Establishment Democrats have racked up disastrous electoral losses over the past decade—so why are they furious when their own party actually wins? Taya Graham and Stephen Janis break down the meltdown of Democratic “centrist” operatives and pundits after recent socialist victories in Ne w York and Colorado, from James Carville calling for a party “schism” to Rep. Josh Gottheimer’s panicking about the future of the party on CNN. Plus: we revisit our interviews with actual Mamdani voters—the people the mainstream media refuses to talk to. Credits: Production / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino, Stephen Janis Transcript The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated as soon as possible. Taya Graham: Establishment Democrats have racked up a lot of losses over the past decade. So why are they so angry when members of their own party win and how do they need to change if they ever want to win again? Well, Steven Janice and I will break down the profound need for change for Democrats in this episode of the Capitol Hill Inequality Report. Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Are You Serious Edition of our Inequality Watch Capitol Hill Report? As in, are you serious Democrats that you don’t want to listen to your own voters? And are you seriously going to brush off the results when Democratic socialists win as some sort of existential threat to your party? Well, we’re going to unpack what’s at the root of this state of denial and provide some analysis of why Democrats might not be able to overcome the fact that they are more afraid of socialism than losing. Of course, this establishment panic attack all started with three historic victories in New York after Democratic socialists beat establishment Democrats in key congressional primaries. And also last night another socialist notched to win in Colorado when 29-year-old Millet Quieros triumphed over Diana DeJet, who has served in Congress for 30 years. And Steven, all the candidates in New York were endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mandami. So he sort of looms over this entire loss for establishment candidates. Stephen Janis: He sure does. That’s when the Democratic establishment started their big losing streak within the party was when Mandami won the mayor’s race. And ever since then, and remember we covered it kind of in the beginning and when they were pushing back and like, oh my God, socialism. And ever since then they’ve been using this trope that a socialist win is bad for Democrats instead of listening to the voters. So we’re going to unpack that and talk about it because you’ve seen it up close how establishment Democrats are going, oh my God, they’re winning. Hondami is winning. Mandami brought out I think 25% or a huge increase in the youth vote, which the Speaker 3: Democrats Stephen Janis: Have been losing, which they lost in the Trump presidential victory. So it’s been really funny to watch how the Democrats are trying to, or establishment Democrats are scrambling to somehow compensate for this win for a win, which I won’t take. Taya Graham: The Democrats find a way to take a loss even out of a win. Okay? Stephen Janis: Yep. Taya Graham: But it doesn’t take long for the establishment demons to react. And again, as we pointed out last year when we were discussing the rise of now Mayor Zorman Mandami, the prevailing idea in the mainstream media, which is often unchallenged by the pundits, is that somehow this is bad news for Democrats. Steven, let me just show you a couple things Democrats said before I ask you to react. Okay? Cool. Hey, Cam, can you put this quote up on the screen? Okay. So this is from Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer, who by the way, has received $1.5 million from APAC and is consistently ranked among the top recipients of pro – Israeli money. Here’s what he told CNN shortly after the election. Obviously, the socialists had a big win last night. The question is, are we going to let them take over the party or are we going to stand up and fight back? Says rep Josh Gottheimer, a moderate Democrat to CNN. And then Democratic establishment stalwart, James Carville, actually called for a breakup of the party on his podcast. Cam, can you please show that text on the screen? I believe he is directly addressing Shivalier when he says this. Okay. Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you. I’m sorry, I’m just not. And I actually do think it’s time for Democrats to talk the S word. Schism. I really do. This is according to Democratic strategists James Carville. Steven, what’s the problem here with winning? Stephen Janis: Okay. This is a byproduct of what’s called the moderate stasis or the moderation stasis in the Democratic Party, that if we just moderate enough, somehow we’ll attract some MAGA Republicans who will like the fact that we’re moderate. But the problems the party is confronting, which is absolutely being tossed out of power and absolutely watching almost all the legacy of the Biden administration being dismantled isn’t about moderation. It’s not about getting closer to some non-existent middle that just doesn’t exist in America anymore. And it doesn’t exist because of our extreme income inequality and money and elections straight up. So Democrats have been operating under the thesis if we’re just normal and middle enough and that’s not what’s happening in their electorate. Electorates are voting for people who are a forceful agent for change and they just don’t want to accept it. I mean, James Carville needs to be in a retirement home right now and locked behind the doors and not given access to Zoom Because he says ridiculously stupid stuff and not recognizing where is the energy from the party coming from? And when is moderate ever worked in the past 10 years in the past two Taya Graham: Elections? That’s such a good point. I mean, think about it. Okay. When Kamala Harris was running for president, wasn’t she walking around with Liz Cheney as if that was going to gain her some goodwill? Stephen Janis: And let’s remember that James Carville’s the one who predicted over and over again that Kamala Harris was going to win and it didn’t happen. And she actually got beat pretty badly. And then they tried to cozy up to the Cheneys of all people and Taya Graham: It- It didn’t impress the Republicans and it didn’t sway any moderates. It just didn’t work. Stephen Janis: There’s no moderate. I mean, moderate is meaningless because we’re talking about policy.What’s moderate? Is moderate like having 16 million people kicked off their healthcare? Is moderate like funding a genocide? Is that moderate? What does moderate mean? It means that nothing happens. It means there’s no change. And that’s why the message doesn’t work. And by being moderate, I mean, let the Republicans come and take and say the Democratic Party socialists. I’m sorry, the Democratic Party in New York that just created the first free preschool for two year olds, the Democratic Party that just had a rent freeze for two million New Yorkers. Yeah, let them come in and say that sucks. The Democratic Party that just fixed 170,000 potholes according to Mayor Mom Donnie. So yeah, let them come in and take that. I think they should embrace it. Yeah, we’re going to change things. Change is needed. So anyway. Taya Graham: Steven, that’s a really good point because I think over the last two years that we’ve spent covering Capitol Hill, I’ve watched Republicans cut $1 trillion for Medicaid, failed to renew the ACA subsidies, cut nutritional assistance for children, revoke grants for scientific research. And then most recently, we literally witnessed Republicans giving an additional $70 billion to ICE and customs of Border Patrol, which are reporting uncovered. Both agencies had about $100 billion still sitting in the bank from the big beautiful bill. So I don’t think moderation is such a workable response to such extreme policies. Well, Stephen Janis: Apparently Republicans aren’t that moderate because that’s pretty radical change for a lot of people’s lives. Good point. Millions kicked off healthcare, a hundred billion for ICE to terrorize people in cities. So apparently they’re not moderate. I don’t see how moderation attacks or even solves that problem. So yeah, no more. I think really there’s an intellectual bankruptcy with the concept of moderation in light of the changes you talked about. Taya Graham: I think the impulse to moderate and to just basically reject the energy and the message of the voters was definitely a point of contention on Capitol Hill. Now we were there to cover Trump’s refusal to sign an affordable housing bill, which was a bipartisan compromise to reduce housing costs and promote construction nationwide. And just a note, estimates say the US is about short five million homes. It’s a term question. We need five million new homes. But even though both parties agreed to support the legislation, Trump said he would not sign unless the Save America Act was passed first. Steven, can you do me a favor and just give us a breakdown on the Save America Act just so we can keep score and keep honest. Stephen Janis: Yeah. Well, basically the Save America Act would fundamentally federalize American elections. It would require that people have a birth certificate or passport to register to vote rather than a real ID. It would allow the DHS to compare voter roles to their internals database, which tend to be extremely inaccurate and then just kick people off the rolls and it would eliminate mail-in ballots. So it’s a really, again, a radical proposal that in the sense it would radically alter elections and put them under federal control, which I don’t think anybody wants. But anyway, so it’s pretty dangerous piece of legislation when it comes to voting. Taya Graham: Steven, let me just check something with you. So I go to the polls. I have my real ID, but it doesn’t say on it that I was born in the US. It’s just my driver’s license. Does that mean I could be stopped at