{"id":30186,"date":"2026-04-24T10:20:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T10:20:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/?p=30186"},"modified":"2026-04-24T10:20:13","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T10:20:13","slug":"me-too-comes-back-to-congress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/?p=30186","title":{"rendered":"\u201cMe Too\u201d Comes Back To Congress"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>    <!-- BLOCK(acast)[0](%7B%22componentName%22%3A%22ACAST%22%2C%22entityType%22%3A%22SHORTCODE%22%2C%22optional%22%3Afalse%7D)(%7B%22id%22%3A%22me-too-comes-back-to-congress%22%2C%22podcast%22%3A%22intercept-presents%22%2C%22subscribe%22%3Atrue%7D) --><\/p>\n<p>\n  <iframe src=\"https:\/\/embed.acast.com\/intercept-presents\/me-too-comes-back-to-congress?accentColor=111111&amp;bgColor=f5f6f7&amp;logo=false\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"acast-player__embed\"><\/iframe>\n<\/p>\n<p><!-- END-BLOCK(acast)[0] --><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"has-underline\">It\u2019s primary season,<\/span> this time against a backdrop of heightened concerns and awareness of powerful figures skirting accountability for sexual abuse and misconduct. Survivors of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have \u201cmade accountability for sexual abuse and sexual violence an electoral issue,\u201d says Intercept politics reporter Jessica Washington.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>One of the biggest stories to shake up politics in recent weeks are sexual assault allegations that upended Rep. Eric Swalwell\u2019s bid to become the next governor of California, forcing the Democratic front-runner to also <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/14\/eric-swalwell-sexual-assault-allegations-midterms-epstein\/\">resign from his House seat<\/a>. \u201cYou also have to give some credit to Democrats as well for immediately moving on these allegations very swiftly,\u201d says Washington.<\/p>\n<p>This week on The Intercept Briefing, Washington and Intercept senior politics reporter Akela Lacy speak to host Jordan Uhl about the themes emerging this midterm election season. They talk about how the crowded California gubernatorial race is boosting Republicans to the top of the ticket to why powerful factions of the Democratic Party are hyperfixating on Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, rather than leveraging Trump\u2019s sinking approval rating. \u201cThis is about not wanting to share power with the left,\u201d notes Washington.<\/p>\n<p>They also discuss what makes a candidate or elected official a progressive. \u201cWe\u2019ve seen a lot of candidates, particularly <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2026\/03\/24\/2028-democrats-reject-aipac-00841350?referrer=https:\/\/reddit.com\">2028 candidates<\/a>, whether senatorial or gubernatorial, who have had long-standing relationships with AIPAC or demonstrated pro-Israel policy records like Rahm Emanuel, Cory Booker, Josh Shapiro, Ruben Gallego, all come out now against AIPAC or distancing themselves from AIPAC,\u201d says Lacy. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t really matter if you\u2019re rejecting AIPAC money, if you aren\u2019t changing any of the policies that you adopt with respect to how the U.S. treats Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>For all that and more listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on <a href=\"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/the-intercept-briefing\/id1195206601\">Apple Podcasts<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/2js8lwDRiK1TB4rUgiYb24?si=e3ce772344ee4170\">Spotify<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PLW0Gy9pTgVnvgbvfd63A9uVpks3-uwudj\">YouTube<\/a>, or wherever you listen.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-transcript\">Transcript<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Jordan Uhl: <\/strong>Welcome to The Intercept Briefing. I\u2019m Jordan Uhl, an Intercept contributor and your host today, joined by my co-hosts.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>Jessica Washington: <\/strong>I\u2019m Jessica Washington, politics reporter for The Intercept.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Akela Lacy: <\/strong>And I\u2019m Akela Lacy, senior politics reporter at The Intercept.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU: <\/strong>Today we\u2019re bringing you a <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/collections\/midterms-2026\/\">midterm elections<\/a> update. Except rather than diving into the various horse races, we\u2019re going to talk about some crucial themes emerging that we\u2019re reporting on here at The Intercept.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Jessie, let\u2019s start with you. One of the biggest stories to shake up politics in recent weeks are sexual assault allegations that upended California congressman <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/14\/eric-swalwell-sexual-assault-allegations-midterms-epstein\/\">Eric Swalwell\u2019s<\/a> bid to become the next governor of California, and appears to have completely ended his political career, forcing him to resign from his House seat. We\u2019ll get into the California governor\u2019s race in a bit. But to start, Jessie, remind us of the sequence of events that led to Swalwell dropping out of the race.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> It was a really swift turnaround. In late March, we began to hear on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kron4.com\/news\/politics\/inside-california-politics\/swalwell-campaign-denies-outrageous-claims-of-misconduct\/\">social media<\/a> from mostly influencers who were talking about stories they had heard from friends, from other women involved in politics, related to allegations against Swalwell. But many of those allegations online were incredibly vague.<\/p>\n<p>That all shifted on April 10, which was a Friday when a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sfchronicle.com\/politics\/article\/eric-swalwell-allegations-22198271.php\">San Francisco Chronicle<\/a> article dropped accusing Swalwell of sexually assaulting a former staffer. Shortly after that, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2026\/04\/10\/us\/eric-swalwell-sexual-misconduct-allegations-invs\">CNN<\/a> dropped another story, labeling the former staffer\u2019s accusations as rape and also detailing sexual harassment allegations from other women. Within hours of that story dropping, over a dozen Democrats pulled their endorsements, including a really high-profile endorsement from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2026\/04\/10\/politics\/democrats-withdraw-endorsements-of-eric-swalwell-and-demand-he-end-bid-for-california-governor\">Adam Schiff<\/a>. We also began to hear reports that Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries \u2014 top Democratic leadership \u2014 had called Swalwell to tell him that he should drop out of the governor\u2019s race.