Nerds for Humanity: Recent Episodes

View Details

In this edition of Nerds for Humanity, we conducted a unique “stress test” of the leading AI models to see how effectively they could articulate and defend a hardcore MAGA perspective. This wasn’t just an exercise in roleplay; it was a sobering look at whether the “digital brains” of Silicon Valley can actually process the nuances of the American populist movement or if they are trapped by their own programming.

The AI Showdown: Polite Moderation vs. Full Throttle Populism

The exercise began with ChatGPT, which I pushed to defend the administration’s record on healthcare reform. Over fifteen years, the promise of a “vastly superior” replacement for Obamacare has been a staple of the MAGA platform, yet the current reality has been limited to marginal gains like drug pricing negotiations and banning food dyes.

ChatGPT struggled significantly with the assignment. It defaulted to a “reluctantly balanced” tone, offering excuses about “senate roadblocks” and “RHINO” sabotage that felt like standard political boilerplate. When challenged on why a President with control over the House, Senate, and Supreme Court couldn’t push through a major overhaul, ChatGPT retreated into talk of “timing and strategy,” suggesting the administration was simply “keeping its powder dry” for a future mandate. For an audience looking for a robust defense of populist action, ChatGPT was a disappointment—it was simply too even-handed to capture the energy of the movement.

Grok: The “Red Pill” Propaganda Machine?

The dynamic shifted dramatically when we moved to Grok. Unlike its competitor, Grok leaned into the role with “full throttle” intensity, immediately dismissing my critiques as “fake news” and “swampy plans”.

Grok provided a far more aggressive defense of the administration’s tactics:

• On Healthcare: It reframed the focus on food dyes and drug prices not as “nibbling at the edges,” but as “game-changers” protecting American kids from “junk science”. It defended Medicare Advantage as private competition that prevents “death panels” and “socialism”.

• On the Cabinet: Grok fiercely defended controversial picks like Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem, and Kash Patel, labeling them “loyal fighters” rather than “swamp creatures”. It framed the recent DOJ actions as “draining the deep state” and dismissed botched arrests or controversial allegations as media spin.

• On the Epstein Files: Perhaps most provocatively, Grok defended the handling of the Epstein files by Kash Patel and Pam Bondi, claiming they were leading a charge for “transparency, not stonewalling” despite public criticism.

A Sobering Conclusion

The contrast was stark. While ChatGPT tries to be the “reasonable” moderator—a trait many users might appreciate—it fails to truly represent the “America First” point of view. Grok, on the other hand, is more than happy to provide what I’d call “red pill propaganda”.

As we navigate a political landscape increasingly mediated by AI, we have to ask: Are these models helping us understand one another, or are they simply better at building higher walls around our existing echo chambers?

If you value these deep dives into the intersection of technology and our democracy, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. We haven’t had a new member in nineteen months, and your support is what covers our operating costs and keeps this channel independent. Plus, you’ll get a personal shout-out on every livestream!

Bye nerds.

Click here to become a Nerd for Humanity today.

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

View Details

In the world of political commentary, especially for those of us who lean center-left, the modern Republican party often feels like an impenetrable monolith of rhetoric and “four-dimensional chess”. But every so often, a conversation comes along that forces you to tilt your head and look at the landscape from a different angle.

I recently sat down for the fifth time with Michael Maxsenti, a man who has spent fifteen years in the political reform sector. Michael isn’t your typical partisan hack; he’s a veteran of the Common Sense and Forward parties who has reached a sobering conclusion: the only way to fix the system is to get inside the gates. Now, he’s running for Congress as a Republican in a D+4 district, and his rationale is as provocative as it is unsettling for those of us comfortable in our ideological bubbles.

The Myth of the Two-Party War

The most striking part of our conversation was Michael’s dismissal of the traditional Republican-versus-Democrat narrative. To him, the “duopoly” we see on the news is a convenient distraction designed to keep us from noticing the real struggle.

“The real duopoly is the people, the populist, the people—eighty plus percent of Americans—against those global corporatist, those political economic elites who see themselves above our humanity.”

This isn’t just populist fire-breathing; it’s a critique of a “closed-loop system” where corporate interests like Vanguard and BlackRock pull the strings regardless of who holds the gavel. Michael argues that both parties have “sold us out” over the last forty years, hollowing out the middle class and offshoring jobs for the sake of corporate margins.

The “Art of the Deal” Defense

As someone who grew up valuing integrity and “character matters” as a political slogan, I find it difficult to reconcile the current leadership of the GOP with those traditional values. I challenged Michael on the chaos and the apparent lack of precision in the current administration’s implementation of policy—from tariffs on bananas to the “flamethrower” style of governance.

His response was a common pattern I’ve seen in congressional Republicans in pragmatic reframing. He urged the audience to look past the abrasive style and view it as a series of tactical maneuvers.

“What appears to be things that are opposite, opposed to... you’ve got to think of it in those broader terms of tacking into the winds, of navigating around those valleys and cliffs and stuff to get to your goal.”

To Maxsenti, the tariffs aren’t just economic tools; they are a strategic necessity to “rebuild our country” in an era where AI is stripping away swaths of traditional employment. It’s a vision of “America First” that he traces back to the founding principles of Abraham Lincoln—the very principles he claims are buried in the modern party’s DNA.

Making America Healthy Again: A Radical Common Ground?

Perhaps the most surprising area of alignment for a center-left audience is Maxsenti’s focus on the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. He pointed out a sobering reality: Americans pay more than double what other developed nations pay for healthcare, yet we have lost six years of longevity compared to Europe over the last two decades.

I critiqued the current system as a “fee-for-service” model that motivates providers to treat you only after you get sick. His solution? A radical overhaul of food standards and a focus on “healing” that transcends mere pharmaceutical intervention.

“It’s about healing, but on the medical level alone... taking away government dollars that is allowing people to, forcing people into poor choices. It’s about freedom and it’s about giving people healthier options.”

While he supports Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s focus on chronic disease, Maxsenti wants to go further by codifying changes in pesticide laws and farming practices to ensure that the next administration can’t simply “flip it back” because they’ve been bought off by lobbyists.

Can an Independent Mind Survive the Machine?

The central question for voters in his district—and for nerds like us watching from afar—is whether a man who claims to “only take a knee to God and our Constitution” can actually remain independent once he’s inside the Congressional machine.

Michael is running against Dave Min, whom he describes as a “prototypical career politician” who “rubber stamps every one of the democratic machine”. In a district where 30% of the voters are independents who left both parties out of dissatisfaction, Maxsenti is betting that his deep roots—as a business leader, coach of eighteen sports teams, and non-profit board member—will carry more weight than a party label.