the polls and have to provide other information to prove that I’m an American citizen? Stephen Janis: It means when you register, like you can’t register online, you would have to provide some sort of proof of citizenship before you register to vote, i.e. A passport or a birth certificate. Women who have married and changed their names are in a real quandary because their birth certificate does not match your current legal name. So it’s really, really a voter suppression bill. I don’t care what people say that. It’s all about voter Taya Graham: Suppression. You know what? While we were covering the meltdown over housing, we also thought it was a good idea to talk to some of the progressive members of Congress that quite frankly, the mainstream media often ignores. So one of them was Ayanna Presley, and she’s a Democratic socialist from Massachusetts. Let’s take a listen to what she has to say about the party of moderation and the recent socialist victories. I think it was interesting. Speaker 4: But it just goes to show that candidates that fight for working families that are against a genocide, that speaks out against anti-blackness and that one who abolished super facts can run and can win. And finally, I would just say that something that has bothered me is that often in the analysis of progressive victories, and this is true for myself and many of my sister colleagues when we were elected in the 116th Congress, it’s sort of dismissed as a fluke or an outlier. But whenever more moderate Democrats win, people say that that’s a blueprint for Democrats to continue winning. So people should take heat. Taya Graham: Steven, before you give me your thoughts, let me tell you, I got to give you a compliment on walking backwards with that giant camera and getting that shot. So props to you on that. Stephen Janis: That was not easy. That keeps me in shape though. Taya Graham: It sure does. So tell me, what did you think of Ayanna Presley there, what she had to say? Stephen Janis: I want to go back to moderation as an ideology and the great moderation fallacy that has been driving Democratic politics for the last decade. And she just personified it right there because it is an ideological message. Everyone says, “Well, it’s just being rational.” No, because they ignore almost completely the message sent by voters who vote for socialists, but they embrace this idea, well, a moderate one, and that’s what’s going to get us there. And that makes it an ideology. They’re not looking at the rationality of the voters. In fact, they characterize socialist voters as irrational, totally irrational and that there’s some wonderful moderate mill, the moderate mill that delivered all the stuff you just talked about, the carnage basically of American social safety net and the genocide in Palestine. So that’s what moderation has delivered. So this is what we call the great moderation fallacy. It’s not like a reasonable position. It’s not rational because the policies that’s produced have been irrational. It’s actually an ideology that’s pretty fierce and pretty fiercely neoliberal and pretty fiercely anti-working people. Taya Graham: The moderation fallacy sounds like a sequel to Michael Crite novel, like Jurassic Park, the moderation fallacy. No, but seriously – I should Stephen Janis: Write a book like the moderation fallacy. It’s a Kabal. Taya Graham: Doesn’t that sound good? Is that a great title? Stephen Janis: I love Taya Graham: It. I love it. I love it. Okay. But no, seriously though, I thought there was another really important aspect of what she said, which is that the voters have spoken full stop. And that’s the part of this I find most puzzling. I mean, why are they constantly questioning the underlying motives of voters as somehow illogical instead of trying to understand them? Somehow voting for a Democratic socialist is simply an act of bad faith. What’s going on here? Why won’t people just listen to the voters? Well, Stephen Janis: You know what’s really interesting about this, which I want to go back in time with you because we remember in 2016 when Trump won, there was this great passion to talk to Trump voters. We don’t understand them. Why did they vote for Trump? The liberal media and the mainstream media and all the neoliberals were panicking about talking to Trump voters and were very insistent that we had to hear them out. Well, there has been no such. And the point was really that they arrived at that decision rationally because we’re going to listen to them, but there’s been no such effort by Democrats or neoliberals or the mainstream media. They always characterize the people almost like they objectify them into some sort of class of irrational idiots. I remember, and it’s so funny because I remember this, I want to go back in time with you. I remember we were covering the 2018 midterms in Pennsylvania and at that time Trump voters were all motivated by the, what was it called? Taya Graham: But it was the caravan. The caravan. We we worried about caravan. They