Nerds for Humanity Substack Podcast

Nerds for Humanity
  • 5.0 (25)
  • POLITICS
  • UPDATED BIMONTHLY

Takeaways from some of the best long-form podcasts / livestreams on Nerds for Humanity. Usually interviews with interesting and thought provoking guests about politics. nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

Episodes

  1. 6D AGO

    The Vanishing Middle: Scott Santens on UBI, AI, and America’s Unfinished Awakening

    Hello nerds. When I first started interviewing Scott Santens years ago during the Nerds for Yang era, he was one of the most relentless and articulate advocates for universal basic income (UBI) in America. Back then, it felt like the country was on the verge of something big. Andrew Yang was on the debate stage making “Freedom Dividend” a household phrase. Silicon Valley technologists were whispering about automation in the same breath as moral responsibility. Even Republican voters were entertaining the idea that direct cash transfers might be less bureaucratic and more empowering than sprawling social programs. Fast forward to 2025, and the conversation feels quieter. The pandemic-era stimulus checks are long gone. Washington has reverted to tribal warfare. Meanwhile, AI is advancing faster than anyone—maybe even Scott and Andrew —predicted. The irony is thick: the very forces that made UBI seem like a radical idea a decade ago are now transforming entire industries before our eyes. And yet, the movement feels stuck in neutral. So when Scott rejoined me on Nerds for Humanity this month from his new base in Washington, D.C., I wanted to know: What happened? Why did UBI lose its moment? And is there a realistic path back to the mainstream before millions of Americans get left behind? The Move to D.C. and the Lost Moment Scott began by explaining why he left New Orleans for D.C. a few years ago. “It just seemed that UBI was really a bigger part of the conversation,” he said. “I thought if the Democrats came in again in 2024, I could actually get some traction.” He laughs a little when he says that now. “That didn’t end up happening,” he admitted, reflecting on how the Biden reelection froze the kind of idea competition that defined 2020. “The big problem was that Biden decided to run again, and there was no primary process. Then suddenly Kamala comes in and still no primary process. So there was no ideas competition. We really missed out on that.” That lack of competition, Scott argues, has a ripple effect. Political movements thrive on moments of contrast, when new ideas bump up against old dogmas and voters are forced to re-evaluate assumptions. The 2020 race—with Yang, Sanders, Warren, and others pitching structural reforms—was one of those rare idea-rich moments. 2024, by comparison, was a desert. As Scott put it bluntly: “We were close enough to taste it during the pandemic. It really felt like we were actually on the cusp of doing a monthly cash payment that could change things. But none of that happened.” He’s not wrong. The COVID checks were, in effect, a large-scale experiment in direct income support. Poverty temporarily plummeted. Families caught their breath. Consumer demand stayed strong. And then we let it all expire. AI Ate the Jobs While America Slept What’s striking about this quiet period, as I noted to Scott, is that the threat he and Yang warned about—the automation of work—is no longer hypothetical. Knowledge worker jobs are being eaten by AI faster than policy debates can catch up. “I’m a parent of two teenagers,” I told him. “Other parents are starting to wonder if a computer science degree is still the golden ticket. Should we be preparing our kids to be plumbers instead?” Scott nodded grimly. “It’s disheartening,” he said. “Now that these impacts are here… this is the stuff that we’ve been warning about. It’s not a sudden thing, but it does seem to already be impacting the entry-level job market.” He pointed to a convergence of pressures: corporate hiring freezes driven by uncertainty around tariffs, companies experimenting with AI productivity tools, and executives under shareholder pressure to “do more with less.” The result: stagnating headcount even in high-growth sectors. “We don’t really need people that we likely would have if AI had not been introduced,” he said. I observed from Silicon Valley, “What we’re seeing right now is that companies can grow revenue while keeping headcount flat.” It’s not a collapse. It’s a quiet deceleration—a slow bleed. And that’s arguably more dangerous because it doesn’t provoke a policy response. There’s no headline-grabbing “AI layoffs.” Just the invisible absence of opportunities for millions of new grads. Even top business schools are struggling to place students. “It’s like the hardest market in years,” Scott said, and I agreed. “If we hit a recession,” he warned, “that’s when all these businesses really lean into productivity. The recession ends, and they realize they don’t need those people back.” That scenario—automation accelerated by economic downturn—is the nightmare UBI advocates have been predicting for over a decade. Each downturn becomes a ratchet that permanently eliminates another layer of middle-class work. The Automation Mirage When politicians talk about “bringing manufacturing jobs back,” Scott and I get visibly frustrated. “I don’t think people realize—you don’t need that many people in those factories anymore,” I said. He reminded me of a chart he once published showing that U.S. manufacturing output is higher than ever, even though manufacturing employment has fallen dramatically. “We’re manufacturing more than ever, we just have fewer jobs,” he said. “If we did reshoring, sure, we could manufacture even more, but jobs would continue going down.” I brought up a U.S. tech investor who recently toured Chinese EV plants. “He said the number of BYD employees per car is something like a fifth of what it is for Ford or GM,” I told Scott. “If we build plants here, we’re not going to hire 20 people per car—we’ll hire four or five.” Scott didn’t hesitate: “Exactly. The only way to bring it back is to minimize labor. American labor is expensive. You can’t both re-shore and keep the same job intensity.” Then he pivoted to a deeper critique of political dishonesty. “Trump sold a lot of people false hope,” he said. “He told them, ‘Once I negotiate these trade deals, everything’s gonna be back to post–World War II full employment.’ But that’s a lie. We’ve heard that lie over and over again, even from people in the AI world. They say this will create more jobs than it displaces. Come on. We all know the realities.” This is the paradox of modern capitalism: productivity growth has decoupled from employment growth. We make more stuff with fewer people. And our political imagination hasn’t caught up to that new reality. From Careers to Gigs: The New Normal Scott traced this shift back decades. “We know what happened when we displaced people from manufacturing jobs—they went lower down the ladder into lower-paying work,” he said. “You went from careers to gig labor.” He rattled off examples that have become painfully familiar: “People now earn extra money by signing up for Uber, delivering food, DoorDashing. There’s just a transformation of what employment even means.” In Scott’s view, the only logical response to this is UBI. “You need to make sure everyone actually gets basic income,” he said. “That helps feed demand for new jobs. If people’s incomes fall as a result of AI, demand falls. And when demand falls, the entire economy reorients.” He pointed to a staggering statistic: “Right now, the top 10% are buying half of everything produced and sold in the U.S. It’s a very unequal consumption economy. The markets start ignoring the basic needs of people and reorient around luxury experiences.” That imbalance, he argued, isn’t just economic—it’s political. “It leads to people getting violent. It’s key to the erosion of democracy.” The Coming Middle-Class Awakening If there’s any silver lining, I said, it’s that the pain is spreading up the income ladder. “I think it’s going to affect a lot of middle-class and upper-middle-class people in a way it hasn’t before,” I said. “When Andrew talked about truck drivers losing jobs, people thought, ‘My kid’s going to college, they’ll be fine.’ Now they’re realizing maybe not.” Scott agreed. “We just didn’t realize how fast it would hit arts, music, images, and photos. I didn’t think about that. It took me by surprise.” I added, “When he said doctors and lawyers, it felt far away. Now you’re like—oh s**t—that’s happening right now.” He laughed and I added more examples. “People are winning court cases using ChatGPT as their attorney. And with tools like Sora and Grok Imagine, you can generate realistic videos and images instantly. There’s no ground truth anymore.” That last point hits hard. “You just give people a reason to doubt it,” Scott said. “You can have fake security cam footage of Sam Altman stealing something, and people will believe it. Or you can have real footage of Trump doing something, and people won’t.” When truth itself becomes negotiable, democracy can’t function. Evidence is the oxygen of public accountability. Once it’s gone, all we have left are teams—and team loyalty. The Tariff Fantasy That team loyalty came up again when I told Scott about a debate I’d had with a MAGA relative in Florida. My brother argued that Trump’s tariffs would pay for his tax cuts. Scott immediately laughed. “Even assuming that were true—which it’s not—you’re still taxing the working and middle class to pay for tax cuts for the rich,” he said. He broke it down simply: “It doesn’t make any sense to say, ‘Tariff revenue will cover it.’ Who covers the tariff revenue? It’s the consumers. And yet people believe it.” Scott sees this as part of the broader epistemic collapse—people believing “whatever their team is saying,” no matter how illogical. “It’s impressive in some ways,” I said. “You can propose policies that hurt your base and they’ll cheer you for it.” He nod

    48 min
  2. Nerds for Democracy: The Board Game That Makes Politics Fun—and Reveals Sobering Truths

    SEP 2

    Nerds for Democracy: The Board Game That Makes Politics Fun—and Reveals Sobering Truths