<\/p>\n<p>Then over that weekend, on Sunday [April 12] I believe, he <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kron4.com\/news\/bay-area\/timeline-eric-swalwells-rapid-fall-from-political-power\/\">dropped out<\/a> of the race. By Monday, he had <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kron4.com\/news\/politics\/eric-swalwell-announces-resignation-from-congress\/\">resigned<\/a> from office.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> You write in your story that The Intercept has not been able to independently verify the allegations. In a <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/azarilaw\/status\/2044144837113344170\">statement<\/a> posted last week, Sara Azari, a criminal defense attorney representing Swalwell, wrote that the former congressman \u201ccategorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation of sexual misconduct and assault that has been leveled against him,\u201d calling the accusations \u201ca ruthless and shameless attempt to smear Congressman Swalwell.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>I think that\u2019s something that has been interesting to me. He\u2019s trying to frame all of this as an attempt to stop his candidacy for governor. For me, I see that and think, OK, then why did you resign from Congress? How do you thread that needle, Jessie?<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> I think that is obviously a question for Eric Swalwell. But I will say that these allegations have been in the ether for years. These are not new allegations, although they are new to much of the public. You talk to people on the Hill, and these are things that they have heard for years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> Now, Jessie, you said it was an unusually swift fallout in part due to the public sentiment around the Epstein files. Could you talk about that?<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> When I was <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/14\/eric-swalwell-sexual-assault-allegations-midterms-epstein\/\">writing this story<\/a>, originally, I hadn\u2019t thought about the role of the survivors themselves as much in the story. I\u2019m speaking specifically about Epstein survivors. But we have to give a lot of credit to those women for making sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, making these issues electoral issues \u2014 issues that the public really cares about.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-pullquote has-text-align-right\">\n<blockquote>\n<p>The Epstein survivors \u201cmade accountability for sexual abuse and sexual violence an electoral issue.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n<p>So you have two things going on. You have the fact that these survivors have made this an electoral issue \u2014 made accountability for sexual abuse and sexual violence an electoral issue. And you also have to give some credit to Democrats as well for immediately moving on these allegations very swiftly. From their perspective, it is incredibly hypocritical for them to not hold Swalwell accountable while also running simultaneously on the Epstein files, running on accountability, running on this idea that we have to hold the Epstein class \u2014 people who are abusers \u2014 accountable. I think they couldn\u2019t run on that effectively and also not hold Swalwell accountable once these allegations were made public.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> Now, on Monday, the <a href=\"https:\/\/ethics.house.gov\/press-releases\/statement-of-the-committee-on-ethics-regarding-sexual-misconduct-and-workplace-rights\/\">House Committee on Ethics <\/a>published a <a href=\"https:\/\/ethics.house.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Historical-Chart-of-Sexual-Misconduct-Matters.pdf\">list of 28 representatives<\/a> who have been investigated by the committee for alleged sexual misconduct. The oldest case dates back to 1976. Recent investigations include Swalwell; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.expressnews.com\/politics\/article\/tony-gonzales-ethics-investigation-ends-22215973.php\">Tony Gonzales<\/a>, Republican of Texas; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/congress\/cory-mills-wont-resign-congress-ethics-probe-misconduct-allegations-rcna341305\">Cory Mills<\/a>, Republican of Florida who is facing allegations of \u201csexual misconduct and\/or dating violence.\u201d That investigation is ongoing; he denies the charges. And notably a few years have passed but also on the list is Matt Gaetz, Republican and former congressman of Florida.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Jessie, are you seeing more efforts to take allegations more seriously and hold members of Congress accountable?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> There definitely is a shift in Congress, and obviously that shift has to do a little bit with Swalwell. We\u2019ve talked about the Epstein files in terms of more of an effort to hold these members accountable for their abuse of women. I will say the fact that there was no movement on Gonzales or Mills until after Swalwell allegations came forth, one could question whether or not Republicans are a faithful partner in this, or if they just see another political opportunity. But there does seem to be at least a rhetorical shift on the Hill when it comes to taking these problems seriously.<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> I would agree that I think the speed of Democrats consolidating around \u201cGet this guy out of Congress\u201d is new. But I would also say, we did see this moment of reckoning in 2017, 2018, with the first round of \u201cMe Too,\u201d when it appears that a lot of these allegations were already known around that time or had happened prior to that.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> That actually came up in my piece when I was speaking to people who had worked both on the Hill and also as campaign staffers. The fact that a lot of these rumors \u2014 about Swalwell, but also obviously there are rumors about other politicians, Democratic politicians as well \u2014 that these rumors were known, and that people didn\u2019t do anything. What we\u2019re seeing is a reaction to the public being aware of these allegations, and also I would say the severity of the allegations.<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019re talking about really horrific allegations of sexual assault \u2014 we do have to acknowledge again that Swalwell denies \u2014 but I think it\u2019s the severity of the allegations and the fact that they were made public. But it is a little soon for Democrats to be patting themselves on the back when many of these allegations were floating around the ether on the Hill.