In this episode, Farrah Bostic is joined by messaging strategist, author, and Words to Win By host Anat Shenker-Osorio for a wide-ranging and incisive conversation about political communication, campaign strategy, and why so much of what the Democratic Party does feels like a missed opportunity.

Together, they explore:

• How Anat’s early fascination with language and justice led her to a career in cognitive linguistics and progressive messaging.
• Why most political message testing (RCTs, MaxDiff, etc.) fails to reflect how real people encounter campaigns — and what to do instead.
• The danger of focusing on persuasion over mobilization, and why “say what you’re for” is the most important rule in campaign comms.
• How Democrats lost their working-class identity, and why organizing — not polling — is the only way to win it back.
• The power of persuasion windows and how the left can seize — or squander — them.

This episode is a must-listen for anyone working in politics, messaging, organizing, or simply trying to make change in a noisy, distracted, and deeply unequal world.

🔗 Resources & Mentions:

• ASO Communications – Open-source messaging guides and research
• Words to Win By podcast
• Don't Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense About the Economy 
• Follow Anat on BlueSky and Substack

📬 Subscribe to our newsletter at crosstabspodcast.com for new episodes, insights, and behind-the-scenes content.

📹 Watch video episodes on YouTube @CrosstabsPodcast

💬 Follow us on BlueSky: @crosstabspod.bsky.social

📍 Produced by The Difference Engine

Welcome back to Cross Tabs, a

2

show about people, data and

3

power.

4

I'm your

5

host, Farrah Bostick.

6

So last night, as I record this,

7

assemblyman Zohran Mamdani won the

first round of ballots in the Democratic

8

primary for the New York City mayoral

9

race.

10

Andrew Cuomo, a previously disgraced

three term governor of the state

11

conceded.

12

We do not know whether this will be

a three, four, or five way general

13

election, come the fall.

14

But we know that Mamdani won last night.

15

I mentioned this in

16

part because we refer to the race in

this conversation, which took place

17

about a week before the vote counting

18

began, and also because I think

the Momani candidacy and campaign

19

embodied a variety of things.

20

I talk about with my guest, the

21

host of the Words to Win by

podcast and founder of a SO

22

Communication, an Shankar as Sorio.

23

Anat is an incisive analyst of

24

why certain messages falter where

others deliver, and she has led research

25

on issues ranging from freedom to

clean energy, from immigrant rights,

26

to reforming criminal justice, as

well as joining together in union

27

and unions.

28

She brings an innovative approach to

research that has led to progressive

29

victories around the world.

30

She's also the author of Don't

Buy It, the Trouble With Talking

31

Nonsense About the Economy.

32

I invited her on to talk about

how she came to do her work,

33

how the Democratic Party got to

34

where it is right now, and how voters

can move the party to where it needs

35

to be if it's really going to earn

its name as the Democratic Party.

36

Here's our conversation.

37

Okay.

38

So Anat, thank you for joining

me for this conversation.

39

The place I like to start all of these

is just getting a little sense of how

40

did you get to here, how, what was

your sort of career path that brought

41

you to the work that you do now?

42

Anat Shenker-Osorio: When I was in

kindergarten, , the teacher gave

43

every single one of us a very special

notebook, and my very special notebook

44

had on the cover the Muppet Show

specifically with animal on the drums

45

in the middle and like the rest of

the Muppets, as some ragtag band.

46

And then the principal called

her over the loudspeaker to

47

come into the office and she, I.

48

Sort of scrambling, said, okay, I have

to go to the office while I'm gone.

49

Just like draw on the first

page of your notebook.

50

And everybody got their own special

notebook with their own special cover.

51

And she was out of the room for

roughly four seconds before a bunch

52

of kids started sort of teasing

and harassing the kind of boy that

53

they always teased and harassed.

54

And they took his notebook and they

ripped off the cover and he was crying.

55

She came back into this chaotic

scene and she was very upset.

56

And she said, I'm taking

all of your notebooks back.

57

And she collected all of our notebooks.

58

And I got very

59

upset back.

60

And I said, but not all

of us were doing it.

61

Not all of us were

62

harassing that kid.

63

Why are you taking all of our notebooks?

64

And she said, did you stand up for him?

65

Did you tell them to stop it?

66

Did you go out in the

hallway and find a teacher?

67

Did you do anything?

68

I was like, no.

69

I just sat and drew in my

notebook as I was instructed.

70

And she said, if you're not part of the

solution, then you're part of the problem.

71

And that perhaps isn't exactly what

you meant with your question, but that

72

is how I remember and understand my

origin story in progressive politics and

73

in a desire, You know, at the risk of

sounding like silly and saccharin and

74

grandiose to wanna try to make the worlds

better or at least slightly less shit.

75

And the way that that manifested

for me was through the vehicle of

76

linguistics and cognitive linguistics

and understanding why certain

77

messages resonate and others don't.

78

That was something I became interested in.

79

Very early on.

80

I grew up in a multilingual household.

81

My mom speaks seven languages.

82

She's an interpreter.

83

I grew up speaking multiple languages

and so became sort of fascinated

84

with language as a vehicle.

85

For, communication, understanding,

learned in my undergraduate studies

86

about folks like George Lakoff

and Eve Sweeter and Zan ish.

87

And so knew to some degree that we

could construct communication campaigns

88

for political issues, whether they be

electoral or you know, social justice

89

issues in a way that was less haphazard in

a way that was more this message is more

90

likely to resonate with people because

it is built on this metaphor that kind

91

of has entailments or in more plain speak

implications that are more advantageous

92

for what we need people to understand.

93

This one seems not so good and

so on, and so when I then went

94

to work in communications.

95

I quickly saw, I think as most people

quickly see, at least in political

96

communications, you may have a different

experience from the marketing side.

97

I'm actually curious that a lot of

the way that messages were decided

98

were sort of stick the finger in

the wind and be like, that sounds

99

good, or my absolute favorite answer.

100

You know, why'd you name your

campaign that the URL wasn't taken?

101

I'm like, oh, well then it must be

really compelling if no one in the

102

history of the internet wanted it.

103

That must be like a really

snappy thing to call it.

104

And so seeing sort of the

way that comms was done on

105

campaigns, and I mean both like.

106

Ballot initiatives, electoral,

but also like issue campaigns.

107

And then knowing that, you know, it could

be done this other way, I eventually

108

through different twists and turns,

went to graduate school at Berkeley.

109

Still live in the Bay area.

110

Never, never left after

coming here for that.

111

Studied public policy, also

studied with Lake off and on the

112

public policy side, became really

steeped in empirical testing.

113

So.

114

Essentially, at least the way that it

is structured here at, at Berkeley, it's

115

kind of like an econometrics degree.

116

It's just a lot of statistical methods.

117

It's a lot of experiments and like

understanding how to look at polling and

118

look at randomized control trials and

understand them So fast forward ahead.

119

Worked at a place that no longer exists

called the Rockridge Institute, which

120

Lakoff founded, which was intended to take

what had been, you know, arcane academic

121

theories around, conceptual metaphor and

apply them to actual political discourse

122

to try to change how campaigns were made.

123

Went on eventually to, make my own

consulting firm, and then after doing

124

it analytically for a while, so like,

ooh, did a big study on metaphors

125

for the economy and found that.

126

There is a preponderance

of naturalistic metaphors.

127

So the economy is unhealthy,

it's thriving, it's suffering.

128

We need to resuscitate the patient

versus mechanistic metaphors, we need

129

to get the economy on the right track.

130

It's on the wrong track.

131

Obama famously said, we need to move it

out of R into D, which is both reverse and

132

drive, but also Republican and democratic.

133

You know, a lot of the language

of economics is actually derived

134

from the language of physics.

135

You know, we have friction, we have

accelerating job losses, and then doing

136

actual experiments that demonstrate

what the analytic conclusions implied,

137

which is that when you're likening the

economy to naturalistic things, you are

138

actually sort of foregrounding the idea

that it's best left to its own devices.

139

Because of course, in cases of emergency,

you know, you want dialysis or you want

140

a defibrillator, or you want, you know.

141

Whatever.

142

Like if you're having a heart attack or

a stroke, you need immediate assistance.

143

But as far as breathing, digesting,

the, the business of daily living,

144

like you're not trying to get me to

come there and like, push on your

145

lungs or like help you swallow.

