Politix (Politix)

What's up Positively Dreadful fans, it’s me Brian.

I know this feed has been quiet for a couple months now, as I’ve been getting my new venture Off Message up and running. (Come check it out!) But I’ve got something exciting in the works, and I want all of you Dreadheads to be the first to know about it. 

So hopefully you can stay put just a little bit longer. Keep your eyes and ears on the feed. And I’ll share more details here in the coming days. Until then I also want to thank you all for listening every week, and for staying subscribed even after we posted our last episode. 

So more to come very shortly. Thanks again for listening.

Politix will be a weekly podcast about the 2024 election hosted by Brian Beutler of Off Message and Matthew Yglesias of Slow Boring. We'll bring you good-faith disagreement, points of consensus, brilliant guests, and do our best to maintain a consistent focus on what's really at stake in November. Subscribe for new episodes each Wednesday.

Thank you for listening to Politix. (Or for watching it, if you’re some kind of eccentric.)

In our pilot episode, we discuss:

* The state of the race as we kick off the new year: A dead-heat rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and a greater-than-usual level of uncertainty, given the candidates’ ages and Trump’s legal issues;

* Why the early race is so tight, given how disastrously Trump’s single term ended;

* Republican buy-in on Trump’s corruption, how it insulates him from what would otherwise be terminal scandals, and what more Democrats could do to exploit it anyhow;

* MERRY CHRISTMAS/ROT IN HELL-GHAZI and whether Biden’s made a safe bet that Trump’s looming nomination will upend the race, as Americans remember just how unpleasant he is;

* Nikki Haley’s SLAVERY-GHAZI scandal—does it say more about her or the party she wants to lead?—and whether Democrats in open-primary states should cross over and vote for her;

* Our New Years resolutions.

We hope you enjoy it, always appreciate constructive feedback, and look forward to bringing you more (slightly shorter?) newsy episodes every week.

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Was Joe Biden’s January 6 speech a good speech? (No spoilers.)

* Was Joe Biden’s January 6 speech good politics? (No spoilers.)

* Was Joe Biden’s January 6 speech true? (Spoiler: Yes.)

* How the truth of what Biden said affects the question of whether liberals should support Nikki Haley in open-primary states.

* Glenn Greenwald’s imputation that Haley is worse than Trump, and only Democratic party hacks would prefer her to him.

Plus, a Politix first: Twitter’s Will Stancil joins Matt and Brian as the show’s inaugural guest to discuss and debate the role of vibes in politics, and what if anything liberals, progressives, and Democrats can do to improve public opinion given the fractious nature of the center-left coalition. 

Further reading:

* Brian on Biden’s pivotal speech.

* Matt on how Trump will make material conditions (and thus maybe vibes?) worse.

* Will on the social layer of politics (vibes).

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Donald Trump’s predictable, big (but not actually all that big) victory in Iowa

* Why leading Republicans (who know Trump is an electoral liability for the party) are trying to end the primary as quickly as possible, even with a semi-viable alternative who could make it a real race.

* Whether the media screwed up by calling the caucuses for Trump minutes after they opened, or whether it marks a return to the ratings and profit-driven mania of their 2016 Trump coverage.

Then, paid Politix subscribers get an in-depth look at a report by Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, which proves Trump accepted payments from foreign governments (including millions from China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) throughout his presidency. Matt and Brian debate:

* The political significance of Raskin’s findings.

* Why Democratic leaders seem uninterested in flogging or building on the report.

* What’s changed between 2006, when Democrats saw political value in exposing Republican corruption, and the Trump era, when they have more often than not downplayed it.

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Ron DeSantis’s humiliation.

* What policy literalism and pandering to base activists (as opposed to grassroots voters) has to do with both DeSantis’s failure, and the underperformance of some high-profile Democratic Party politicians.

* Is there an optimal middle ground between detailed policy laundry lists and Donald Trump-style bullshitting?

Then, paid Politix subscribers get to hear Matt’s mea culpa for setting progressive politics on its course to litmus testing Democratic candidates, Brian’s theory that the Democrats’ policy-forward appeals are sometimes necessary—particularly after long stretches of Republican rule—and what Democratic activists can learn about politics from rich, greedy tax-cut seekers like Jamie Dimon. 