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> Interestingly, on Monday, Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican of South Carolina, introduced a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/congress\/nancy-mace-introduces-resolution-expel-republican-cory-mills-house-rcna341122\">resolution to expel Mills<\/a> from Congress. I\u2019m curious to see how that goes.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>But for both of you, this is actually a sizable potential shakeup in Congress. And we haven\u2019t even talked about others who were facing possible expulsion. Like Rep. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.axios.com\/2026\/03\/27\/sheila-cherfilus-mccormick-guilty-ethics-trial\">Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick<\/a>, a Florida Democrat who was found guilty by the Ethics Committee for financial misconduct, which she denied. On Tuesday, she announced her <a href=\"https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/newshour\/politics\/watch-live-house-lawmakers-weigh-punishment-for-rep-cherfilus-mccormick-for-ethics-violations\">resignation<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>What does this all mean for Republican\u2019s majority in Congress? What effect, if any, might it have on which party will hold the majority next?<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> So right now, Republicans have a slim majority in the House \u2014 217, and one Independent who caucuses with Republicans \u2014 to Democrats, who have 213. Democrats are optimistic that they\u2019re going to win back the House in midterms even prior to all of this.<\/p>\n<p>There\u2019s two Republicans that are facing these allegations right now, so off the bat, that doesn\u2019t give Democrats the majority, obviously, but it could potentially help. We don\u2019t know what\u2019s happening with Tony Gonzales or Cory Mills at this point. The fact that two Democrats have now resigned obviously factors into that, but <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/collections\/midterms-2026\/\">midterm watch<\/a>, they are expected to potentially win back the House and are even looking at possibly the Senate, obviously, as we\u2019ve been talking about on this show.<\/p>\n<p>I think, if anything, I don\u2019t know that this really plays well for Democrats because Eric Swalwell is the face of this at this point. I don\u2019t know if the floodgates have opened yet, maybe you could say that we\u2019re talking about four or five people at this point. Obviously, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is not a sexual misconduct allegation, but obviously, a shakeup is happening. Who knows what else can happen?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019re in the height of primary season right now, and it\u2019s going to be a long summer. I imagine that we\u2019re going to see more things continue to come up, especially because the \u201coppo\u201d people are going crazy right now, so it remains to be seen. But again, the baseline prior to this was: It\u2019s a possibility for Republicans to lose the House. I don\u2019t see this necessarily changing that, but it could complicate things for Democrats if more of them come under fire.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> The \u201coppo\u201d angle is actually really interesting. It\u2019s something that people who aren\u2019t journalists or aren\u2019t in the political world aren\u2019t that aware of.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Campaigns research each other. They research their opponents, and they come up with these spreadsheets of documents against the opponents \u2014 all of their different weak points, including these various allegations that are floating around against them. So during campaign season, you do see people digging up a lot more \u2014 I don\u2019t want to call something like sexual harassment \u201cdirt\u201d \u2014 but these negative allegations about people. So that\u2019s something that you see a lot in campaign season. That\u2019s why we might end up seeing more and more come out about these candidates.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> Now, I want to pivot back to Swalwell and the California governor\u2019s race. This is something I\u2019ve been watching closely as a Californian. It\u2019s a crowded race, even with Swalwell exiting. Former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra who was previously California\u2019s attorney general, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/newsletters\/california-playbook\/2026\/04\/21\/becerras-boom-and-israel-divisions-00882523\">got a boost<\/a> from Swalwell\u2019s departure, making him tied with billionaire Tom Steyer. Former congresswoman Katie Porter is not far behind them.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Akela, <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/20\/california-governor-our-revolution-tom-steyer-endorse\/\">you wrote <\/a>about a progressive group that is trying to rally Democrats around Steyer. Can you tell us about this group and why they\u2019re endorsing him over other candidates in the race?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> Xavier Becerra was polling in single digits pretty much up until Swalwell\u2019s exit. Some polls have shown him pulling ahead or tied. The <a href=\"https:\/\/emersoncollegepolling.com\/california-2026-poll-april\/\">Emerson poll<\/a> that everyone was looking at right after Swalwell dropped out, had him at 10 percent \u2014 well behind the first two Republican candidates and Tom Steyer, but tied with Katie Porter.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The article that you\u2019re talking about, Jordan, we wrote an exclusive about <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/20\/california-governor-our-revolution-tom-steyer-endorse\/\">Our Revolution endorsing Tom Steyer<\/a>. This is the progressive group that Bernie Sanders founded after his 2016 presidential campaign. They have built their mission around attacking wealth and power in politics, and so endorsing a billionaire raised a lot of eyebrows and questions about that \u2014 how endorsing Steyer advances that mission, which I spoke at length with their executive director about.<\/p>\n<p>This is the first billionaire Our Revolution has endorsed. It was fun fact checking that because we were like, how many billionaires have run for office? We pretty much know all of them. It wasn\u2019t JB Pritzker, it wasn\u2019t Michael Bloomberg. That in itself is historic for a group that has fashioned itself in the way that Our Revolution has.<\/p>\n<p>They have recently <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/OurRevolution\/status\/1941905146134360125\">tweeted<\/a> [in 2025], \u201cWe shouldn\u2019t have billionaires,\u201d so this is what we\u2019re talking about. They were very open about that being a big contradiction, to their credit, I will say. Their view is that in this field, which is extremely crowded, the fact that two Republicans have been leading the race basically since January should give pause to progressives and Democrats about whether they\u2019re going to consolidate behind a candidate or risk handing the seat to a Republican.