146

That doesn't sound like a good time.

147

So in contrast, mechanistic

metaphors, the idea of the economy

148

being likened unconsciously to a

vehicle suggests a role for a driver

149

Farrah Bostic: Mm mm-hmm.

150

Anat Shenker-Osorio: and I do live

in California, Waymo cars aside.

151

Most

152

Farrah Bostic: On fire or not.

153

Yeah.

154

Anat Shenker-Osorio: fire or not.

155

Most people think of vehicles

as requiring a driver,

156

Farrah Bostic: Right.

157

Anat Shenker-Osorio: whether they're a

train or a car or a plane or whatever.

158

And so then wrote a

book about don't buy it.

159

The trouble talking

nonsense about the economy.

160

That was like built out of.

161

This, but then also started doing

experiments where we would prime people

162

with different metaphors and then

ask them their policy preferences.

163

And sure enough, people who had been

primed with, a different metaphor,

164

let's say for inequality would

want a different level of taxation.

165

Farrah Bostic: Mm.

166

Mm-hmm.

167

Anat Shenker-Osorio: So then fast

forward again, this is the long answer.

168

Sorry.

169

Did that for a long time.

170

Here's a giant research project that you

asked me to do, like you spent money.

171

To get me to and get me and many,

many colleagues, these things.

172

I didn't do them by myself to, do

a gajillion focus groups, which

173

are expensive, and to do a giant

survey or to do a randomized control

174

trial or to do all of the above

and then produce what I thought

175

were super clear directives, right?

176

Say this, don't say that this is a

good message, this is a bad message.

177

It's a good metaphor.

178

It's a bad metaphor,

this word, not that word.

179

And like tried to make them as

kind of clear cut as possible.

180

And then sure enough, lo and behold, very,

very few people changed their messaging.

181

And it took me a while.

182

I'm embarrassed to tell you that I

had to realize that all of the biases

183

and heuristics that we all rely upon

as human beings to come to judgements

184

on complex issues and deal with the

cacophony of noise that surrounds us.

185

Those are just as present in progressive

strategists and activists as anyone else.

186

'cause that's how people, people.

187

And so just because you spent however

much money to have a new messaging

188

solution doesn't mean that when it

comes time to sit down and write your

189

press release or give your interview

or write your social media post or

190

whatever, you wouldn't default to

whatever your habituated message was.

191

That's exactly what would happen.

192

So then I began to stay the course

in more lengthy engagements where I

193

wouldn't just do the research project.

194

Here's the deck, here's

the messaging guide.

195

Good luck, but would actually design

sort of full 360 campaigns with ads,

196

with slogans, but also with actual

physical events that were designed to

197

move out of a old frame into a new one.

198

And then the last chapter, I mean

more or less is that I did that

199

for a while, had successes, won

some stuff with other people, lost

200

some stuff as happens inevitably.

201

And I realized that my number one

messaging directive that, asterisk,

202

like some terms and conditions

apply, but is say what you're for.

203

Say what you're for, say

what you're for that.

204

Like if all you've got is two seconds,

three seconds, then the most important

205

thing is that you need to tell people

what you want them to do and stop telling

206

them what you don't want them to do.

207

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

208

Anat Shenker-Osorio: The analogy I

usually use is when you take a kid to a

209

pool, a competent lifeguard, if they're

running, will yell, walk, because if

210

you yell, don't run at a kid, they'll

start running either to defy you

211

or because you yelled, run at them.

212

And so we're constantly

telling people, stop this.

213

Don't do this.

214

Don't have that.

215

We don't want this and

this don't have that.

216

Thereby feeding the

discourse of the opposition.

217

So say what you're for.

218

And then I realize that almost all

of my presentations involve me being

219

like, look at this terrible message.

220

Why are you using this terrible message?

221

This is a very bad message.

222

This is why this is a very bad message.

223

I tested it and now here is

evidence about its badness.

224

And so then I came to make a podcast

called Words to Win By Where?

225

With some exceptions.

226

The episodes are each

about a campaign we won.

227

So that I could walk my talk

and be like, no, actually using

228

progressive principles, strategies

and messages actually does work.

229

Here's proof.

230

So that's my story.

231

Farrah Bostic: I I'm curious

about any kind of, you know, I

232

was reflecting on this earlier.

233

Over 20 years of doing this.

234

There are some approaches and tools that

I think are valuable for developing a

235

strategy that's like clear, decisive,

everybody knows what to do, and then

236

there's stuff that's like, it's great.

237

It might be the gold standard.

238

It's,

239

If you have the time and the money and and

the team and the resources and everything

240

else, go ahead.

241

But it also might just sort of

yield a lot of that like academic

242

stuff that everyone just kind of

memory holes or goes, you know, goes

243

one in one ear and out the other.

244

I'm curious if you've had any evolutions

on, like, methods that you think are

245

still worth doing and methods that

you think are like, if we've got the

246

time and the resources, let's do it.

247

If we don't, there are better tools.

248

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yeah, I mean, you

know, as like messaging research lady,

249

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

250

Anat Shenker-Osorio: spend a lot of my

time telling people not to do research,

251

Farrah Bostic: Same.

252

Anat Shenker-Osorio: and oftentimes

in progressive landia doing

253

research is a substitution.

254

For not doing organizing,

255

because organizing is hard and it is labor

intensive and it is resource intensive.

256

And so, maybe the solution is we'll just

do another project to try to figure out

257

the exact wording choices to sell people

convince people that like, actually

258

immigrants are awesome and you know, we're

all the better for having them here and,

259

and that we should pass X, Y, Z policy.

260

And in fact, a message is like

a baton that has to be passed

261

from person to person to person.

262

And if it gets dropped anywhere

along the way, by definition

263

it can't persuade them, which.

264

Seems like the most obvious thing in

the entire world, that a message that

265

nobody hears cannot persuade them.

266

And for some reason that concept,

which I would argue is probably the

267

least controversial thing that I ever

say, is something that I have been

268

pretty much incapable of getting.

269

Certainly the Democratic establishment.

270

And you know, I don't just work in

the US like the Labor Party in the

271

uk, you know, other center left

parties in other places to understand.

272

But like oftentimes, especially right

now in the middle of the throes of

273

this fascist power grab, you wanna

like stop and have deep thoughts

274

about the feelings of American men.

275

Like are you fucking kidding me?

276

So.

277

I just, you know, we

don't, got time for that.

278

And also we are sitting

on a pretty giant body

279

Of research into

perceptions and persuasion.

280

The problem is that we haven't actually

come up with strategy and we don't

281

have the rigor and the discipline of

implementation because it's been a very

282

long time since there has been robust

sustained organizing in this country.

283

And part of that is the intentional

and very deliberate destruction

284

of labor unions, which of course

is like a basis and an important

285

hub and home for organizing.

286

But it is also because there was a

shift many years ago in progressive

287

organizations away from organizing

toward what is known as field.

288

Field is GOTV.

289

It's registering voters.

290

It's turning them out, you know, during

the week or the day of or whatever.

291

And those are important things to

do, but we can't vote our way to

292

democracy and the idea that we ever

could have is slightly mind-boggling.

293

And so we became trapped in a thing

where we had to keep telling people

294

to go vote, to go vote, to go vote.

295

But we aren't capable of providing them

candidates that feel meaningful to them.

296

And the act of voting and electing people

actually all too often doesn't alter

297

the material conditions of their lives.

298

And then we have to go through and

convince them again when old school

299

organizing is, you know, old wait,

awakening people to a political analysis.

300

All of their own power and then

getting them to view themselves as

301

agents so that they then act as your

choir to go awaken other people.

302

I feel like I, I got

away from your question.

303

I'm sorry.

304

Farrah Bostic: No, actually you, you

got to my kind of hidden question,

305

which is, you know, the first

question was how did you get to here?

306

My second hidden question was, how

did the Democratic party get to here?

307

I mean, Mike and I have talked about

this also, the kind of deliberate

308

dismantling of the influence And also the

power of labor unions as an organizing

309

force And as one allied with.

310

Progressive politics.

311

But that organizing piece, I think is

the thing that I'm also kind of, was

312

getting at with methods that

are useful versus not, because

313

it does feel like everyone is

314

like, I need $20 million

to study young men.

