did so in 2011 — and this time , they got their man .
Blagojevich was convicted on 17 counts .
Most of these were wire fraud and conspiracy charges related to Obama ’ s Senate seat .
But let ’ s not forget the other corruption incidents he was convicted of : • The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Memorial Hospital in Chicago asked Blagojevich to increase the reimbursement rate for Medicaid payments , Blagojevich communicated to them that he ’ d do so in exchange for a “ campaign contribution ” of $ 50,000 .
• The racetrack executive shakedown : After the Illinois legislature passed an extension for a program designed to help out racetracks by taxing casinos , Blagojevich delayed signing it to try to get $ 100,000 in “ campaign ” contributions from a racetrack executive .
He communicated that he wouldn ’ t sign the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eventually , Blagojevich got five of these counts thrown out on appeal , due to a technicality related to jury instructions .
An appellate panel concluded that it would not , in fact , have been illegal for Blagojevich to try to trade the Senate appointment for a Cabinet appointment for himself , since both are “ public acts.
” Now , Blagojevich had also sought various financial and private benefits ( the nonprofits posts for him and board seats for his wife ) , and the appellate judges agreed there was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reason .
But the jury had been told that they could convict him even if only the Cabinet allegation was proven .
This was hardly a resounding vindication for Blagojevich , since the judges also called the “ evidence ” of his guilt “ overwhelming , ” pointing out that much of it was “ from Blagojevich ’ s own mouth.
” And in the end , it didn ’ t change his sentence , which turned out to be a hefty 14 years .
This is the latest in Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ordinarily , Blagojevich would have little hope of a pardon or commutation — his offense seems absurdly corrupt , and what president would want to be seen as waving away his crimes ?
But then he got extraordinarily lucky when his old reality TV host Donald Trump became president .
Trump doesn ’ t seem particularly disturbed by corruption , when it ’ s practiced by his friends or allies , at least .
And , even more importantly , Trump seems to have discovered that ... he kind of likes pardoning people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the kind of commuted sentence Blagojevich would represent .
1 ) Joe Arpaio : The former sheriff of Maricopa County , Arizona , Arpaio was a favorite of the anti-immigrant right for “ cracking down ” on unauthorized immigrants ( as well as for stunts like making his inmates wear pink underwear ) .
But the Justice Department ( under President Obama ) found he had been rampantly racially profiling Latinos , so the courts tried to get him to rein in his practices .
He refused and was charged with criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and was convicted .
But in August 2017 , before Arpaio was even sentenced , Trump pardoned him , in the first pardon of his presidency .
The Arpaio pardon served Trump ’ s policy aims because he was trying to encourage officials to “ get tough ” on unauthorized immigrants across the country .
Trump was also rewarding a political ally who had endorsed him early in his campaign .
And he spun it as mercy — as helping a then-85-year-old man avoid prison .
2 ) Scooter Libby : Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I. Lewis “ Scooter ” Libby , who was a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney during George W. Bush ’ s administration .
Libby had become embroiled in the investigation over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame ’ s identity and was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about his contacts with journalists over the matter .
President Bush commuted Libby ’ s 30-month prison sentence in 2007 , so he never served any time .
But Bush notably refused to grant him a full pardon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then decided to grant Libby that full pardon in April 2018 .
Though Libby had many friends in the conservative movement who long pushed for the move , the pardon was mainly symbolic , since his sentence was already commuted .
But many speculated about just what symbolism Trump intended , in the midst of the Mueller investigation .
Was he sending a message that aides who remained loyal to him would also be rewarded — even if they lied to the FBI ?
3 ) Dinesh D ’ Souza : Next came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Souza , the longtime ( and controversial ) conservative author and commentator .
In 2012 , D ’ Souza had told two people to donate $ 10,000 each to an old friend ’ s Senate campaign and promised to pay them back the money himself .
This , however , was illegal , and D ’ Souza eventually pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law for it .
But D ’ Souza argued he only pleaded guilty to avert more serious charges and portrayed himself as targeted by Obama ’ s supposedly corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the exact narrative Trump wanted to promote — and so he pardoned D ’ Souza in May 2018 .
The Blagojevich commutation happened after a delay — and as all eyes are turning toward Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Just after the D ’ Souza pardon nearly two years ago , Trump told reporters that “ there ’ s another one I ’ m thinking about , Rod Blagojevich.
” Indeed , Blagojevich ’ s supporters ( most notably his wife Patti ) have fashioned several arguments designed to appeal to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a formal clemency petition as well as appeals during Fox News appearances .