<\/p>\n<p>Another initial question that I had: What about Katie Porter? She has the longest record in office of a progressive official of the candidates in the pool and the highest name recognition for a progressive. They basically said that she was the first candidate to jump into the race, but she still hasn\u2019t pulled ahead or demonstrated a clear path to victory in polling.<\/p>\n<p>They didn\u2019t speak to this, but I will mention that <a href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/homenews\/campaign\/5841898-porter-gubernatorial-campaign-backlash\/\">Katie Porter<\/a> has faced backlash in recent years after a video surfaced of her yelling at a staffer. I don\u2019t know how much that\u2019s affecting her race right now, but I think that tarnished her image a little bit for some people. I don\u2019t know that the average California voter knows that happened necessarily, but they seem to think that she did not have a chance of winning, basically, was the bottom line.<\/p>\n<p>So they were like, yeah, there are concerns about us endorsing a billionaire, there are questions about how that aligns with our broader project. But in this instance, if the alternative is having a Republican run California for the first time in the <a href=\"https:\/\/governors.library.ca.gov\/list.html\">last two governors<\/a>, then they would rather back someone who they say has used his wealth and power to advance progressive ideals, investing in advocacy around climate change and electing progressive officials.\u00a0<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-pullquote\">\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cIf the alternative is having a Republican run California \u2026 then they would rather back someone who they say has used his wealth and power to advance progressive ideals.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n<p>I will say Tom Steyer has also faced criticism for benefiting from the policies that help billionaires pay lower taxes. Although he himself has said that he and billionaires should pay more in taxes. But I think a lot of people have a lot of questions, which I think are fair, about what he will do in office.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>This is also someone who has spent the most on his own race. He spent over $120 million on his gubernatorial campaign so far. This is coming off of spending $300 million <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2020\/01\/23\/why-is-billionaire-tom-steyer-running-for-president\/\">on a failed presidential bid in 2020<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p>They also said that Steyer aggressively sought Our Revolution\u2019s endorsement throughout the entire race and that Katie Porter did seek their endorsement but did so later in the race. They had endorsed against her in the California Senate race in 2020. They endorsed Barbara Lee against Katie Porter, and they said that her campaign\u2019s performance in that race did not inspire confidence that she would be able to win another statewide race.<\/p>\n<p><!-- BLOCK(newsletter)[0](%7B%22componentName%22%3A%22NEWSLETTER%22%2C%22entityType%22%3A%22SHORTCODE%22%2C%22optional%22%3Atrue%7D)(%7B%7D) --><\/p>\n<div class=\"newsletter-embed flex-col items-center print:hidden\" id=\"third-party--article-mid\" data-module=\"InlineNewsletter\" data-module-source=\"web_intercept_20241230_Inline_Signup_Replacement\">\n<div class=\"-mx-5 sm:-mx-10 p-5 sm:px-10 xl:-ml-5 lg:mr-0 xl:px-5 bg-accentLight hidden\" data-name=\"subscribed\">\n<h2 class=\"font-sans font-light uppercase text-[30px] leading-8 text-white tracking-[0.01em] mb-0\">\n      We\u2019re independent of corporate interests \u2014 and powered by members. Join us.    <\/h2>\n<p>    <a href=\"https:\/\/join.theintercept.com\/donate\/now\/?referrer_post_id=514553&amp;referrer_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2026%2F04%2F24%2Fcongress-me-too-swalwell-democrats-midterms%2F&amp;source=web_intercept_20241230_Inline_Signup_Replacement\" class=\"border border-white !text-white font-mono uppercase p-5 inline-flex items-center gap-3 hover:bg-white hover:!text-accentLight focus:bg-white focus:!text-accentLight\" data-name=\"donateCTA\" data-action=\"handleDonate\"><br \/>\n      Become a member      <span class=\"font-icons icon-TI_Arrow_02_Right\"\/><br \/>\n    <\/a>\n  <\/div>\n<div class=\"group default w-full px-5 hidden\" data-name=\"unsubscribed\">\n<div class=\"px-5 border-[10px] border-accentLight\">\n<div class=\"bg-white -my-2.5 relative block px-4 md:px-5\">\n<h2 class=\"font-sans font-body text-[30px] font-bold tracking-[0.01em] leading-8 mb-0 xl:text-[37px] xl:leading-[39px]\">\n          <span class=\"group-[.subscribed]:hidden\"><br \/>\n            Join Our Newsletter          <\/span><br \/>\n          <span class=\"group-[.default]:hidden\"><br \/>\n            Thank You For Joining!          <\/span><br \/>\n        <\/h2>\n<p class=\"text-[27px] mb-3.5 font-bold text-accentLight tracking-[0.01em] leading-[29px] font-sans xl:text-[37px] xl:leading-[39px]\">\n          <span class=\"group-[.subscribed]:hidden\"><br \/>\n            Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.          <\/span><br \/>\n          <span class=\"group-[.default]:hidden\"><br \/>\n            Will you take the next step to support our independent journalism by becoming a member of The Intercept?          <\/span>\n        <\/p>\n<p>        <a href=\"https:\/\/join.theintercept.com\/donate\/now\/?referrer_post_id=514553&amp;referrer_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com%2F2026%2F04%2F24%2Fcongress-me-too-swalwell-democrats-midterms%2F&amp;source=web_intercept_20241230_Inline_Signup_Replacement\" class=\"group-[.default]:hidden border border-accentLight text-accentLight font-sans px-5 py-3.5 inline-flex items-center gap-3 text-[20px] font-bold\" data-action=\"handleDonate\"><br \/>\n          Become a member          <span class=\"font-icons icon-TI_Arrow_02_Right\"\/><br \/>\n        <\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"font-sans text-accentLight text-[10px] leading-[13px] text-balance [&amp;_a]:text-accentLight [&amp;_a]:font-bold [&amp;_a:hover]:underline group-[.subscribed]:hidden\">\n<p>By signing up, I agree to receive emails from The Intercept and to the <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/privacy-policy\/\">Privacy Policy<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/terms-use\/\">Terms of Use<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><!-- END-BLOCK(newsletter)[0] --><\/p>\n<p><strong>[Break]<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> It is a crowded and confusing field for the dynamics you just laid out. The policy differences, the disparity in personal wealth, all of those things make for a tough decision for many people in California on the left. But because of the way the election works here with a jungle primary, the two leading candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.