315

We need to do testing on which, you

know, podcast format is the most

316

persuasive to those young men.

317

We need to do infinite numbers of

randomized controlled trials which Like is

318

a thing we almost never do in marketing.

319

Like we, we do them, but not really.

320

And it's because it's just sort of

like, that's expensive, it's time

321

consuming, and we already kind of know

the direction we're heading in because

322

we've already done this other work.

323

And like, we need to get to a

decision and we need to go make

324

stuff and put it out in the market.

325

, How much testing do we wanna do?

326

So the other thing we look for

is like big sweeping differences.

327

Not little incremental conjoint

analyses of different configurations

328

of the exact same message over and over

329

Anat Shenker-Osorio: oh, the number of

max diff analyses that I have to sit

330

through and the like idea, I'm sorry

to cut you off, but like the idea

331

that the ads that you tested in an

RCTA randomized control trial for your

332

audience, you've probably explained

what that is before, where you've forced

333

people to give you their attention and

they are required to read your a hundred

334

words or 70 words, or listen through

your 32nd ad, or, you know, look at

335

your slogan or whatever you're testing.

336

And know that they're consciously

being studied, are aware that they're

337

like in an experimental condition.

338

And then you think that that has any

sort of meaningful relationship to

339

the real world where the number one

job of the message is to make people

340

stop scrolling in the first place.

341

Farrah Bostic: Right,

342

Anat Shenker-Osorio: And if they're not

willing to listen to your thing, because

343

you sound like the adults in the Peanuts

cartoon, you know, then this beautiful

344

thing that you know, tested So perfectly

in this like encapsulated a hundred word

345

or 30 second or whatever version with the

visuals that you picked out just right.

346

And like the song cues that

you picked out just right.

347

And to be clear, I'm a person

who does RCTs, like, I think

348

that they have a purpose.

349

They can signal directionality,

they can, if you're gonna take

350

big swings, which you should.

351

I often tell people if you do.

352

A survey or an RCT or whatever

and you don't have anything.

353

Bomb abysmally.

354

Bomb abysmally.

355

That means that you wasted a lot

of money testing ecru against

356

off-white, against eggshell.

357

And like some of these tests,

they end up being the world's

358

most expensive copy editing.

359

They're experimenting with

like the most minuscule.

360

And for the most part, those

differences are so small that you

361

can't actually detect anything

362

. In an RCT and, Yeah.

363

Farrah Bostic: Yeah.

364

Yeah.

365

I mean this is, you know, in the, in

the universe of doing multivariate or

366

AB testing for messaging for startups or

something that, that I have worked with.

367

One of the biggest challenges has

been to get them to test things

368

that are actually different

369

from each other there's a, a

kind of famous story about Google

370

testing, I don't know, 57 shades

of blue or something like that.

371

And this became like , the kind of hot

topic du jour amongst UX researchers

372

was, we're gonna do this incredible

multivariate testing and get really

373

specific about stuff, to your point,

really expensive copy editing,

374

really expensive art direction.

375

And it's, you know, there are

so many problems with this.

376

Like most startups just don't have the

site traffic of Google to be able to see

377

significant to their business lift from

one shade of blue to another or whatever.

378

But this is.

379

There is a, there is a book that

is called testing to destruction.

380

And this is like the thing we're

all trying to hopefully avoid in

381

our work is not test to the point

that we, there's just nothing left.

382

But to your, equally to your point,

something has to fail otherwise

383

you're just sort of, I don't know.

384

I used to work for a company

that was always like,

385

we're here to maximize ideas.

386

It's not a bake off or a beauty contest.

387

And I was always like, actually,

my clients would like to know

388

which of their babies is ugly.

389

And I should probably tell them

because they're not all beautiful.

390

They never are.

391

But that, that also leads me

to kind of this question about

392

what they choose to test.

393

Because I mean, during the election

there were some of these, you know,

394

these MaxDiff tests that were being,

shared by various groups that were

395

doing these kinds of message tests.

396

And I just kept looking at those

statements going, there's all kinds

397

of stuff you didn't ask about.

398

And so what were your kind of ingoing

beliefs about what was relevant to voters,

399

And how sure are you about those things?

400

And how much of those are actually

just sort of dictated by your

401

donors or dictated by your own

beliefs about what centrist policies

402

win elections or whatever, and

I'm, I'm curious about how should

403

those tests be constructed?

404

If you're gonna do them how

are they typically constructed?

405

Anat Shenker-Osorio: I mean, it's

hard to speak in the aggregate

406

like that because like, it depends.

407

It depends.

408

Is it a big old test which happens

less frequently on like how to

409

talk about trans people and getting

affirmative healthcare, which,

410

we've done lots and lots of work on.

411

Is it about trying to make

a case for immigrant rights?

412

Is it about, Kamala Harris and how to

best sell Kamala Harris or someone in a

413

Senate race or someone in a house race?

414

So.

415

It depends a little bit.

416

But when I am doing these

417

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

418

Anat Shenker-Osorio: the first step

that my team takes is that we conduct a

419

language analysis in order to understand

the range of ways a thing could

420

possibly be argued in the first place.

421

And we go looking across many

different sources, pop culture

422

what we call unmotivated speech.

423

So these are people posting on social, but

they haven't been like directed to do so.

424

So the difference between like, you know,

use hashtag no kings and like say why

425

you're marching, that would be motivated.

426

Social speech versus just like

someone posting about, you

427

know, I can't stand taxes.

428

I can't believe I have to pay taxes.

429

If you're doing a project on

like how to reframe taxes.

430

So, down to, I've done projects on

perceptions of pregnancy in order

431

to better understand what effective

abortion messaging would be, and like

432

spent lots of time looking at people

and us because celebrity pregnancy, I

433

mean, they love to talk about pregnancy.

434

And so the formulation of public

consciousness about an idea,

435

let's stick with pregnancy.

436

Like where does it come from?

437

I mean, partly it comes from what

to expect when you're expecting.

438

Partly it comes from like the cover

photo of Beyonce, pregnant with twins,

439

but you know, partly it comes from

kind of cultural stories, whatever.

440

So what is the range of ways people

could possibly reason about this thing,

441

and which ones seem most promising

and which ones seem most problematic?

442

And then from

443

there, construct different

frames that really differ.

444

And so like to, to give you a super

concrete, for instance, a hundred

445

years ago I did a big project with an

organization called America's Voice.

446

And it was led by a

strategist named Ryan Clayton.

447

It was with Lake Research

Partners to really try to get at

448

like, how could we reframe this

entire immigrant rights debate.

449

This was 2012, or may have even been

450

And in that, during the language

analysis, the initial phase, we also

451

did these elicitation interviews,

452

language analysis is, let's look at

the range of ways this is communicated

453

about both in opposition and in

popular culture and in advocacy.

454

Elicitation interviews are

only with true believers like

455

people who are pro your thing.

456

And we asked, and we did like a hundred.

457

Ryan was very thorough of these interviews

and we asked all these immigrant rights

458

advocates, how would you describe who

an immigrant is to a 4-year-old child?

459

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

460

Anat Shenker-Osorio: And almost

universally they said a person who moves.

461

And in the language analysis prior

to doing these interviews, one of my

462

subheadings was there's very little

immigrating in the immigration debate.

463

And it was noting, you know

what's interesting about this

464

debate in the discourse is

that there's a lot about harms.

465

There's restrictions, there's the border,

there's status, there's visas, there's

466

green cards, there's this, there's that.

467

You know, there's like putting food on the

table, there's families, there's whatever.

468

But there's very little

discourse about moving.

469

. And again, people say

like, what is an immigrant?

470

It's a person who moves.

471

So then when we're constructing the

frames to test, one of the frames

472

that I wrote was the same is true

today has been throughout history.

473

People move to make life

better for themselves.

474

It's hard to move, to pack up

everything and go to a new place.

475

Takes courage.

476

But you do it to get your kid

into a better school, put food on

477

the table, or make a better life.

478

Immigrant Americans move here

for the promise of freedom and

479

opportunity in this country.

480

And we think that's great.

481

America's supposed to be the land

of the free and the home of the

482

brave, and that's a good thing.

483

So let's make it that way.

484

We tested that.