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The $83.3 million a New York jury ordered Donald Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll for sexually assaulting then serially defaming her.

* The related GOP freakout that America’s most influential person (Taylor Swift) might not like Republicans very much!

* Why Democratic Party leaders seem uninterested in pressing their “not led by a rapist” advantage.

They also put a pin in the issue of immigration, and the simmering nullification crisis Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is stoking along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Then, paid subscribers hear a conversation with Leah Greenberg, cofounder of Indivisible, about whether it’s important to mobilize street protests against Donald Trump before the election (like the recent marches against the German far right), and the extent to which policy activism and policymaking contribute to the demobilization of the resistance.

Further reading:

* Dara Lind on how the Senate border security bill won’t actually fix the problem Republicans claim to want to fix.

* Brian on how the judgment in the Carroll case explains Trump’s desperation to run Nikki Haley out of the GOP primary instead of letting her flame out.

* Jonathan Chait on whether the anti-Trump coalition has irretrievably splintered.

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* How we reached the point where Republicans wrung a bunch of immigration-policy concessions out of Democrats, then reneged on their own deal.

* What was actually in the deal and why?

* Would the provisions of the bill have actually succeeded at the nominal goal of creating more order and better asylum screening at the border?

Then, paid subscribers hear a more open ended conversation and debate over whether the concessions Democrats offered were wise politically and substantively, whether they needed to engage this issue on Republican terms in the first place, and whether the GOP’s turn to sabotage will allow Democrats to seize and hold the center on immigration in a way that lastingly hurts Donald Trump. Plus, Matt gratuitously slags Tracy Chapman, forcing Brian to take a brave stand on behalf of Good Music.

Further reading:

* Matt argues that bureaucratic obstacles to implementing a working border policy, like ineffective polygraph screening for would-be agents, should be done away with—and would make implementing a border deal before the election very hard.

* Brian on how Biden can win the ensuing infowars over GOP border sabotage, but only if he browbeats mainstream news into covering Trump and the GOP’s dirty dealing forthrightly.

* The Democrats should fully embrace both halves of the old border-security-for-Republicans/legalization-for-Democrats consensus.

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The Robert Hur report, and the fire storm the special counsel ignited with his rule-breaking, partisan attack on Biden;

* How Biden could in theory alleviate concerns that he’s too old to be both president and candidate simultaneously—and why his advisers haven’t really tried;

* The extent to which Biden’s age really is limiting his ability to throw his weight around in the partisan mosh pit, even if it isn’t limiting his ability to govern at all;

* Whether polls on this question, and on the question of how well alternate candidates would fare, are useful at all;

* The Kamala Harris factor—is her consistently weak polling against Trump freezing a dysfunctional situation in place?

* How Biden’s politics of restoring norms and magnanimity has compounded (and in the case of the Hur appointment, created) his old-man woes.

Since this is a news-pegged episode about a consequential and unexpected development in the campaign, we’ve made it free to all subscribers.

Further reading:

* Matt says seeing more of Joe Biden would make his totally ordinary memory flubs seem unremarkable, and would remind Americans of his moderate instincts, but his advisers are worried that his moderate positions will make party activists angry.

* Brian demands candor from the party and the Biden campaign about why they think things are going so much worse than they anticipated when they put their strategy in motion.

* He also argues that most fears about what would happen if Biden stepped aside in favor of an alternate are misplaced.

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The nearly half-billion dollar judgment Trump owes New York for engaging in fraudulent business practices;

* Why MAGA spin that this his fraudulent practices were “victimless” is both bullshit, and irrelevant;

* Similarities and differences between this scam and Trump’s other fraudulent schemes.

Then, paid subscribers get a bigger picture look at where things go from here, and the significance for both the 2024 campaign and even national security. Are Trump’s latest entreaties to Vladimir Putin—on NATO, Ukraine, and the murder of Alexei Navalny—motivated by his renewed desperation for money? And will Democrats in Congress exploit this real risk of compromise the way Republicans exploited falsified allegations against Joe Biden? Will this be a watershed moment, or a(nother) missed political opportunity? Upgrade to find out!