The most accurate point Trump has made is simply that Blagojevich has been in prison for a long time .
He has : nearly eight years .
However , Trump also claimed he got an 18-year sentence , which is wrong ; it was 14 years .
Most notably , Blagojevich ’ s supporters have argued that Blagojevich was a victim of a corrupt and political FBI “ deep state , ” exaggerating ordinary political behavior into crimes — with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just like Trump .
This argument seems to have resonated with Trump — he said last August that Blagojevich had been “ treated unbelievably unfairly ” by “ the Comey gang.
” Now , former FBI Director James Comey was not even in the federal government for the time spanning Blagojevich ’ s 2008 arrest to his 2011 conviction .
( The FBI director at the time was Robert Mueller . )
But Trump is probably referring to Patrick Fitzgerald , the Northern Illinois US attorney who prosecuted Blagojevich as well as Scooter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Comey ’ s , and now that he ’ s back in private practice , he ’ s Comey ’ s lawyer .
Trump also has been repeating a false description of the Blagojevich case , claiming he was only charged for what he said on one phone call that could have been just talk .
In fact , the charges related to a month ’ s worth of discussions and three separate corruption-related incidents .
It is true that no money ended up changing hands , but that certainly wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s part .
Trump brought up commuting Blagojevich ’ s sentence unprompted multiple times over the past two years , making clear he wanted to do it .
But each time he did so , he faced pushback , as Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported .
Republican members of Congress in Illinois were understandably appalled by the idea , and even most White House staff seemed to think it was a bad look .
So , for a while , Trump was hesitant to go through with it .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so consistently tempting .
Trump wants to normalize corrupt behavior from himself and his allies , he wants to set precedents that pardoning corrupt friends of the president is okay , and he wants to further cement the narrative that any FBI corruption investigations that touch on his allies are “ deep state ” frame-ups .
That ’ s particularly relevant to three of his close allies who faced charges in the Mueller investigation : Paul Manafort , Michael Flynn , and Roger Stone .
About a year ago , Manafort was sentenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraud , bank fraud , conspiracy , and witness tampering .
But so far , Trump has done nothing to ameliorate his former campaign chair ’ s sentence — he remains behind bars , where he has been for nearly two years now ( he was jailed before his trials for violating his conditions of release ) .
Then there was former national security adviser Michael Flynn , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador .
Flynn agreed to cooperate with the government , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now seeking to have his guilty plea thrown out .
His sentencing was originally scheduled for this month but it has been delayed .
Finally , there ’ s longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone , who was convicted for obstruction , false statements , and witness tampering .
Stone is due to be sentenced this Thursday , and Attorney General Bill Barr controversially intervened to water down prosecutors ’ sentencing recommendation for him ( spurring all four prosecutors to quit the case ) .
So if Trump gives Blagojevich clemency and the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then moves on to the next thing ) , it could be less of a stretch for him to pardon Manafort , Flynn , or Stone later .
And there ’ s one other likely reason the idea appeals to him so much .
He probably looks at Rod Blagojevich — wiretapped by the FBI discussing all sorts of corrupt ideas and then convicted and sent to prison — and thinks , There but for the grace of God go I .

President Donald Trump commuted the remainder of the sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) on corruption charges, he announced Tuesday — meaning Blagojevich, who has been in prison for nearly eight years, will be freed.
Blagojevich was convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges related to his attempts to essentially sell the Senate seat Barack Obama left open when he won the presidential election in 2008. Blagojevich was also convicted of trying to extort a children’s hospital CEO and a racetrack executive for campaign contributions in exchange for policy changes, and of making false statements to the FBI.
It may seem odd that Trump helped out a corrupt Democrat. But Blagojevich had one major thing going for him: After his ouster from the governorship but before his trials, he appeared as a contestant on the Trump-hosted reality show The Celebrity Apprentice.
Since then, Trump has mused several times that Blagojevich got too harsh a sentence, often giving flat-out false descriptions of the case and the evidence against him. For instance, Trump said last August that Blagojevich has “been in jail for seven years over a phone call where nothing happens — over a phone call which he shouldn’t have said what he said, but it was braggadocio you would say.”
This is not at all what happened. Prosecutors laid out wiretap evidence and witness testimony that, in many conversations spanning over a month, Blagojevich had schemed about what he could get in return for naming particular people to the Senate seat.