    It’s been a while since I hosted a long-form livestream on Nerds for Humanity. Between shorts, behind-the-scenes projects, and life’s chaos, I hadn’t sat down for a deep conversation in some time. That changed when I brought on two co-conspirators, Ram and Spidermang, both collaborators on our board game Nerds for Democracy. What started as a behind-the-scenes look at a passion project turned into a far-ranging and sobering discussion about U.S. politics, tariffs, debt, 2028 contenders, and the health of our democracy. This post is my attempt to distill that conversation into an essay for my fellow political junkies who couldn’t make the livestream. What follows is analysis, commentary, and reflection, peppered with direct quotes from Ram and Spidermang. If you lean center-left and find yourself both fascinated and horrified by American politics, you’ll find this read worthwhile. Part 1: From Board Game to Real Politics We started with our board game, Nerds for Democracy. Ram, an AI researcher and avid game designer, recalled how our collaboration began: “I didn’t realize Tom was such a politics aficionado. Once I realized that, I pulled out an old concept I had and we started working on it.” The game itself is designed around the absurd, chaotic, and unpredictable nature of American politics. Players collect “choice cards,” face “major events,” and debate topics that range from serious policy to whether pineapple belongs on pizza. Spidermang summed it up well: “The universal feedback was that everybody had fun. Even people not into politics found it accessible. It’s a competition, stuff happens, you adapt, and you try to beat the other players.” What struck me in revisiting the design process was how much the game mirrored real politics. Unpredictable events. Media chaos. Shifting voter moods. And the constant need to adjust strategy. It was a fitting prelude to the heavier political conversation that followed. But more than a mirror, Nerds for Democracy is also an invitation. It’s a way for friends and families to engage with politics without the toxicity that dominates our newsfeeds. Instead of doomscrolling, you sit around a table, roll dice, argue passionately over whether trucks are better than SUVs, and maybe sneak in a debate on universal basic income. Along the way, you laugh. You groan. You cheer. You conspire with your allies and plot against your rivals. Ram highlighted how laughter was a constant during playtesting: “I have not been in a single play test where people were not laughing out loud. That’s the best part for me. People are enjoying playing the game.” That’s no small feat. Politics has become a source of dread for so many Americans. To take that same subject and design a game that sparks joy, humor, and connection—it’s something special. And it’s why I’m so proud of this project. We deliberately designed mechanics to keep everyone involved, even if they fall behind. As Spidermang noted, a player in last place isn’t doomed: “There are ways that they can influence and help another person win or sabotage the other person. That’s personally my favorite part.” This makes Nerds for Democracy different from many strategy games where early mistakes doom you to irrelevance. Instead, it reflects the reality of politics, where underdogs can play kingmaker and longshots can surprise everyone. That dynamic keeps the game competitive and fun until the very end. The art and design also add a layer of charm. From humorous “breaking news” cards to realistic “major event” scenarios, every deck in the game balances playability with wit. One round you might be forced to respond to a cyberattack; the next, you’re navigating a viral scandal about an unflattering beach photo. Sometimes you’re boosted forward, other times set back. Just like real campaigns. We’ve poured countless hours into refining the mechanics, incorporating feedback, and testing with a wide range of players. The result? A game that entertains political junkies while staying approachable for people who normally avoid political conversations. As I said on the livestream, this crossover appeal was a pleasant surprise. It means the game works not just as a hobby for nerds like me, but as a bridge for families, classrooms, and friend groups looking for something new to play together. And here’s the kicker: we’re offering a limited Founders’ Edition of the game. Not a mass-market cash grab, but a passion project produced in small batches. If you pick one up, you’re not just buying a board game—you’re joining the earliest circle of players who helped shape it, laughed through its debates, and maybe even get immortalized in future editions. This first print might well become a collector’s item, the kind of quirky artifact you pull off the shelf years from now and say, “I was there when it started.” If that appeals to you, shoot me an email at tom[at]nerdsforhumanity.com. We’ll make sure you get a copy while supplies last. Part 2: Tariffs and Trump’s Economic Theater Ram pivoted us toward a topic he’d been thinking about—tariffs. His framing was simple but devastating: “Who exactly pays when a tariff is levied? It’s us as consumers. The way this government has been brandishing tariffs like a sword… I don’t know if it’s achieving the objective. There’s more chaos, more confusion, and not enough time for domestic production to ramp up.” He’s right. Tariffs are, in essence, a tax on American consumers. Trump has sold them as a populist tool to punish China or Vietnam, but the costs hit Walmart shoppers in Ohio and Costco shoppers in California long before they hit foreign exporters. Spidermang cut through the economics with a blunt reminder of lived reality: “It’s just hard enough to make ends meet at the end of the month as it is. It doesn’t seem like anything is happening to benefit people on the low end of the earning spectrum.” The irony is rich. Trump won in 2016 in part by railing against elites and promising affordability. Yet his trade policies operate as hidden taxes on the very working-class families who form his political base. Part 3: The Deficit, the ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ and the Illusion of Fiscal Responsibility Our conversation naturally shifted to debt and deficits. Trump and his allies promised to run America like a business, but the numbers tell a different story. In just eight months of his second term, we’ve already added $1.6 trillion to the deficit. The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” is projected to add $4 trillion to the national debt, pushing us toward $40 trillion total. Ram put it plainly: “Tariffs actually increase taxes through the back door. Even if you cut income taxes, you’re taxing people on their purchases. Unless domestic production fills the gap, they don’t help. And uncertainty breeds narratives that we’re losing trustworthiness with trading partners, which causes long-term damage.” The lesson here is grim: Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but when given the chance, they balloon the deficit. Democrats talk about protecting working families, but they, too, shy away from serious budget discipline for fear of political backlash. Bill Clinton’s late-90s balanced budget looks like a historical anomaly rather than a precedent. And voters? Most seem not to care. We punish politicians for cutting spending or raising taxes but shrug when they quietly run up the national credit card. It’s political theater, not sound governance. Part 4: The 2028 Field—Hope, Cynicism, and Uncertainty We couldn’t resist peering ahead to 2028. Ram predicted that JD Vance is “probably the clear Republican choice.” On the Democratic side, he saw Gavin Newsom as a frontrunner, with Kamala Harris a possible but weak contender. Spidermang, ever the underdog supporter, reminded us: “I was a Dean Phillips supporter. I was an Andrew Yang supporter. Whoever I support in the future is probably going to be along the same caliber—the underdog.” I shared my own enthusiasm for West Moore and Pete Buttigieg. Both are young, articulate, military veterans, and could present a dynamic ticket. But the sobering reality is that American politics is not kind to nuance or competence. It rewards attention-seeking, grievance-fueled campaigning. Which is why Vance looms large. What stood out most in this segment was not who we favored, but how quickly we admitted that chaos could rewrite everything. As Ram said: “If eight months have resulted in this much chaos, who knows what’s going to happen in the next two years.” Exactly. Predicting the 2028 field feels almost silly when we haven’t yet absorbed the full consequences of Trump’s second term. Part 5: The Fragility of Democracy Perhaps the most sobering thread was the fear—voiced half-jokingly by one viewer—that “there might not even be an election.” We laughed, but not entirely. After all, few of us believed Trump would ever refuse to concede in 2020, yet January 6th happened. Ram acknowledged that unpredictability is itself a political weapon: “Uncertainty breeds narratives. It’s damaging the U.S.’s trustworthiness with trade partners, and it could cause long-term damage. Whether tariffs give short-term benefit or not is debatable, but the long-term risk is real.” That comment about trade applies just as much to democracy itself. Constant chaos, norm-breaking, and institution-shaking erode trust not just abroad but at home. Each new outrage lowers the bar for the next one. Conclusion: Fun, Fear, and the Fight Ahead What began as a conversation about a board game ended as a meditation on America’s precarious future. The through-line was clear: politics is chaotic, unpredictable, and often absurd. Our game captures that in cardboard and dice. But real life is no game. Spidermang reminded us that despite the dysfunction, o

    1h 9m
  3. A Century of Sanity: What Ireland Can Teach America About Fixing Democracy