Further reading:

* Brian encourages Senate Democrats, mainstream news reporters, law-enforcement officials, and Trump resisters to keep a close eye on whether Trump comes up with the money, and chase down the source(s).

* Eight years ago, Matt broke down how Trump avoided financial ruin after failing in Atlantic City by ripping off shareholders.

* Thirteen years ago Luis Zingales wrote, “Donald Trump’s announcement that he will not run in the Republican presidential primaries after all is great news for the Republican Party and for the country. The only thing more frightening than Trump’s running for president would be Trump’s getting elected president. From a party perspective, while losing an election is bad, winning one with the wrong candidate for the party and for the country is worse.”

* David Brooks offers a “keep it simple, stupid” explanation of why Trump’s fraud was fraud, and why fraud is bad.

In this special crossover episode, The Bulwark's Tim Miller joins Matt and Brian to answer burning questions like:

* Why have most Never Trumpers have embraced liberalism and the Democratic Party to some degree or another, rather than remain conservative critics within the GOP?

* If Republicans sincerely believe life begins at fertilization, why are they pretending to be the saviors of IVF?

* How (and where) do Republican operatives learn to be remorselessly unconcerned with norms, fairness, and consistency?

* Do Republicans have a good laugh when Democrats pass up opportunities to hold Donald Trump accountable, knowing how they’d react if the shoe were on the other foot?

* What would it look like from the inside if Republicans discovered Joe Biden committed half a billion dollars in fraud, or teamed up with foreign intelligence agents to frame Donald Trump?

If you’re enjoying the conversation and hit that paywall, we hope you’ll consider upgrading to hear the rest, along with all our past episodes and episodes to come.

We also offered Tim the opportunity to quiz Matt and Brian about Democrats, the tensions and dysfunctions that complicate big-tent liberalism, and what they would change about Democratic politics to improve Joe Biden’s chances in November, if they could only pick one thing. You can listen to that half of the crossover on The Bulwark podcast.

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* How Donald Trump wriggled away from his disastrous pandemic response and the horribleness of 2020;

* Whether Joe Biden’s pandemic response made voters more inclined to forgive Trump;

* The extent to which the switcheroo was the product of rational thinking vs. the political strategies of the two parties.

Then, paid subscribers get a prospective look at how Democrats persuade voters that their initial instinct to vote Trump out was correct. Can they raise the salience of the pandemic annus horribillis again after almost everyone has moved on? Will they ask the canonical question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Would they forgive Biden for a year of inflation if they understood it as part of the long, difficult process of fixing an economy Trump broke—and will break again? Upgrade to find out!

Further reading:

* The final report of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis.

* Brian on the political perils of always looking forward, not backward.

* Evan Osnos on Biden’s defiant confidence in the face of losing poll numbers.

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* The biggest political takeaways from Joe Biden’s State of the Union address;

* Whether the press corps will do any soul searching after getting bamboozled by Republican special counsel Robert Hur;

* Can Politix convince Merrick Garland to resign?

Then, paid subscribers get a deep analysis of Trump’s apparent (and abrupt) decision to place Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block, after years of insisting he’d never cut them. What precipitated the reversal? Does it have anything to do with his simultaneous reversals on the right-wing Bud Light boycott and the fate of TikTok, the Chinese-owned social-media company? Did he sell his position on entitlements to right-wing billionaires because he’s desperate for campaign and legal-expense money? And what can Democrats do to drive. If you’re interested in the answers to these questions, upgrade to paid, and enjoy the whole episode!

Further reading:

* Brian on how Trump’s Social Security/Medicare flip flop brings the nexus between his policy agenda and personal corruption into focus.

* Matt on how Trump’s position on TikTok was correct, until he abandoned it corruptly.

* What does Project 2025 have to say about Medicare?

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian discuss:

* Donald Trump’s warning of “a bloodbath for the whole country” if he loses;

* The relative political value of exploiting Trump’s authoritarian appeals vs. his agenda of tax breaks for rich people and big entitlement cuts;

* The potential risk of attacking Trump in scattershot fashion, rather than homing in on his biggest vulnerabilities

Then, paid subscribers get a lengthier discussion of two potential pitfalls of resistance politics: First, does freaking out over Trump’s threats of violence come at a cost if it’s done in a way that conveys fear and weakness? Second, do liberals undermine their core values of reason and nuance by reading Trump’s provocations in the most menacing possible light? Is there any good way to make Trump accountable for his words without getting suckered into pedantic textual debates about whether his words were literal or figurative. If you’d like to hear us take a stab at those questions, upgrade to paid, and enjoy the whole episode!

