Adam Watson (00:00)
Welcome back to “Simplifying the State,” the podcast where we break down politics so you don’t have to unpack all the Supreme Court rulings it issues on the last day before its break—like it’s a high schooler feverishly submitting an essay one minute before it’s due. As always, I’m Adam Watson.
Nicholas Perrin (00:16)
And I’m Nicholas Perrin.
Adam Watson (00:18)
So Nicholas, what do James Carville, David Plouffe and Jen O’Malley Dillon all have in common?
Nicholas Perrin (00:25)
Are they all humans that I am not aware of?
Adam Watson (00:28)
Well, yeah, that’s correct. But the answer I was looking for was that they are all top Democratic strategists—or they are all top Democratic campaign managers. And that kind of brings us to what we’re going to be talking about today, which is what path forward the Democrats might take, both as a party and also kind of where it could lead them for their candidate for 2028.
So, the main reason we’re talking about this today—on this episode specifically—is that there was a pretty interesting election in New York. That was the New York mayor’s Democratic primary, where Zohran Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists, beat former Governor and establishment Democrat Andrew Cuomo.
It was a pretty big upset because in February, polls had Mamdani at about 2%, compared to Cuomo’s 30%. So to go from that in February to winning the election in June is pretty remarkable, especially given the challenges he had to face from the Cuomo campaign—particularly the $50 million raised via PACs, endorsements from old-guard Democrats, and much higher name ID than Mamdani.
Mamdani campaigned heavily on affordability and making New York more livable. Specific issues included freezing rent, improving public transit, and increasing general affordability. So, Nicholas, I want to get your reaction to Mamdani winning the election. What do you think?
Nicholas Perrin (02:25)
Yeah, it was pretty surprising for me, especially given the wide margins in the polls. But I guess it goes to show how tired people are of the Democratic establishment, given this and also Harris’s performance in the 2024 election.
Adam Watson (02:44)
Right. A poll was conducted ranking various Democratic politicians and the Democratic Party as a whole. Bernie Sanders was the highest-ranked on that poll. And it wasn’t specifically because of his leftist policy positions. In fact, that was the main reason people who expressed a negative opinion said they disliked him.
However, two key factors were the main reasons people had a positive view of him. The first was his consistency. He has consistently held the same views throughout his political career—a rarity in Washington. Sure, there’s the occasional shift, but most politicians move with whatever is popular. People liked that he didn’t.
The second reason was that voters saw him as anti-establishment—an outsider compared to other Democrats. This could serve Democrats well in 2028, if they use it right. In both 2016 and 2024, Donald Trump ran as an outsider and found success—more so in 2024 than in 2016.
That model could be effective for Democrats too. I also think they could learn something from Mamdani’s campaign. I do want to preface that by saying what works in New York doesn’t necessarily work nationwide.
So, they’ll have to wait and see where the country stands policy-wise. But the lessons from Mamdani’s campaign include: presenting a younger, outsider candidate; someone more energetic who can build organic momentum. He ran a man-of-the-people campaign—constantly on the street, talking to voters, campaigning.
Obviously, a municipal race is very different from a statewide or national election. Still, there are takeaways that could help Democrats down the line. What do you think, Nicholas?
Nicholas Perrin (05:15)
I mean, yeah. I think using his economic and cultural policies isn’t a great idea nationwide. Still, I think his campaign strategy and appeal to young people is what won him the election. That approach has a better shot nationally than, you know, his democratic socialism.
Adam Watson (05:39)
Right, democratic socialism is probably more popular in New York than it is in Montana.
Nicholas Perrin (05:49)
No way. Bigfoot really likes democratic socialism. Trust me, I’ve talked to him.
Adam Watson (05:54)
Yeah, I don’t think they’re big fans of democratic socialism in Billings.
All right. So, in terms of candidates, there are a couple of lanes they could take. You’ve got the centrist candidates, the left-leaning ones, and those who are sort of in between. That’s kind of what this episode is about—what strategy the Democrats might use with their candidate.