    JUL 14

    A Century of Sanity: What Ireland Can Teach America About Fixing Democracy

    What if I told you that in a country not much larger than Indiana, you could vote in a national election where your ballot didn’t force you to choose just one imperfect candidate? Where campaigns cost $50K instead of $500 million? Where politicians knock on your door more often than they show up on CNN? And what if I told you that this system has been working just fine—for over 100 years? That’s not a political utopia. That’s Ireland. In my latest Nerds for Humanity livestream, I had the chance to talk with Alana Rush, an American-Irish dual citizen now living in Dublin. Alana is one of the few Americans who has both a deep understanding of ranked choice voting (RCV) and the rare experience of watching it operate at the national level in a functioning democracy. Our conversation turned into a sobering and often jaw-dropping look at how different things could be—if America had the courage to reform how we vote, how we campaign, and how we govern. This post will walk you through Alana’s observations and insights, along with my reflections on what it means for us here in the United States. Spoiler: it’s not all roses across the Atlantic, but there’s a lot to learn. A Voter’s Menu, Not a Single Option Before she moved to Ireland, Alana admits she didn’t understand much about how the Irish political system worked. “It’s nearly embarrassing given that I have citizenship here,” she laughed. But after five years of living in Dublin and getting involved in politics—including campaigning in a general election—she now sees what the U.S. is missing. Ireland uses a system called proportional ranked choice voting. Each constituency (analogous to a congressional district) elects multiple representatives—typically 3 to 5—using RCV. Instead of choosing just one candidate, voters rank their preferences. This seemingly simple change has powerful consequences. “When I went into the ballot box for the first time, there were candidates from nine different parties,” Alana explained. “It wasn’t just binary Democrat vs. Republican. There were shades of left, right, and center. It felt like I could vote for someone who actually aligned with me, rather than just the lesser of two evils.” This multi-representative, ranked choice system protects minority voices and prevents the all-or-nothing dynamics we’ve come to expect in U.S. elections. Because voters can express multiple preferences, it discourages vote-splitting and strategic voting. It encourages coalition-building and reduces the pressure to cast a so-called “wasted vote.” And perhaps most importantly, it changes the tone of campaigns. Campaigns Without Character Assassination In Ireland, attacking your opponent doesn’t win you votes—it can actually lose them. Because second- and third-preference votes matter so much in RCV, candidates have a direct incentive not to alienate voters who already favor someone else. “We’d knock on someone’s door, and they’d say, ‘I’m voting for Candidate X,’” Alana told me. “Even if that candidate was the opposite end of the spectrum from our campaign, we’d say, ‘Great—what issues matter most to you?’ Then we’d try to earn their second preference.” This nuance-rich campaigning is reinforced by Ireland’s strict campaign finance laws. Campaigns are limited to spending about $40,000 to $50,000 total. There are no TV ads. No Super PACs. No billionaires bankrolling disinformation blitzes. “You can’t really buy your way in here,” Alana said. “If you’re not knocking on doors, you’re not winning votes.” Let that sink in: in Ireland, all politicians, including the equivalent of their Prime Minister, go door-to-door. Voters expect it. “I’ve seen voters put Post-it notes on their door with questions for candidates,” she told me. “People are engaged because they know their voice matters.” As an American who’s worked on primary campaigns in New Hampshire, I found this retail politics culture deeply familiar—and inspiring. But in Ireland, it’s not just for presidential primaries every four years. It’s baked into every election. The result? A culture where politicians are more accountable, more accessible, and more focused on policy than on personality cults. From Pendulums to Coalitions We’ve all seen the swing: red wave, blue wave, repeal, reverse, gridlock, repeat. America’s political pendulum is whiplash-inducing. Every few years, the country veers dramatically in one direction, only to lurch back again—undoing reforms, re-litigating the past, and paralyzing progress. Not so in Ireland. Because the government is typically made up of a coalition of multiple parties, wild ideological swings are rare. “There’s always an opposition, and they play an important role,” Alana said. “But because you need coalitions to govern, parties are incentivized to work together.” That doesn't mean Ireland has no conflict or partisanship—of course it does. But there's a structural restraint on extremism that America sorely lacks. “It’s harder to go hardcore in one fringe direction,” Alana said. “And there’s more room for people to actually represent what their communities care about.” No Big Donors, No Billionaires, No Problem This was one of the most shocking parts of the conversation. Candidates in Ireland can’t spend more than around $50K on a campaign. Individuals can donate a maximum of around $15. There are no Super PACs. No shadowy dark money groups. No endless email fundraising spam. And yet, elections still happen. Politicians still campaign. People still vote. This upends everything we’ve been told is “necessary” for modern democracy in America. The endless campaign season? In Ireland, campaigns legally last only three to five weeks. Fundraising marathons? They don’t exist. I mentioned, “Congressional representatives in the U.S. spend 20 to 30% of their time fundraising.” Alana observed, “Here, politicians spend that time knocking on doors.” But Does It Work at Scale? Critics of RCV often argue that it’s too complicated, too slow, or too confusing to be implemented at scale. But Ireland—a nation of over 5 million people—has been using it nationwide since 1922. “Elections are on a Friday. By Monday, all the senators were elected,” Alana said. “The fastest constituency took about nine hours to count, even with seven or eight rounds of redistributions.” Votes are counted manually, in public, with observers from all parties watching. It’s not high-tech—but it’s high-trust. Ballots are weighed, reviewed, and publicly tallied. And most importantly, the public has confidence in the outcome. “It’s not perfect,” Alana acknowledged. “But it expresses more of your voter DNA than just picking one name.” Why Americans Fear RCV—and Why They Shouldn’t Some Americans worry that RCV will confuse voters, especially those with less formal education or exposure to the process. Alana rejects that idea. “We make ranked choices all the time in everyday life,” she said. “Once you explain it to someone once or twice, they get it. And if you don’t want to rank everyone, you don’t have to. Just rank your favorite and stop there.” The idea that voters are too ignorant to handle RCV feels more like elite paternalism than a legitimate critique. And it conveniently preserves a broken system that benefits the two dominant parties. What the Irish Think of Us As our conversation shifted to foreign policy and America’s global standing, things got… heavier. “I get a lot of sympathy and people asking, ‘What’s happening over there?’” Alana said. “There’s concern about global geopolitical stability. But also fear.” She described Irish neighbors who once dreamed of visiting New York, now saying they’ll wait a few years until things calm down. Some even wipe their phones or travel with burner phones when visiting the U.S.—just in case. Let that sink in. We’ve become the country that people are afraid to visit. On Gaza, Ireland is staunchly pro-Palestinian. “There are historical parallels here,” Alana explained. “Because of our experience with British colonization, there’s a lot of empathy for the Palestinian cause.” On Ukraine, Ireland has taken in many refugees and expressed full-throated support, though military aid is limited due to the country’s longstanding policy of neutrality. On Iran, public sentiment leans toward de-escalation. “Ireland is a diplomacy-first country,” Alana said. “We don’t send military into conflicts, so we push for calming the temperature.” There was one moment that stuck with me. Alana said: “I’ve heard people say, ‘I just won’t be going to the States anytime soon.’ These are people in their 60s, going on vacation, wondering if it’s safe.” We’re not just losing trust in ourselves—we’re losing the world’s trust in us. The Nerds Takeaway Ireland’s democratic system isn’t perfect. No system is. But it offers a tangible counterexample to the dysfunction we’ve normalized in the United States. What if our representatives had to win a broad base of support, not just the loudest 25% of their primary electorate? What if campaign donations were capped at $15 and campaign seasons were capped at five weeks? What if every congressional district had three or four representatives, forcing collaboration and moderation? What if our votes truly represented the range of our values, rather than forcing binary choices? None of this is fantasy. It’s just Ireland. If you’re as tired as I am of the American political roller coaster, I hope this conversation gives you hope. Reform is possible. There are working models. We just need the political will—and enough nerds to make it happen. If you found this post thought-provoking, please consider supporting my channel by becoming a YouTube channel member. Your membership

    1h 22m
  4. Democracy on Demand: Can Technology Fix What Politics Has Broken?

    MAY 26

    Democracy on Demand: Can Technology Fix What Politics Has Broken?

    If you told me two years ago that one of the most compelling answers to America's broken democracy would come from a blockchain-savvy military veteran out of Orlando, I probably wouldn’t have guessed it. But that's exactly what I discovered in my recent conversation with Ramon Perez, founder of the Digital Democracy Project (DDP), during a Nerds for Humanity livestream that still has me thinking. Perez is no idealist with a half-baked startup pitch. He's a 13-year military officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also a data and AI consultant with a deep understanding of both how government works—and how it fails. And after January 6th, he knew he had to do something more. “It was hard to stomach this sense that we’d spent 20 years trying to build democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Perez told me, “and we were watching it fall apart here in the United States.” From the Battlefield to the Ballot That dissonance lit a fire under Perez. Leveraging his background in cybersecurity and AI, he partnered with a Boston-based startup called Voatz—best known for their blockchain-secure mobile voting platform. While Voatz originally focused on allowing military voters abroad to securely cast ballots from their phones, Perez saw a broader application. “Why should we wait every four years to weigh in on public policy?” he asked. “Why not let people tell their representatives what they want, when they want?” The result is the Digital Democracy Project. DDP allows voters to view active legislation in their state or in Congress, weigh in directly through the Voatz app, and see how their elected officials vote in comparison. No spin. No party filter. Just data. How It Works When you register on the app, your identity is verified using photo ID and facial recognition, cross-checked with your voter file. Then, you get access to real legislation and can vote on bills before they reach the floor. Once the legislature acts, DDP matches each representative’s vote with the will of their constituents and gives every lawmaker a public scorecard. Think baseball cards for politicians, but instead of batting averages, you get alignment with the people. As of this year, DDP is going national. What started as a Florida pilot will be scaled to all 50 states, with the potential to reshape civic engagement in America. When the Will of the People Meets the Wall of Power What happens when data shows that your representative consistently votes against the will of their constituents? You get names. "Matt Gaetz was at the bottom of our Florida Congressional leaderboard," Perez said, with characteristic deadpan. Interestingly, the divergence isn't always partisan. In the Florida State Legislature, Democrats often aligned more with constituent sentiment than Republicans. But at the federal level, party lines blurred. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican, scored near the top. Progressive darling Maxwell Frost? Near the bottom. This discrepancy, Perez argues, proves that our tidy left-right dichotomy is mostly fiction. “Party affiliation is an intellectual construct. It doesn't exist in the real world,” he said. “That’s not how most people think, and it’s not even how many legislators vote.” A Quiet Threat to the Political-Industrial Complex You might think lawmakers would run from a project that holds them this accountable. And some do. But others see it differently. “We actually received bipartisan budget support in Florida—a Republican and a Democrat co-sponsored our funding bill,” Perez told me. That bill passed the legislature. It was then vetoed by Governor Ron DeSantis. “Who knows why,” Perez said. But the potential was clear: when citizens gain power, entrenched interests push back. And it’s not just DDP feeling the pressure. Rank My Vote Florida: Buried Before It Bloomed Perez also leads Rank My Vote Florida, which advocates for ranked choice voting (RCV). After local municipalities began adopting RCV and seeing positive results, the state legislature stepped in—and banned it. “They smothered the infant in its crib,” Perez said. Why? Because RCV helps consensus candidates win. In traditional elections, candidates can win with a mere plurality. That means you can become a member of Congress, or even governor, with just 20-30% support—if the field is crowded enough. RCV requires majority support and rewards broad appeal. Case in point: Sarah Palin's loss in Alaska. “In a first-past-the-post system, she likely would've won. But Alaska used RCV, and the voters chose someone else,” Perez explained. “That scared people.” So ALEC, a conservative policy organization, began circulating bills to preemptively ban RCV. Florida, Tennessee, and a dozen other states have already adopted those bans. Building a Parallel System Since state legislatures have closed the door, Perez is working on building a window. He's exploring the idea of a "citizens election" in Florida—a parallel, unofficial election using Voatz and RCV. The idea? Show what the results could have looked like with better voting infrastructure. Compare a Gaetz victory with a DDP winner. Let voters see the gap for themselves. Why This Matters For years, the story of American democracy has been one of decay. Gerrymandering. Voter suppression. Uncompetitive districts. Primary systems that reward extremism. Polarization that turns every compromise into betrayal. And yet, this quiet, open-source, volunteer-powered movement is building something that just might work. It brings secure, authenticated mobile voting into the mainstream. It invites voters to participate continuously, not episodically. It creates pressure on legislators to respond to real constituent preferences, not just party bosses or lobbyists. It’s easy to be cynical about American politics. But Perez is one of the few builders I’ve met who is doing something tangible, practical, and scalable. As he put it: “We’ve only been a true representative republic for about 60 years. And in many ways, we’re already losing it. This technology helps us claw it back.” A New Social Contract Perez ended our chat with a vision: millions of voters across all 50 states using DDP to make their voices heard. Candidates running on a platform of following their scorecards. School boards, counties, and municipalities adopting digital engagement. And ultimately, a democracy that’s not defined by lobbying budgets, cable news cycles, or billionaire megadonors—but by real people, voting in real time. He’s got about 24,000 users today. He’ll need millions. But then again, every movement starts small. “We’re not trying to tweak the existing system,” Perez said. “We’re building a better one.” If you're a Python developer, consider volunteering. If you're a voter, download the app. And if you're a citizen who still believes democracy is worth saving, this is one place to start. If you found this conversation valuable, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. Memberships help cover the costs of production and get you a shoutout on every livestream. Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    1h 2m
  5. The Jet, The Deal, and the Delusion: What the Trump-Qatar Saga Reveals About America's Political Decay