485

We tested a traditional nation of

immigrants message and we swung

486

into a message that I knew would

not work, but I wanted to see

487

who liked it and who hated it.

488

I called that message,

immigrants are bad asses.

489

It more or less went.

490

You see a fence and you

think I'll jump over it.

491

Someone tells you no and you hear,

convince me you don't follow the rules.

492

You make your own rules, and that's

why people who came here without

493

documentation are more American than the

people who wasted all that time in line.

494

I was like, let's write a message in

which undocumented immigrants are better

495

Farrah Bostic: Mm.

496

Anat Shenker-Osorio: or can we, can we

actually go all the way over there and

497

be like, no, let's just get into the

John Wayne cowboy of it all and be like.

498

Farrah Bostic: Yeah.

499

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Fuck it.

500

I'm gonna make my own way.

501

And you know, that message,

502

obviously, I'm never gonna promote

a message that says you hear no

503

and you think it means convince me.

504

Farrah Bostic: Right?

505

Anat Shenker-Osorio: So that

wasn't ever gonna go out.

506

But I wanted to understand who in my very

large sample this scratched an itch for.

507

And so the point of this

illustration is that people move

508

was extraordinarily successful.

509

And when I say successful, I mean this

is the other problem with the testing.

510

The dependent variables selected are.

511

All too often approval with the message.

512

I'm like, the message isn't

running for homecoming queen.

513

The message's job isn't to

garner greater approval.

514

The message's job is to move people

from, not wanting the policy to

515

wanting the policy, but equally,

if not more importantly, from

516

wanting to do something about it.

517

Because in reality, in this country, as

you know, public opinion is meaningless.

518

I know, 'cause I get paid to measure it.

519

The number of policies that

have supermajority support

520

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

521

Anat Shenker-Osorio: super, you know.

522

Like different kinds of gun restrictive

measures, legalized abortion, raising the

523

minimum wage, having available healthcare

like you and I could go on and on.

524

We could list policies that have

majority, if not 80, 90% approval.

525

What political scientists have shown

is that the correlation between public

526

approval for a policy and its likelihood

of passing is essentially zero.

527

. And so if we know that, then why are

we chasing after approval when the

528

only thing that actually predicates.

529

A policy being passed or a policy

people hate being blocked is action.

530

Why aren't we attempting to measure for,

would this make you want to get up off the

531

couch and go put your body on the line?

532

As we saw during the ACA fight in

the first Trumpocene to be like,

533

hell no, over my literal dead

body, because that's the only thing

534

that actually alters conditions.

535

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

536

I mean, this is, there are parallels

in our universe of years ago, we

537

basically abandoned the likability

question we show you an ad and

538

ask you if you like it, who cares?

539

Does it change your mind about anything?

540

Or you gonna more likely to buy it?

541

Less likely to buy it?

542

Does it turn you on?

543

Turn you off?

544

Those things are.

545

Far more important.

546

So we have a host of other

measures as opposed to as

547

opposed to just pure likability.

548

Similarly, I think, I hope most of us

have abandoned the the recall metric.

549

Like, do you remember

seeing an ad from Tide?

550

People are gonna say yes or no,

but it who care again, who cares?

551

Like what do you remember about it

is frankly more important than that.

552

You remember that you ever saw a message

for it and a lot of times you just see

553

correlations of like how well known

the brand already is, gives you kind

554

of artificially high recall scores.

555

The fun one is to ask, do you

recall seeing an ad from Brand

556

X in the last three months?

557

But we haven't run any ads in

the last three months, right?

558

And people, yeah, I have heard, I have

seen some ads because I've heard of you.

559

And so they just take

that as a proxy for it.

560

So instead what we turned

to was a recognition score.

561

So we show you some like two seconds

from the ad that doesn't have the

562

product or the name in it, and

ask you if you've seen it before.

563

And then if you can identify the brand.

564

And if you say, oh yeah, I've seen that,

and you correctly identify the brand,

565

then we know that that ad like lodged

in your brain somewhere, like you will

566

recognize it again when you see it.

567

And we know that like recognition

is a, is a proxy for familiarity.

568

And the more that, we, we have

a whole kind of idea of like

569

mental and physical availability.

570

And mental availability is, I

know you, when I see you, I know.

571

I, I recognize you.

572

And in the store I ran an experiment

once with my mom 'cause I was trying

573

to explain years ago, Tropic changed

their packaging and went to this

574

like extremely streamlined

Send Serif font.

575

The straw was gone, The literal

orange was gone, the bubbly type

576

face for Tropicana was gone.

577

And sales just were demolished by this.

578

And the reason was not, people said

they hated the redesign, but the real

579

issue is when they went into the store,

they couldn't find the Tropicana.

580

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Right.

581

Farrah Bostic: Because it didn't

look like Tropicana anymore.

582

and so I played this game with

my mom where we were about to

583

walk down like a canned soup or

canned goods aisle at Target.

584

And I was like, okay, before we walk

down the aisle, before we walk down the

585

aisle, I want you to just tell me, if

I say Del Monte, what do you picture?

586

If I say Campbell's, what do you

587

picture?

588

If I say Hunts?

589

what do you picture?

590

Whatever.

591

And she was like, red,

green, red and white.

592

And I

593

was like, right.

594

You don't have to read the label to

595

know

596

which can is which when you walk down

the aisle, you can, in your peripheral

597

vision, grab a Campbell soup can,

the only reason you're reading it

598

is to tell the difference between

cream of mushroom and chicken noodle.

599

Like that's, that's the

only thing you're doing.

600

And there's a lot of those

kinds of metrics that

601

are just far more useful.

602

And every time I see, like there were,

I can't remember who did it, there

603

was some conjoint analysis of various

messages about Kamala Harris during

604

the campaign that were like all

the ones that are positive and

605

about her background, those perform

better than all of the ones that

606

also have anything negative to say

607

about Trump in it.

608

And this seemed to be wrapped

up in the narrative of everybody

609

already knows how bad Trump is

We don't have, that's baked in.

610

We don't have to persuade

anymore about that.

611

But we have to, you know,

make her knowable to people.

612

We have to introduce her.

613

to people 'cause they

don't know much about her.

614

And, and again, like the metric was

which of these messages do you like the

615

best as opposed to like.

616

Do they actually move the needle in

any particular way on your behavior?

617

Anat Shenker-Osorio: to be fair.

618

The, the kind of gold standard

metric when it comes close to

619

election time is usually vote choice.

620

So usually what is being measured

in an RCT is people in all the

621

conditions, the control condition,

and all of the treatment conditions

622

are asked, you know, if the election

were held today, vote, vote him,

623

vote her vote, you know, whatever.

624

And it's a logical metric.

625

It's, that makes sense.

626

But here's the issues with it.

627

The first is that in many of these tests,

it would asked as a two-way instead

628

of a, and by a four way, I mean third

party and stay at home in reality,

629

the choice is not Harris or Trump.

630

The reality is Harris Trump,

when he was still there, RFK.

631

But most importantly there is always a

third candidate in our two party system.

632

And the third candidate is the couch.

633

Farrah Bostic: Right.

634

Anat Shenker-Osorio: So that's one thing.

635

And, and some of them did do

four way and some of them didn't.

636

Whatever.

637

I'm not making a blanket statement.

638

But the other challenge

is that mobilization,

639

are you gonna vote?

640

Are you not gonna vote?

641

Is extraordinarily hard to measure

because it is the, I will pay

642

you tomorrow of public opinion

research, by which I mean it is the

643

thing people lie about most often.

644

So lie isn't even fair.

645

They mean their answer.

646

Like they, they do mean that they're

going to, because regardless of

647

voter participation rates, voting

is a socially positive behavior.

648

Like you're supposed to vote, people know

you're, that you're supposed to vote.

649

And so you know, are you going to vote?

650

the answer is yes.

651

Right?

652

And in general, anytime people are

surveyed about their intention to vote,

653

it's like 90% of people are gonna vote.

654

But like that's never happened.

655

So clearly some people are wrong.

656

that.

657

And you know, we don't know

which ones that's the issue.

658

So I mean, in some cases we know,

like we know that habitual voters

659

are going to be habitual voters

because they always are gonna vote.

660

But among the, the infrequent

voters or among the newly

661

eligible, like we don't know.