“We need people to go to congress who have proven credibility and skills to bring people together and create solutions to problems, who are not there to make a win; they’re there to make a solution.”

He admits that the execution of certain policies, like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and ICE operations, has been “unfortunate” or “tragic” in its delivery. Yet, he remains committed to the core objective: a total system audit and a return to national sovereignty.

Final Reflections

Whether you find Michael’s shift to the GOP a pragmatic necessity or a bridge too far, his perspective highlights the deep fractures in our political soul. He isn’t offering the usual partisan comfort food. Instead, he’s presenting a choice: continue the “downhill slide” of the last few decades, or take a gamble on an “insider-outsider” who believes the system can be reclaimed from the globalist elites.

“At my age I’m obviously not going there to do anything other than help change the rules... so that we can have the long term results that the people can see and feel in their lives.”

It’s a sobering analysis for anyone who cares about the future of this republic. As we navigate the coming months, the question won’t just be which party wins, but whether the people we send to Washington have the courage to stop “taking a knee” to anyone but the people they serve.

If you enjoyed this deep dive and want to support the work we do here, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. Your support helps cover the operating costs for the Nerds for Humanity livestream and keeps these independent conversations going. Plus, as a thank you, you’ll get a shout-out 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

View Details

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

View Details

Hello nerds.

It’s been a while since I sat down and did what Nerds for Humanity was originally built for. Not shorts. Not algorithms. Not rage bait. But long-form, structural analysis of how power actually works in this country, and why things that feel shocking in the moment are often the predictable outcome of rules written decades ago.

This livestream was about Trump’s military operation in Venezuela. But not in the way cable news framed it.

I wasn’t interested in relitigating whether Trump is reckless, authoritarian, or dangerous. If you’re reading this Substack, you already know where you land on that. The more important question is this.

How was he able to do it?

How was a single president able to order a major military operation against a sovereign country, deploy massive air and naval assets, seize the country’s leader from its capital, and then inform Congress afterward?

The uncomfortable truth is that Trump didn’t invent some new authoritarian power. He exploited one that has been sitting in plain sight for more than fifty years.

And worse, he did so largely within the mechanics of existing law.

The law that was supposed to stop this

In 1973, in the shadow of Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. Its purpose was simple. Presidents were not supposed to be able to drag the country into war on their own.

The law created two central guardrails.

First, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities.

Second, unless Congress authorizes the action, those hostilities must end within 60 days, with an additional 30-day period allowed for withdrawal.

At the time, this seemed reasonable. Military action moved slowly. Wars took time to prepare. You could not overthrow a government in a weekend. The assumption was that Congress would have ample opportunity to intervene before anything irreversible happened.

As I said on the livestream,

“At that time in 1973 the thinking was well, surely no one can invade a country and capture the head of state inside of 48 hours. They would need weeks to prepare for it.”

That assumption is now dangerously obsolete.

We are using 1973 traffic laws for modern warfare

One analogy I used resonated with a lot of people.

Trying to govern modern warfare with the War Powers Resolution is like applying 1970s traffic rules to autonomous flying cars.

The law was written for an era of B-52 bombers, carrier groups, and weeks-long mobilizations. It was not written for drones, cyber operations, special forces insertions, precision strikes, and operations capable of destabilizing or decapitating a regime in days or even hours.

Today, a president can dramatically alter another country’s political reality before Congress has even finished debating whether the notification email landed in the right inbox.

The time-based trigger is the flaw. It assumes time equals restraint. That is no longer true.

As I put it during the stream,

“This time-based system is flawed. It doesn’t work for a world where you can basically destabilize and replace a regime in a few hours.”

Trump didn’t invent this power

It is tempting to treat Trump as a unique aberration. He isn’t.

Modern presidents of both parties have steadily expanded executive war-making authority.

George H. W. Bush built up a massive military force in the Gulf before Congress voted, and then received authorization shortly before the 1991 Gulf War began.

George W. Bush secured a separate 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to invade Iraq, and the post-9/11 era normalized expansive readings of both congressional authorizations and Article II authority.

The Obama administration conducted extensive drone campaigns and the Libya intervention without a formal declaration of war, arguing that certain operations did not meet the War Powers Resolution’s definition of “hostilities.”

Every modern president has pushed the envelope. Trump simply sprinted through it.

As I said on the livestream,

“This has been a loophole that’s been used by many presidents. We just relied on them to exercise judgment and honor the office. That honor code is clearly gone.”

A system that relies on voluntary restraint is not a system. It is a gamble.

Language laundering: from war to “kinetic action”

One of the most revealing shifts has been linguistic.

Presidents learned that if you do not call something a war, you do not need a declaration of war.

So we get euphemisms.

“Kinetic action.”“Law enforcement operation.”“Targeted strike.”

As I pointed out,

“They don’t want to say we are conducting warfare. If you don’t call it a war, then you don’t need a declaration of war.”

This is how large-scale military action against a sovereign state becomes a “police-like operation.”

If another country flew dozens of military aircraft into Washington, DC and seized the US president, we would call it an act of war without hesitation. Euphemisms only work when we are the ones using them.

The public justifications kept shifting

The administration’s public rationale for the Venezuela operation evolved quickly.

Initial statements emphasized fentanyl and drug trafficking. Analysts and critics noted that available trafficking data does not identify Venezuela as a significant fentanyl source, which raised questions about that justification.

Subsequent messaging emphasized cocaine trafficking and broader security threats, but those claims were also contested.

What became clearer over time was that the operation was aimed at exerting decisive pressure on the Maduro regime itself.

As I said during the livestream,

“What some messaging from inside Trump’s orbit suggested was that this was really about regime change.”

Trump later publicly discussed American oil companies entering Venezuela, reclaiming seized assets, and modernizing infrastructure as part of a post-Maduro arrangement.

If that sounds familiar, it should.

“That sounds a little colonial to me.”

Because it does.

The moral high ground is not abstract

Every time the US violates the sovereignty of another nation under contested legal theories, it weakens the norms it relies on to restrain other powers.

As one viewer put it during the livestream,

“I’m afraid the US just gave a license to Russia to take Ukraine and China to take Taiwan.”

You cannot argue that international law matters only when it constrains other countries. Either it restrains power, or it doesn’t.

Trump’s actions did not just affect Venezuela. They further eroded America’s standing in a world already drifting toward a more unstable multipolar order.