Among the possibilities he dangled were financial benefits for himself and his family — highly paid nonprofit gigs that he imagined Obama could arrange for him, or corporate board seats for his wife. Plus, he was convicted of other corruption offenses having nothing to do with the Senate seat. (You will note that Trump reprised that same basic “it was just one phone call” argument in his own defense, also misleadingly, during impeachment proceedings.)
But Trump has enjoyed using his pardon (and in this case, commutation) power to forgive somewhat notorious, politically controversial individuals: former Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, conservative writer and documentarian Dinesh D’Souza, and former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby. And indeed, alongside the commutation for Blagojevich, Trump announced he was granting clemency to former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik and “junk bond king” Michael Milken.
And these latest moves are playing out amid controversy over the impending sentencings for Trump allies Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. So they could well serve another purpose — further normalizing the granting of pardons and commutations to Trump’s friends, so Trump can eventually reward his associates who have run afoul of the law but remained “loyal” to him.
Because if you give clemency to the corrupt Democratic governor who tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat, who won’t you give clemency to?
What was the Rod Blagojevich scandal?
After Blagojevich served as a Chicago-based prosecutor, state legislator, and Congress member, his political career peaked when he was elected governor of Illinois in 2002 and then won a second term in 2006. But he was quickly overshadowed by another Democratic rising star from his state, Barack Obama, who won a Senate seat in 2004 and then the presidency in 2008.
That latter win meant that Obama would have to resign his Senate seat — and that Gov. Blagojevich would get to appoint his replacement. Media reports claimed that Obama wanted his adviser Valerie Jarrett to get the spot.
But Blagojevich had other ideas. The Senate seat, he told an adviser, “is a fucking valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.” In another conversation, he elaborated: “I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fuckin’ nothing.” He also complained that his consultants were telling him to “suck it up” and give this “motherfucker” — Obama — “his senator.” He added: “For nothing? Fuck him.” (All of these conversations were wiretapped by the FBI.)
So what did Blagojevich want in return for naming Jarrett to the seat? He mused about several ideas:
A presidential appointment for him, preferably health and human services secretary
Obama could get him named the head of a private foundation (though it had to be for a large salary)
Obama could get “Warren Buffett types” to give millions in funding to a new nonprofit that Blagojevich would then run (with a substantial salary)
Paid corporate board positions for his wife
Blagojevich had his advisers get in touch with Obama’s to try to convey this information to them. But he didn’t hear back anything encouraging. He then turned to supporters of then-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., who wanted Jackson to get the Senate seat — asking them for $1.5 million in “fundraising” in exchange for the appointment (and since Blagojevich had already decided not to run for a third term, prosecutors argued he wanted the money for his personal use). He even mused about naming himself to fill the vacancy.
But on December 5, the scheme came to a halt when the Chicago Tribune reported that Blagojevich had been recorded as part of a criminal investigation. Blagojevich was arrested days later and charged with various offenses related to trying to sell the Senate seat as well as other alleged incidents of corruption (it turns out this incident was representative of how Blagojevich tended to do business generally).
The news caused a national sensation — in part because of the scandal was close to the newly elected president and in part because those Blagojevich wiretap quotes above were so over the top. Blagojevich refused calls from Obama and others for his resignation and named former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the Senate vacancy. But shortly afterward, in January 2009, the state legislature impeached Blagojevich and removed him from office.
Then Blagojevich went on The Celebrity Apprentice
Later that year, while awaiting trial, the former governor made what could prove to be one of the most important decisions of his life: He became a contestant on Donald Trump’s reality TV show, The Celebrity Apprentice.
Blagojevich made it four weeks but stumbled in a challenge to design a Harry Potter 3D experience for Universal Studios. His team’s display called the famed school for witchcraft and wizardry “Hogwards” rather than “Hogwarts” and referred to “classes” rather than “houses.”
“Your Harry Potter facts were not accurate!” Trump thundered. “Who did the research?”
“I wrote a lot of the text,” Blagojevich admitted. “I was the one who said ‘houses’ and ‘classes’ interchangeably, because I was trying to be more explicit, so people can get a concept of it. But it’s Slithering (sic) and it’s Hufflepuff and it’s Ravencloth (sic)...” Anyway, he was fired, but the point is he got to spend some quality time with the future president.
What Blagojevich ended up convicted for
In 2010, Blagojevich had what turned out to be his first trial. There, he was convicted on one count of making false statements to the FBI (he had told them he didn’t keep track of who gave him campaign donations), but the jury couldn’t reach a verdict on 23 other counts. (A juror told the New York Times that some jurors concluded Blagojevich had just been “doing a lot of talking.”)