662

So basically because mobilization is very

difficult to measure in channel, that's

663

what all of these tests are in channel.

664

You have a captive audience.

665

What's essentially happened is that the

mainstream kind of democratic outfits that

666

have all the money and all the power and

all the decision making they've chosen

667

just not to try to measure it because

668

Farrah Bostic: Hmm.

669

Anat Shenker-Osorio: it, it

doesn't sort of translate infield.

670

Like 90% of people telling you

they're gonna vote is not 90% of

671

people telling you uh, actually vote.

672

So they just measure vote choice.

673

Instead of experimenting with different

ways of trying to get an indicator

674

on mobilization, which could involve,

for example, embedding within a

675

test, like a voter registration link.

676

Do people click on it or

do they not click on it?

677

Embedding within a test, a donation page.

678

If someone is willing to do that,

that's a higher bar than voting.

679

So that's not a perfect measure.

680

You can't get a perfect measure.

681

But like that's something, so there

are things that we could be doing,

682

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

683

Anat Shenker-Osorio: but instead there

is just this default setting that

684

mobilization can't be measured in channel.

685

And again, I'm saying it is

very difficult to measure.

686

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

687

Anat Shenker-Osorio: And

so we're just gonna measure

688

vote, choice, IE, persuasion,

689

Farrah Bostic: Right.

690

Anat Shenker-Osorio: and we're going

to measure persuasion among a general

691

population, not just among people

who we actually credibly believe.

692

Would vote for us.

693

We are not going to put extra emphasis

as I would on messages that our base

694

is likely to actually wanna repeat

to other people or wear the t-shirt

695

or wear the hat or wear the slogan.

696

Thereby acting as social proof to

other people, which is something

697

that the right absolutely is

obsessed with and rightly so.

698

What is the thing our

choir's gonna wanna sing?

699

What will our choir say to other people?

700

Farrah Bostic: You, you just gave me

a funny, like, I, I just immediately

701

got a glimpse of a applying a kind of

shopper marketing method to this, which

702

would be you expose 'em to a whole bunch

of messages, and then you show them a

703

merch store and ask them to fill a cart.

704

Like that would be really

interesting actually.

705

Like literally, would you get

the hat of any of these messages?

706

Would you buy the tote bag?

707

Would you put the bumper

sticker on your car?

708

That's actually like, that would

be a fun, that would be a fun

709

one to try at the very least.

710

Anat Shenker-Osorio: One of the questions

we often ask people is, especially

711

now that we've like very much just

moved into testing, at least for me

712

on activation and what would activate

people, what would make people wanna

713

get out and do nonviolent direct action?

714

Because I genuinely believe that the

only way out of authoritarian rule

715

is for a sustained mobilization.

716

We are not going to vote

our way to democracy.

717

It's not going to happen.

718

We're not gonna sue our

way to democracy either.

719

And to be clear, voting

and suing very important.

720

And we need to do those things.

721

And I admire the lawyers and all of, and

I work with them and like God bless them.

722

Heroes work.

723

Not arguing shouldn't happen.

724

I'm saying necessary, not sufficient.

725

So one of the things we often ask

is we will write out different

726

slogans and we will ask people,

which of these signs Would you

727

be willing to carry at a protest?

728

I.

729

Farrah Bostic: Mm.

730

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Which is kind

of similar to your merch store

731

Farrah Bostic: Well, that one

actually feels higher stakes, right?

732

Like, now I have to imagine

myself going to a protest and

733

carrying a sign, right?

734

Not just like walking along with a

friend of mine, hidden in the crowd,

735

kind of thing like that, that that

ratchets up the stakes in a really

736

interesting way.

737

I mean, this is something that

I have seen people, you know,

738

on Blue Sky and elsewhere talking about

is the desire to have kind of more.

739

More

740

experiments And less just measurement in

some of , the research that's being done.

741

And then I think the other thing,

to go back to something you said

742

earlier is the, just the question

of like breakthrough and attention.

743

Like, I have forced

exposure to these things.

744

you could also imagine some kind of

745

like this, I, I personally wouldn't wanna

take this test, but like, so don't do it.

746

almost like a reading comprehension

test where it's like, it's a scroll.

747

You're gonna read, you know, you're

gonna scroll through a dozen posts

748

and then be asked about, do you

remember anything being about,

749

This topic or this candidate or

politics in general or whatever.

750

And just see like, did

751

anything actually get them to stop?

752

They're also just

753

like UX tools you could use

to actually see where people

754

stop and click through to a

755

link or something like that.

756

There's a million ways to experiment with

these things and I'm, sounds like maybe

757

you're starting to play with more of those

758

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yeah.

759

and I

760

Farrah Bostic: there's

a real appetite for it.

761

Anat Shenker-Osorio: even quite

simply, and I'm not saying nobody

762

does this, 'cause they do you know,

they'll do YouTube pre-roll ads

763

and then they'll do some sort of

764

survey administered like.

765

A week later or whatever or, I don't

know how much this is happening, but

766

I hope it's happening more in an RCT

where you do have a captive audience.

767

They'll make ads skippable

768

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

769

Oh, interesting.

770

Yeah.

771

Anat Shenker-Osorio: I mean, it,

it's not in every test that people

772

get some sort of cash benefit.

773

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

774

It depends.

775

But like, if you skip the thing,

you still get your whatever as

776

long as you answer the questions

777

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

778

Anat Shenker-Osorio: And so that

is some sort of indicator about

779

whether or not something is boring.

780

Farrah Bostic: Right.

781

Anat Shenker-Osorio: And, you

know, there's a lot of boring.

782

And not only is there a lot of boring, in

addition to the fact that that means that

783

people won't watch the thing or listen

to the thing or both, it also means that.

784

A lot of political advertising

wears on its sleeve.

785

The fact of itself is political

advertising, which I liken to your

786

romantic partner saying to you, we

need to talk before they're gonna tell

787

you whatever they're gonna tell you.

788

And I think anyone who has heard the

words we need to talk their body I mean

789

it probably happened, you and I are not

spoiler alert in a romantic relationship.

790

Who knows anything's possible in the

future, but, yeah, like your whole body

791

just tends, you're like, Ooh, I don't,

I don't think I want this to happen.

792

I don't think this is

gonna be a good time.

793

I'm not excited about,

whatever's gonna happen next.

794

And so a lot of political advertising

is like, I'm going to talk to you about

795

a political issue when most people are

like, the last thing on earth I want

796

to hear about is a political issue.

797

and before you tell them what you

want to tell them about your candidate

798

or about your topic, or about your

bill, or about your ballot initiative,

799

or whatever you've signaled to them

800

. That you're going to make them

like listen to something, a

801

topic that they find anathema.

802

Farrah Bostic: How does this kind

of create, I mean this, this,

803

feels like it would then explain

some of the kind of distance from

804

real people that it seems like

805

a lot of kind of

establishment politics has.

806

I mean, particularly, I'm gonna just say

particularly for the Democrats because I

807

pay more attention to them deliberately,

it seems like things have become

808

really professionalized, really added

809

distance to your point about more of

a focus on turnout than on organizing.

810

And I mean, in

811

2016, I went to Coatesville, Pennsylvania

to, to canvas for the Clinton campaign.

812

And I mean, we were there on a

Sunday, there was an Eagles game

813

on, nobody wanted to answer the door.

814

And those who did, several of the

folks we talked to said something along

815

the lines of, you guys just show up

816

when there's an election and then

we never hear from you again.

817

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yep.

818

Farrah Bostic: And that really

was the thing that made me the

819

most kind of curious about,

820

was there ever a point in time where there

was more community organizing presence

821

on a continuous

822

basis?

823

I mean, obviously you've got like

the Tammany Hall kind of machine

824

democratic politics version of that.

825

But that kind of move to leave the

politics to us, you just give us

826

cash a little bit of time during

election years and your vote, and

827

that's all we really need from you.

828

You know, kind of like it, it reminds me

of the sort of idea of if you don't have

829

a seat at the table, you're on the menu.

830

And that that's sort of what has

been left for voters as a role

831

in politics

832

is.

833

Vote.

834

And to your point,

835

I mean, we had this conversation

during the Iraq war that you're

836

not gonna vote your way to a

837

democracy.