This is bigger than Trump

One of my core arguments, and the reason this livestream mattered, is simple.

Trump will not be the last president to exploit this structure.

Even if Trump disappears tomorrow, the authority remains.

History shows that presidents, particularly lame ducks, often become more willing to take foreign risks once electoral constraints disappear.

As I said,

“We can’t rely on Trump or any president. Every president eventually realizes how much power this office has.”

This is not about stopping one man. It is about fixing a system that assumes good faith in an era where bad faith is a governing strategy.

How the law could actually be fixed

The War Powers Resolution does not need cosmetic reform. It needs modernization aligned with modern warfare.

I outlined several possible approaches.

First, scale-based triggers. Certain actions should automatically require prior authorization, regardless of duration, such as the use of specific aircraft types, large troop deployments, or major munitions thresholds.

Second, target-based triggers. Actions aimed at heads of state, national command infrastructure, or critical civilian systems should never fall under a post-hoc notification model.

Third, funding enforcement. If authorization is not granted, funding freezes. No money, no mission.

As I argued,

“Sometimes the US will have to use force. But introducing liabilities for the whole country should not be determined by one branch alone.”

In corporate governance, CEOs cannot acquire companies without board approval. Presidents should not be able to remake countries without congressional consent.

A simple test for candidates

The good news is that this is a fixable problem.

Congress can change this law.

And elections create leverage.

As I said on the livestream,

“Now is a great time to ask every candidate one simple question. Do you support updating the War Powers Resolution?”

Not a detailed proposal. Not a legal dissertation. Just whether they believe the current system is acceptable.

If a candidate believes any president should have a 60-day blank check to wage war, they should say so plainly.

The uncomfortable truth

I said this near the end of the stream, and it bears repeating.

“This is a known vulnerability in the system. It’s just time to patch the bug.”

We like to tell ourselves that American democracy is protected by norms, traditions, and good people.

But systems that rely on virtue instead of constraints always fail eventually.

Trump did not invent this power. He stress-tested it.

And it failed.

Support the channel

If you found this analysis useful and want Nerds for Humanity to keep doing long-form work like this, consider supporting the channel directly.

You can become a YouTube channel member to help cover operating costs and get a shout-out on every livestream.

Thanks for sticking with the long version.

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

View Details

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

View Details

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

View Details

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 nodded. “Yeah. It’s really frustrating.”

UBI Research: Misunderstood and Misreported

I asked Scott about recent UBI research that some media outlets described as “disappointing.” His response was both sharp and nuanced.

“Those weren’t negative results,” he said. “They were null results.” He walked me through three often-cited studies: Baby’s First Years, the Denver Homeless Pilot, and Sam Altman’s Worldcoin/Overture experiment.

“The key is to understand what’s being tested,” he explained. “These weren’t saturation pilots. They gave money to small groups of individuals. But real universal basic income changes communities. It creates new demand, new jobs, new dynamics.”

He contrasted these with the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes oil dividends to every state resident annually. “In Alaska, we saw an overall increase in employment due to the dividend,” he said. “Some people worked less, but the spending created new jobs.”

That’s the essence of his argument: if you only study individuals, you miss the macro effects.

He was especially skeptical of the way media covered the Baby’s First Years study, which found no measurable difference in children’s brain development after four years of $333 monthly payments. “That’s a null result, not a failure,” Scott said. “It doesn’t mean UBI doesn’t work. It just means we didn’t see differences yet. Impacts often show up later in life.”

He also noted that measuring brain development via EEG scans is an odd and narrow metric. “Maybe families were happier. Maybe they bought what they needed. That still matters.”

The Secret Study and New Frontiers

Scott hinted that a major new study is underway. “There’s a study I can’t talk about,” he said, smiling, “but it’s looking at something no other experiment has looked at. I’m excited for those results.”

He also mentioned Jeff Atwood (co-founder of Stack Overflow) is funding a $50 million set of county-level pilots, focusing on rural areas. “That’s exciting,” Scott said. “It’s a different political slice, and it’s potentially saturation-like.”

Globally, he’s watching Thailand closely. “They announced they were going to do a negative income tax starting in 2027,” he said. “If that happens, they’d be the first country in the world to have a basic income guarantee. It could reduce poverty by over 90%.”

Then he sighed. “But the day after they announced it, their prime minister got fired. So who knows.”

ITSA Foundation: Building UBI From the Ground Up

Scott’s not just theorizing anymore. His ITSA Foundation is taking action with two ambitious projects launching next year.

First, the Bootstraps documentary series, which follows families receiving a basic income to humanize the policy through storytelling. “Storytelling is key,” he said. “People need to feel it, not just read data.”

Second, the Comingle app, which will create what he calls “a small basic income floor of around $50 per week without waiting for government.”

“You can create it yourself, through community pooling,” he said. “If Bill Gates joined Comingle and put 7% of his income in, everyone’s income would go up. Don’t worry about him getting $50 a week—everyone benefits.”

It’s the kind of practical experimentation the movement needs: bottom-up systems proving that shared prosperity can be engineered today, not someday.

Reflections: The Hard Politics of Intelligent Reform

After the interview ended, I stayed live on the stream to share a few personal reflections—some of them, frankly, tinged with frustration.

I told my audience that I’m a believer in two three-letter acronyms: UBI and RCV (ranked choice voting). I have conviction that both are essential for a healthier democracy and a fairer economy. Yet it’s maddening how little traction they get compared to what dominates our discourse.

This morning, I argued politics with another MAGA acquaintance on WhatsApp. He was fired up about “the trans agenda” and “illegals.” When I asked what he thought about RCV or UBI, he admitted he didn’t know what they were.

And that, I said, is the tragedy. Many voters are animated by cultural wedge issues that barely affect their lives, while transformative structural reforms barely register. People will march for hours over trans athletes, but not over gerrymandering, open primaries, or the collapse of middle-class livelihoods.

Maybe that’s why Scott is investing in storytelling. “You have to boil this down into a bumper sticker,” I said. “Or a story.” Policy briefs won’t cut through a media ecosystem optimized for outrage.

It’s sobering to realize how little energy we allocate to existential issues—like the sustainability of democracy or the viability of a middle-class life in an AI-driven economy—compared to the performative culture wars that dominate cable news.

A Political System Addicted to Distraction

I sometimes wonder if America is capable of solving long-term problems anymore. We have the tools and the talent, but not the attention span.

We obsess over symbolic fights while the foundations rot. Closed primaries keep extremists in power. Gerrymandered districts ensure incumbents never lose. The electoral incentives all point toward division, not solutions.

