Chris Murphy

of whether the Republican Party becomes more sincerely populist and tolerant of more government intervention in the market before the Democratic Party decides to be a big tent in which we allow into the party people who might not agree with us on social and cultural issues or guns and climate, but do believe in things like a higher minimum wage, more empowered labor unions and industrial policy.

The Republican Party has been recently talking a big game on populism, but has not delivered. And in fact, the way in which Trump is implementing the tariffs seems to be just another nod to sort of former market based neoliberalism in which the companies with the biggest megaphones and the biggest bank accounts get exemptions from the tariffs.

The Republican Party has been recently talking a big game on populism, but has not delivered. And in fact, the way in which Trump is implementing the tariffs seems to be just another nod to sort of former market based neoliberalism in which the companies with the biggest megaphones and the biggest bank accounts get exemptions from the tariffs.

And those without political power are subject to the tariffs. The Democratic Party has a chance to use this fake populism to win over a chunk of his base, but only if we are less judgmental about the differences that may exist inside that tent on really tough issues like gay rights and abortion and guns. And I, you know, Ross, I'm...

And those without political power are subject to the tariffs. The Democratic Party has a chance to use this fake populism to win over a chunk of his base, but only if we are less judgmental about the differences that may exist inside that tent on really tough issues like gay rights and abortion and guns. And I, you know, Ross, I'm...

partially to blame for that judgmentalism, because I think I helped, for instance, frame our litmus test on the issue of guns in a way that probably has been unhelpful to building a broader coalition for the Democratic Party.

partially to blame for that judgmentalism, because I think I helped, for instance, frame our litmus test on the issue of guns in a way that probably has been unhelpful to building a broader coalition for the Democratic Party.

The largest collection of preserved 17th and 18th century houses, I think, in the country.

The largest collection of preserved 17th and 18th century houses, I think, in the country.

Well, I think you are describing the demographic makeup of Connecticut, which is right now well-matched with this version of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party was to, let's say, become more tolerant of views that are outside our social and cultural mainstream, would we lose... Voters that are currently in our coalition, I'm not sure that we would.

Well, I think you are describing the demographic makeup of Connecticut, which is right now well-matched with this version of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party was to, let's say, become more tolerant of views that are outside our social and cultural mainstream, would we lose... Voters that are currently in our coalition, I'm not sure that we would.

Would we be able to pick up some slice of Trump's base that now see him handing the government over to his billionaire friends and are willing to vote for Democrats who support industrial policy and a higher minimum wage so long as they don't feel like they are being judged and looked down upon for their views on transgender girls in sports.

Would we be able to pick up some slice of Trump's base that now see him handing the government over to his billionaire friends and are willing to vote for Democrats who support industrial policy and a higher minimum wage so long as they don't feel like they are being judged and looked down upon for their views on transgender girls in sports.

That's my theory of the case, is that you are not necessarily going to lose folks that are already in your coalition. You'll just build a bigger, more enduring coalition, especially if the Republican Party doesn't learn from what's happening right now and actually grapple with real populism versus fake populism.

That's my theory of the case, is that you are not necessarily going to lose folks that are already in your coalition. You'll just build a bigger, more enduring coalition, especially if the Republican Party doesn't learn from what's happening right now and actually grapple with real populism versus fake populism.

I think there's some truth to that. I mean, what I argue for is that the Democratic Party should be. more overtly populist and more pugilistic, more confrontational in its populism, meaning that you are more regularly naming the individuals, organizations, and the companies that are screwing voters that we might become more

I think there's some truth to that. I mean, what I argue for is that the Democratic Party should be. more overtly populist and more pugilistic, more confrontational in its populism, meaning that you are more regularly naming the individuals, organizations, and the companies that are screwing voters that we might become more

you know, overtly antagonistic to tech companies, that we might be more willing to name individual healthcare companies, pharmaceutical companies that are price gouging, that, you know, we would explain what the takeover of our healthcare system by the private equity industry is going to mean for quality and prices.

you know, overtly antagonistic to tech companies, that we might be more willing to name individual healthcare companies, pharmaceutical companies that are price gouging, that, you know, we would explain what the takeover of our healthcare system by the private equity industry is going to mean for quality and prices.

If we did that, yes, you're right, we would probably lose some piece of our coalition. There would probably be a handful of voters in Greenwich, Connecticut, I'll name it, right, that would be Right. That would be unhappy with the way in which we were, you know, calling out and naming certain companies or certain industries that were harming voters.