PG60: Dem Convention, Russian Hacking, Voter ID Laws Overturned

Mike and Jay start off by talking about the Democratic National Convention and whether it helped Hillary Clinton in her quest to be the first female president. Next, the Guys look at the Russian state-sponsored hacking of Democratic computer systems. (Why *only* Democratic systems, Mike wonders.) That leads to a discussion of the resignation of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as head of the Democratic National Committee, thanks to leaked evidence that demonstrated the DNC wasn’t exactly being fair to Bernie Sanders. After that, it’s a discussion of two more voter ID laws that were overturned. Mike argues that there’s compelling evidence that Republicans use these laws to suppress Democratic voters, but Jay doesn’t quite buy it. The show closes with a new feature: the Politics Guys non-political thoughts of the week. Mike plugs the novels of Anthony Trollope, while Jay talks about the importance of a dynamic economy (so Jay’s thought is really a political one, but he promises to come up with something non-political in the future).

5 thoughts on “PG60: Dem Convention, Russian Hacking, Voter ID Laws Overturned”

  1. Hello Guys,
    Just wanted to leave a comment before you deservedly disappear from the podcast universe. The premise for most podcasts like this is to enlighten the listener. The format usually presents two contrasting viewpoints. Your podcast barely presents one and a half opinions at best.

    The decided right wing slant and the impotent “liberal” counterpoint makes the program sound like the Donald Trump apologist Show. The tactic of smearing Clinton and damning her and the 42nd President of the United States with faint praise while minimizing even the most obvious of Trump’s political and rhetorical transgressions borders on the old “Hannity and Colmes” comedy hour on FOX.

    I listen to many politics podcasts and yours is by far the least objective of the lot. You are calling for sponsors and/or contributions to keep your show going. I suggest that an objective review of your podcasts on this election cycle would reveal to you the reason why your show is destined to die before the leaves turn brown.

    I subscribed to your podcast with an open mind and the hopes that a political pro and a political science professor would contribute intelligent insights that respected both sides of the political divide. After half a dozen episodes, that hope has not been realized.

    1. Sorry to hear that you haven’t found the show to be enlightening. I think I understand why – I (Mike) may be nominally a Democrat, but I’m decidedly centrist, and for many reasons I have strong reservations concerning Hillary Clinton (though I will vote for her). Anyone hoping for commentary that is more in line with what Bernie Sanders has been arguing will almost certainly be disappointed with me, in particular. If you’re looking for a similar type of podcast but one that has a more left-leaning perspective than mine, you might want to check out KCRW’s ‘Left, Right, and Center’ the regular liberal commentator – Robert Scheer – is too liberal for my tastes, which is actually why I suggested to Jay that we try our own, more centrist variant. Best of luck, and thanks for commenting.

      1. I’m a centrist, as is Hillary Clinton. I have never been a Sanders supporter so your attempt to deflect my criticism of your show’s decidedly right of center viewpoint might make you ask yourself why you have deemed someone who would have voted for McCain in 2000 over Gore as a far left Sanders supporter…
        Robert Scheer has been a Clinton hater since the 1990’s so it’s interesting that you suggest that Listen to a podcast that I already frequent, and where I have excoriated Scheer and hoped that he would no longer represent the left on the show. I have found Rich Lowry to be vert insightful and far more objective than either of you guys.

        Many elected Republicans have taken a far more critical view of Mr. Trumps statements than you who claim to be a “centrist” (Democrat?)
        Your take on my criticism and my political leanings are both way off base, and call into question your belief that your show represents a “centrist” POV. You guys skew way to the right in my opinion.
        I listen to Glenn Thrush and most of the current podcasts on politics and would not have commented if your program was not an outlier in its one sided take on the campaign.

        1. I wasn’t trying to deflect – I thought I understood why you took issue with the podcast. Obviously, I was wrong.

          Jay is definitely center-right and I think most people would say I’m at least slightly to the left of him. ‘Way to the right’ certainly doesn’t seem congruent with the sort of things I routinely read on truly right-wing websites and forums.

          And so I’m left unsure of why you seem to have such antipathy toward the show. Perhaps this is because you feel that we have been insufficiently tough on Donald Trump, a candidate both Jay and I have repeatedly said we are very much against. I’d like to think I’ve called Trump out after each of his narcissistic, megalomaniac comments, but it’s possible that I’ve grown so tired of saying that he’s, well, narcissistic and megalomaniacal, that I’ve lessened the intensity. Or it could be that I honestly don’t feel that he would do as much damage as many fear, because I believe the nature of our system is such that people like Trump will be deeply frustrated in their ambitions (thank god).

          In any event, I’m sorry that the show isn’t working out for you, and I appreciate you taking the time to comment. – Mike

Leave a Reply