But the deadlocked jury meant prosecutors had the opportunity to try Blagojevich again. They did so in 2011 — and this time, they got their man. Blagojevich was convicted on 17 counts. Most of these were wire fraud and conspiracy charges related to Obama’s Senate seat. But let’s not forget the other corruption incidents he was convicted of:
The hospital shakedown: After lobbyists for Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago asked Blagojevich to increase the reimbursement rate for Medicaid payments, Blagojevich communicated to them that he’d do so in exchange for a “campaign contribution” of $50,000.
After lobbyists for Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago asked Blagojevich to increase the reimbursement rate for Medicaid payments, Blagojevich communicated to them that he’d do so in exchange for a “campaign contribution” of $50,000. The racetrack executive shakedown: After the Illinois legislature passed an extension for a program designed to help out racetracks by taxing casinos, Blagojevich delayed signing it to try to get $100,000 in “campaign” contributions from a racetrack executive. He communicated that he wouldn’t sign the bill before he got the donations.
Eventually, Blagojevich got five of these counts thrown out on appeal, due to a technicality related to jury instructions. An appellate panel concluded that it would not, in fact, have been illegal for Blagojevich to try to trade the Senate appointment for a Cabinet appointment for himself, since both are “public acts.” Now, Blagojevich had also sought various financial and private benefits (the nonprofits posts for him and board seats for his wife), and the appellate judges agreed there was “sufficient” evidence to convict him for that reason. But the jury had been told that they could convict him even if only the Cabinet allegation was proven.
This was hardly a resounding vindication for Blagojevich, since the judges also called the “evidence” of his guilt “overwhelming,” pointing out that much of it was “from Blagojevich’s own mouth.” And in the end, it didn’t change his sentence, which turned out to be a hefty 14 years.
This is the latest in Trump’s series of political pardons or commutations
Ordinarily, Blagojevich would have little hope of a pardon or commutation — his offense seems absurdly corrupt, and what president would want to be seen as waving away his crimes?
But then he got extraordinarily lucky when his old reality TV host Donald Trump became president. Trump doesn’t seem particularly disturbed by corruption, when it’s practiced by his friends or allies, at least. And, even more importantly, Trump seems to have discovered that ... he kind of likes pardoning people. There have been three main precursors to the kind of commuted sentence Blagojevich would represent.
1) Joe Arpaio: The former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Arpaio was a favorite of the anti-immigrant right for “cracking down” on unauthorized immigrants (as well as for stunts like making his inmates wear pink underwear). But the Justice Department (under President Obama) found he had been rampantly racially profiling Latinos, so the courts tried to get him to rein in his practices. He refused and was charged with criminal contempt of court, lost reelection, and was convicted.
But in August 2017, before Arpaio was even sentenced, Trump pardoned him, in the first pardon of his presidency. The Arpaio pardon served Trump’s policy aims because he was trying to encourage officials to “get tough” on unauthorized immigrants across the country. Trump was also rewarding a political ally who had endorsed him early in his campaign. And he spun it as mercy — as helping a then-85-year-old man avoid prison.
2) Scooter Libby: Trump’s next big political pardon was for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney during George W. Bush’s administration. Libby had become embroiled in the investigation over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity and was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about his contacts with journalists over the matter. President Bush commuted Libby’s 30-month prison sentence in 2007, so he never served any time. But Bush notably refused to grant him a full pardon, despite frequent appeals from Cheney.
Trump then decided to grant Libby that full pardon in April 2018. Though Libby had many friends in the conservative movement who long pushed for the move, the pardon was mainly symbolic, since his sentence was already commuted. But many speculated about just what symbolism Trump intended, in the midst of the Mueller investigation. Was he sending a message that aides who remained loyal to him would also be rewarded — even if they lied to the FBI?
3) Dinesh D’Souza: Next came Trump’s pardon for D’Souza, the longtime (and controversial) conservative author and commentator. In 2012, D’Souza had told two people to donate $10,000 each to an old friend’s Senate campaign and promised to pay them back the money himself. This, however, was illegal, and D’Souza eventually pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law for it.
But D’Souza argued he only pleaded guilty to avert more serious charges and portrayed himself as targeted by Obama’s supposedly corrupt Justice Department for political reasons. That is the exact narrative Trump wanted to promote — and so he pardoned D’Souza in May 2018.
The Blagojevich commutation happened after a delay — and as all eyes are turning toward Roger Stone and Michael Flynn
Just after the D’Souza pardon nearly two years ago, Trump told reporters that “there’s another one I’m thinking about, Rod Blagojevich.”