<\/p>\n<p>Right now, if polling remains the same before the primary in June and more Democrats don\u2019t drop out, California could end up with two Republicans at the top of the ticket come November. Who are those Republican candidates?<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> Buckle up. [Laughs] Number one, the person who is in first place, we\u2019ll start with <a href=\"https:\/\/time.com\/article\/2026\/04\/06\/steve-hilton-california-governor-trump\/\">Steve Hilton<\/a>, who is a former Fox News analyst and a former Conservative Party adviser in the U.K.. He worked under Margaret Thatcher, for context. Steve Hilton was born in the U.K. and immigrated to the U.S. He is endorsed by Donald Trump. Pretty run-of-the-mill Republican dude who\u2019s close with Trump.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019ll leave it at that because the next person is even more interesting. [Riverside County] Sheriff Chad Bianco was a dues-paying member of the <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2022\/03\/08\/oath-keepers-january-6-stewart-rhodes-trump\/\">Oath Keepers<\/a>, the group that you may remember from leading the attack on the Capitol on January 6. He was a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/nation\/2021\/10\/02\/oath-keepers-hack-exposes-law-enforcement-officers-across-us\/5949281001\/\">dues-paying member in 2014<\/a>; he was not at January 6. He also endorsed Trump. Trump has not endorsed him, obviously, he endorsed Steve Hilton. But those are the two top candidates in the gubernatorial race at this point in time.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> Now, I want to mention that this sheriff, Chad Bianco, took it upon himself to seize 650,000 ballots in March to investigate alleged voter fraud. A <a href=\"https:\/\/calmatters.org\/investigation\/2026\/04\/chad-bianco-emails\">CalMatters probe<\/a> found that \u201chis sprawling investigation was based on the thinnest of evidence and raise alarms over how the November elections could be disrupted by the unproven claims of fringe groups and ideologically aligned officials.\u201d For both of you, what do you make of this, and are there other cases of attempts to undermine voters through so-called \u201celection integrity\u201d efforts that you\u2019re watching?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> Bianco \u2014 people know that he was in the Oath Keepers, but like he\u2019s obviously distanced himself from that, he\u2019s no longer a dues paying member, yada, yada, yada. But that is a direct outgrowth of that kind of extremist, militant, anti-government ideology that that group is built on. That runs as an undercurrent in a lot of these MAGA figures, in terms of undermining democratic institutions in the name of election integrity and this warped, very dangerous dystopian framing of our election system that leads to things like people storming the Capitol on January 6 and trying to overturn the results of the election and trying to hang the vice president. Just want to put a finer point on that. <\/p>\n<p>He\u2019s also part of the \u201cconstitutional sheriffs\u201d movement, which sounds scary. They believe that they have more power than the president and the courts and that they\u2019re some of the most powerful officials in the country.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>I think this sort of campaign of election interference that we\u2019ve seen balloon, particularly during Trump\u2019s first term, and again, taking shape in his second term under the guise of election integrity is one of the harder things to cover, for us. But it\u2019s one of the most insidious forces that have far reaching ramifications for democratic elections and voting rights more broadly. But it\u2019s one of the hardest things to cover until after it happens.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-pullquote has-text-align-right\">\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s one of the hardest things to cover until after it happens.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n<p>So we\u2019re at the point right now where this is not a huge issue in primary season. There\u2019s already been some reporting on how Trump officials are talking about this and not necessarily about what\u2019s being done, but that they\u2019re definitely open about talking about <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/03\/06\/democrats-dhs-ice-reform-midterm-election-integrity\/\">sending ICE to polls<\/a>. Talking about getting rid of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/our-work\/research-reports\/trump-administrations-campaign-undermine-next-election\">voter protection measures<\/a> or election integrity measures at the state level. We\u2019ll likely see more of that ramp up between when primary season ends and in November. So it\u2019s a little hard to say right now, but this is definitely part of their playbook.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> We\u2019ve definitely seen Trump and his allies really talk about voter integrity and try and shift this narrative.<\/p>\n<p>Obviously, I think as most of our listeners know, <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2017\/01\/26\/trumps-obsession-with-faux-election-fraud-sets-the-stage-for-federal-voter-suppression\/\">voter fraud is incredibly rare<\/a>. The measures that the Trump administration is suggesting wouldn\u2019t really target any of those, again, incredibly rare instances of voter fraud. We\u2019ve also seen allies of the Trump administration, obviously on Capitol Hill, try and push through the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/our-work\/analysis-opinion\/save-act-and-election-power-grab\">Save Act<\/a>, which would make it much harder for many different groups to vote because of the increased requirements on documentation. That <a href=\"https:\/\/campaignlegal.org\/press-releases\/victory-voters-save-america-act-fails-senate\">failed<\/a> this week in the Senate.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>As Akela mentioned, the Trump administration has been floating the idea of sending ICE to the polls. We know that former Attorney General Pam Bondi had <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2026\/01\/27\/politics\/pam-bondi-voter-rolls-minnesota-ice\">asked for the voter rolls in Minnesota<\/a> as well. So there\u2019s this confluence of different groups connected to the Trump administration, connected to some of these more fringe movements that are working to make this election much more difficult for many different groups to vote.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> In 2024, we saw Democrats running to the center on issues like immigration and transgender rights. But this year we\u2019ve seen more Democrats style themselves as progressives, especially when it comes to immigration and issues like AIPAC funding. Are candidates paying a penalty for appearing inauthentic on those issues?