838

Elections are not the thing that makes a

839

democracy, a democracy.

840

And I, you know, we have not applied that

learning to ourselves either, but that

841

does seem like a thing that just creates

like an unnecessary amount of distance

842

between people who are trying to get

elected and, and to create the policy

843

structures that we want theoretically

and the people who want them.

844

And, and maybe leads to this kind of

weird situation where we're getting a lot

845

of candidates we're not excited about.

846

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yeah.

847

I mean, Mike Podhorzer says

that Congress is the complaint

848

department for capitalism.

849

That, and Democrats in particular.

850

And so there's this performance that

happens every two years, every four years.

851

Where you are meant to feel like you

have a say in your own future because

852

you get to select, team Red, team Blue.

853

And then in reality, the people who

are actually in charge are the people

854

who financed Team Red and Team Blue.

855

But there's a customer service

hotline, which is the congressional

856

switchboard, which you can like if

you're diligently doing your five calls.

857

And to be clear, I'm not saying you

shouldn't be doing these things.

858

Like things are complicated and

I'm reducing it intentionally, but

859

really that congressional switchboard

where you like put in your phone

860

call for whatever you're not calling

the people, making the decision.

861

You are calling the people that

they have put there as the front

862

face and , you know your cus you're,

you're a very valued customer.

863

Your call will be answered in the

order in which it was received.

864

And like, then you can feel like I did

a thing and I said a thing and, and this

865

person that's like meant to represent

me in the system, heard the thing.

866

And obviously not all Democrats, this

is the one place where the hashtag

867

is accurate and it does apply.

868

And it is true that not all Democrats

and, and it is also true that not all

869

Democrats are actually on the side of

working people and the only people on

870

the side of working people are Democrats.

871

Those two things are both true.

872

That is what is so

fundamentally frustrating

873

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

874

Anat Shenker-Osorio: and.

875

Because the other side, I

mean they're fascists like it.

876

It's very simple.

877

Basically to some degree, people are aware

that elections are really a choice between

878

their billionaires and our billionaires.

879

And their billionaires are more

unhinged, more white nationalist,

880

more cutthroat, more evil.

881

And our billionaires are like polite.

882

They're like nicer,

883

Farrah Bostic: Yeah.

884

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yeah.

885

But as far as having an actual

party that is for working people

886

and that understands that there are

sides, a rising tide, it turns out

887

lifts only yachts, not all boats.

888

Farrah Bostic: Right.

889

Anat Shenker-Osorio: people

get drowned in a rising tide.

890

'cause some people they don't have a boat.

891

You know why?

892

Because billionaires stole all the wood.

893

. When Democrats were absolutely aware

of the fact that there were sides,

894

and I'm talking back in the day,

I'm talking about A FDR, right?

895

He said, I welcome your hatred.

896

I welcome your ire.

897

Bring it on, right?

898

Speaking of the robber barons of

the day, then it was very clear

899

and, and Democrats did not have a

working class problem because working

900

class people didn't just vote.

901

Democratic being democratic was

core part of their identity.

902

It was like the sports

team they rooted for.

903

It was in their blood,

it was in their family.

904

It was only when, and this is true

not just in the US but elsewhere.

905

Neoliberalism is the midwife and

the hand made into authoritarianism.

906

It always has been.

907

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

908

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Because once you

start saying no, there aren't signs,

909

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

910

Anat Shenker-Osorio: a rising tide

will lift all boats and we can

911

just grow our economy and that

will make everybody better off.

912

And all we need to do is focus on

the GDP and let's mi ourselves into a

913

conversation in which our side says,

you know how you grow the economy?

914

You make sweet love to the economy by

paying people slightly more and like

915

letting them maybe have a weekend.

916

And their side says, the way that

you make sweet love to the economy

917

is by giving rich people more money.

918

But we've agreed to

have the same argument.

919

Farrah Bostic: Yeah.

920

I mean this, this you know, the

other day I think Pete Buttigieg

921

was on some podcast I was

922

listening to, and he said words that

I heard, but clearly the host did

923

not hear as

924

we're gonna need

925

UBI and with the coming AI revolution,

we're going to eliminate all of

926

this work that's gonna be great.

927

There's all this leisure time

you can spend with your family

928

and friends and pursuing hobbies

and living this bucolic lifestyle

929

that was long ago, promised to us.

930

And yet, like my core question

is, but as long as we have.

931

Neoliberalism capital and

billionaires who is going to

932

pay me not to work because

stuff still costs money.

933

And do we really believe, do I

really believe in my heart of

934

hearts that that laborist

future that I'm being

935

promised comes with a UBI and is

936

that UBI sufficient to

have a dignified life?

937

And like I, I, mean, where we're

sitting right now, my basic

938

belief is hell no, they're never gonna pay

me not to work ever, but they're perfectly

939

happy to force me out of work because they

never wanted to pay me in the first place.

940

And then that will be the justification.

941

And you see it in the welfare debate

where it's like, no, we gotta, you

942

gotta prove you're working, you're

trying to work in order to qualify for

943

benefits, even though the reason you

can't work is 'cause you can't work.

944

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yeah.

945

And, maybe I'm taking

us on a meander, but COV

946

Farrah Bostic: Mm.

947

Anat Shenker-Osorio: was a perfect

example of an extraordinary

948

opportunity that we squandered

949

. Because COVID actually, much like

this moment in an interesting way,

950

opened up a giant persuasion window.

951

Farrah Bostic: Yes.

952

Anat Shenker-Osorio:

So a persuasion window.

953

I don't know if you've talked about this,

but basically it's just this idea that

954

there are certain moments in time where

people are just more open and susceptible

955

to persuasion than other times,

956

. So what I mean by that is an ad that

was about universal single payer

957

healthcare that was tested in, you

958

know, early February of 2020.

959

If that ad like demonstrated that

it moved people towards support

960

of that policy by, let's say three

points tested at the end of March.

961

It was moving people by 10 points, 15

points, because suddenly this event

962

occurred that people did not anticipate,

that had them rethinking what is

963

healthcare, where does it come from,

why do I need it, how does it occur?

964

And then further, we actually experienced

in this, our United States an instant of

965

socialized medicine in the form of mass

distributed in very short order given

966

you know, how long it takes to study

and produce vaccines and put them out.

967

Vaccines that were given to

people for free masks that were

968

given tests that were given.

969

You know, here we were living the

horror of socialized medicine.

970

Like we were not talking about it.

971

We were not like taking videos

of Canada and trying to prove to

972

people, no, really it would be okay.

973

No, really it would be okay.

974

No, really it would work.

975

We promise it would work because

as much as I work on messaging,

976

there is nothing that you can say

to people that is as persuasive

977

as what they actually experience.

978

And so here were people experiencing

government doing a thing,

979

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

980

Anat Shenker-Osorio: but instead of using

that opening where people were, where

981

public opinion was shifting about a desire

for universal single payer healthcare and.

982

Not all people, obviously people who

were forced to work because their jobs,

983

they, they don't have the luxury of

being able to be at home and they are

984

forced into kind of close proximity to

this extraordinarily contagious virus.

985

And they're usually the same people

who have no health insurance or really

986

crappy health insurance and not a

lot of room to breathe economically.

987

But other people are having

more time because, you know,

988

they're no longer commuting,

they're not going to the office.

989

Maybe they're working less because

they have more flexibility.

990

Those people could have been activated

and mobilized into this desire.

991

But instead, what was the

message from the left?

992

The message from the left

was essential workers.

993

Everyone is essential, the message was.

994

If you are delivering groceries or

whatever, a teacher, your essential,

995

you can never take a vacation.

996

You can never take time off.

997

You are essential.

998

And what essential means is

that you don't get to stop.

999

That's the like bonus that you get

venerated, or, you know, as I put it at

00:53:30,369 --> 00:53:36,369

the time, you are looking at these folks

in low wage work in let's say Walmart.

00:53:36,399 --> 00:53:40,839

Like they're venerated at hero as

heroes, but actually they're hostages.

00:53:41,199 --> 00:53:41,529

Farrah Bostic: Right.

00:53:42,789 --> 00:53:49,059

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Instead of arguing,

actually the people who make this country

00:53:49,059 --> 00:53:52,329

run are the people who clock in every day.