    MAY 13

    The Jet, The Deal, and the Delusion: What the Trump-Qatar Saga Reveals About America's Political Decay

    Hello nerds, After a steady stream of YouTube shorts and weekend content, I finally hopped back on the Nerds for Humanity livestream, and what a storm of absurdity we had to break down. If you're a center-left policy wonk, what follows may not make you feel better about the future of this country, but it'll make you feel like you're not going crazy for being outraged. We covered three stories. Each was a peek through the cracked window of American democracy, filtered through the bizarre prism of the Trumpist revival. From the Qatari jet that smells like a bribe, to a trade "deal" that undoes Trump's own blunder, to a shockingly good policy idea on pharma that no one—including the New York Times—bothered to cover. Let me walk you through each. Story 1: The $400 Million Jet From Qatar Imagine the headlines if President Biden accepted a half-billion-dollar luxury jet from the Saudi royal family to use as Air Force One. Now imagine if that jet was offered as a "gift" from a foreign government with ties to Hamas, with the only assurance being that it would later be displayed at the Trump Presidential Library. Sound plausible? That's what’s on offer from Qatar to Donald Trump. "You're going to disobey the order of the Supreme Court, deport people without due process, and accept a $400 million plane from a foreign government? That hurts your brain." — Me, in stunned disbelief Trump defenders say it's a harmless donation. But even MAGA forums seemed uneasy. Fox News barely covered the story, and when they did, they quickly buried it. The idea that the future Air Force One—a flying command center during national crises—could be a foreign-made gift? That’s not just sus. It’s a Trojan Horse with wings. "Didn’t the Trojans give a gift, too?" — My live commentary The irony? This is the same base that cries foul about Hunter Biden’s art sales and corruption. Yet when Trump auctions face-time dinners via a crypto coin and deregulates crypto enforcement, it's apparently savvy business. When he accepts a potentially compromised aircraft from a regime that also hosts Taliban leaders, it’s not treason—it's branding. Story 2: The Uncelebrated Win on Drug Pricing Credit where it's due. In a rare moment of policy lucidity, Trump proposed a Most Favored Nation (MFN) pricing strategy for pharmaceuticals. The idea? The U.S. shouldn't pay more than other countries for the same drug. If this actually gets done—really done, not just tweeted and forgotten—it would be a substantive victory for Americans crushed by high drug costs. "Obama talked about it, Biden tried Medicare negotiation, but Trump just said: screw it, we’re not paying more than Canada or the U.K." Surprisingly, no one wanted to talk about it. Not Fox. Not the New York Times. The former, presumably because Trump’s win wasn’t culture war red meat. The latter? Maybe it doesn’t fit the preferred narrative. "Poopy stinky. Freaking New York Times had Belichick’s girlfriend on the homepage before the pharma deal." When both major media outlets fail to cover a story that affects the lives of tens of millions of Americans, it’s not just media bias—it’s systemic rot. We’d rather scream about TikTok bans and border clashes than do the hard work of evaluating policy. Story 3: The China Deal That Wasn’t Trump declared a "historic trade win" with China. The truth? He rolled back tariffs he imposed just a month prior. The markets cheered, but not because of a deal—because Trump stopped hurting them. There was no grand negotiation, no concession from China, just a chaotic game of poker where Trump folded and called it a win. "This is your guy? The art of the deal? It's like he declared mango Gatorade the best flavor and MAGA was like ‘Oh yeah I’ve always loved mango.’" What’s worse is the White House crowed about this as if it were the new Marshall Plan. It wasn’t. It was a Ctrl-Z of his own failed policy. "The only people who thought this was a win were Trump and the Fox chyron writers." The Real Takeaway Let me be painfully honest: we're living in an era of selective outrage and performative governance. One side celebrates crimes if it’s their guy. The other side buries policy wins if it contradicts their narrative. Both parties play to their base, and media outlets amplify the rage bait because nuance doesn’t generate clicks. "Flooding the zone isn't just a Bannon tactic. It’s a way to make Americans so overwhelmed they stop caring." We should care. Because accepting a luxury plane from a foreign adversary is not normal. Because a policy that could reduce your grandma’s insulin cost should be front-page news. And because calling a self-inflicted trade mess a triumph is gaslighting the electorate. Final Thoughts Three takeaways, nerds: * Yes to the Pharma Deal. If Trump can actually execute on MFN pricing and codify it into law, that would help millions. I’ll cheer it. Just don’t let it be another Trumpcare or wall that never gets built. * Hell no to the Qatar Jet. That’s not a donation. It’s a golden leash from a foreign monarchy with interests diametrically opposed to ours. The idea that it could be used as Air Force One is reckless. * Wake up to the media failures. When both Fox and the Times fail in opposite ways, we lose. We have to stop outsourcing our discernment to headline editors. If you got this far, thank you. If you want to support the channel and help offset the cost of livestream software, thumbnail generators, and custom music, consider becoming a YouTube channel member. You’ll get a shout-out on every stream and help keep the nerd train rolling. Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    47 min
  6. After the Fall: What Comes Next for Democrats—and Democracy

    APR 29

    After the Fall: What Comes Next for Democrats—and Democracy

    The Hangover After Harris If you're a center-left political junkie, you probably still feel the sting of November 2024. In our recent Nerds for Humanity livestream, I sat down again with my longtime political sparring partner Phil K to make sense of what went wrong—and, maybe more importantly, what comes next. Phil and I have been analyzing the 2024 cycle from start to bitter end: from our fierce debates over Biden’s electability to the odd bedfellows MAGA made with Eric Adams. But this conversation felt different. We weren’t just talking about polls and primary narratives. We were, in essence, performing a political autopsy on a movement that once inspired hope—and ended up roadblocked by its own legacy. Let’s not bury the lead: Joe Biden’s decision to run for re-election was a catastrophic misjudgment. And the cascade of events that followed—his late withdrawal, the elevation of Kamala Harris, and her inability to pivot away from the baggage of his administration—set the stage for what Phil aptly described as “just such an insane answer to give.” Harris’s campaign felt stuck. “There should be no daylight,” Biden reportedly told her—meaning: no separation, no contrast, no acknowledgment that the economic and immigration struggles of his presidency were weighing her down like an anvil strapped to a lifeboat. Even when offered an opportunity to differentiate herself gently, she flubbed it. “I wouldn’t change anything,” she said in an interview—a sound bite that Phil called a turning point. “It was at that point I started to say… I don’t know.” Instead of drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Biden handled COVID, I’ll handle affordability,” Harris appeared more loyal than strategic. Biden’s ask was understandable—after all, no one wants their legacy attacked by their own VP—but it was a misstep. As I put it during the stream: “This is a full-contact sport. We gotta win this thing.” The Opposite of Trump Despite the mess of 2024, Phil and I are genuinely optimistic about 2028—and that optimism starts with an old favorite: Pete Buttigieg. Yes, Pete. The former Secretary of Transportation, Afghanistan vet, Rhodes Scholar, policy nerd, and unflinchingly authentic presence. To paraphrase Phil, Pete doesn’t pretend to be one of the bros—he leans into the nerdiness, and that’s what makes him effective. We spent time analyzing a now-viral clip from a three-hour interview Pete did recently. In it, he reframes freedom—not as freedom from government, but freedom through government. The right to clean air, good schools, parental leave, and a safe neighborhood. “That’s the life I want everybody to be able to live,” he said with conviction, without raising his voice, and with enough substance behind the sentiment that you know he could explain how each policy would actually work. “He hits on an emotional level without being hysterical. That’s why it works,” I said during the stream. Pete has both the governing chops and rhetorical skill to reclaim values like freedom and patriotism for the left. As Phil put it, “Whoever the next president is needs a clear idea of how to make government effective. Pete has that.” And that’s not just about management—it’s about rebuilding public trust in federal institutions that Trump’s administration, especially during his second term, is likely to shred further. The Case for Shapiro (and His Baggage?) Of course, Pete isn’t the only contender. Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, also looms large. Phil praised his focus on efficiency, citing Shapiro’s record on expediting small business licenses and rebuilding a major bridge in just 12 days. But Shapiro has vulnerabilities. First, his oratory style is a little too Obama-esque—his cadence, his tone. “If I close my eyes,” I joked, “is this the third Obama term?” More seriously, there’s the Israel-Gaza situation. Shapiro is Jewish and has made clear statements critical of Netanyahu, calling him “one of the worst leaders of all time.” Yet some perceive him as overly aligned with pro-Israel hardliners. As I put it, “Politics isn’t fair. That’s why he needs to be clear about his position.” In a post-Gaza Democratic Party increasingly fractured over foreign policy, clarity will matter more than tribal allegiance. Phil made an important point: “Everyone has to do this. Kamala had to prove she wasn’t just for Black people. Shapiro might have to do the same with Israel.” It’s unfortunate, but real. The Wildcards: Moore, AOC, and Sister Souljah Moments West Moore of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also came up. Moore brings executive experience, charisma, and battlefield service. AOC brings a movement—and the energy of the party’s left flank. But in either case, a potential ticket with Pete would be… electric. Still, I cautioned about triggering MAGA. “A Buttigieg-AOC ticket might be too much—it would feel like their whole world is collapsing.” But then again, maybe that’s the point? Both Pete and Shapiro have opportunities for “Sister Souljah moments.” For Pete, that could mean taking a nuanced stance on trans athletes in women’s sports—something grounded in compassion but rooted in fairness. For Shapiro, it might mean confronting Israeli settlement expansion head-on. “Pete can say: Let sports leagues figure it out.” Phil proposed during the stream. The point isn’t to alienate allies—it’s to demonstrate independence, courage, and authenticity. Voters crave that more than ever, especially after a Trump presidency driven by loyalty tests and cult-of-personality rule. Republican Bench: The Vance Variable Phil and I aren’t Republican strategists, but from a clinical lens, we dissected what 2028 might look like for the GOP. It’s clear: JD Vance is the frontrunner. As Trump’s VP, Vance will have the donor network, MAGA credibility, and perhaps Trump’s own endorsement. “The whole ballgame is Trump’s nod,” Phil said. Unless Vance catastrophically fails during the second Trump term, he’s likely to coast to the nomination. There’s one wildcard: the economy. If Trump’s second term tanks—if unemployment spikes, inflation returns, or there's foreign policy disaster—Vance could be stuck defending a mess. He could become, as I put it, “the Kamala Harris of the Republican Party.” In that case, someone like DeSantis—who kept one MAGA boot on and one off—could reemerge. He’s the ultimate hybrid: not fully Trumpist, but not anti-Trump either. Nikki Haley? Probably too “Romney Republican” for today’s GOP. The Media Candidate Temptation What about non-traditional candidates like Stephen A. Smith? We entertained the idea for a moment—he’s charismatic, direct, and commands an audience. But we both agreed: “Government is hard. It’s not a cable news segment.” Voters may not want another president learning on the job, especially after the chaos of Trump 2.0. Still, Smith—or someone like him—could play the role of kingmaker. A nod from a beloved media figure could swing perception in a crowded Democratic primary, especially for someone like Pete who’s trying to cut through noise with substance. Final Predictions Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, Phil and I share the view that Democrats are likely to retake the House, maybe even comfortably. But the Senate? That’s trickier. The map is brutal. We might hold at 50 or 51 seats—if we’re lucky. But none of that matters if our institutions continue to erode. The Supreme Court is being ignored. Congress is fragmented. Trump is experimenting with post-constitutional governance. “If you have a situation where the president says, ‘I don’t care what the court says,’ and Congress won’t check him… we’re in serious trouble,” Phil warned. And he’s right. Reclaiming the Narrative If there’s one recurring theme from our conversation, it’s this: Democrats cannot run on technocracy and process. We must speak in values. Freedom. Family. Opportunity. Patriotism. Pete Buttigieg gets this. He doesn’t yell. He doesn’t dodge. He meets voters where they are and explains how clean water and strong parental leave are acts of patriotic governance. “We don’t need to seed values like freedom to the right,” Phil emphasized. “We can redefine them in ways that resonate.” That’s the real battle for 2028—not just blue vs. red, but which version of America we want to fight for. If you found this post thoughtful, please support Nerds for Humanity by becoming a YouTube channel member. Your membership helps cover the operating costs—like the streaming service (which ain’t cheap)—and gives you a shout-out on every livestream. We’re building something real here. Honest conversations. Hard questions. No fluff. Let’s keep it going. Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    1h 3m
  7. Running as a Rebel: Michael Maxsenti, Citizen Assemblies, and the Quiet Crisis of American Politics

