Elon Musk, who's unelected. Nobody wanted this anti-social freak with his hands on the government, you know, switch. He's unelected. He comes up just simply because he's the richest man in the world. He gets to start making policy decisions and funding decisions like that. [00:00:17] People think that's gross, that's oligarchy. Senator Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA analyst, now senator from Michigan, has a war plan for defeating Donald Trump. And it's a bit different than AOC's and Bernie's. [00:00:32] Slotkin has set out to give a series of speeches about how Democrats can take back control and ultimately defeat Donald Trump. The Michigan senator said she will span everything from strategy to tactics and tone. Acknowledging public perception of the party as weak and woke needs to change. [00:00:50] She's urging Democrats to effing retake the flag with appeals to voters sense of patriotism to adopt the, quote, god damn alpha energy. Close quote when asked if she would continue calling it a war plan, Slotkin stated, it's a military style operational plan. [00:01:08] I don't know, I don't understand how to rally us into a coherent approach if we aren't on the same page on where we're going. Her war plan includes urging Democrats to run for president in 2028, and to get in early, rather than waiting until 2027, rolls around, creating Democratic Shadow Cabinet, a shadow cabinet made up of ranking [00:01:27] members of the UN congressional committees to kind of mirror, but in a very different policy way. Trump's cabinet and to stop using the term oligarchy. Elissa Slotkin said Democrats should stop using the term oligarchy, a phrase she said doesn't resonate beyond coastal institutions [00:01:44] and just say the party opposes kings. And to beat their weak and woke rap, Democrats should channel the no bull s energy. I didn't say the whole world there. I'm not was but I. [00:02:00] Censor certain words in the moment. But that is not necessarily the case. In fact, most Americans have a good idea of what the term means, according to a survey done by data for progress, even though I think it was very flawed methodology here. A majority of voters, apparently, according to this survey, can correctly [00:02:16] identify the definition of oligarchy. The question was without looking it up, if you had to guess which of the following best describes what you believe in oligarchy is. But the first option given was what they're saying. The correct definition is a government where power is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy small elite. So you're really kind of leading the witness there quite a bit with them, [00:02:34] with four other definitions. And still then only 55% of of all likely voters knew what the word is. So if you want to get all people on your side and only 50%, 54% of Democrats, you can't cut out half right off the bat. [00:02:50] That's actually, to me, proves the exact point that she is making. You need a more accessible word. Word. Not to mention the fact also that that's not even technically the definition of oligarchy. If we're talking about definitions here, oligarchy is just government control [00:03:05] in the hands of a very few. Whether it's through money or power or military means. And plutocracy is actually when those very few people are solely chosen based on their wealth. But what's definitions when talking definitions? - Michael? - Yeah. [00:03:21] I, there's probably going to be pushback to what Elissa Slotkin is saying here. I agree with a lot of it. And the oligarchy thing notwithstanding, I don't disagree that it's a big word that people. I also don't find that it's being used too much. But, I think that, you know, she may be right. [00:03:38] And I find this poll flawed, but I do think it's a good thing that Democrats are getting out there with their ideas. And maybe she said ten things and one of them's okay. And you run with that as as you get closer to 28, right? [00:03:54] And you could use it in 26 as well. So I think on balance, she's making some good points about what Democrats could do. Not all of them are doable or will be done. But I think talking about getting involved early, getting these names out there, [00:04:09] getting your ideas out there, creating options for people, I think all important. I also think it's fantastic what Senator Sanders and Representative Ocasio-Cortez are doing out on the road, going to different places. We were talking about in the first hour, going to places where Democrats don't go a lot. [00:04:25] They were in Nampa, Ohio, Idaho, you know, are they going to win Idaho? No. And should representative Ocasio-Cortez be the nominee? I don't know. If I were stepping out of it and being an analyst to me, she doesn't seem like the best candidate for president. [00:04:41] Candidate for president, not president, but candidate. But it doesn't matter. I think the Democrats have to do what Slotkin is saying and start throwing ideas on the table and figure out how to attack the situation they're in. And I think on balance, what she's saying is true. I think oligarchy is an annoying word, but it does mean exactly [00:05:00] what is happening in this country in the hands of Trump and his people. So I don't I don't find, I don't find problem with this. I mean, you guys might, but I don't. What's this? Well, there's one thing she said. Oh, you know, creating democratic shadow cabinets that gets a little gamey sometimes. [00:05:16] So I don't know if that's going to real or gimmicky. I don't know if that's really going to fly, but it doesn't matter. I think it's good to get people smart, younger Democrats involved in figuring out what to do next. I might be a little bit more cynical than you guys are. Slotkin, who's literally worked for the CIA, clearly she's [00:05:36] of the establishment wing of the party. And the reason why she's pointing to oligarchy as a word that she doesn't like is because if we really addressed that issue, it would collapse the entire structure of the DNC, the Democratic Party. [00:05:56] What do I mean, the funding structure, dude. You know, when Hoc Jeffries is running to Silicon Valley to make sure that those tech people know that we're still cool with them. The tech billionaires know that the Democratic Party [00:06:13] still have a home for them. That's what we're talking about here. And that would collapse the entire way the party gets funded. It would be less corporatist. It would be more challenging of those entities within the party, the donor class, the consultants, like all of those people who, by the way, [00:06:33] lost us the freaking presidential race to Trump twice now. Okay, these people lost to Trump twice. These people lost to Trump twice. That's why she's pointing it out. And to say like, oh, this is for the, the, the liberals in the, in the, in the coast, [00:06:52] you know, it's California, it's San Francisco, LA and New York. That's