Some polling was done. Of course, polling—as we saw in 2024—isn’t super accurate. It showed a dead heat between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and it didn’t exactly play out that way. There were two sets of polls: one assuming Harris runs, one assuming she doesn’t. We’re going to talk about the latter.
I’m not sure it’d be a good idea for Democrats to run Harris in 2028, for a couple of reasons. First, she carries a lot of baggage from the Biden administration, which is not currently viewed favorably. Maybe that’ll change, but as of now, it’s not a strength.
Second, there’s a lot of negative name ID tied to her and the 2024 election defeat. And she already ran and didn’t win. So I’m not sure trying again makes sense.
Now, assuming Harris is out, there are a few front-runners: Pete Buttigieg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Cory Booker. They kind of represent the center, the left, and the in between of the political spectrum.
Let’s start with Buttigieg. He’s that in-between candidate and the polling front-runner. I also think he’d be a front-runner in the general election.
He’s one of the party’s best communicators—he appeared on Fox News several times and effectively made his case without alienating conservative viewers, while still sticking to his values.
He’s also not too centrist for the progressive side of the party, and not too progressive for centrists. That balance could help in a primary and general.
Plus, being from the Midwest and a veteran, he might attract the swing voters—the ones who went for Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020, and Trump again in 2024.
He does carry some Biden admin baggage as transportation secretary, but it’s probably manageable.
On social issues, there is concern that being a gay man could hurt him with conservative swing voters. I’m not sure that’ll matter as much as people think. Nicholas, what do you think of Buttigieg as a candidate?
Nicholas Perrin (09:38)
Out of most potential Democratic candidates, I’d say he’s one of—if not the—best for the party. Like you said, if he becomes popular with the general electorate, the party would likely unify behind him. His social background and ties to the Biden administration probably wouldn’t be major issues. Obviously, there’s a lot of contention over LGBTQ+ issues these days, but I don’t think it would be as big of a problem as some people suggest.
Adam Watson (10:26)
Right. The other two front-runners are AOC and Cory Booker, both polling around 14%.
I’m not sure AOC is the best move. Nationally, it’d be hard to sell her to centrist voters. Plus, it’s hard to jump from the House to the presidency. She just doesn’t have that level of experience yet.
Then there’s Cory Booker. He’s more centrist and got a lot of name recognition from his filibuster—the longest ever. That put him on the map. But he ran in 2020 and didn’t gain traction. Maybe it’d go better this time, but it’s unclear.
Other names polling above 3% include Gavin Newsom, Tim Walz, Josh Shapiro, and Gretchen Whitmer.
Shapiro might be too centrist for younger, more liberal voters. Walz has some of the same issues as Harris—association with the failed 2024 ticket. Newsom may have trouble with both liberals and centrists: some see him as not liberal enough, others see him as too “California.” It’s a lose-lose there.
Whitmer could be a strong contender—Midwest roots and executive experience—but she’s also more centrist, which could be a problem for the party’s left wing.
One name not on the list that I’d add: Jon Ossoff. I’m not sure if he plans to run, but I think he should consider it. He’s an excellent speaker—possibly even Obama-level in terms of charisma and delivery, or just a notch below.
He might stay in the Senate or run for governor of Georgia, but we’ll have to see. Nicholas, what’s your take on all those candidates?
Nicholas Perrin (13:41)
Yeah, none of them seem like perfect options. They all have drawbacks. And sometimes those outweigh the positives, depending on your view.
Even if someone’s a good candidate, if they don’t have name recognition, they won’t win. I’m not sure how widely known Jon Ossoff is, but if he’s Obama-like in communication, that might be just what Democrats need. It could work if the party gets behind him or someone similar.
Adam Watson (14:32)
I wouldn’t say he’s exactly like Obama—Obama had once-in-a-generation charisma. But Ossoff and Buttigieg are probably on par with each other as communicators.