were rooted about a thousand people Stephen Janis: Coming up through Mexico. And do you remember the question you asked Taya Graham: One of those – Yes. I very specifically asked, we were in Littletz, Pennsylvania because we wanted to go to polls to make sure we got Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and everybody in between. We wanted to talk to everyone. So we’re in Littletz and this very nice gentleman who I was having a conversation with told me he was Republican and I said, “What was his concerns? Why was he voting the way he was in this election?” Exactly. And he said he was worried about the caravan. And so I asked him like, “Well, have you seen a sign of a caravan? Has there been an influx of Hondurans in Littletz, Pennsylvania?” And he said, no. And that let me understand how powerful the media was and how powerfully the media was colluding to shape a specific narrative. Stephen Janis: Exactly. And the thing was, there was no alarm bells from that. It was almost considered rational. I mean, that voter was considered, I think, by the mainstream media and by the punnets to be more rational than a socialist voter who’s obviously voting for things that are in their interests like cheaper rent and healthcare and kids care for their children. So that’s to me the example and there was this huge… It never stopped. We need to talk to Trump voters. We need to understand Trump voters. If we don’t understand Trump voters, we’re not getting the story. But I’ve never, ever experienced in the mainstream media, the same impulse for socialist voters. Taya Graham: Oh, absolutely. I completely agree with you. I mean, it was almost like they were fetishizing the voters or they thought Trump voters from another planet. The thing was, and I think we could safely say this for the first round of voting for Trump, that people desperately wanted a change. They Speaker 3: Did. Taya Graham: They wanted disruption. And one could argue that people want change and disruption from the status quo right now. However, instead of finding it with the current Republican Party, they’re looking towards Democratic socialism. And I do remember every single journalist, including us, were told to go to Trump country. And just for the record, I have no problem at all speaking to people about their concerns regardless of their ideology. In fact, I honestly enjoy talking to people with a variety of viewpoints because I almost always learned something in the process. But I do find it curious that when Democratic socialists win, the mainstream media and their pundits seem chronically disinterested in the concerns of these voters and even reject them as irrational without even taking the time to talk with them. And that is not going to be the case here on the Real News Network and I will show the proof in just a moment. But first – Please do. Steven, I want to play you another clip from another progressive member of Congress who discussed a big issue that is driving the socialist movement and is probably key to the results we’re seeing in real time. Cam, give us the clip. Let’s listen. Speaker 5: And these are folks that are not afraid to say we need Medicare for all or that we need to take corporate money out of our democracy, out of politics. They did it so unapologetically and they did it without taking a dime from the same people that are hurting our families across the country. And so I’m proud of them. I love that they connect the movement around the fact that our country continues to fund genocide, bombs and death and destruction, but not clean water and childcare and paid leave and Medicare for all. So they’re all coming here with the same ideals that I had wanting to change the world for the better for our residents. And I’m excited. Taya Graham: Now I think Congresswoman Talib really hit the nail on the head here as to what’s motivating voters that again, the mainstream media has ignored and for her it comes down to priorities, funding for genocide or funding for healthcare, funding for bombs to kill children rather than money to feed children. Steven, what do you see here? Stephen Janis: Well, I mean, here’s the insanity of moderation here because the moderate position is what basically conjured this dystopian take on American politics. I mean, how do you even rationalize the idea that the moderate position is to bomb children and create a genocide and starve people to death and kill innocent people? I mean, I think what she said in a very illustrative way was like, “Hey, think about this. Your moderate positions are funding this country that is bombing the hell out of innocent people. ” That’s like the reasonable, that’s the rational idea. And that’s why it’s like beyond me why people even keep talking about the idea of moderation and this in between supposedly that’s created a pathway to hell that we’re all living in right now. So I thought she hit the nail on the head there. Taya Graham: You know what? And of course what the establishment fails to understand is