    APR 19

    Running as a Rebel: Michael Maxsenti, Citizen Assemblies, and the Quiet Crisis of American Politics

    I wasn’t sure what to expect when I brought Michael Maxsenti back to the Nerds for Humanity livestream. Last time he was on the show, he was trying to get the Common Sense Party off the ground. A few years later, not only is he still in the fight, but he’s taken it to a new level: running for Congress. What followed was a 90-minute conversation that took me from cautiously curious to unexpectedly moved. In Maxsenti, you hear a voice that is at once disillusioned and hopeful, patriotic and critical, conservative in values but radical in his diagnosis of what’s broken in Washington. And most interesting of all? He’s running as a Republican—not because he agrees with Trumpism, but because he wants to infiltrate the system with a rebel conscience. As someone who leans center-left, who has been skeptical of the GOP's current direction, and who is deeply worried about the future of democracy, I found myself both inspired and uneasy. Here’s what I learned, what stood out, and why Maxsenti’s campaign might be more important than it first appears. 1. The Most Evenly Split District in America Maxsenti is running in California's 47th Congressional District, a place he describes as "probably the most evenly divided district in the country." "There are about 540,000 registered voters, and only 3,000 votes separate Democrats and Republicans." That gives him a unique platform to speak to a true microcosm of America. It’s not deep red, not deep blue—it’s a test tube for whether post-partisan, reform-oriented politics can actually win. And that’s part of what makes this campaign worth watching. 2. The Case for Citizens Assemblies One of Maxsenti’s most compelling ideas was something that rarely gets airtime: citizens assemblies. "I'm tired of people saying they want your voice, but then giving nothing more than lip service. Citizens assemblies would be a way to truly engage the people in shaping laws." He described a process where average citizens are selected demographically and at random to deliberate over key legislation, hear from experts, and issue binding recommendations to lawmakers. Think jury duty, but for lawmaking. It’s working in places like Ireland, Petaluma (yes, here in California), and 124 countries around the world. For anyone who believes Congress is too beholden to special interests, this is a breath of fresh air. It’s the kind of structural reform that transcends party politics. And yet, it’s barely discussed in American campaigns. 3. A Republican by Necessity, Not Identity Maxsenti’s decision to run as a Republican wasn’t made lightly. He left the party decades ago, disgusted by what he called its embrace of “racists and bigots” in the 90s. But he rejoined, reluctantly, after mentors and allies convinced him that it was the only viable way to get elected. "My decision to rejoin the Republican Party wasn't about joining Trumpism. It was about creating a beachhead for populist reform from the inside." He described a personal transformation—from a former CEO who lost everything in pursuit of political reform, to someone who drove Uber for years just to stay in the fight. Is it performative? I didn’t get that sense. This is a man who literally carries around a 1993 Republican Party pamphlet, detailing beliefs like equal rights, responsible spending, and broad-minded policy. The kind of values Eisenhower Republicans would nod to. He wants to reclaim that tradition—not to replicate the past, but to re-anchor in principle. But here’s the tension: can a populist reformer thrive in a party that increasingly seems allergic to policy, addicted to grievance, and organized around one man? 4. A Disruptor with Sobering Blind Spots While I admired much of Maxsenti’s platform, some of his positions gave me pause. He expressed admiration for RFK Jr. and frustration with the "uniparty," including both Democrats and establishment Republicans. He defended Trump’s disruptive style—arguing that it's strategic bluster designed to force negotiation. "We’re at the demolition stage of our country. Trump is like a contractor tearing down drywall. It’s ugly, but maybe necessary." That metaphor may resonate for those who see the system as irreparably corrupt. But for those of us who worry about creeping authoritarianism, selective law enforcement, and attacks on democratic norms, it sounds like rationalization. When I pressed him on specific Trump-era policies—like border deportations that ignored court rulings, or tariffs that raised prices on consumers while missing strategic targets—he acknowledged problems but often pivoted to broader critiques of systemic decay. In other words, the diagnosis was sharp, but the prescriptions sometimes felt vague or misaligned with reality. 5. The Promise of a Fulcrum Caucus One of Maxsenti’s boldest visions is the idea of an independent congressional caucus. "We don’t need 50 seats. We just need 5 people in the House who are independent of party leadership. That creates a fulcrum. No one can pass anything without us." He’s working with others across the political spectrum—including Yang, Tulsi, Williamson, and others—to build this coalition. Imagine if neither party could pass legislation without the support of a centrist, reform-minded, integrity-tested group. The implications for legislation, oversight, and compromise are enormous. But it depends on winning. And on discipline. And on resisting the seduction of partisan perks and media attention once in office. 6. A Platform That Deserves Air Maxsenti’s website outlines eight priorities, but the ones he highlighted most were: * Citizens assemblies * Balanced budget amendment * Ending insider trading for members of Congress * Zero-based budgeting * Healthcare reform focused on chronic disease prevention (the "MAHA" agenda) None of these are MAGA talking points. None of these are even front-burner issues for mainstream Republicans or Democrats. And that’s exactly why they matter. 7. A Campaign Built on Sacrifice Maxsenti’s personal story stuck with me. He sacrificed financial security to pursue reform. He went from a well-off businessman in Laguna Beach to driving Uber and renting in Irvine. He kept showing up at events. He helped others run for office. He stayed in the arena. "My wife and I got a small inheritance. Instead of saving it, we decided to invest it in this campaign. We believe this is our calling." It’s hard not to respect that. And in a political era dominated by opportunism and careerism, it’s refreshing to hear from someone who sees public service as a capstone, not a launchpad. Final Thoughts: Should the Center-Left Root for Maxsenti? If you believe in democracy, institutional reform, and ethical leadership, it’s hard not to root for someone like Michael Maxsenti. But it’s also hard to ignore the risks. Running as a Republican in 2025 carries baggage. You inherit a brand that has become synonymous with Trump, election denial, culture war dog whistles, and a disdain for democratic guardrails. Even if you don’t believe those things, you may be expected to vote with them. That’s the tightrope Maxsenti is walking. But here’s the thing: the only way to fix our politics is to get reformers into office. Whether they wear a blue, red, or purple jersey is secondary. If Maxsenti stays true to his message, speaks uncomfortable truths, and helps form that independent fulcrum, he might just be one of the few candidates worth rooting for from either side of the aisle. If you found this interview valuable, consider supporting my Nerds for Humanity livestream and Substack. Become a YouTube channel member to help cover production costs and get a shout-out on every stream. And as always... Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    1h 23m
  8. Losing the Center: How Democrats Fumbled 2024 Despite Trump’s Unpopularity