00:53:52,719 --> 00:53:56,739

And those are the people that

we need to be protecting.

00:53:57,849 --> 00:54:01,599

And that means that

everyone needs a break.

00:54:01,779 --> 00:54:03,579

Everyone needs a paid break.

00:54:03,699 --> 00:54:08,169

And in other countries, as you know,

they paid people not to work because that

00:54:08,169 --> 00:54:09,939

is what was required for their health.

00:54:10,569 --> 00:54:16,699

And now fast forward, we're in a

moment where interestingly, people's

00:54:16,699 --> 00:54:21,589

perceptions of the role of government

are up for grabs in a way that they

00:54:21,589 --> 00:54:23,419

have not been for 20, 30 years.

00:54:23,449 --> 00:54:26,929

And the argument that we have been

trying to make government is good.

00:54:26,929 --> 00:54:29,899

Government is good, government is good,

government is good, we need government.

00:54:30,019 --> 00:54:35,629

Government should be here to help you

buttressing up against a right wing

00:54:35,629 --> 00:54:39,439

narrative project to tell people, you

know, the scariest words in the English

00:54:39,439 --> 00:54:42,589

language are, I'm from the government

and I'm here to help Reagan, you know,

00:54:42,589 --> 00:54:44,749

drown in a bathtub, Grover Norquist.

00:54:45,499 --> 00:54:48,949

And we've not been able to penetrate

with that message because again.

00:54:49,699 --> 00:54:54,409

Whatever you're saying, if it contradicts

what people feel to be true in their

00:54:54,409 --> 00:54:55,879

lives, like it's not gonna happen.

00:54:56,359 --> 00:54:59,659

And so now we have people

saying, I kid you not.

00:55:00,319 --> 00:55:02,749

I didn't know that Yosemite

was the government.

00:55:02,749 --> 00:55:05,419

I thought Yosemite was run

by the Yosemite company.

00:55:05,764 --> 00:55:06,154

Farrah Bostic: Right.

00:55:06,559 --> 00:55:09,589

Anat Shenker-Osorio: I tried to call

Social Security and did you know that

00:55:09,589 --> 00:55:13,039

social security is the government

and now they're not answering.

00:55:13,039 --> 00:55:15,289

So now we're in a persuasion window

00:55:15,339 --> 00:55:18,519

. Around what government

could and should be.

00:55:18,669 --> 00:55:24,399

We actually could have an affirmative

message that is about taking on

00:55:24,399 --> 00:55:29,049

this regime of the bullies for

the billionaires by the bribes

00:55:29,469 --> 00:55:36,043

. And demanding leaders who create a

government of the people by the people.

00:55:36,043 --> 00:55:39,493

For the people, as

Lincoln famously told us.

00:55:39,548 --> 00:55:45,038

. Instead, we are sort of like carefully

calibrating like which thing it

00:55:45,038 --> 00:55:47,078

is that we could possibly say.

00:55:47,588 --> 00:55:52,028

An underlying reason, as you

already know and you've surely

00:55:52,028 --> 00:55:56,618

discussed many times, is that the

problem is made out of the problem.

00:55:56,768 --> 00:56:03,458

Like a lot of these Democrats hashtag

not all Democrats, but a lot of them

00:56:04,058 --> 00:56:07,178

are beholden to the exact same forces.

00:56:07,808 --> 00:56:12,338

There's a reason why for the first

six weeks of the Harris campaign,

00:56:12,548 --> 00:56:14,978

she was talking about price controls.

00:56:15,158 --> 00:56:17,918

She was talking about

curbing childhood poverty.

00:56:18,098 --> 00:56:21,338

She was talking about

raising the minimum wage.

00:56:21,338 --> 00:56:25,748

She was talking about

concrete economic policies.

00:56:25,958 --> 00:56:31,058

And then once the billionaires reorganized

themselves, after sort of spooling out

00:56:31,298 --> 00:56:34,718

and being into different camps, the ones

who wanted Biden to go, didn't want Biden

00:56:34,718 --> 00:56:38,948

to go, wanted an open primary wanted

Harris, they suddenly were like, oh, okay.

00:56:38,948 --> 00:56:39,608

Well it's Harris.

00:56:39,608 --> 00:56:42,158

We better get ourselves back

together and be the adults in the

00:56:42,158 --> 00:56:47,228

room and tell them enough with this

weird and this freedom and this.

00:56:47,258 --> 00:56:49,778

If you want people to come to

your party, throw a better party.

00:56:49,958 --> 00:56:53,678

People are way too enthusiastic

and excited, and voter registration

00:56:53,678 --> 00:56:54,548

is going through the roof.

00:56:54,548 --> 00:56:58,808

God forbid we gotta get in there and

we gotta get Liz Cheney on the stump,

00:56:59,018 --> 00:57:05,658

and we've got to change our economic

message to opportunity economy pablum.

00:57:06,173 --> 00:57:06,503

Farrah Bostic: Yep.

00:57:08,123 --> 00:57:11,903

Anat Shenker-Osorio: That all of

these efforts that you referenced

00:57:11,903 --> 00:57:17,123

earlier, to try to sell Harris's

economic bonafides and to cast her as

00:57:17,243 --> 00:57:19,703

she's on the side of working people,

he's on the side of billionaires.

00:57:20,333 --> 00:57:27,743

It's very difficult to deliver that

message if it doesn't actually come

00:57:27,743 --> 00:57:32,483

in a package of here's what I'm gonna

do to these, to these billionaires.

00:57:32,493 --> 00:57:36,213

and, and even introducing an

increased capital gains tax and then

00:57:36,213 --> 00:57:40,353

walking it back, like, how were you

supposed to, why would voters believe

00:57:40,353 --> 00:57:40,623

you?

00:57:40,623 --> 00:57:41,043

Farrah Bostic: Mm-hmm.

00:57:42,018 --> 00:57:45,558

Well, this is, this actually gets to

the, the thing I kinda wanted to, to

00:57:46,458 --> 00:57:51,078

end on because I like to leave people

with a really uplifting conversation.

00:57:51,078 --> 00:57:56,091

And that is this tendency to the way that

I think about it is, is punching left

00:57:56,091 --> 00:58:00,591

and, you know, we have seen this now where

it's the enemy of my enemy is my enemy

00:58:00,621 --> 00:58:02,206

I, I live outside of New York City now.

00:58:02,206 --> 00:58:04,936

I've lived in, however, I lived in

New York City for 20 plus years.

00:58:04,966 --> 00:58:08,966

And so I am watching the mayoral

race and we have this completely

00:58:08,966 --> 00:58:10,676

bonkers mayoral race in New York City.

00:58:10,976 --> 00:58:16,466

But it has led to just like the weirdest

set of choices and you know, it, it seems

00:58:16,466 --> 00:58:20,486

like it was a similar dynamic in the

New Jersey race as well of like, let's

00:58:20,486 --> 00:58:23,156

just hue to something safe and centrist.

00:58:23,516 --> 00:58:25,306

Let's, let's play it safe.

00:58:25,966 --> 00:58:29,686

I'm not sure that I read a five way race

where only a third of the people voted

00:58:29,686 --> 00:58:33,316

for the candidate who won as like a

resounding endorsement of that centrism.

00:58:33,316 --> 00:58:37,756

But you know, that's the way electoral

politics shakes out in, in New York.

00:58:37,756 --> 00:58:42,657

Like we, we are having these conversations

of Mamdani is talking about things like.

00:58:43,222 --> 00:58:47,362

Why are we subsidizing expensive

markup grocery stores in New York

00:58:47,362 --> 00:58:51,142

City with public assistance for

people who need help buying groceries?

00:58:51,292 --> 00:58:54,592

Why don't we create non-profit,

city owned grocery stores that

00:58:54,592 --> 00:58:55,762

they can use their benefits in?

00:58:56,422 --> 00:59:01,792

And centrist people who love Liz Cheney,

who run various podcast networks,

00:59:01,972 --> 00:59:03,682

love to cast this as communism.

00:59:03,742 --> 00:59:07,672

This is, we're gonna seize the grocery

stores and make them state run.

00:59:07,672 --> 00:59:09,622

And of course that is

not what is happening.