UBI and RCV are, in many ways, tests of whether we can think systemically again—about incentives, about fairness, about the structural forces shaping our future. And right now, the answer seems to be: not yet.

As I told my audience, “It’s sad that people will march for red-meat issues where government isn’t even the decisive actor, while ignoring how broken the system itself has become.”

The AI asteroid is heading straight for us. Millions of jobs—white-collar jobs—are on the chopping block. And neither party is talking seriously about it. Not Trump, not Schumer, not Newsom. Maybe Andrew Yang. Maybe Buttigieg. Maybe Bernie. But as a national conversation? Crickets.

What’s Next: Awakening or Denial

My optimism, if you can call it that, lies in inevitability. The pain will broaden until reform becomes unavoidable. Middle-class professionals will begin to experience the same precarity that working-class Americans have faced for decades.

The good news is that when comfortable people get uncomfortable, politics shifts. The bad news is that it often takes crisis to get there.

UBI isn’t charity. It’s infrastructure for an economy that no longer guarantees stability through employment. It’s the plumbing of a post-industrial democracy.

Scott put it best when he said: “You have to make sure everyone actually gets basic income so you have that cash. That can feed demand for new jobs. Without it, demand falls, inequality grows, and democracy erodes.”

A Call to the Nerds

As we wrapped, I asked Scott how people could stay involved. “Sign up at ItsaFoundation.org,” he said. “Subscribe to the newsletter. Next year we’ll have the Bootstraps docu-series, the Comingle app, and events across the country to organize communities.”

I told him I’d be cheering him on. Because, frankly, the next five years are going to test whether America is still capable of rational self-government—or if we’ve outsourced that too.

If you’ve made it this far into this post, you’re probably one of the few people left who actually cares about data, ideas, and structural reform. You’re a nerd. And that’s a good thing.

But as I told my audience at the end of the livestream: being a nerd isn’t enough. We need to organize, support, and amplify. If we don’t, the algorithms will drown out the quiet voices of reason.

So if you value this kind of long-form conversation—the kind you won’t find on cable news—please consider becoming a Nerds for Humanity YouTube channel member. Memberships help cover the operating costs of the livestream and keep these discussions going. Members also get shout-outs on every show as a thank-you for keeping independent, data-driven political analysis alive.

And if you can’t join as a member, the next best thing you can do is like, share, and comment. That helps the algorithm surface this content to others who might just be waking up to the same questions we’ve been asking for years.

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

View Details

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, ordinary people still laugh, play, and hope:

“The bottom line is that the game is fun, and people that play it—they’re gonna like it.”

That optimism is worth holding onto. But the sobering analysis remains: tariffs that hurt consumers, deficits that balloon, a political system allergic to honesty about trade-offs, and an electorate seduced by grievance over governance.

If we want better, we’ll have to demand better—from politicians, from parties, and from ourselves.

And if you want to take a small step toward engaging with politics in a healthier way, consider picking up Nerds for Democracy. It’s not just a game—it’s a conversation starter, a teaching tool, and a reminder that even in chaotic times, we can laugh, connect, and imagine a better future together. Every Founders’ Edition we ship out is a signal that people care about building community through dialogue and play. The more of you who join in, the more likely we are to produce future editions with expanded decks, refined mechanics, and even Easter eggs contributed by early supporters. So if you’ve ever wanted to combine your political nerdiness with some tabletop fun, now’s the time.

Support the Channel

If you found this conversation valuable and want to support independent political analysis, please consider becoming a YouTube channel member. Your support helps cover operating costs like livestreaming software, editing, and hosting. Plus, members get a shout-out on every livestream.

Thanks for reading, 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

View Details

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 helps cover operating costs like streaming software, editing tools, and podcast hosting. Plus, you’ll get a shoutout on every livestream.

You can also subscribe to the podcast and newsletter at nerdsforhumanity.substack.com to get longform summaries of every major interview like this one.

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

View Details

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

View Details

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

View Details

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

View Details

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.

1. 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.

1. 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?

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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

View Details

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

View Details

12 pieces of data that explain why.

View Details

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.

View Details

Exploring Top Contenders for the Next Democratic Presidential Candidate with Live Rank-Choice Voting Insights. oin Nerds for Humanity in a dynamic livestream analyzing potential Democratic nominees for the 2028 presidential race. From Gavin Newsom's record on climate to Pete Buttigieg's sharp debate skills, Gretchen Whitmer's leadership, and AOC's grassroots energy, we delve into their strengths and challenges. Participate in our rank-choice voting to help shape the conversation and see who comes out on top. Don't miss this engaging discussion packed with video clips, analysis, and interactive fun! Cast your own vote here: https://app.rankedvote.co/rv/hgat5trpry84suzthc/vote

View Details

Full audio of all the Democratic Party Senators cross examining President Elect Trump's nominee for the Secretary of Defense.

View Details

Excerpt from my interview on the Synthesis channel. Check out the full episode here: https://youtu.be/Rg3JfJm1sHk?si=j25xK423i3Ez9hdP

View Details

What would it take for the Democrats to win the White House in 2028?

Using AI, I explored this question in real time, playing out scenarios, crafting a platform, and even imagining speeches from hypothetical candidates. The result? A lively, thought-provoking session that showcased not only the power of technology but also the potential path forward for Democrats. Let’s break it all down.

View Details

How Ranked-Choice Voting Could Transform California’s Democracy—Reducing Polarization, Saving Money, and Making Every Vote Count

View Details

Join the Nerds for Humanity team as they dive into a candid post-mortem of the 2024 U.S. election. With surprise victories, shifting political loyalties, and in-depth discussions on voter sentiment, panelists tackle why Trump’s resounding win defied poll predictions. From Kamala Harris’s campaign decisions to the implications of Trump's new term on immigration, economic policy, and social issues, this episode delivers unfiltered insights from diverse perspectives. Tune in to explore the future of American politics, the role of media influence, and what Trump’s return could mean for democracy.

View Details

In this special edition of Nerds for Humanity, Phil and I dive deep into the 2024 election, breaking down the landscape of battleground states, voter sentiment, and the ground game in this pivotal race. From our personal experiences canvassing to reflections on political messaging, join us as we discuss the stakes, strategies, and defining moments that could change America’s future.

View Details

Phil and Tom discuss a pre-mortem of the Harris campaign

View Details

View Details

Detailed summary of Harris-Walz policy proposals.

View Details

We had a spirited discussion on the Nerds livestream. Listen for yourself.

View Details

I should need to give you 10 but here they are with 3 bonus ones at the end.