that essentially these are the policies that moderate candidates make happen and voters see that, that it’s the establishment. It’s not just the left or the right that is responsible for the horrific brutality that we have witnessed in Gaza. And it’s just hard to believe that the Democrats can’t understand why people are voting for candidates who take the issue seriously. Steven, why can’t they or why won’t they hear the voters on this issue? Stephen Janis: I think because the neoliberal status quo has created this paradise for like the one to 10%. They’ve created a literal paradise for them, like the richest nation on earth with the richest people in the history of this country and that has insulated them from any accountability for any of this. I mean, just take a look at the Obamacare tax credits. Publicans just said whatever. Well, four million people have already dropped their healthcare, but I don’t think people who get paid to appear on CNN or CNN anchors are worried about their healthcare. And I don’t think people who are that rich are worried about childcare and I don’t think they’re worried about anything. So they’ve really created this like neoliberal consultant class. And the people who advise these so – called moderate politicians are what we would call consultant class, big time political consultants who basically earned a couple billion dollars off Kamala Harris’s campaign and they’re so insulated. They live these unbelievable lives, Elysium type lives, right? Referring to the movie where the rich lived in outer space and had free healthcare and everyone else suffered. Well, it’s very close to that. So that’s why they don’t want to look at it because that would take, I would think rearranging the social deck chair, so to speak, the economic deck chairs would actually in some way affect them, I guess, or to them they’re just living so good. “What’s wrong with this system? There’s nothing wrong with this system and they don’t even care that it doesn’t work for a vast majority of the people. It’s not even their problem. So I think it’s really just a disconnect between the bubble in Washington and the rest of the country. Taya Graham: I think you make such a good point here because it’s working for some people in this economy. It’s working wonderfully for some people. Better Stephen Janis: Than it has in the history of human civilization. Taya Graham: Absolutely. I mean, we’ve talked about the idea of the gilded age before. This is actually the extremes between the very wealthy and the rest of us is greater than it was even back in the gilded age during the time of robber barons. And also, I just want to say, I’m so glad you brought up the idea of the moderation fallacy because I think it really applies here to what some voters are saying by voting against APAC supported candidates. People who want the genocide stop now. Now the moderation fallacy is like a real fallacy. It’s not merely saying that compromise between opposing viewpoints, it’s good. It’s actually saying that extreme solutions are never reasonable or never correct and that the correct solution can always be found in the middle. Well, voters are saying there’s no middle ground on genocide, that there’s no possibility for compromise here. Stephen Janis: Or on climate change, for example, there’s no middle ground. It’s actually happening. We have to address it. It’s a crisis. It’s not somewhere you go, “You know what? We’ll do a halfway thing.” We’re seeing the results of that right now. Record heat wave in Europe, record heat wave in America again, another issue that takes real solutions that have nothing to do with ideology And they just won’t address it. They just won’t address it because they’re like, “Well, we got to find a middle ground here.” No, a middle ground isn’t going to work. And I think people are conscious of that. And I think also people want to say, “Oh, there’s a middle ground where what? We support Israel with American money while we don’t fund the healthcare of our own people. ” I mean, Israel has universal healthcare. Exactly. America does not. Why the hell is that even possible? So it’s amazing for me to people sit there and think, well, they’re going to vote for us because we support giving healthcare to Israel and no healthcare to Americans. We’re good with that. That’s a good policy. You guys should really vote for us because we’re going to keep that going so you don’t have healthcare and we’re funding this country so that they can have healthcare. Unbelievable. Taya Graham: Steven, something that I mentioned at the beginning of the show Is that understanding Trump voters has been this mainstream media fixation. And what’s ignored in all this and often really written off are the people who propelled Zora Mondami into power and is the socialist tide that we’re seeing right now. But of course that raises the question, what have we done? What have we as the alternative, independent media, what have we done to correct the overreach of our legacy media brethren? Well, I