Further reading:

* Matt admits it: The orange man is bad!

* Brian and AOC discuss the disconnect between Democrats’ democracy appeals and their lackluster approach to accountability politics.

* Trump runs to the safety of Breitbart to walk back his flirtation with Social Security and Medicare.

This week on Politix, Julian Sanchez joins Matt and Brian to discuss:

* Donald Trump’s uncanny ability to evade justice;

* Why a panel of New York appeals court judges let him mostly off the hook by staving off the seizure of his assets in his civil-fraud case;

* What liberals and Democrats can do to make these civil verdicts a greater political liability for him.

Then, paid subscribers get a lengthier debate over the merits of banning TikTok in the U.S. Are the privacy or propaganda concerns articulated by U.S. lawmakers valid? Is it hard-nosed realpolitik to engage in tit-for-tat social-media bans with China, or a naive own goal that will tarnish the example America’s open society sets for the world? Should we just be happy to see any major social media company lose its hold on American users, no matter the method? We hashed all of that out, and if you’d like to hear where we landed, upgrade to paid, and enjoy the whole episode!

Further reading:

* Julian’s forthcoming Substack, Non-Content!

* Matt’s broad case against TikTok.

* Brian on the liberal and right-wing psychologies driving Trump-impunity politics.

This week on Politix, Brian returns from a long weekend in real America (western Mexico) with some fresh insight on how Trump-stalgia works. He and Matt discuss:

* Why fewer people disapprove of Trump lately and why more people seemingly think his sharpest critics have overstated their case;

* How lag effects (the persistence of the pandemic and the overturning of Roe after Trump’s term ended) has insulated him from accountability;

* Whether Trump’s unique responsibility for the loss of abortion rights and his status as a Florida resident mean this issue will eventually catch up with him.

Then, we offer paid subscribers an in-depth look at how public opinion on abortion has changed in the past two years, even if it hasn’t (yet) dragged Trump down. We examine the roles paid and free media might play in making Trump synonymous with Dobbs, and think through ways both party leaders and activists could draw more public attention to abortion rights per se and Trump’s role in abolishing them. Do Democrats have a problem generating free media in general? And finally, a raging debate over which kinds of beach-side resorts are best for aging but young-at-heart millennials. It was a clarifying discussion across the board, and if you’re interested in fleshing all that out we hope you’ll upgrade to paid, and enjoy the whole episode!

Further reading:

* Matt on the new politics of abortion rights.

* Brian on the broader political implications of changing abortion opinion—what if public-opinion polling on high-salience issues just isn’t that useful?

* How long can Trump hide from weighing in on the DeSantis abortion ban in his home state, and on whether Florida voters should pass a referendum guaranteeing abortion access?

This week on Politix, Matt and Brian step back from the news cycle to examine Donald Trump’s policy agenda, and the weird extent to which he’s getting a pass on toxic ideas:

* His plan for an across the board 10 percent tariff would make Americans pay more for virtually everything, including groceries;

* A big immigration crackdown like the one he’s promised would raise prices further;

* But since these ideas are coded as pro American-worker, he faces little pushback for the terrible consequences they’d entail.

Then, paid subscribers get a deeper look at whether the threat of these consequences will eventually catch up with Trump, and hear an extended analogy between the politics of tariffs (which would cause more hardship) and the long saga of Medicare for all. Why did Medicare for all lose popularity over time? Might the same thing happen to Trump’s plan to raise banana and coffee prices? And if the key to selling policy is to cloak it in populist language (tariffs, Medicare) could Biden shake up the race by updating his agenda with ideas that unite the Democratic base and appeal to the public more broadly? We hope you’ll upgrade to paid so you can enjoy the whole episode, especially if you’re listening from the White House or Biden campaign headquarters!

Further reading:

* Matt on House Republicans’ (bad) plan for America.