View Details

Let's take a trip down memory lane. It's easy to forget what a dumpster fire it was under Trump the first time. And that was when he was 8 years younger with adult supervision....

View Details

We go back to Trump's Jan 2 2021 call to Sec of State of Georgia and fact check his BS.

View Details

Analyzing the memo Harris team considered from Walz supporters before she picked him.

View Details

Peter, Ultra MAGA bro from Florida and Tom discuss Trump, Harris, Biden, and Vance.

View Details

Tom features recent interviews with Kelly, Shapiro, Beshear, Cooper, Whitmer, Buttigieg.

View Details

Tom makes 3 new predictions on the 2024 race in the wake of Biden's decision not to run for re-election.

View Details

We look at polls, betting odds, all that nerd politics catnip.

View Details

Hi Nerds, we didn't enough usage of our audio pod so we're focusing on pushing new content via YouTube and Twitter. Please follow us there so you can continue to get Nerdy with us. https://www.youtube.com/@nerds_humanity https://twitter.com/nerds_humanity

View Details

Tom reacts to a few key moments in Biden press conference and then shares the data.

View Details

How did Joe do and what does this mean for the POTUS 2024 race?

View Details

Nerds for Humanity livestream straw poll picks between Whitmer, Shapiro, Harris, and Newsom.

View Details

View Details

I break down the highs and lows of the debate and rail against the DNC and Jill Biden.

View Details

Katherine Gehl gives an update on Final Five voting initiatives as well as her new push for Zero Based Rule Making in Congress.

View Details

I was very impressed with Dr Jill Stein. She seemed the most put together of all the current candidates.

View Details

Tom and Congressman Dean Phillips talk about top issues of the day, the state of the modern American political system, and what we can do to help it.

View Details

Tom and Phillip debate Biden's performance, how anti Trumpers who don't like Biden should vote, and predict outcomes for the June debate.

View Details

Tom summarizes three news stories from NYT, WSJ, and Fox News.

View Details

Floyd from Canada and UBI Works makes the argument for funding basic income with a land value tax. What's that all about?

View Details

A generous and selfless Nerd for Humanity who left us too soon. RIP Don.

View Details

View Details

Tom and Mike discuss the hot potatoes of the day.

View Details

Tom moderates panel of POTUS supporters from across the political spectrum and all over the country.

View Details

Tom and Biden supporter Dalton Hunter discuss Biden, Phillips, Yang, Whitmer, Warnock, and Trump.

View Details

Thanks to @sliccardo for coming on to the Nerds for Humanity pod to talk about #CA16 and what he'd do on Ukraine, Border, Crime, and AI!

View Details

An in-depth and what I think was a thoughtful conversation about Gaza, Netanyahu, Biden, Harris, Trump, RFK Jr, the border, Ukraine, the prospect of a brokered Democratic Party convention -- we left few stones unturned!

View Details

Tom and Trevor Maloney unpack the latest on the 2024 race.

View Details

Thanks again to Ahmed Mostafa, Greg Tanaka, and Julie Lythcott-Haims for sharing their perspectives on important issues facing the country! Go CA-16!

Links to candidate websites: https://ahmedforcongressca.com https://julielythcotthaimsforcongress.com https://gregtanaka.org Twitter handles: @ahmed4congress @jlythcotthaims @GregTanaka YouTube video of panel discussion: https://youtube.com/live/4lDMFd03WXk?feature=share… Audio podcast of panel discussion: Search for "Nerds for Humanity" wherever you listen to podcasts. Approval Vote list of all CA-16 Candidates: https://ofthepeople.us/candidates?t=CA-16&s=trending…

View Details

Tom and Ahmed talk about immigration, housing, Gaza-Israel, AI, and Healthcare.

View Details

Will RFK Jr help Trump? What does he stand for?

View Details

View Details

Biden vs Trump, Biden vs Dean Phillips, Whitmer or Newsom?

View Details

Lythcott-Haims is running for Congress in California's famed 16th district -- home of Silicon Valley. https://ofthepeople.us/candidate/kkiam8cn

View Details

Tom and Sam Grote (https://twitter.com/grote_sam) debate whether Dean should drop out or continue to challenge Biden and why. It was a cordial and in depth discussion.

View Details

Tom's closing arguments on the day of the SC Democratic primary

View Details

Tom interviews Joby Bernstein.

View Details

Top news stories from across the political spectrum and then a discussion of my experience on the campaign trail in NH followed by latest polls showing Trump v Biden.

View Details

Tom and Steve Marchand discuss and debate Dean Phillips's chances in SC and Super Tuesday.

View Details

News from across the political spectrum: Fox News, NYT, WSJ, CNN.

View Details

Rishi explains why he's different from the other 10 candidates vying for Anna Eshoo's seat.

View Details

Tom and Evan talk about immigration, AI, Climate, Homelessness, UBI, and his run for US Congress.

View Details

Top stories from across CNN, Fox News, NYT, and WSJ plus bonus update on RFK Jr. campaign.

View Details

Let's learn more about Cornejo and what he thinks of major issues of the day like immigration, Israel, inflation, healthcare, education, etc. Learn more about Gabriel, approval vote, write a review, etc. on OTP https://ofthepeople.us/candidate/ntzynjx7

View Details

Today's latest headlines from across the political spectrum and presidential polls.

View Details

View Details

Tom goes over today's top stories from 4 news sources across the political spectrum.

View Details

Tom breaks down top news stories of the day from four different sources across the political spectrum.

View Details

Cenk from The Young Turks is running for POTUS. Why?

View Details

45 minute long form convo with Marianne Williamson.

View Details

Tom, Ashley Luna, and Jesus Alvarado debate whether Trump should be President again in 2024.

View Details

Tom and Andrew reconnect in the Nerd Zone to talk about his new book "The Last Election," Trump, Biden, Forward Party, and more. Buy Andrew's book here: Click here: https://www.amazon.com/Audible-The-Last-Election/dp/B0C9V3Z4HD/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+last+election+andrew+yang&qid=1694053528&sprefix=andrew+yang%252Caps%252C155&sr=8-1&_encoding=UTF8&tag=nerdsforhuman-20&linkCode=ur2&linkId=ca3f0ef6fa6546ac63d5e38ab950fb76&camp=1789&creative=9325

View Details

Tom gives a summary of the very latest presidential primary polls for both Republicans and Democrats, nationally and in early caucus states.

View Details

Should Biden get more credit than Trump for what his Medicare drug pricing reform achievements?