00:59:09,622 --> 00:59:12,169

Citarella is, free to continue

to be Citarella and Gourmet

00:59:12,169 --> 00:59:13,699

Garage and all the others.

00:59:13,909 --> 00:59:18,089

But like , the, thing that's nice

about Mamdani and I have no skin

00:59:18,089 --> 00:59:20,399

in the game 'cause I can't vote in

New York City, but like at least he

00:59:20,399 --> 00:59:22,852

is not cowed by those criticisms.

00:59:22,852 --> 00:59:24,712

And instead just goes, you guys are crazy.

00:59:24,712 --> 00:59:26,512

That's not what I'm talking about

I'm talking about this thing

00:59:26,602 --> 00:59:30,622

and, and continues to just push

with this is what I want to do.

00:59:30,772 --> 00:59:31,882

I don't know how it's gonna work out.

00:59:31,912 --> 00:59:32,512

Again, it's.

00:59:33,067 --> 00:59:33,937

Fucking bonkers.

00:59:33,937 --> 00:59:38,777

But but that tendency to look at someone

to the left and go, oh, that's the danger.

00:59:39,064 --> 00:59:41,554

Come back over here to

00:59:41,554 --> 00:59:45,724

politics and stay there because that's

the safe place for Democrats to operate

00:59:46,414 --> 00:59:46,894

is

00:59:47,734 --> 00:59:51,019

extremely frustrating for someone who grew

up in a marketing universe where I worked

00:59:51,019 --> 00:59:54,904

on a lot of brands that were underdogs and

our motto was always go big, or don't go

00:59:55,214 --> 00:59:56,564

you don't have a lot of money to spend.

00:59:56,564 --> 00:59:57,944

You don't have a lot of popular support.

00:59:57,944 --> 00:59:59,174

You are not the market leader.

00:59:59,474 --> 01:00:02,144

Then you only do the things

that are going to break through.

01:00:02,144 --> 01:00:04,154

You only do the things that

are going to get attention.

01:00:04,154 --> 01:00:07,064

You only do the things that imagine

a different way of doing things.

01:00:07,304 --> 01:00:08,744

Otherwise, what the hell are you doing?

01:00:08,834 --> 01:00:09,824

You're wasting your money.

01:00:10,169 --> 01:00:10,469

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yeah.

01:00:10,934 --> 01:00:13,244

Farrah Bostic: I guess maybe some of

what you've already just described

01:00:13,244 --> 01:00:16,754

is how we got to here, but is

there, is it the, is it simply the,

01:00:16,814 --> 01:00:19,534

the the money that is making us

01:00:19,534 --> 01:00:22,204

huge to this bizarre view from nowhere?

01:00:22,534 --> 01:00:27,964

Centrist defensive preservationist

of old systems that are frankly,

01:00:27,964 --> 01:00:32,564

already broken, approach to winning

elections on very little evidence

01:00:32,564 --> 01:00:34,064

that they win a lot of elections.

01:00:35,379 --> 01:00:40,059

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Yeah, it's the

money, it's basically financial interests.

01:00:40,389 --> 01:00:44,829

It's, the Supreme Court decision, the

Roberts Court decision that I call

01:00:44,829 --> 01:00:49,599

corporations unleash, that we stupidly

just parroted the name Citizens United,

01:00:49,869 --> 01:00:55,959

not realizing, I guess, that being against

Citizens United sounds like a bizarre

01:00:55,959 --> 01:00:58,959

thing to be against when you actually

think about the meaning of those words.

01:00:59,019 --> 01:01:02,889

And we just, credulously always, but

that's the name of the thing or not.

01:01:02,889 --> 01:01:04,119

I'm like, no, it fucking isn't.

01:01:04,149 --> 01:01:05,739

The name of the thing is

whatever's coming outta your

01:01:05,739 --> 01:01:07,179

mouth, it's corporations unleashed.

01:01:07,209 --> 01:01:08,409

Anyway, I digress.

01:01:09,854 --> 01:01:11,924

Farrah Bostic: Quick plug for

MAGA murder Bill by the way,

01:01:11,924 --> 01:01:12,134

Mar

01:01:12,219 --> 01:01:13,149

Anat Shenker-Osorio: thank you.

01:01:13,749 --> 01:01:14,289

Thank you.

01:01:14,354 --> 01:01:14,684

Farrah Bostic: plug for

01:01:14,684 --> 01:01:14,954

that.

01:01:15,104 --> 01:01:15,464

Yes.

01:01:15,609 --> 01:01:18,759

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Maga

order Bill, or if you need to

01:01:19,089 --> 01:01:21,999

the massive murderous measure.

01:01:22,272 --> 01:01:24,072

So sorry.

01:01:24,072 --> 01:01:25,302

I will answer your question.

01:01:25,992 --> 01:01:31,092

Yeah, it's the money, it's the

incentives, but the thing about it that

01:01:31,092 --> 01:01:38,232

is infuriating, besides that it destroys

the country and people's lives and

01:01:38,232 --> 01:01:42,192

livelihoods, that's also infuriating.

01:01:43,122 --> 01:01:51,612

It's that it is always dressed up

in this very, very erudite numbers.

01:01:51,612 --> 01:01:53,052

With decibel points.

01:01:53,322 --> 01:01:57,072

I got a perfect score

on my math SATs, a knot.

01:01:58,782 --> 01:02:03,402

We've done all of the things and we

have, calculated the so-called wins

01:02:03,402 --> 01:02:08,812

above replacement and moderation,

moderate, candidates win overall.

01:02:08,812 --> 01:02:10,642

And this is what we need to do

01:02:10,912 --> 01:02:13,562

in order to, get ahead

and purple districts.

01:02:13,562 --> 01:02:16,382

And don't you want Democrats to

have a majority and on balance?

01:02:16,382 --> 01:02:19,412

Don't you think that like it is better

when we elect more Democrats and your

01:02:19,412 --> 01:02:20,972

ideas are like wild and out here.

01:02:22,262 --> 01:02:23,432

So that happens.

01:02:23,462 --> 01:02:27,152

And partly that is because, yeah,

obviously there are districts

01:02:27,152 --> 01:02:30,782

in which that's true and.

01:02:31,367 --> 01:02:34,157

People refuse to measure mobilization.

01:02:34,157 --> 01:02:39,087

And so everything is a calculus

around, vote switching and not

01:02:39,087 --> 01:02:44,877

a calculus around how much did a

compelling, exciting, enthusiastic

01:02:44,877 --> 01:02:47,577

person bring into the electorate?

01:02:47,577 --> 01:02:50,667

Like that doesn't even get counted

because it's harder to measure

01:02:50,667 --> 01:02:53,797

because it would require knowing a

counterfactual that you can't know,

01:02:53,797 --> 01:02:58,747

which is how many people would've come

had there just been two boring people.

01:02:58,747 --> 01:03:00,277

And you can't measure that.

01:03:00,277 --> 01:03:01,417

'cause that isn't what happened.

01:03:01,777 --> 01:03:04,297

And so that just gets discounted entirely.

01:03:04,627 --> 01:03:07,747

And that's the way that

the math gets reported.

01:03:08,647 --> 01:03:12,967

And the other piece of it,

which is infuriating, is that.

01:03:13,447 --> 01:03:14,887

these same people.

01:03:15,247 --> 01:03:23,107

Who are obsessed with how leftist

groups are poisoning the discourse

01:03:23,107 --> 01:03:27,427

by saying wild things like

defund the police or abolish ice.

01:03:27,787 --> 01:03:32,857

And you know, this is so widespread that

it is tainting people's views of Democrats

01:03:33,217 --> 01:03:36,997

and that, you know, that is what makes

people think that Democrats are too woke

01:03:36,997 --> 01:03:38,767

because the groups have too much power.

01:03:38,887 --> 01:03:43,447

So they have this theory that

messaging does spread and it does

01:03:43,447 --> 01:03:45,997

sort of create this overall patina.

01:03:46,417 --> 01:03:54,037

But at the same time, when I say to

them, do you understand that when a Bill

01:03:54,037 --> 01:04:00,097

Clinton says the era of big government

is over and I'm going to end welfare as

01:04:00,097 --> 01:04:03,037

we know it, he is creating a discourse.

01:04:03,037 --> 01:04:11,437

He is adding to a discourse that

privileges Republicans and he may.