<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> I did a story about this earlier this year, focused on <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/03\/19\/seth-moulton-ed-markey-senate-democrats-trans\/\">Seth Moulton<\/a> and the fact that in 2024, he was one of the main Democrats really coming out and pushing anti-transgender rhetoric, saying that Democrats supporting transgender rights publicly had led to a backlash among voters.<\/p>\n<p>Now he\u2019s running in 2026 in Massachusetts against one of the most progressive senators in the country, Ed Markey. So we\u2019re seeing a different shift of tone from him. He\u2019s obviously not making those same comments that he was making in 2024, but he\u2019s also talking about his record on LGBTQ rights, trying to shift the narrative around him. It\u2019s not only not working, there\u2019s a backlash that we\u2019re seeing toward inauthenticity. Now, whether or not the average voter is paying attention in that way, I\u2019m not sure. But certainly when you\u2019re looking at people who are more politically plugged in \u2014 and primary voters tend to be much more politically plugged in \u2014 there is more of a backlash for inauthenticity and for shifting on issues without a sincere apology or a sincere conversation about why your viewpoints have changed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> There\u2019s a lot of discourse online around who is a progressive candidate and whose questionable past or background or lack thereof should be overlooked because they are saying the right things currently. What do you both think? Do you think these criticisms are just unhelpful purity tests or that people should be taking a more critical look at the candidates they are championing?<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> I feel like this question about purity tests is a little bit ill-fitted to what we\u2019re actually talking about, which is, what are candidates\u2019 policies? It\u2019s not so much about a purity test. It\u2019s a question of, is what you\u2019re running on actually what you do in office? That\u2019s not a purity test, I don\u2019t think.<\/p>\n<p>Candidates who have been very vocal about abolishing ICE or rejecting AIPAC money or these clear litmus tests \u2014 which they are litmus tests \u2014 know that is something that\u2019s going to be on their record. It\u2019s not something that they can waffle on once they\u2019re in office. If you say you\u2019re not going to take AIPAC money and then you take AIPAC money, people are going to find out. If you say I\u2019m going to abolish ICE, and then you don\u2019t abolish ICE, people are going to find out.<\/p>\n<p>Whereas, incumbents who may have voted for moderate or conservative immigration policy in the past who are now coming out and saying, \u201cAbolish ICE,\u201d or candidates like <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2026\/03\/24\/2028-democrats-reject-aipac-00841350\">Cory Booker<\/a> who have taken tons of AIPAC money and <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2019\/03\/30\/cory-booker-aipac-leaked-recording\/\">boasted about texting<\/a> with their president and been to their annual policy conferences \u2014 coming out and saying that he\u2019s no longer taking AIPAC money as part of a broader pledge to reject corporate PAC money, not singling out AIPAC because he obviously doesn\u2019t want to draw their ire. That is a fair case for people to ask questions about \u201cOK, what does this actually mean?\u201d And again, that\u2019s not a purity test because he\u2019s adopting the purity test. It\u2019s like, what is he actually going to do?<\/p>\n<p>We\u2019ve seen a lot of candidates, particularly <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2026\/03\/24\/2028-democrats-reject-aipac-00841350?referrer=https:\/\/reddit.com\">2028 candidates<\/a>, whether senatorial or gubernatorial who have had long-standing relationships with AIPAC or demonstrated pro-Israel policy records like Rahm Emanuel, Cory Booker, Josh Shapiro, Ruben Gallego, all come out now against AIPAC or distancing themselves from AIPAC.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In Josh Shapiro\u2019s case, he says like, they don\u2019t give to governors, I\u2019ve never taken AIPAC money. But he has a very pro-Israel policy record and has fashioned himself as someone who is resisting the wave of criticism of Israel in the Democratic Party and standing firm in his pro-Israel bonafides, while still saying that he\u2019s critical of Netanyahu and stuff like that.<\/p>\n<p>Cory Booker was asked about this recently on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0VYWBq6RbWo&amp;list=PLOOwEPgFWm_NHcQd9aCi5JXWASHO_n5uR&amp;index=8\">Pod Save America<\/a>, where they were pressing him on why he refused to call Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal. It doesn\u2019t really matter if you\u2019re rejecting AIPAC money, if you aren\u2019t changing any of the policies that you adopt with respect to how the U.S. treats Israel.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Cory Booker <em>did <\/em>vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders\u2019s measures to <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/15\/senate-democrats-block-arms-sales-israel\/\">block the sale of bombs and bulldozers<\/a> to Israel. So that was a shift in his position. That\u2019s the kind of thing where you can say, well, this litmus test worked; if he\u2019s actually changing his policy on this, then people don\u2019t have a reason to necessarily question the proclamations that he\u2019s making.<\/p>\n<p>But I do think people should be asking questions beyond \u201cDoes this person take AIPAC money?\u201d They should be asking where do they stand on all of these other policy questions that they\u2019ll be voting on once they\u2019re elected or reelected.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-pullquote\">\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cIt doesn\u2019t really matter if you\u2019re rejecting AIPAC money, if you aren\u2019t changing any of the policies that you adopt with respect to how the U.S. treats Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> To Akela\u2019s point, you can\u2019t have Democrats who voted for the <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2025\/01\/14\/laken-riley-act-immigration-deportation-visas\/\">Laken Riley Act<\/a>, which makes it much easier to deport people in the United States, who are then now decrying what Trump and ICE are doing in the streets and saying they\u2019re going to hold Trump accountable when in office \u2014 when they haven\u2019t been holding ICE accountable while in the legislature.