* Brian with a reminder that the 2024 election is about real things.

* CAP: “Trump’s Tariff Would Cost the Typical American Household Roughly $1,500 Each Year.”

With Matt on vacation this week, Brian hosts a conversation with Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor and former Manhattan prosecutor who enforced the very laws Donald Trump is charged with breaking in his first criminal trial. They discuss:

* Why legal commentators who criticized District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s theory of the case were factually wrong about the laws at issue and how they are applied;

* The importance of enforcing these laws, whether violators represent big businesses or small businesses, and whether their motives were financial, political, personal, or a combination thereof;

* Whether it would’ve been a breach of duty for Bragg not to bring charges in this case.

Then, paid subscribers hear a more abstract conversation about legal discourse and ethics. Why were so many legal and media elites, including many Trump critics, so eager to line up against Bragg, even as they lacked the subject-matter expertise to know whether Bragg had exceeded his mandate? Even if Bragg had gone fishing for a reason to try Trump on felony charges, would that be a violation of his ethical obligations or his oath of office? Should Trump’s status as an exceptionally high-profile political leader insulate him in any way from accountability for lower-tier felonies, even if law-enforcement officers understand him to be a serial scofflaw?

We hope you enjoy the conversation, and if you’d like to listen to the whole thing, you can upgrade to paid for a private feed that gets you access to the complete Politix archive and all future episodes.

Correction: Rebecca is a professor at New York Law School, not a New York University law school professor. Brian regrets the error.

Further reading:

* Brian on why Joe Biden should break his vow of silence and begin commenting on the hush-money case.

* Mark Joseph Stern on why he was wrong, initially, to be skeptical of Alvin Bragg’s case and what made him come around.

* There’s a new Stormy Daniels documentary on Peacock.

With Matt back from vacation, he and Brian discuss a bunch of important developments in the news, and zoom out to assess whether it’s really changed race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump:

* Has polling data improved enough to make Biden the favorite to win?

* Have developments like Biden’s patient victory in the fight over Ukraine aid, careful management of hostilities between Israel and Iran, and solid economic news contributed to the uptick?

* Is Trump’s legal jeopardy/farting finally taking a toll on his numbers?

Then, paid subscribers hear an assessment of the candidates’ upside or downside potential. Is Biden poised to benefit from a booming economy as inflation memories recede? Does Donald Trump have any way to improve his standing (as opposed to dragging Biden down)? Will Simon Rosenberg prediction that Biden would pull ahead by late April then widen his lead over the summer be vindicated? We hope you enjoy the conversation, and if you’d like to listen to the whole thing, you can upgrade to paid for a private feed that gets you access to the complete Politix archive and all future episodes.

Further reading:

* Brian on how a subset of reflexive critics, including progressives, have become economy deniers, and are holding Biden’s approval polling down.

* Matt on how negativity is making everyone miserable.

* Simon Rosenberg’s prediction, from Greg Sargent’s podcast.

This week, Matt and Brian look ahead to looming questions that, under normal circumstances, would be paint-by-numbers developments in a presidential election year: running-mate selection and debates.

* President Biden recently confirmed that he intends to debate Donald Trump. Is this a wise decision, and how should he approach the task?

* Do Biden’s communication and strategic arms have the right acumen to see Biden through debates and other, similar challenges?

* Can Trump have a running mate without attempting to steal his or her money or implicate them in the destruction of American democracy?

Then, for paid subscribers, Brian and Matt apply questions raised by the new movie Civil War to real-life, Trump-era political violence incitement. With Trump running free from consequences, and promising to pardon insurrectionists, what’s to stop him from applying the logic of January 6-style mob violence to other goals he may have? Is the logical endpoint of Trumpism a full-scale rebellion from one direction or another, or something slower-burning and harder to discourage? What can liberals and Democrats do to persuade people that the threat is real, without essentially guilt-tripping people into voting blue? We hope you enjoy the conversation, and if you’d like to listen to the whole thing, you can upgrade to paid for a private feed that gets you access to the complete Politix archive and all future episodes.

Further reading:

* The New York Post reports that the White House wanted to drive Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre out of her job, but chickened out.