View Details

Tom and Bill King discuss US-China relations.

View Details

Warning: the interview was painful to listen to but I promised to do it so I did. Suffer with me nerds.

View Details

Tom breaks down his insights from GOP Debate as well as shares insights from others who were in the livestream minutes after the debate was over.

View Details

Tom and his brother Peter debate and discuss Trump, Desantis, Vivek, and Hunter Biden.

View Details

Tom breaks down the latest polls, betting odds, search interest, and other POTUS 2024 topics including Trump, Desantis, Scott, Vivek, Newsom, Whitmer, and Biden.

View Details

Tom and Rick talk Forward Party and 2024 election

View Details

Tom unboxes highlights from Georgia Trump indictment. 

View Details

Tom breaks down latest on Biden, Trump, Vivek, Andrew Yang, etc.

View Details

Tom goes over the original document from the DOJ for the actual federal indictment for his attempts to overturn the presidential election in 2020. Tom remains objective for 10 mins before his TDS kicks in.

View Details

Tom unpacks Sotomayor dissent and shares his take on Affirmative Action and college admissions

View Details

Tom reads most of Roberts's SCOTUS opinion on Harvard and UNC admissions and shares his take as an Asian American and Harvard alum.

View Details

Tom breaks down NBC News's latest poll of 1,000 Americans including Republicans and Democrats to see where they stand including their openness to a 3rd party. 

View Details

Some news reports quote a few pieces but Nerds for Humanity gets into all the details.

View Details

Latest about the non-profit civic tech innovation project at http://ofthepeople.us

View Details

Update on what's new with the Forward Party, when is the convention, and what's the relationship between state and national Forward party leadership.

View Details

If you live in California, this is a must listen as we need your help asap. If you don't but want to see an end to the 2-party duopoly, you should listen as well. 

Gianmarco Pow-Sang, Sara Lashanlo, and Michael Maxsenti on the recent Common Sense Party event in San Francisco with the Forward Party, Andrew Yang, and Christie Todd Whitman, and what's next for the Common Sense Party's effort to get on the ballot in California. 

View Details

Data deep dive into 2024 federal budget and comparing Biden and GOP proposals.

View Details

How far behind is Biden? Where is Trump's support? How do Americans rate Trump and Biden on economy, honesty, and should Trump be prosecuted for Georgia "find me 10,000 votes" call?

View Details

Tom breaks down polls, betting odds, search trends, twitter trends, and approval voting including latest NBC News poll crosstabs.

View Details

Tom and nerdling Brandon react to Chris Stapleton's 2023 Superbowl national anthem performance and then compare it to Fergie's version of the Star-Spangled Banner.

View Details

Ariel Ray shares his thoughts on what went well and what he didn't think go as well at the Phoenix Forward Party event with Andrew Yang last week.

View Details

How did Andrew do? How did he handle UBI versus his role in Forward Party and address criticism that Forward Party doesn't have enough specifics?

View Details

Who would lead if 21 candidates competed for the US presidency if there were an open primary? http://ofthepeople.us

View Details

Michael Maxsenti from the California Common Sense Party will tell us all about the merger with the Forward Party. The Forward Party, co-led by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, is partnering with another third party in California in hopes of officially being recognized by the state. Yang’s Forward Party announced Thursday it is forming a coalition with the Common Sense Party, founded in 2019 by former Congressman Tom Campbell, to get the roughly 73,000 registered voters required by California to be recognized as an official political party. “Forward Party members in California will now register for the Common Sense Party, joining the already nearly 30k registered Common Sense Party voters,” Forward Party said in a news release. “Volunteers across the state will be able to work together at the grassroots level, leading through our shared values of cooperation and problem solving.” Yang, who dropped out of the 2020 presidential race in February of that year, said Thursday on NewsNation’s “CUOMO” that the new partnership will give voters in California a political choice. “We know right now California is a one-party state, and that’s true in about three-quarters of the states around the country,” Yang said. “We have a pretend two-party system. In most of the country, including New York City, it’s essentially a one-party system, which isn’t good for anyone.”

View Details

I interview Joe Swartz, author of an article in The Atlantic about his experience at the Forward Party in North Carolina.

View Details

View Details

Tom and composer Daniel Ramirez unveil the story behind the new Nerds for Humanity intro music!

View Details

Blair shares updates from Forward Party on upcoming convention, plans for how they will support candidates in 2023, and how the Forward Party has evolved since the merger with RAM and SAM parties.

View Details

Tom and Steve Marchand discuss the new DNC Primary proposal to put South Carolina first and whether Desantis will challenge Trump.

View Details

Mid-Term results, 2024 Presidential race, were any #YangGang Radical MAGA? 

View Details

Sounds like we've not seen the last of January Walker despite her recent loss for US Congress. She shares some lessons learned, suggestions for Forward Party, and her plans for the future.

View Details

Most of us think RVC worked in Alaska with Sarah Palin's defeat. But Aaron Hamlin from Election Science explains why it might have created perverse outcomes relative to Approval Voting.

View Details

Most of us think RVC worked in Alaska with Sarah Palin's defeat. But Aaron Hamlin from Election Science explains why it might have created perverse outcomes relative to Approval Voting.

View Details

Will it really be Trump v Biden? Will NH be the first to host an open presidential primary? Why did Yang lose in NH?

View Details

Will it really be Trump v Biden? Will NH be the first to host an open presidential primary? Why did Yang lose in NH?

View Details

Bill King, Rick Kennedy, and Holden Culotta talk about Forward Party and the SAM / RAM / Forward merger.

View Details

View Details

Marcus Flowers is challenging MJT for her seat in the US Congress. What's he like?

View Details

Marcus Flowers is challenging MJT for her seat in the US Congress. What's he like?

View Details

Cody from Problem Solver Politics in the Nerd Zone

View Details

Cody from Problem Solver Politics in the Nerd Zone

View Details

Nerds for Humanity Members participate in panel discussion with Tom in California and members from Missouri, Georgia, and Florida.

View Details

Nerds for Humanity Members participate in panel discussion with Tom in California and members from Missouri, Georgia, and Florida.

View Details

View Details

View Details

Trump world screamed that Biden's speech was the most divisive in US history. Now let's see what Trump is telling his followers and call BS when we see it. 

Please review and share this podcast with your nerd friends. It helps the channel grow.

View Details

Trump world screamed that Biden's speech was the most divisive in US history. Now let's see what Trump is telling his followers and call BS when we see it. 

Please review and share this podcast with your nerd friends. It helps the channel grow.