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> On the topic of online discourse, for several weeks now, powerful factions within the Democratic Party have been going after Twitch streamer <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/commentisfree\/2026\/apr\/08\/why-do-elite-democrats-fear-hasan-piker\">Hasan Piker<\/a>. It started to pick up about a month ago after he participated in a convoy to deliver food, medicine and solar panels to Cuba, a country in which President Donald Trump\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/03\/24\/cuba-oil-blockade-trump-rubio\/\">oil embargo<\/a> has led to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2026\/apr\/19\/sincere-dialogue-needed-to-ease-cubas-grave-humanitarian-crisis-say-mexico-spain-and-brazil\">humanitarian crisis<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>I really can\u2019t believe that attacks on Piker\u2019s character are continuing for this long. If you Google his name, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/2026\/04\/21\/hasan-piker-isnt-risk-worth-taking-democrats\/\">multiple stories<\/a> come up that are just a few days old, from <a href=\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/opinion\/5838252-hasan-piker-democrat-israel-gaza\/\">The Hill<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/politics\/2026\/04\/hasan-piker-einstein-democrats\/686855\/\">The Atlantic<\/a> and the <a href=\"https:\/\/nypost.com\/2026\/04\/19\/us-news\/sen-rick-scott-rips-hasan-pikers-call-to-kill-him-this-is-the-democrat-party\/\">New York Post<\/a>. There are real issues that the party establishment could focus on, like Trump\u2019s sinking approval rating, <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/17\/trump-iran-war-matt-duss\/\">the war<\/a>, the economy, and ongoing threats to our democracy. But yet, they appear to be hyperfocused on Piker\u2019s influence. What do you all make of this?<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> It\u2019s mind-numbingly stupid. This is just a straw man thing, I don\u2019t know how to say it better than that. Hasan Piker is a straw man. He has never spoken for the Democratic Party. He\u2019s a streamer that candidates are either going on his show or campaigning with. And yes, you can say well the left or Democrats often criticize shows that candidates go on, because they\u2019re outright Nazis or they were at the Capitol on January 6 or something and that\u2019s just not what we\u2019re talking about. I think the <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/09\/michigan-senate-abdul-el-sayed-mallory-mcmorrow-hasan-piker\/\">false equivalence between someone like a Nick Fuentes<\/a> or like an outright white nationalist working with or campaigning with Republicans, and somehow drawing a parallel between that and Democrats talking to Hasan Piker \u2014 it\u2019s insulting to people\u2019s intelligence to try to make that comparison.<\/p>\n<p>I think because a lot of people don\u2019t know who he is, or the context, unfortunately gets swept up in thinking that this is something that they should actually be paying attention to and trying to make a decision about. It is an illustration of how broken our media and political ecosystems is that national outlets spending air time covering this as if it\u2019s a real news development \u2014 because that fuels the fire. That\u2019s why we\u2019re still talking about it, and that\u2019s why we\u2019re talking about it on this show. But hopefully with a better take.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> This is about not wanting to share power with the left. This isn\u2019t about the comments that Hasan Piker made. This isn\u2019t about, oh, Democrats shouldn\u2019t be on this platform or that platform. These are some of the same people who were pushing Democrats to go on Joe Rogan.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-pullquote has-text-align-right\">\n<blockquote>\n<p>\u201cThis is about not wanting to share power with the left.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n<p>So it doesn\u2019t hold water. This is about not wanting to share power with the left, wanting to weaken one of its, to them, one of its strongest and loudest voices. It\u2019s an attack on the left. It\u2019s not about Hasan Piker or about Twitch or anything else.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> You can\u2019t tell me that Democrats have a problem reaching young men and then when you have somebody who does reach young men and has pulled them to the left \u2014 you will see in his audience, in his chat, in his fans\u2019 comments, many people will admit to being sucked into the right-wing pipeline and admitting and thanking him for pulling them out. You can\u2019t tell me that you have a problem and he is not part of the solution, and expect me to think that is a sound argument.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>It is about narrative control. It is about preserving legacy institutions and part of it is about weaponizing hollow accusations of antisemitism, and that\u2019s why you see groups like the <a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/JGreenblattADL\/status\/2037329274730873298?s=20\">Anti-Defamation League <\/a>take shots at him. <\/p>\n<p>In parallel, there\u2019s also a threat to the status quo and their corporate ties. That\u2019s why centrist group <a href=\"https:\/\/newrepublic.com\/article\/208412\/hasan-piker-interview-third-way-el-sayed-centrist-critics\">Third Way<\/a> has <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/04\/12\/opinion\/hasan-piker-democrats.html\">been pushing this<\/a>. And then it\u2019s about where the party sits, like you say, both of you \u2014 it\u2019s about not ceding power to the left, not including the left in this \u201cbig tent.\u201d That\u2019s why you have <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=UR-HzN5j9R0\">never-Trumpers<\/a> who they say they\u2019re former Republicans, but by their acts demonstrate, at least to me, that they still are Republicans also joining that growing chorus.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>It is, in my opinion, misguided and shortsighted.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> Third Way pushing this is just\u2014 the fact that this was a group that was earlier saying, we can\u2019t talk about diversity, we have to move against transgender rights, let\u2019s take away actual rights in order to win. But now the line is, oh, well, if we win, but we win with Hasan Piker, that\u2019s going to be the worst thing in the world. The whole thing is a little bit laughable. They\u2019re willing to sacrifice actual human rights, but what they\u2019re not willing to do is have anyone sit down with Hasan Piker.<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> It\u2019s easier to blame someone who isn\u2019t responsible for your policy failures for being popular. That\u2019s not the reason that Third Way is unpopular. It\u2019s because they\u2019re bad at what they do.