Politix

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmThis 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 is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmSPECIAL 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 is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmThis 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.

Exploring the influence of Republican-appointed judges, Alito's controversial actions, and Democrats' lack of accountability. The podcast examines the failure of Democratic leaders to take the Supreme Court seriously, questions surrounding Sotomayor's retirement, and the connection to Trump's 'Unified Reich' aspiration.

Matt and Brian dissect the latest poll data showing Biden losing swing states. They explore reasons behind Biden's unpopularity like inflation, immigration, and crime. They debate whether Biden should step down for a younger candidate. The episode also delves into the dynamics of ticket splitting and the success of state-level Democrats.

This episode explores tension between Biden and the New York Times, media bias in election coverage, and the challenges of non-partisan journalism in the current political climate.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmThis 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).

The podcast discusses Biden's polling numbers, his victories in international affairs, and the impact of Trump's legal troubles. They also explore Biden's potential benefits from a growing economy and assess Trump's chances of improving his standing. The episode delves into reflexive critics affecting Biden's approval ratings and the overall negative tone in politics.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmWith 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.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmThis 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.”