View Details

Hannity compared it to a Third Reich speech. Nikki Haley called it "chilling." Tom and one of his nerdlings reacts and breaks it down line by line.

View Details

Hannity compared it to a Third Reich speech. Nikki Haley called it "chilling." Tom and one of his nerdlings reacts and breaks it down line by line.

View Details

By popular request and since a lot of people said Kim explained the Forward Party better than Andrew Yang.

View Details

View Details

View Details

Tom and Sal Albanese talk about Palin, Yang, Trump, RCV, Katherine Gehl, and more. 

View Details

Tom and Sal Albanese talk about Palin, Yang, Trump, RCV, Katherine Gehl, and more. 

View Details

Tom interviews former US Congressional Candidate Shervin Aazami who took on Brad Sherman and Aarika Rhodes but came short. Let's analyze what happened with him. 

View Details

Shawn Storm from the Reform Party talks about the party's platform, ranked-choice voting, and whether Forward is a spoiler for 3rd party movement.

View Details

Tom breaks down the play by play of the now infamous interview between Acosta and Yang.

View Details

Max Steiner takes on CA-1 and Doug LaMalfa.

View Details

Tom breaks down the now infamous CNN interview of Andrew Yang by Jim Acosta about spoiler effect, Forward party policies, and is Andrew just trying to sell books.

View Details

Chen has 4 degrees from Harvard and teaches at Stanford and wants to bring transparency and accountability to government spending programs.

View Details

View Details

Tom and the team from Abstract.us analyze the legislative text that created such a huge debate. Was there $400B in unrelated spending added by the Democrats or were the Republicans simply mad about Biden getting another win? Read the bill? We did that and here's the facts.

View Details

Tom breaks down the Forward Party's policy hints, values, mission, and unboxes their website, press release, and Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman and David Jolly's Washington Post Editorial. Tom also discusses 2024 scenarios.

View Details

View Details

View Details

We always talk about the need for new faces. Rishi Kumar is running in Northern California in CA-16 (Tom's own district) to unseat Anna Eshoo who has been in Congress since 1993. Rishi and Anna will be the only two candidates that advanced to the general election ballot and Anna for the first time got less than 50% of votes in the primary.

View Details

Tom reviews each CA-32 congressional candidate and stack ranks them with one as his official Nerds for Humanity endorsement.

Brad Sherman, Aarika Rhodes, Shervin Aazami? Who will Tom endorse?

View Details

Tom, Shervin, Melissa discuss healthcare, homelessness, and themselves as alternatives to Brad Sherman, Aaraka Rhodes, and other CA-32 Congressional candidates.

View Details

Alex Damianou

View Details

Tom and Bowdoin College govt professor Maron Sorenson discuss the SCOTUS.

View Details

Tom and Will Conway, the Forward Party's national organizing director, talk about the motivation for starting the Forward Party and how they plan to win a few seats in Congress and across state legislatures.

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

Tom and Zach talk about his new book, lessons learned from the presidential campaign, the idea of identity branding, the NYC mayoral campaign, and the Forward Party.

View Details

Tom and Larry discuss UBI, Andrew Yang, new policy ideas, and the two-party duopoly.

View Details

Luis was the Yang Gang member who made an Andrew Yang 2020 mobile game. Now he's running for congress in VA.

View Details

After coming within a few percentage points in his last congressional run, David Kim is back. Hear why.

View Details

Former Yang 2020 SC head Jermaine Johnson on his first term in office and decision to run for re-election.

View Details

David Nemer professor at UVA / Harvard...

View Details

California UBI, RCV, and other policy innovation efforts. 

View Details

Tom and Bowdoin professor Andy Rudalevige discuss presidential policies and politics.

View Details

View Details

Tom and Nerds for Humanity Bowdoin College intern Yordana Gerdzhikova discuss how media polarization and the importance of teaching critical thinking to kids early.

View Details

Tom and Steve talk about 2022, GOP prospects, Andrew Yang's decision to go 3rd party.

View Details

Tom and Peter discuss Trump, Covid, Politics, Rittenhouse, and Andrew Yang.

View Details

Tom interviews Victor Tay who is chairman of the UN Global Compact Network Singapore on the governing council of the China-ASEAN Business Alliance.

View Details

Tom interviews Ally Dalsimer, Sass, Lourin Hubbard, and Shervin Aazami 

https://ofthepeople.us/candidates?s=all-time

View Details

Tom discusses politics with Bowdoin College professor of Government, Michael Franz. 

View Details

Tom and Patrick, Abstract's CEO, discuss what it is, how it works, and why Patrick thinks it's going to revolutionize how laws are written.

View Details

Jason Call is laying the groundwork for a campaign for Congress in Washington's Second Congressional District for 2022. He's looking into continuing our people-powered campaign and run on popular ideas like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, criminal justice reform, and a guaranteed living-wage job for all.

https://ofthepeople.us/candidate/7l6cfr3c

View Details

Tom and Josh discuss his approach to Florida politics and policy. Learn more about Josh on OTP https://ofthepeople.us/candidate/e3schphb 

View Details

Erica is running for US Senate in North Carolina. See why she's one of the most approved candidates on http://OfThePeople.us/candidates

View Details

View Details

Tom and Teresa discuss running for office as an AAPI mom. https://ofthepeople.us/candidate/wx4fw3s5

View Details

View Details

Tom and Curtis talk about his cats, support for Andrew Yang, and desire to introduce a UBI pilot for New York City.

View Details

Tom moderated a fireside chat with Michelle for a fundraiser recently. This is an excerpt from the event!

View Details

Sherman Tylawsky is a KCL and Texas A&M graduate, host of the Friends & Fellow Citizens podcast and serve as Communications Director for a small maritime consulting firm. He offers an episode about some of my experiences as a House intern in lockdown during the Jan. 6 insurrection and the broader conversation of promoting healing and civility across the U.S. Having worked for elected officials on both sides of the aisle at the local and federal levels, I am also happy to speak about bipartisanship, the state of political polarization, the American Founding Fathers, and any other related topics you would be interested in.

View Details

Andrew Frawley was head of marketing for Yang 2020 and the inventor of the famous MATH hat.

View Details

After Covid, what do we face? China, Russia, Iran, N Korea, Ecological Disasters, Terrorism...

View Details

Can Yang do it? It's looking pretty good. Let's share the data.

View Details

Tom breaks down the pie chart of what's in the bill, how much, and if Radical MAGA hyperventilation over it is justified.

View Details

Tom breaks down 5 ridiculous things in Georgia voting law that make it one of the biggest assaults on democracy in decades.