    MAR 23

    Losing the Center: How Democrats Fumbled 2024 Despite Trump’s Unpopularity

    Hey nerds, We haven’t done one of these deep dives in a while, but this one’s going to be worth the wait. I recently unpacked an incredible dataset on my Nerds for Humanity livestream that helps explain, in stark and sometimes painful clarity, how and why the Republican Party beat the Democrats in 2024. This wasn’t just a fluke or a one-off; this was a structural unraveling of core Democratic coalitions—and we have the data to prove it. If you're wondering how Trump, a twice-impeached, criminally indicted former president with negative favorables, could come back and win a general election… buckle up. This is the data story the major networks won’t tell you. But I will—because that’s what we do on Nerds for Humanity. Why We Lost: The Data is Devastating Let’s start with this: the numbers were available. The insights were out there. But too many Democratic leaders refused to listen. All of the charts I covered come from the Blue Rose Research Group, a Democratic-leaning analytics org led by David Shor. These aren’t MAGA polls or right-wing talking points—this is our data, and it paints a brutal picture. Let’s start with a quote that stopped me in my tracks: “Harris only got 58% of Hispanic moderates and just 67% of Asian moderates… Hillary got 81% of Hispanic moderates just eight years earlier.” That’s a collapse, folks. There’s no other way to describe it. The Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging support among moderate Hispanics and Asians—two demographics that were once reliably blue. These aren’t tiny slivers of the electorate either. Combined, moderate Hispanic and Asian voters make up 9% of registered voters. That’s not niche. That’s decisive. And if you’re thinking this was just a Harris problem, not a Biden problem, think again. Biden himself had already lost ground with these voters in 2020. The trend line goes back to Clinton ‘16. The bottom fell out in 2024. A Coalition in Collapse The Democratic Party has long relied on a patchwork coalition: people of color, young voters, urban professionals, and working-class moderates. But that quilt is unraveling. Let’s take another sobering look at what’s happening with naturalized immigrants: “Trump likely won naturalized citizen voters who were born outside the U.S… they swung from Biden +27 to Trump +1.” If you’ve been telling yourself that Democrats are the party of immigrants, this stat should give you serious pause. Naturalized citizens make up 10% of the electorate—and Trump won them. Think about that. A guy who called Mexicans rapists and pushed Muslim bans won the immigrant vote. What happened? For many of these voters, especially those who came here legally through a structured process, the Democratic messaging around open borders and asylum chaos rang alarm bells. My own parents came to the U.S. on H-1 visas in the late 1960s. They’re legal immigrants who value law and order. They are not sold on the current Democratic approach to immigration. The Republicans saw an opening and exploited it. Democrats, meanwhile, either assumed they had immigrant loyalty or were afraid to even talk about border enforcement. Result? Trump wins the immigrant vote. Gen Z Isn’t a Lock, Either Let’s bust another myth: that young people are a guaranteed Democratic firewall. It’s not true anymore. The data shows clearly: “Young voters have become more Republican.” Let me say that again. More Republican. If you’re a 20-year-old white man in America, you are very unlikely to support the Democratic Party. For young men of color, it’s basically a coin flip. The only demographic under 25 that still solidly supports Democrats? Young women of color. This is not sustainable. Not if you want to build a winning coalition. We also saw a doubling of the gender gap in democratic support among under-25 voters. That’s a generational time bomb. The party is becoming increasingly reliant on a narrower and narrower base—and losing traction everywhere else. We need to be real about this. You cannot build a durable national majority on the support of college-educated urbanites and young women of color alone. Not in this country. The Disengaged Showed Up—for Trump This next one floored me: “Among voters who didn’t vote in 2020 but did in 2024, Trump was +14.” Let that sink in. The folks who sat out 2020 and came off the bench in 2024? They weren’t inspired by the Democrats. They didn’t show up to protect democracy. They voted for Trump. In droves. This demolishes the fantasy that the more we expand turnout, the better it is for Democrats. It turns out, the disengaged aren’t necessarily progressive idealists. A lot of them are politically cynical, angry at institutions, and drawn to chaos agents. Which brings us to the most jarring insight of the dataset: “Most voters agreed that what’s needed is a major change and a shock to the system.” Fifty-three percent of Americans wanted a political earthquake. Not stability. Not a return to norms. Not even democracy protection. A wrecking ball. Democrats tried to run on continuity and calm. Trump ran on disruption. Guess which one the voters wanted? Kamala’s Image Problem Let’s talk about Kamala Harris for a minute. The numbers are ugly. According to the Blue Rose data: “Biden had +6 favorability in 2020. Harris had -6 in 2024.” That’s a 12-point swing. Now, some of that is due to unrelenting right-wing attacks, and yes, likely some latent racism and sexism. But that can’t explain it all. The cold truth is that many voters—especially moderates—saw Harris as ideologically extreme. “Voters saw Harris as more ideologically extreme than Trump.” Think about that. Trump, who tried to overturn an election, whose administration was a firehose of far-right policy, was seen as closer to voters’ own views than Kamala Harris. And you can’t blame all of this on Fox News. The Harris campaign failed to define her as a pragmatic leader. She didn’t establish credibility on issues that matter to swing voters—like the economy, immigration, or public safety. Her prosecutorial past alienated the left. Her perceived progressivism scared the center. It was a no-man’s-land candidacy. The Economy Was Everything The most lopsided data point in the entire report might be this one: “Cost of living versus abortion: 79% said cost of living was more important.” Now repeat that with every issue: * Cost of living vs student debt: 94–6 * Cost of living vs race relations: 87–13 * Cost of living vs climate change: 83–17 * Cost of living vs border security: 54–46 Every time, the cost of living wins. Every. Time. Democrats ran on abortion rights, student debt relief, climate action, and social justice. Voters wanted relief from inflation. And worse: when asked which party they trust more on cost of living? Republicans won. That’s a catastrophe. If you’re losing trust on the most important issue, you’re going to lose elections. What’s Next: A New Center-Left Realignment? So where do we go from here? Three takeaways: 1. The Democratic Party is becoming a second-tier party.It’s bleeding moderates, struggling with young voters, losing naturalized immigrants, and falling out of touch with economic pain. The coalition that elected Obama twice is gone. 2. Trump isn’t popular—he just looks like the only alternative.Most Americans still disapprove of Trump. He didn’t win because he became more likable. He won because Democrats offered no compelling alternative. 3. There’s a path forward—but it requires a bold reset.We need a center-left revival. Think Midwest governors. Think economic populism without culture war baggage. Think real solutions on healthcare, education, wages, and immigration. Think pragmatic progressivism. As I said on the stream: “We can be a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. That shouldn’t be some exclusive position of the Republican Party.” The Democratic Party must stop running scared from the center. We need to own a vision for responsible reform. Medicare option for all. Higher minimum wage. Immigration reform with integrity. Fiscal sustainability. Because if we don’t, the electorate will keep swinging toward the wrecking ball. Final Thoughts Here’s the kicker: Trump didn’t win in a landslide. His popular vote margin was razor-thin. But he won all the swing states, and that’s what counts. We can take solace in one last stat: “Most Americans do not approve of Donald Trump.” That means all is not lost. But we need to get real—fast. I believe there’s still time to build a coalition rooted in pragmatic progressivism—one that inspires the disaffected, earns back moderates, and wins on the kitchen table issues. We’ve got two years in the wilderness. Let’s use them wisely. If you found this analysis helpful, please consider supporting Nerds for Humanity by becoming a YouTube channel member. Your membership helps pay for livestreaming software, camera gear, and podcast hosting—and you get a shout-out on every stream (plus, if you join live, I might even ring the Swiss cowbell). Let’s keep bringing data-driven political content to more nerds. Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    1h 1m
  9. The Chaos Doctrine: Why Trump’s America is a House of Cards