Indeed, Blagojevich’s supporters (most notably his wife Patti) have fashioned several arguments designed to appeal to Trump personally in a campaign that has included a formal clemency petition as well as appeals during Fox News appearances.
The most accurate point Trump has made is simply that Blagojevich has been in prison for a long time. He has: nearly eight years. However, Trump also claimed he got an 18-year sentence, which is wrong; it was 14 years.
Most notably, Blagojevich’s supporters have argued that Blagojevich was a victim of a corrupt and political FBI “deep state,” exaggerating ordinary political behavior into crimes — with the implication being that he’s just like Trump.
This argument seems to have resonated with Trump — he said last August that Blagojevich had been “treated unbelievably unfairly” by “the Comey gang.”
Now, former FBI Director James Comey was not even in the federal government for the time spanning Blagojevich’s 2008 arrest to his 2011 conviction. (The FBI director at the time was Robert Mueller.) But Trump is probably referring to Patrick Fitzgerald, the Northern Illinois US attorney who prosecuted Blagojevich as well as Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald is a close friend of Comey’s, and now that he’s back in private practice, he’s Comey’s lawyer.
Trump also has been repeating a false description of the Blagojevich case, claiming he was only charged for what he said on one phone call that could have been just talk. In fact, the charges related to a month’s worth of discussions and three separate corruption-related incidents. It is true that no money ended up changing hands, but that certainly wasn’t for lack of trying on Blagojevich’s part.
Trump brought up commuting Blagojevich’s sentence unprompted multiple times over the past two years, making clear he wanted to do it. But each time he did so, he faced pushback, as Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported. Republican members of Congress in Illinois were understandably appalled by the idea, and even most White House staff seemed to think it was a bad look. So, for a while, Trump was hesitant to go through with it.
But it seems obvious why the idea was so consistently tempting. Trump wants to normalize corrupt behavior from himself and his allies, he wants to set precedents that pardoning corrupt friends of the president is okay, and he wants to further cement the narrative that any FBI corruption investigations that touch on his allies are “deep state” frame-ups.
That’s particularly relevant to three of his close allies who faced charges in the Mueller investigation: Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone.
About a year ago, Manafort was sentenced to a combined seven-and-a-half years for tax fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy, and witness tampering. But so far, Trump has done nothing to ameliorate his former campaign chair’s sentence — he remains behind bars, where he has been for nearly two years now (he was jailed before his trials for violating his conditions of release).
Then there was former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. Flynn agreed to cooperate with the government, but eventually reneged on the deal and is now seeking to have his guilty plea thrown out. His sentencing was originally scheduled for this month but it has been delayed.
Finally, there’s longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who was convicted for obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering. Stone is due to be sentenced this Thursday, and Attorney General Bill Barr controversially intervened to water down prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation for him (spurring all four prosecutors to quit the case).
So if Trump gives Blagojevich clemency and the political system yawns (or briefly protests and then moves on to the next thing), it could be less of a stretch for him to pardon Manafort, Flynn, or Stone later.
And there’s one other likely reason the idea appeals to him so much. He probably looks at Rod Blagojevich — wiretapped by the FBI discussing all sorts of corrupt ideas and then convicted and sent to prison — and thinks, There but for the grace of God go I.


vox--2020-02-18--Ta-Nehisi Coates on why political power isn’t enough for the right

This episode of The Ezra Klein Show was a pleasure .
Ta-Nehisi Coates joined me in Brooklyn for part of the Why We ’ re Polarized tour .
His description of the book may be my favorite yet .
It is , he says , “ a cold , atheist book.
” We talk about what that means , and from there go into some of the harder questions raised not so much by the book but by American history itself .
Then Coates asked me a question I never expected to hear from him : Is there anything I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope ?
Don ’ t miss this one .
A lightly edited excerpt from our discussion follows .
You can listen to our whole conversation on The Ezra Klein Show .
I think to the extent that you see real power changing in this country , you see it in culture rather than politics .
This is why people find Black Panther infuriating — it has nothing to do with the content .
But you get all of these responses like , “ Why do I have to like this ?
Why is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I think what ’ s happened is people who previously did not have power now have power .
Shonda Rhimes has actual power to actually affect what you ’ re going to see on your television .
This to me is such an underplayed part of the political moment right now .
I love the way Rebecca Traister talks about this : People can see when new groups are gaining the power to be represented in culture , to see their cultural preferences made real , to be represented in politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss of power among people who used to have it in an unquestioned way is also powerful .