actually have an answer for that. Just last fall, just before Mondami’s election, we spent several days talking to New Yorkers about their concerns. Yep, that’s right. We talked to Mondami voters as if they were Trump voters, people worth understanding. People whose needs and concerns are just as important as those of Trump voters, the ones that legacy media seems to cherish. Let’s just take a listen. Speaker 5: Feeling excited about New York City, having some new ideas, standing up to Donald Trump. Taya Graham: Now, is there a particular candidate you feel represents new Speaker 5: Ideas? Very excited about Mamdani. Speaker 6: We need change, lots of change in New York City and I was really anxious to get new blood to vote for new blood and that’s what I did. He’s not afraid to use the S word. He’s new and free and we don’t actually have any other choices. Taya Graham: It’s really interesting that you said the S word because I’ve watched a lot of mainstream media and it seems like there’s a lot of hype about the S word, the socialism word, but the people I’ve spoken to New York don’t seem to be afraid of it. What do you think of how mainstream media has been covering Zoran? Speaker 6: I think it’s sad that that word has been misused and misunderstood. The country can use a little bit of socialism mixed with capitalism. Speaker 3: I’m waiting for him to make a better city and make it more comfortable and for everybody. So the New York City is expensive from like top to bottom. Speaker 7: Mandami, because I feel like we just need someone new and fresh for the city. He’s kind of like the everyday average person of people who get up and go to work. He lives in low income. I feel to me like he wants certain things to help the people better and we just need a fresh face. Como’s been here, done that, really didn’t do much. He would bring. Speaker 3: I think he will connect more with the young people or the younger voter, if you will, simply by how he uses social media to engage. He’s out in the streets with people. I think that type of energy being brought to the city, whether good or bad, I think is good. I think it’s a good thing. Speaker 8: What you give, you get back. And I think that’s an important… It’s also one of the things that makes New Yorkers wonderful. They really do care about one another and I’m hoping that the new mayor will, as he has said he would, take that as a given and make sure that everybody has all the advantages that they should have. Taya Graham: May I ask what candidate you think best represents that? Speaker 8: Mondawney. Taya Graham: So Steven, I just wanted to run those clips for you just to give you a refresher of some of the wonderful people we spoke with. What did we learn on the ground other than the fact that New Yorkers are a lot nicer than people make them out to be? Okay. They really are. Stephen Janis: Listen to what they’re saying. They’re not talking about ideology. They’re not talking about moderation. They’re not talking about socialism. What they’re talking about is that they needed change. That’s all it was. They wanted real change and a socialist actually provided real change, provided a different systemic approach to governance and a different systemic approach to meeting people’s needs because they weren’t being met. So all they’re saying is we need something new. We need something fresh. And yet they’ve been characterized as a radical bunch of people who just want to vote for something because it’s socialism, which could be one factor. But what they’re seeing is something new. They desired real change because their needs were not being, like I already said, met and what they needed to survive was being ignored by the moderate Democrats who were in power. So they just said, “We want something new.” Taya Graham: Yes, absolutely. And one thing I noticed, and Steven, I watch a ton of media and just as much as I can to absorb as much as I can to see what the legacy media’s doing. And it’s just so funny to hear their pundits dismiss people as either radical or irrational and they don’t even bother to listen to them. I can’t tell you how few interviews I’ve seen on mainstream media with people who either are willing to say they’re Democratic socialists or willing to embrace socialist policies. I mean, am I wrong on this, that these folks shouldn’t report on something that they haven’t learned about directly from the subjects, like in this case, the Mondami voters. Well, Stephen Janis: One of the most fundamental rules of journalism is you reach out to people that you’re reporting about and get comment. Yes. It’s pretty common. And if you’re not reaching out to them, then how can you talk about them? But they talk about them all the time. And the pundits are like, “Oh, this is going to be bad for Democrats.” Well, who exactly are you talking about? Do those voters seem like people who would be bad for Democrats to have in their coalition? I don’t think so, but they don’t know because they don’t talk about it. They