    MAR 7

    The Chaos Doctrine: Why Trump’s America is a House of Cards

    Hello nerds, It’s been a while since my last live stream, but this conversation was too important to pass up. I recently sat down with a political insider who goes by the handle Maine Wonk on Twitter. He’s an Obama-era campaign veteran turned policy analyst who, like many of us, has spent the past few years trying to make sense of the increasingly chaotic state of American politics. We covered a lot of ground—from Trump’s governing style to Biden’s decision to run again, the future of the Democratic Party, and the historical parallels that suggest we may be on the cusp of another major political realignment. It was a sobering, insightful, and at times even hopeful discussion. Let’s break it down. Trump’s Chaos Doctrine: Governing as a Sales Pitch Maine Wonk didn’t mince words when describing Trump’s leadership style. He called it what it is: a performance, not governance. “All Trump wants is a virtual win. He doesn’t care about the quality of the deal. He just wants to get on TV and tell his base that he got one.” This isn’t new. Trump has always approached politics like a business deal in which he can create an illusion of success, regardless of the actual impact on policy or the country. The tariffs fiasco is a prime example—he’ll declare a hardline stance one day, only to capitulate the next after a single phone call. “It’s the worst negotiation tactic ever. He demands everything, freaks out the markets, and then backs down immediately, thinking nobody will notice.” The problem? This volatility isn’t just a Trump quirk—it’s now the modus operandi of the Republican Party. They thrive on chaos, and they’ve become experts at weaponizing it. Democrats Need to Stop Swinging at Every Pitch One of the most interesting takeaways from our conversation was the idea that Democrats need to stop reacting to Trump’s every move. “Hakeem Jeffries said it best—don’t swing at every pitch. Trump’s entire playbook is to flood the zone with nonsense so no one can focus on any one scandal or failure for too long.” In other words, Democrats shouldn’t waste energy chasing every inflammatory tweet or ridiculous claim. Instead, they should let Republicans bear the burden of governing—and watch as their own base turns on them. “The first time since 1928 that one party has controlled the White House, Senate, House, Supreme Court, governorships, and state legislatures. You know what happened after that? Hoover. And then FDR.” History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. The last time the GOP held this much power, they tanked the economy with protectionist policies and isolationism. Two years later, Democrats swept into power, and FDR reshaped American politics for a generation. Biden’s Biggest Mistake: Not Being a Bridge President Maine Wonk had some sharp criticism for Biden’s decision to seek re-election. “If he had announced in 2020 that he was only going to serve one term, we wouldn’t be in this mess. We could have had a wide-open primary, given the party a chance to reset, and built a stronger bench.” Instead, Democrats were left scrambling in 2024, which left voters uninspired and allowed Trump to waltz back into the White House. Worse, it created a situation where Kamala Harris—who had little opportunity to define her own vision—was forced into an impossible position. “Kamala had 100 days. Trump had four years to prepare. That’s the difference.” The Democratic Bench: Who’s Next? While some despair about the lack of strong Democratic candidates, Maine Wonk is optimistic. He sees potential in several rising stars: * Andy Beshear (Kentucky) – A Democrat who won in deep red territory. * Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan) – A proven leader who knows how to win swing states. * Pete Buttigieg – A master communicator with deep policy knowledge. * Wes Moore (Maryland) – A fresh face with a compelling personal story. But the biggest wildcard? Someone we’re not talking about yet. “Nobody saw Barack Obama coming in 2007. Someone will emerge. They always do.” The Future of the Democratic Party: Stop the Navel-Gazing One of the most blunt moments of our conversation came when discussing the Democratic Party’s messaging problem. “We need to stop obsessing over identity politics. Not because those issues don’t matter, but because they’re not the foundation of a winning coalition.” Instead, he argued, Democrats need to refocus on economic populism, government efficiency, and national security. Ironically, these are areas where they already hold the high ground—but they often fail to communicate it effectively. “Democrats are now the party of the military and democracy. Republicans are the party of Putin. Think about that shift.” Predictions for 2026: The House Flips Blue Despite the bleakness of the moment, Maine Wonk believes the midterms will be a reckoning for the GOP. “Republicans own every part of the government right now. They can’t blame Biden anymore. The economy will be worse, wages will be down, inflation will be up—and they’ll have to run on that record.” If Democrats play their cards right, they will take back the House in 2026, setting the stage for a major comeback in 2028. Final Thoughts: Focus on What Matters To wrap up, here’s what I’ll leave you with: * Ignore the noise. Judge Trump on his actual results, not his tweets. Is the economy better? Is the deficit down? Are wages up? That’s what matters. * Democrats need to embrace smart, competent governance. No more over-intellectualizing. No more purity tests. Solve problems. Get things done. * Watch Pete Buttigieg. Call it a hunch, but I think he’s going places. If you found this discussion valuable, consider supporting my work by becoming a YouTube channel member. It helps cover operating costs, and you’ll get a shoutout on every livestream. Thanks for reading. Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    1h 4m
  10. Who Should Be the 2028 Democratic POTUS Nominee? A Deep Dive with Nerds for Humanity

    JAN 24

    Who Should Be the 2028 Democratic POTUS Nominee? A Deep Dive with Nerds for Humanity

    Welcome, Nerds!The 2028 election may feel far away, but as we saw in the last few election cycles, early conversations can shape the narrative for candidates long before ballots are cast. In this latest Nerds for Humanity livestream, we analyzed the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination and explored how they stack up on policy, electability, and appeal to voters. Using video clips, discussion, and a live rank-choice voting poll, we created a snapshot of the Democratic bench and imagined how they might fare on the national stage. The Format The livestream aimed to create an engaging, interactive environment where viewers could rank candidates in real-time, with results reshuffled across rounds of rank-choice voting. We examined eight prominent candidates: * Gavin Newsom * Josh Shapiro * Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) * Pete Buttigieg * Wes Moore * Kamala Harris * Gretchen Whitmer * Rohit (Ro) Khanna We also briefly considered some honorable mentions, including Katie Porter. Below, we summarize the discussion around each candidate and reveal the rank-choice voting results. The Candidates: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Highlights 1. Gavin Newsom The charismatic governor of California took center stage early in the discussion. * Strengths: Newsom boasts a progressive track record on climate, minimum wage, and public health, making him an attractive candidate for left-leaning voters. His photogenic, camera-ready presence and ability to speak with authority add to his appeal. * Weaknesses: Critics see him as "too slick" and polarizing, especially when it comes to homelessness and wildfires in California. His handling of crises in the largest U.S. state is sure to be heavily scrutinized. 2. Josh Shapiro Often dubbed the "White Obama," Pennsylvania's governor earned high marks for his bridge-building efforts (literally and figuratively). * Strengths: Shapiro’s moderate stance and ability to appeal to suburban voters in battleground states make him a strong contender for the general election. His oratory skills also stood out in video clips, showcasing his ability to connect with audiences. * Weaknesses: While popular in Pennsylvania, his national name recognition is still limited. His pro-Israel stance could create friction with progressive voters concerned about U.S. foreign policy. 3. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) A darling of the progressive wing, AOC brought her grassroots energy and social media prowess to the table. * Strengths: As a younger candidate with a significant online following, AOC can energize young voters and the progressive base. Her confidence and communication skills were evident in her interviews. * Weaknesses: Critics noted that her fiery rhetoric might alienate moderate voters in a general election. Some viewers preferred her conversational podcast tone over her louder, rally-style speeches. 4. Pete Buttigieg The former South Bend mayor and current Secretary of Transportation was a favorite among many livestream participants. * Strengths: Pete’s intelligence (Rhodes Scholar), military background, and effectiveness as a communicator shone through in clips of him taking on Fox News hosts and delivering powerful speeches. * Weaknesses: Concerns remain about whether America is ready for an openly gay president. Additionally, his time as Secretary of Transportation has not been without controversy, with critics questioning his effectiveness during crises like the supply chain debacle. 5. Wes Moore The newly elected governor of Maryland is a rising star. * Strengths: Moore’s inspirational life story, veteran background, and success in a key state make him an intriguing candidate. His ability to communicate optimism and vision could set him apart. * Weaknesses: Limited national recognition and experience at the executive level compared to other contenders. 6. Kamala Harris As the sitting vice president, Harris naturally made the list. * Strengths: Her historical significance as the first woman and person of color to serve as vice president remains a major asset. She also brings a blend of moderate and progressive appeal. * Weaknesses: Her lackluster performance in the 2020 primaries and low favorability ratings make her a divisive figure within the party. 7. Gretchen Whitmer Michigan’s governor emerged as a dark horse favorite in the livestream. * Strengths: Whitmer’s leadership in a critical swing state, her ability to address key infrastructure issues ("fix the damn roads"), and her steady demeanor during crises like COVID-19 earned her praise. She projects strength without polarizing energy. * Weaknesses: While compelling, some worry her Midwestern appeal might not translate as effectively on the national stage. 8. Ro Khanna The congressman from California was a late addition to the livestream lineup. * Strengths: Known for his progressive stances and focus on the future of American industry, Khanna demonstrated his policy chops in both interviews and speeches. * Weaknesses: Khanna’s limited executive experience and low name recognition outside of California could be significant hurdles. Rank-Choice Voting: The Results The most exciting part of the livestream was revealing the results of the rank-choice voting, where viewers ranked their preferred candidates. Initial Round Results * AOC led the first round with significant support from progressives. * Whitmer, Buttigieg, and Shapiro rounded out the top four. * Lower-ranked candidates, including Harris and Moore, were eliminated early, redistributing their votes to remaining contenders. Final Rounds As votes were redistributed, a fascinating dynamic emerged: * Whitmer gained substantial support from Buttigieg and Shapiro voters, propelling her to victory in the final round. * AOC’s early lead dwindled as she failed to pick up significant support from eliminated candidates’ voters. Winner: Gretchen Whitmer emerged as the consensus choice for the 2028 Democratic nominee. Key Takeaways * Diverse Bench Strength: The Democratic Party has an impressive lineup of candidates with unique backgrounds, skills, and appeal. * The Power of Rank-Choice Voting: This format highlighted how second and third preferences matter, ultimately producing a nominee with broad support. * Whitmer’s Rising Star: The Michigan governor’s combination of executive experience and relatability resonated with a majority of participants. Final ThoughtsWhile it’s impossible to predict how the 2028 race will unfold, this livestream demonstrated the value of early discussions and voter engagement. Gretchen Whitmer may have won our rank-choice experiment, but other candidates like Buttigieg, Shapiro, and even AOC bring their own unique strengths to the table. Stay tuned for more deep dives into politics, policy, and beyond on Nerds for Humanity! What do you think? Who should the Democratic Party rally behind in 2028? Vote on my RCV ballot and see the latest results here: https://app.rankedvote.co/rv/hgat5trpry84suzthc/vote This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    59 min