Something I talk about in the book is that you can ’ t pretend that it doesn ’ t feel like a loss .
But one of the hard things about that is , on the other side , it ’ s not yet a win .
Power has not actually shifted to a new dominant majority .
What we are witnessing is only the very beginning .
We get the first African American president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think we don ’ t always realize the extent to which the culture actually interacts with politics .
You say something in the book about how the effects of demographics are not felt in the immediate moment — it happens much later .
And I think it ’ s actually the same way for culture .
I think those who perceive a threat symbolically from Barack Obama are kind of correct because kids are going to grow up and they ’ re going to remember as a great authority figure this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it matters that all the other presidents before him were white , then it has to matter that he is black .
So if white identity is important to you , then that might be threatening to you .
I have a line in the book that culture runs 10 years ahead of demographics and politics runs 10 years behind .
Nike makes [ Colin ] Kaepernick their spokesman because they want to win the future .
They want to appeal to young people , and young America is much more diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news networks only care how many people watch between 18 and 40 years old .
So cultural power is trying to win over the America that is to come .
Political power — if you look at who votes and whose power is amplified by American geography — is operating behind .
And then economic power is compounding over time .
So there ’ s a deep instability in our politics right now where it is not wrong that this sort of Trump coalition feels itself losing a power it had .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it has lost power .
That ’ s disorienting for everybody because they ’ re reacting to loss , but it ’ s not like there ’ s some winner on the other side who can just sort of move forward with the agenda .
So we ’ re in this incredibly clenched moment of very sharp conflict .
You can listen to the full episode by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get your podcasts .

This episode of The Ezra Klein Show was a pleasure. Ta-Nehisi Coates joined me in Brooklyn for part of the Why We’re Polarized tour. His description of the book may be my favorite yet. It is, he says, “a cold, atheist book.”
We talk about what that means, and from there go into some of the harder questions raised not so much by the book but by American history itself. Then Coates asked me a question I never expected to hear from him: Is there anything I could say to leave him with some hope? Don’t miss this one.
A lightly edited excerpt from our discussion follows. You can listen to our whole conversation on The Ezra Klein Show.
Ta-Nehisi Coates
I think to the extent that you see real power changing in this country, you see it in culture rather than politics. This is why people find Black Panther infuriating — it has nothing to do with the content. But you get all of these responses like, “Why do I have to like this? Why is this being rammed down my throat?” I think what’s happened is people who previously did not have power now have power. Shonda Rhimes has actual power to actually affect what you’re going to see on your television.
Ezra Klein
This to me is such an underplayed part of the political moment right now. I love the way Rebecca Traister talks about this: People can see when new groups are gaining the power to be represented in culture, to see their cultural preferences made real, to be represented in politics. It’s noticeable. And the loss of power among people who used to have it in an unquestioned way is also powerful.
Something I talk about in the book is that you can’t pretend that it doesn’t feel like a loss. But one of the hard things about that is, on the other side, it’s not yet a win. Power has not actually shifted to a new dominant majority. What we are witnessing is only the very beginning. We get the first African American president ever and the result is Donald Trump.
Ta-Nehisi Coates
I think we don’t always realize the extent to which the culture actually interacts with politics. You say something in the book about how the effects of demographics are not felt in the immediate moment — it happens much later. And I think it’s actually the same way for culture. I think those who perceive a threat symbolically from Barack Obama are kind of correct because kids are going to grow up and they’re going to remember as a great authority figure this guy who was African American. And if it matters that all the other presidents before him were white, then it has to matter that he is black. So if white identity is important to you, then that might be threatening to you.
Ezra Klein
I have a line in the book that culture runs 10 years ahead of demographics and politics runs 10 years behind. Nike makes [Colin] Kaepernick their spokesman because they want to win the future. They want to appeal to young people, and young America is much more diverse. For the same reason, cable news networks only care how many people watch between 18 and 40 years old.
So cultural power is trying to win over the America that is to come. Political power — if you look at who votes and whose power is amplified by American geography — is operating behind. And then economic power is compounding over time. So there’s a deep instability in our politics right now where it is not wrong that this sort of Trump coalition feels itself losing a power it had. But it’s completely wrong to say that it has lost power. That’s disorienting for everybody because they’re reacting to loss, but it’s not like there’s some winner on the other side who can just sort of move forward with the agenda. So we’re in this incredibly clenched moment of very sharp conflict.
You can listen to the full episode by subscribing to The Ezra Klein Show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.