* RELATEDLY: Joe Biden’s uncle really did crash his warplane in a part of the world where there were lots of cannibals.

* Brian on why Democratic frustrations with the mainstream press were bound to boil over, and where things go from here.

* Shelby Talcott on how nobody in GOP politics has any idea what Trump wants in a running mate because he’s distracted, selfish, and susceptible to flattery.

* Brian on Civil War (with spoilers).

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

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

* Should newspapers outsource editorial judgment to issue polls?

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

Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt take a more abstract look at the challenge facing non-partisan media in the Trump era. Should mainstream journalism outlets be tribunes for democracy, as part of their larger advocacy for the free press? Can institutions like the Times be openly pro-democracy without being openly engaged in an effort to help Joe Biden win the election? What would an incarnation of the Times that made an effort to address its critics look like? Answers to all those questions, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian on whether outlets like the Times do such a bad job addressing well-developed liberal criticisms because they don’t have good answers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt interpret the poll data per se: What’s the optimistic read of the numbers? What’s the pessimistic read? Is it time to revive the debate over whether Biden should yield to a younger candidate with less baggage? Or does he still have time to prove the doubters and haters wrong? Answers to all those questions, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian on Democrats’ mysterious aversion to setting the national discourse agenda, and how it hurts them badly.

* Learning From Loss by Seth Masket.

* Matt on the misinformation that truly matters.

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

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

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

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

Then, behind the paywall, Brian and Matt rant about the failure of both Democratic leaders in Congress, liberal justices, and progressive issue activists to take the fate of the court seriously. Why doesn’t Sonia Sotomayor think retiring now is the obvious thing to do? Why to so many Democrats in Congress seemingly want her to place her seat at risk? Why don’t progressive activists work toward constructive goals like strategic retirements and whipping up outrage over Alito? Also, what does any of this have to do with Donald Trump’s new aspiration to create what his campaign calls a “Unified Reich”? Answers to all those questions, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian reminds Senate Democrats (cough, Dick Durbin, cough) that they can squeeze Samuel Alito, including by exposing his secret role helping Donald Trump sweep the insurrection under the rug.

* Maya Sen on diversity in the judiciary.

* Mehdi Hasan on why Sotomayor should retire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

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

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

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

Matt and Brian:

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, behind the paywall, we break down the forces within the party that cut against a unified, vigorous response: Does taking it easy on Trump really help swing-state and swing-district Democrats? How do Democratic congressional leaders actually conceive of their jobs? Would progressive leaders rather talk about Trump’s status as a felony convict and rapist, or about their policy agendas? Plus, what do Matt and Brian think a savvy response to the convictions look like? All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

* Brian on various tactics and strategies Democrats could deploy to keep reminders of Trump’s convictions above the fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then, behind the paywall, we try to assess what’s driving this trend: To what extent are tech and finance bros actually red-pilled, versus just cynically advancing their shared desire for tax cuts? Have they even considered the ways Trump 2.0 would weaken U.S. business, or that they might not actually be able to call in any favors with him? And what, if anything, should Biden do to clarify the stakes for both the billionaires, and the working-class Americans who stand to lose if Trump returns to power. All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

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

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

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

* Brian on why these business elites are so dumb!

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

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

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

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

Then, behind the paywall, we home in specifically on the crime issue, where the case that Biden saved the country from Trump’s failures is strongest: Why did murders explode in 2020? To what extent is Trump to blame for fomenting criminal activity or for discouraging fair, legitimate policing? How did Biden manage to get a handle on both sides of that equation so quickly? All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

Further reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

* Matt on the foreign policy bombs Trump set.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

* James Fallows writes the remarks Biden should deliver.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

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

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

In this emergency episode, Brian and Matt discuss:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

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

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

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

* How normal are Democrats, actually?

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

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

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

* The pros and cons of this decision;

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

* Brian’s 24 thoughts on the Harris veepstakes.

* Matt on the politics of weirdness.

* Walz’s interview with Ezra Klein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

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

This week, Semafor’s Dave Weigel joins Matt and Brian from Chicago to assess the Dem convention in Chicago:

* Is DNC’s treatment of credentialed journalists another sign that Democrats are consciously decoupling from the mainstream media?