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> So when it comes to actual issues people are unhappy about, a new <a href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/trump-approval-iran-economy-cost-of-living-poll-fff492898cc8ff34e11df90ec4837a79\">AP poll<\/a> shows that Trump\u2019s approval rating on the economy is sinking even more, due to his policies from tariffs to <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/04\/17\/trump-iran-war-matt-duss\/\">new wars<\/a> in the Middle East. That\u2019s on top of <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/01\/16\/trump-abolish-ice-renee-good-jonathan-ross\/\">violent immigration raids<\/a>, the <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2026\/02\/13\/epstein-survivors-attorney-justice\/\">handling<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2025\/11\/16\/trump-jeffrey-epstein-emails-shutdown\/\">Epstein files<\/a>, and more signs of a weakening economy as the Fed reports <a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/wy_5pVo3M08?si=UNzC_Y78kF_8yY6_\">zero net job creation<\/a> in the private sector, and the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/business\/has-the-era-of-the-mega-layoff-arrived-928f061d\">Wall Street Journal <\/a>reporting we\u2019ve entered an \u201cera of mega-layoff[s].\u201d Meanwhile, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/trump-family-business-visualized-6d132c71\">Trump family\u2019s<\/a> business <a href=\"https:\/\/www.opensecrets.org\/trump\/trump-properties\">empire<\/a> is growing exponentially this term. Is Democratic leadership leveraging any of this? How is it showing up in campaigns? What are you both seeing? And are there signs that any of this will cost Republicans control of the House and maybe Senate?<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> I think this is really coming up in Democratic campaigns in this word \u201caffordability.\u201d We\u2019re hearing every single campaign talk about the fact that the United States is not affordable for working-class people. That\u2019s clearly a shot at Trump\u2019s economy. That\u2019s really how I see Democrats capitalizing on it, mostly in campaign season.<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been talking about how many federal jobs the Trump administration has lost or cut with various cuts to different agencies. And yes, as Jessie said, this is showing up as an affordability chorus among different Democratic campaigns. Affordability, sure, is a unifying message \u2014 but I think being able to tie the fact that there is a net zero job creation to Trump seems like something that they should be screaming from the hilltops all together at once.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s hard to tell in situations where they are hitting the message correctly because we have spent a lot of time on this show criticizing Democrats for not having a clear or focused messaging campaign. But when leaders might be getting the message out, like what is the party doing as a whole to have a unified front on that or directly tie it to Trump, I think is something that they\u2019re <a href=\"https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/2026\/02\/02\/what-maga-can-teach-democrats-about-organizing-and-infighting\">still not quite on par with Republicans on<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>I keep thinking about the first federal government shutdown under Trump, when you went to the White House website, and it was like, \u201cDemocrats have shut down the government.\u201d We don\u2019t see that kind of succinct counter-messaging from Democrats.<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019m reading this headline from a Schumer <a href=\"https:\/\/www.schumer.senate.gov\/newsroom\/press-releases\/schumer-reveals-as-trump-attacks-and-eviscerates-federal-workforce-new-yorkers-pay-the-price-with-over-8000-federal-jobs-lost-in-the-past-year-alone-across-ny_with-damaging-cuts-to-local-social-security-offices-veterans-affairs-usda-offices-and-other-vital-federal-services\">press release<\/a>, and it\u2019s so long. I\u2019m just going to read it to you: \u201cSCHUMER REVEALS: AS TRUMP ATTACKS &amp; EVISCERATES FEDERAL WORKFORCE, NEW YORKERS PAY THE PRICE WITH OVER 8,000 FEDERAL JOBS LOST IN THE PAST YEAR ALONE ACROSS NY \u2013 WITH DAMAGING CUTS TO LOCAL SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES, VETERANS AFFAIRS, USDA OFFICES, AND OTHER VITAL FEDERAL SERVICES.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Like, that\u2019s not a slogan. That\u2019s the Senate minority leader\u2019s press office putting this out. It feels like there should be some sort of unified campaign. I\u2019m not a political strategist, but when you look at the messaging next to each other, what Republicans are doing and what Democrats are doing, it seems like a missed opportunity to really hit the nail on the head on who\u2019s responsible for this.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> You see Democrats talking about affordability hitting on Trump, but I think you\u2019re right that there\u2019s a real opportunity for Democrats to hit Republicans over the head with this, and we\u2019re not seeing it as aggressive as we know Republicans would be in this alternate situation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JU:<\/strong> This is going to be an interesting midterm, and I will look to both of you for guidance and clarity as things get even more chaotic. I want to thank you both for joining me on The Intercept Briefing.<\/p>\n<p><strong>AL:<\/strong> Thank you, Jordan.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> Thank you.<\/p>\n<p><strong>JW:<\/strong> And that does it for this episode.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our Managing Editor. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.<\/p>\n<p>Slip Stream provided our theme music.<\/p>\n<p>This show and our reporting at The Intercept doesn\u2019t exist without you. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Keep our investigations free and fearless at <a href=\"https:\/\/join.theintercept.com\/donate\/Donate_Podcast?source=interceptedshoutout&amp;recurring_period=one-time\">theintercept.com\/join<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>And if you haven\u2019t already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. Do leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us.<\/p>\n<p>Let us know what you think of this episode, or If you want to send us a general message, email us at podcasts@theintercept.com.<\/p>\n<p>Until next time, I\u2019m Jordan Uhl.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p>#Congress<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It\u2019s primary season, this time&hellip; <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":30187,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[246],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30186"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30186\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/30187"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}