So, that’s the candidate landscape. In terms of policy, I think Democrats will wait to see how this year’s elections go—especially in Virginia, where they’re trying to break up the Republican trifecta and take back the governorship.
They’ll probably wait for the 2026 midterms too. But as we’ve said before, the electorate in a midterm is very different from that in a presidential race.
Still, I think Buttigieg is going to run, and he’s probably their best option. One reason I think he’s running: there are open governor and Senate seats in Michigan that he declined to run for. That suggests he has higher ambitions.
He’s also been on podcasts, talk shows, and made some trips to Iowa. That’s usually a sign.
Though one podcast he hasn’t come on is “Simplifying the State.” I personally think Harris lost in 2024 because she didn’t come on this podcast. Honestly, she could’ve won all 50 states if she had. Same for Trump. We have that much sway—just saying.
Nicholas Perrin (16:44)
I mean, I think we have the best political analysis. They need us. They just don’t want us.
Adam Watson (16:49)
We should be running both the DNC and RNC. We’d do such a great job both candidates would win 100% of the vote, and no one would know what to do.
Anyway—Nicholas, anything else you want to add on the Democrats’ path in 2028?
Nicholas Perrin (17:14)
I mean, it’s pretty up in the air right now. But based on current popularity, I think it’s unlikely they shift more toward the center. It’s still possible, but with people like AOC and Bernie Sanders so well known, even if it’s not for their ideology, the party probably won’t stay a super establishment.
Adam Watson (17:45)
Right. I think their best chance is a young, anti-establishment candidate. People are clearly dissatisfied with our institutions—both political and economic—and I think trying to preserve the status quo won’t help the Democrats.
They should shift somewhat to the left economically, embrace more populist ideas, and appeal to working-class and middle-class voters again.
They need to stop being the party that defends institutions people don’t trust, and start being the party of economic reform and younger leadership.
Real quick before we go: a footnote on Iran. I recorded a short episode Saturday breaking down the U.S. strikes. Since then, Iran retaliated with strikes on U.S. bases—all of which were intercepted. Iran also warned the host countries ahead of time so bases could be evacuated and defenses activated. That was likely a move to save face and simultaneously reduce escalation.
Trump also announced a ceasefire, which seemed broken after Israel and Iran traded strikes. Iran said it hadn’t agreed to the ceasefire, but would follow it if Israel did. Then Israel said Iran attacked first and they responded. Iran denied that. So it turned into a tit-for-tat.
Right now, the ceasefire seems to be holding—but temporarily.
As for damage to Iran’s nuclear program, reports are mixed. Trump said we “obliterated” it. Pentagon leaks suggest it was only set back three to six months. Mossad is still gathering intel so Israel hasn’t made a public assessment yet.
One reason past presidents avoided striking Iranian nuclear sites is that unless you get everything, they can rebuild and then would bury it, both in terms of putting facilities even more underground than before, and would keep the program much more secretive. That’s why diplomacy, like Obama’s nuclear deal, was often the preferred path.
We’ll have to wait and see if these strikes were actually effective. Nicholas, any final thoughts?
Nicholas Perrin (21:29)
Yeah, I don’t think continuing to strike Iran is a good idea, for the reasons you mentioned. The ceasefire between Iran and Israel probably won’t last, judging by history. Maybe Trump can broker something by placing a lot of pressure on the two countries, but I’m not sure how much leverage he has on Iran. We’ll see.
Adam Watson (22:08)
All right, thanks for listening to “Simplifying the State.” We’ll be back next week. Our next episode will be about what the Republican Party’s future might look like post-Trump—or possibly with Trump again, though that would take a big constitutional amendment.
Either way, we’ll break down the post-Trump Republican strategy.
If you enjoyed this episode, please rate us wherever you’re listening—Spotify, Apple, YouTube—and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We post short videos when breaking news hits that can’t wait until the next episode. And with the state of the world, that’s happening pretty often.
We’ll see you next time.