  11. JAN 15

    Top 10 Most Scathing Criticisms of Pete Hegseth by Democratic Senators

    The Senate confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth’s nomination as Secretary of Defense was anything but routine. Democratic Senators launched sharp critiques of Hegseth’s qualifications, highlighting inconsistencies in his public statements, concerns about his managerial record, and controversial views on critical issues facing the military. Below, I’ve summarized the top 10 criticisms, including expanded context, extended quotes from Senators, and Hegseth’s detailed responses. 1. Politicization of the Military Criticism: Hegseth was accused of attempting to inject partisan politics into the military, undermining its professionalism. Senators highlighted his public comments labeling those with differing political views as “enemies.” * Senator's Quote: “Your goal seems to be politicizing the military in favor of your particular positions, which is the worst blow to professionalism and readiness.” * Hegseth's Response: “I focus on restoring meritocracy, readiness, and lethality. My critiques of current policies are based on their divisiveness and failure to prioritize mission-first objectives.” Analysis: Critics argue that Hegseth’s rhetoric risks creating a perception of political favoritism, alienating service members who hold diverse viewpoints and undermining the unity necessary for military effectiveness. 2. Threatening DEI Supporters Criticism: Senators brought up emails allegedly threatening military personnel for supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, which some tied to Hegseth’s statements. * Senator's Quote: “Emails to officers threatened their pensions for supporting DEI policies. Do you believe this undermines morale and readiness?” * Hegseth's Response: “I’m unaware of such emails, but I stand by my criticism of policies that erode meritocracy and force leaders to walk on eggshells.” Analysis: DEI policies have been a focal point for both support and criticism within the military. Hegseth’s views highlight a broader debate about balancing inclusivity with operational effectiveness. 3. Views on Women in Combat Criticism: Hegseth faced relentless questioning about his long-standing opposition to women in combat roles, which he has expressed publicly and in his writings. * Senator's Quote: “You said, ‘We need moms, but not in the military.’ How can the 400,000 women serving today believe they’ll be treated fairly under your leadership?” * Hegseth's Response: “I respect all women in uniform. My focus has always been on maintaining rigorous standards for readiness and effectiveness.” Analysis: Senators challenged Hegseth’s attempt to reframe his stance, pointing out that his past comments lacked any reference to standards and focused instead on broad generalizations about women’s roles. 4. Support for Convicted War Criminals Criticism: Hegseth’s advocacy for pardons of convicted war criminals drew sharp rebukes from Senators, who questioned his views on discipline and accountability. * Senator's Quote: “You seem to value loyalty to those convicted of war crimes over the courage of those who reported them.” * Hegseth's Response: “I evaluate cases individually, focusing on ensuring our warfighters are supported and not unfairly prosecuted by overly restrictive rules of engagement.” Analysis: This exchange underscored concerns about Hegseth’s commitment to military discipline, which is critical for maintaining trust and order in the ranks. 5. Financial Mismanagement Criticism: Hegseth’s leadership at nonprofit organizations was scrutinized for deficits and alleged fiscal mismanagement. * Senator's Quote: “Under your watch, organizations ran deficits and were left with substantial debts. How can we trust you to oversee an $850 billion defense budget?” * Hegseth's Response: “Every dollar raised was used intentionally to support veterans. Small organizations face challenges, but I’m proud of what we achieved.” Analysis: Managing the Pentagon’s vast budget requires a level of fiscal discipline and strategic oversight that Senators argued was absent in Hegseth’s past roles. 6. Failure to Meet with Senators Criticism: Several Senators expressed frustration that Hegseth refused to meet with them before the hearing, breaking with bipartisan norms. * Senator's Quote: “Refusing to meet with us beforehand shows a lack of respect and sets a poor precedent for collaboration.” * Hegseth's Response: “Scheduling conflicts prevented some meetings, but I look forward to working with this committee if confirmed.” Analysis: Building bipartisan trust is a key component of the Secretary of Defense role. Hegseth’s decision not to meet with Senators before the hearing was seen as a missed opportunity to address concerns proactively. 7. Allegations of Personal Misconduct Criticism: Senators revisited past allegations of sexual misconduct, infidelity, and settlements, questioning Hegseth’s character and judgment. * Senator's Quote: “You admitted to a consensual affair while married and settled a sexual assault claim. How does this reflect on your ability to lead?” * Hegseth's Response: “These were false claims, fully investigated, and I was cleared. I’ve grown from my past mistakes and remain committed to integrity.” Analysis: The intense focus on personal conduct highlighted broader concerns about Hegseth’s ability to maintain the discipline and moral authority required of a Secretary of Defense. 8. Comments on LGBTQ+ Service Members Criticism: Hegseth was accused of making statements that disparaged LGBTQ+ service members, harming morale and cohesion. * Senator's Quote: “Disrespecting service members based on who they love undermines readiness and betrays our values.” * Hegseth's Response: “I support anyone who meets the military’s standards. My focus is on unity and shared purpose.” Analysis: This issue reflects ongoing debates about inclusivity and its impact on military readiness, with Senators arguing that Hegseth’s views could alienate a significant portion of the force. 9. Lack of Management Experience Criticism: Senators questioned whether Hegseth’s leadership experience was sufficient to manage the Pentagon’s vast bureaucracy. * Senator's Quote: “You’ve never managed more than 100 people. How can you oversee 3 million personnel and hundreds of billions in spending?” * Hegseth's Response: “I’ll rely on the incredible team at the Pentagon and focus on setting the right priorities.” Analysis: Critics argued that the Secretary of Defense role requires not just vision but proven operational leadership on a large scale—something Hegseth has yet to demonstrate. 10. Shifting Policy Positions Criticism: Senators accused Hegseth of reversing his long-held views to secure confirmation, particularly on women in combat. * Senator's Quote: “For 12 years, you said women don’t belong in combat. Now, suddenly, they’re among our greatest warriors. What changed in 32 days?” * Hegseth's Response: “I’ve always focused on maintaining standards. My respect for women in uniform is unwavering.” Analysis: The sudden shift in Hegseth’s rhetoric raised concerns about his sincerity and whether his views would change again once confirmed. Final ThoughtsThis hearing was not just about Pete Hegseth—it was a broader reflection of the partisan tensions surrounding military leadership, policy, and culture. Whether Hegseth’s nomination advances or stalls, the issues raised highlight the stakes of ensuring capable and unifying leadership in the Department of Defense. Support more Nerds for Humanity content by becoming a YouTube channel member. Longest-supporting Nerds for Humanity members: Most generous Nerds for Humanity members: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    1h 36m
  12. Four More Years: Reflections on Trump’s Return

    JAN 12

    Four More Years: Reflections on Trump’s Return

    Hello Nerds, It’s been a while since my last post. Life has been busy with work and holiday travels, but honestly, I’ve also been processing the surreal outcome of the election. Yes, Donald Trump is back in the White House. It's a scenario many of us never thought would materialize, and yet, here we are. In today’s post, I want to reflect on his presidency so far, starting with a reaction to one of his recent press conferences at Mar-a-Lago. I’ll also address some of his more controversial claims, fact-check his statements, and discuss the broader implications of his leadership. Spoiler alert: it’s maddening. Trump’s Press Conference: Lies and Hyperbole Trump kicked things off with his usual flair for self-promotion. He framed his administration as a savior of the nation, touting “exciting things happening” while taking credit for investments that were likely already in the pipeline. This isn’t new. During his previous term, he often exaggerated his role in economic achievements. He also claimed inflation is “raging,” but the data tells a different story. Inflation, which spiked to 9% in 2022, has since declined steadily, reaching just 2.7% in November. Yet, Trump insists on painting a picture of economic doom, feeding into the MAGA narrative that everything is worse under Democratic leadership. It’s exhausting how he distorts reality to suit his narrative, leaving his base misinformed and emboldened. “Millions and Millions”: Exaggeration at Its Finest One of the more laughable moments was his claim of winning the popular vote by “millions and millions.” The actual margin? 2.3 million votes out of 160 million cast. Sure, a win is a win, but his hyperbole is typical Trump. He inflates numbers, events, and achievements to stroke his ego. It’s the political equivalent of your uncle bragging about his high school football days decades later. Environmental Policy: A Case Study in Denial Another low point was Trump’s take on the California fires. He blamed the state’s environmental policies, accusing Governor Gavin Newsom of protecting a “worthless fish” instead of addressing the root causes of extreme weather events. Fact-checkers have debunked this claim thoroughly. The fires are a result of climate change, not a lack of water for hydrants. Trump’s solution? “Drill, baby, drill.” It’s as if he’s on a mission to accelerate the climate crisis rather than mitigate it. A Sore Winner Trump’s inability to move on from past grievances is striking. Even as the president-elect, he continues to harp on lawsuits, the 2020 election, and his first term. He’s like a broken record at Thanksgiving, rehashing old fights no one else wants to hear about. Instead of focusing on the future, he’s stuck in a cycle of self-pity and blame, perpetuating a divisive political culture. A Glimmer of Hope? Admittedly, there’s a slim chance Trump could surprise us all by focusing on substantive issues. Imagine a Trump presidency where he reforms immigration, addresses border security, and tackles wasteful Pentagon spending. It’s not impossible, but given his track record, it’s unlikely. He’s more likely to spend the next four years fixated on past slights and partisan attacks. The Role of Media and Accountability This brings me to the importance of fact-checking. Misinformation spreads like wildfire in the MAGA ecosystem, from Telegram to Truth Social. For instance, Trump’s claim that FEMA is out of funds was another blatant falsehood. The agency’s disaster relief fund was replenished to $27 billion in December, thanks to President Biden. Trump’s attempts to rewrite history demand vigilance and accountability from all of us. What Comes Next? As we brace for the next four years, it’s clear that Trump’s leadership will be as polarizing as ever. He’s already setting the stage for more cultural and political battles. The question is: how do we, as citizens, navigate this terrain? Do we push back against the falsehoods, or do we disengage to preserve our sanity? For me, the answer lies somewhere in between. To my fellow Nerds for Humanity, thank you for supporting this channel and keeping the conversation alive. Despite the challenges ahead, we must remain committed to truth and informed dialogue. Let’s continue to fact-check, challenge, and hold our leaders accountable. Until next time, stay curious and keep fighting the good fight. Your fellow Nerd, Tom This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

    33 min
  • 12 Episodes

5
out of 5
25 Ratings

About

Takeaways from some of the best long-form podcasts / livestreams on Nerds for Humanity. Usually interviews with interesting and thought provoking guests about politics. nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

Information