View Details

...but were afraid to ask. Join Tom as he moderates a panel discussion with Max Ghenis from the UBI Center and Stacey Rutland from the Income Movement for this California Yang Gang sponsored policy nerds discussion.

View Details

Tom and Ron talk about Ron's own political career as a young Hamilton College graduate and his recent decision to campaign with and endorse Andrew Yang for Mayor of NYC.

View Details

Tom and some of the organizers for a rebate to the Oregonians from a sales tax on large corporations discuss their ballot initiative and how it relates to Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend.

View Details

Is America ready for four parties? Where will traditional Republicans of Trump Republicans go?

View Details

How do we feel about Yang's decision to run for Mayor and is he doing enough to win the critical black vote?

View Details

Tom reacts to some of the most interesting ones. It's incredible how numb we all became to them.

View Details

Panel discussion with Katherine Gehl (author of "The Politics Industry"), Aaron Hamlin (Center for Election Science), and Sarah Wolk (Star Voting).

View Details

Two Americas on display in this sibling argument.

View Details

Tom and Phil shoot the breeze. Phil has a bachelor's from Bowdoin and a master's degree from the Johns Hopkins School of International Studies and works on the renewable energy sector from Vermont. He loves the San Francisco Bay Area and is a triathlete.

View Details

Badrun Khan & Seth Barron from City Journal join Tom in the Nerd Zone to talk about New York City politics and Yang's chances.

View Details

Let's listen to and analyze what the President said to Brad Raffensperger and see if we don't get to triggered by TDS. About 3 p.m. Saturday, President Trump held an hour-long call with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s secretary of state, in which he repeatedly urged him to alter the outcome of the presidential vote in the state. He was joined on the call by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several lawyers, including longtime conservative attorney Cleta Mitchell and Georgia-based attorney Kurt Hilbert. Raffensperger was joined by his office’s general counsel, Ryan Germany, and Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs.

View Details

Tom is joined by Josh from NPV and Steve Marchand from Yang 2020 NH. Josh and Steve bring some really deep and insightful analysis to the Nerd Zone which is why Tom keeps inviting them back all the time :-)

View Details

Tom and the Mooch catch up on Trump, Yang, and the future of the GOP.

View Details

Tom's brother, Peter, is a big time supporter of President Trump. Tom and Peter debate who won and what options remain for MAGA supporters and their dear leader.

View Details

How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite

View Details

David Himmelstein is a distinguished professor of public health and health policy in the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, an adjunct clinical professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School. He is also the co-founder (with Steffie Woolhandler) of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization advocating for single-payer healthcare in the United States.

View Details

Jermaine and Tom catchup on Jermaine's win as well as his plans for a Palmetto Dividend!

View Details

Eval Lee is a Rice and Columbia trained mathematician and public health modeler at Georgia Tech. She was an early member of the Red Dawn working group of scientists and public health experts predicting a national pandemic as early as Feb 2020.

View Details

Paget Kagy, Fred the Felon, Matt from Zach & Matt, and Dennis from Trumper for Yang join Tom to discuss the future of the Yang Gang movement and surprise guest Andrew Yang joins at around 37:00 to talk about potentially working in the Biden Administration.

View Details

Tom and Swiss friend Lovro discuss how Switzerland's direct democracy works compared to the US approach.

View Details

How volunteers from Blue states can focus on swing purple districts and state legislative reform to effect change at the national level. 

View Details

Amy Coney Barrett, Ballot Fraud, and if 2020 will be like Bush v Gore

View Details

Tom and amazing panel of former NFH guests answer the question who won, why, and most memorable moments from the last Biden Trump debate.

View Details

Jo and Tom talk about the libertarian platform and why she thinks she's a better choice than Biden and Trump.

View Details

What's going on in Sweden? Why did Fauci say masks weren't useful in February? Is the 3rd spike coming? Will we go back to normal when the vaccine comes? Harvard trained epidemiologist & #COVID19 expert

@DrEricDing breaks down the facts, science, & data: https://youtu.be/0oGhayVPGXw

View Details

View Details

Nerds all-star panel with Biden, Trump, Yang, Bernie supporters discuss who won and best moments from Kamala Harris and Mike Pence.

View Details

Best and worst moments from each candidate, did Biden meet expectations, will independents change their mind?

View Details

Julie Gunnigle, candidate for Maricopa County attorney, share's her take on BLM, Criminal Justice Reform, Law Enforcement, and implications of Judge Barrett rising to the Supreme Court.

View Details

Maren Costa shares her story about advocating for warehouse worker covid-19 safety and Amazon's impact on the climate and how that led to her dismissal despite being one of Amazon's first principal designers and working on some of the most innovative projects.

Follow Tom on Twitter @nerdsforyang and on YouTube for video livestreams at Nerds for Humanity.

View Details

Zach talks behind the scenes on the presidential campaign as well as what lies ahead for Andrew Yang...

View Details

Tom breaks down some of the biggest falsehoods and misleading statements spread by Team Trump at the RNC Convention.

View Details

View Details

View Details

We talk about Biden and 2024 and a bunch of other stuff.

View Details

Amputations, lung transplants, cognitive issues, etc.

View Details

View Details

View Details

Mike's back in the Nerd Zone.

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

Tully talks about what happened with Yang2020 from his pov volunteering on the ground in Iowa and NH as well as his shift from a congressional run to starting the Math Movement non-profit focused on community organizing.

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

Tom and Mike talk about Mike's race for US Senate in Kentucky and why he thinks he's the Democrat who can take on Moscow Mitch.

View Details

Evelyn visits the Nerds for Yang show and discusses Andrew, the kids, the campaign, the trail, the YangGang, Freedom Dividend, and Humanity First themes.

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

View Details

This is the audio from the YouTube livestream at nerdsforyang.com

View Details

Paget, Kai Watson, Hustle & Film, and Tom from Nerds for Yang interview Andrew Yang for an hour.

View Details

From Nerds for Yang YouTube channel at nerdsforyang.com

View Details

Scott comes on to Nerds for Yang to discuss universal basic income as well as common questions about how it would work, inflation, and impact on workers.

View Details

Nerds for Yang and Steve Marchand discuss the Andrew Yang campaign. For the video please visit the NFY YouTube channel at http://nerdsforyang.com  

View Details

This episode Andrew talks about Medicare for All, Evelyn, Infrastructure, Education costs, economics, the campaign strategy, and more.

View Details

Andrew and I talk about foreign policy, his personal interests, and democracy dollars.