don’t take the journey, the sojourn out to Trump country that they should do in New York and understanding the people of New York and now even Colorado, right? Maybe they should do some travel. Well, I’d like to do some traveling to do that, but we certainly took the time to talk to people and they’ve been completely mischaracterized and misrepresented by the mainstream media, by the mainstream Democrats and even the Republican pundits, totally misrepresented. Taya Graham: I completely agree. All they did was fearmonger and they turned socialism into a scary word without taking the time to understand what it means to the people who voted for it. In fact, the more people I spoke to in New York, the more I think that capital whole bubble that we get to wander into occasionally, it’s so insular. It is. It simply makes them compulsively insensitive to the needs of average Americans. I mean, the people we spoke to weren’t touting slogans or critical theories. They simply wanted a government that worked for them, plain and simple. They wanted affordable housing, affordable childcare, public transportation, all things that just make life easier for the people who make the city that happens to have the sixth largest economy in the world make that city run. I mean, that’s it. Stephen Janis: I mean, because it’s like that stat you just cited, this is one of the biggest economies in the world and a person can’t take care of their child without going bankrupt. Why do these things exist? Why are these contrasts? Why does a country with eight million people have healthcare for all and people in the richest country can go bankrupt when they get sick? Exactly. Why does that happen? Exactly. And they do not talk about that on capital. They couldn’t give a shit about that kind of stuff that people go through. And so I think that these people were speaking through their votes and saying, “You are not paying attention. This country makes no sense.” Taya Graham: You know what? Even more interesting than that as they’ve continued to demonize Mandami, he just keeps on making these things happen, right? Stephen Janis: No, I mean, there is a rent freeze for two million people. It’s amazing. There is going to be free childcare for two year olds. It’s utterly amazing. Taya Graham: Don’t forget the potholes. Stephen Janis: Yeah, right. And as the potholes I talked about, he is actually making these things happen and he’s communicating well with people and letting them know that he’s doing it. And it’s just wild because here it’s working. You could see it’s working and still the fear, I think the fear is people who know they’re getting away with it, that these people who in the 1% and the top 10%, the consultant class, the police, they know they’re getting away with something and they fear that the public is going to say no longer. And I think we’re getting to that point. I think there’s going to be kind of a revolution of sorts in the next couple of years in the electoral politics. That is if we’re able to have an election at all, given that Trump is obsessed with the Save America Act and seems like he’s kind of dead set on somehow interfering with the midterms, though it’s hard to know how he will do it exactly. But I mean, if we have an election, there’s going to be a revolution. Taya Graham: I think we are coming close to a tipping point. And I want to pledge to everyone here to let you know that we will always go out and speak to the voters, whether they’re in Trump country, whether they’re in Harlem, whether they’re socialist, Democrat, independent, libertarian, Republican, whoever you are, we’re willing to go out and talk to people and that we’re going to do our best to give an accurate and robust rendering of democratic socialism if it works, how it works, where it works. We will do the work to make that happen. That’s why we’re on Capitol Hill and New York and litters, Pennsylvania. I mean, all the places where independent media has to be. Stephen Janis: I just want to point out, you went to a Trump rally. Taya Graham: That’s right. Stephen Janis: And someone tried to pick you up, they tried to get your digits. So you will do the It worked. Taya Graham: That’s true. He offered me a tall boy and his digits. I mean, Stephen Janis: It Taya Graham: Was very friendly. It was very friendly. It Stephen Janis: Was fine. But the point is you will go anywhere and Taya Graham: Talk to people Stephen Janis: About what they care about. So that’s what makes independent media good in my Taya Graham: Opinion. That’s so true. You know what? And we promise we are going to make these stories told with the voices that matter and not just highlight a few pundits that the mainstream media just loves to amplify. My name is Taya Graham, along with my reporting partner, Steve and Janice. Speaker 3: Thank you, Taya Graham: Taya. And thank you, Cameron, and thank you for joining us for this episode of our Inequality Watch Capitol Hill Report. And as always, we are reporting for you. ...read more read less