hogwash. Bernie and AOC are going to places that are the opposite of New York City, where I'm from, and Los Angeles, where I now live. Like, I think there's a reason why she's pointing to that, [00:07:09] because the establishment does not want to shake up the structure of the party. They want to keep getting that sweet, sweet, sweet corporate cash, and they want to keep ignoring the wants and the needs of the rank and file Democratic Party members. [00:07:24] Okay. Like you see it all the time. Kamala Harris was out there raising money from Google executives while Joe Biden's DOJ were prosecuting them on the same freaking day. They don't want to interrupt that structure. [00:07:40] That's why she's pointing it out like oligarchy. Like I think people get the message. Elon Musk, who's unelected, nobody wanted this antisocial freak with his hands on the government, you know, switch. He's unelected. He comes up just simply because he's the richest man in the world. [00:07:58] He gets to start making policy decisions and funding decisions like that. People think that's gross, that's oligarchy. Literally that's what that is. That's what people are responding to. Donald Trump handed the Democrats a beautiful gift by making Elon Musk [00:08:14] front and center of his operation. It's like, who is this weird, antisocial dude who's only around because he makes a lot of money that nobody voted for. And the Democrats, like Bernie, like AOC, are rightfully pointing out, like our [00:08:30] government shouldn't function like that. Only Hock Jeffries and the rest of his cohort in the Democratic Party establishment, they disagree. They want the, quote unquote, good billionaires to continue being at the forefront of the party. Well, that's why I mean, that's why you need campaign finance reform [00:08:46] and publicly financed campaigns. But you can't bring a gun to a knife fight or a knife to a gunfight. And that's what these are. Unfortunately, I'm with you was I agree, in a perfect world, I would want none of that. And I would certainly want the people that I like best to not play in that in that arena. [00:09:03] But they're forced to play in that arena. And, you know, whether and I'm, by the way, from New York City and live in Los Angeles. So I've been sort of party to what the way people think differently on the coasts for most of my life. You know, I've spent a lot of time in my professional life [00:09:18] in the middle of the country. But. But there is this sense that the Democrats need to do what the Republicans are doing better, which is message and the and the belief in politics, as it always has been, is messaging comes from being able to spend, but it also comes from the the personalities that you have running. [00:09:37] And you wait for the Ronald Reagans and Bill Clintons to come down the pike. But every once in a while, you're stuck with a, you know, a Gerald Ford or a Jimmy Carter and, and, and messaging becomes very. - Or Joe Biden. - Or Joe Biden. But Joe Biden wasn't he was he he when he won his presidency, it was at [00:09:55] a time where messaging was less important, I would argue at a time both. I agree. Because of the pandemic and because of of what the country was looking for. They were looking for someone to kind of hold their hand and bring them to the other side. He didn't let go early enough, but but that was sort of. [00:10:10] So I think that was a bit of an anomalous election. And I also think that Donald Trump won the elections more so than the Democrats that you mentioned was it's a longer conversation, and there's no way to prove either of us. Right. They won the Donald Trump won those two elections. The Democrats didn't necessarily lose them. [00:10:26] And, and we'll listen. We'll have to see what what happens with this. But I do think that that this is the time for for Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez standing in Idaho and Elissa Slotkin talking about how to take a military attack, [00:10:43] get all the ideas on the table and figure it out and win an election. Fair enough. I mean, just for the record, Joe Biden was losing it even when he was running back in 2020 and speaking a ton of coherent sentences. Well, they just didn't have and we had a system that just really [00:11:01] crushed other opponents and to a degree, sort of handed it to him yet again, as the establishment rules the day. I understand what you're saying, Michael, is kind of a catch 22, because we do need to get this money out of our politics, like was is saying, but but each time seems like this existential crisis [00:11:17] where you have to keep on fighting. Of course, with as much money as you can, as many tools as you can, that you're not really fixing the problem that gets us into this mess in the first place. That makes people think both parties are bad. So we're going to go with the guy that talks better and is more of a strong man that is going to fix all of our problems on day one. [00:11:33] The other solution is I just think Bernie likes saying the word oligarchy. I think he likes saying oligarchy. He enjoys saying that. You can just. - Tell it's a socialist. - It is the word. It is an old socialist meme. About the other is the oligarchy, right? I mean, it's the opposite of socialism. I should also say about President Biden. [00:11:50] This ages me quite a bit, but I was I was in 1987, I was his at his announcement in Wilmington when he announced when he announced for president then. And he was terrible at it. I mean, so it was there was a consistency. Even when he was. Young, even when he was young, he didn't he didn't get much worse. [00:12:09] I just want to say that and, you know, still still charming and still engaging and, you know. - An endorsement that. - Is. Yeah. Well, yeah, they always. But he still could talk his way for as long as he wanted. I mean, the old joke in Iowa is that it's really hard to get Joe Biden to come to a barbecue. [00:12:24] But what's really hard is to get him to leave. So it's the guy could always talk. He just wasn't. He can't find the exit. But it's a right. But it's a different problem. You know, but also it's the question of who are we going to have? You say that you don't think AOC is the best candidate for 2028, [00:12:40] but who would you put forward? We kind of have a lack of great people. We were up against a break, but I think I don't I think everybody's got a bad bench all the time. And then you find the person who's going to take you there. Barack Obama wasn't on the Democrats bench in 2008. He got the nomination, won the presidency. So Democrats had a bad bench. [00:12:58] And he challenged, you know, the first lady or the senator from New York that there's there's, things change very quickly in politics. I think we agree on 2028. We'll be right back. I'm in. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets his wings. [00:13:15] Totally not true. But it does keep you updated on our live shows.