* Are there any politically meaningful differences between how the convention is playing out on national television and how people are experiencing it in person?

* Can Harris get a polling bump out of the festivities, above and beyond the spike her post-launch campaign blitz generated?

Then, behind the paywall, Matt and Brian pick up where they left off last week in their debate over whether Harris has improved economic sentiment simply by restoring optimism to the anti-Trump coalition. What does the data suggest? Will she come to regret her policy rollout if it turns out public opinion about the economy is already on the mend? Can she appeal to skeptical voters without staking out views on issues like price controls or deficit reduction that could prove to be unnecessary?

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

Further reading:

* Brian argues the Harris campaign is purpose built to reassmble the national anti-Trump majority.

* Matt argues this approach is too complacent.

* Dave on how Harris has driven third-party polling into the ground.

This week, Matt and Brian look back at what went right at last week’s Democratic National Convention, how it maps on to the lead Harris built in her first month on the campaign trail, and what it augurs for the fall campaign:

* How exactly did Harris build a lead so quickly?

* Is maintaining or growing it really as simple as “keep on doing what you’re doing?” Is that even possible given how the dynamics of the race will change in the home stretch?

* What does peak performance look like, if not this?

Then, behind the paywall, Matt and Brian break down why her acceptance speech was such a big hit across the party. How did she manage to convince centrists and progressives alike that the speech reflected their values? Is she demonstrating the same kinds of political finesse that made Barack Obama such a successful candidate? Or are people mostly just excited to rally behind someone who seems to know how to beat Trump? Plus a granular look at why the polls are probably pretty close to the mark—meaning Harris has a better than even chance of winning, but the election will likely be close, as in 2020 and (gulp) 2016.

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

Further reading:

* Brian on Democrats balancing confidence with non-complacency.

* Matt on how Harris can ride happy warrior anti-Trump vibes to victory.

* Joe Lieberman (???) had a pretty good acceptance speech, too?

This week, Brian takes a much needed vacation and Matt is joined by The Atlantic’s Jerusalem Demsas to talk about housing and the 2024 campaign.

* Barack Obama’s striking and unexpected embrace of the YIMBY diagnosis of the housing issue at the Democratic National Convention.

* Kamala Harris’ more equivocal embrace of the same formula along with some other …

That was way better than the first one! In what may be their only debate Kamala Harris reduced Donald Trump to a smoldering mass of anger, deranged lies, and incoherent rambling. It’s fair to say everyone agrees she won, because pro-Trump influencers are already attacking the moderators.

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

* How Harris pivoted away from Biden’s failed debate strategy toward one designed successfully to provoke Trump into making big mistakes.

* Why her polls slipped a couple points between the Democratic convention and the debate.

* What a longer run strategy to rebuild and maintain her pre-convention lead might look like.

* Will she get a measurable bump from her debate victory on Tuesday? And, if so, how long will it last?

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

This week, Matt and Brian take stock of the many ways Republicans have flailed since Donald Trump lost last week’s debate against Kamala Harris:

* If they’re trying to change the topic, or convince people Trump won, why are so many MAGA influencers still trying to “prove” ABC rigged the debate for Harris?

* Is the discourse they’ve provoked by terrorizing Haitians in Springfield, OH, actually better for Trump than some stories about how he lost?

* Where does Trump’s, um, weird relationship with the bigoted conspiracy-theorist Laura Loomer fit into all this?

Then, behind the paywall, Matt and Brian debate the nature of racist political demagoguery when the progenitor is as erratic and undisciplined as Donald Trump. Are Democrats too traumatized by the Trumpian immigration politics to recognize when Trump veers into politically toxic territory? Is it a political emergency when Trump manages to drag discourse back to immigration? Even when he does so by saying outrageous and unpopular things? Should Democrats be more chill, pressing their advantages on whatever issue happens to be in the news—or should they always anxiously try to steer the conversation back to safer terrain?

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

Further reading:

* Matt on Karl Lueger, George Wallace, Donald Trump and the tired dance of the demagogue.

* Brian on how Democrats can compete with this Trumpian incitement machine instead of running a conventional campaign and getting drowned out.

* The James Fallows and Deborah Fallows Our Towns foundation, book, and documentary.