Subscribe now

This week on At Our Table, I sit down with Dr. Jermaine Johnson, the Democratic nominee for governor of South Carolina, to talk about the experiences that shaped him and his vision for my beloved home state. We have a candid conversation about growing up homeless, finding opportunity through basketball and education, and why he believes his own experience with struggle gives him a different perspective on the challenges facing families across the state.

Dr. Johnson believes South Carolina’s politics have spent too much time focused on party labels and not enough time focused on whether people’s lives are actually getting better. His argument is simple: Democrats and Republicans alike want good schools, safe communities, affordable health care, better roads, and a chance to get ahead. He believes the path forward is bringing people together around those shared priorities—and giving South Carolinians a reason to believe their state can become something more.

Pull up a chair

—Jaime

Subscribe now

We’re kicking off the new season of At Our Table with Secretary ! He talks about fatherhood, the future of the Democratic Party, the stakes of the midterms, and what may come next. We have a candid discussion about why Democrats can’t simply promise a return to the old status quo—and why the party has to offer Americans a new vision for where the country can go.

One thing I keep coming back to is how much frustration in our politics comes from people feeling like the system simply isn’t working for them. That frustration is real, and Democrats can’t answer it by asking people to go back to the way things were before. We have to show people what comes next and give them a reason to believe the future can actually be better.

Pull up a chair

—Jaime

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is once again considering which states should open our presidential nominating process. On paper, this is a debate about a calendar.

I believe it is about much more.

It is about who we are as a Democratic Party. It is about whether the coalition we depend on to win elections has a meaningful voice in choosing our nominees. And it is about whether, at a moment when Black political power is under attack across this country, our Party will keep faith with the voters who have kept faith with us for generations.

I was proud to serve as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee when our Party modernized the presidential nominating calendar and made South Carolina First in the Nation.

I was proud of that decision then. I believe in it even more strongly today.

South Carolina’s place at the beginning of the process was never simply about South Carolina. It was about ensuring that the opening chapter of our nominating process better reflected the people who write the final chapter in November.

It was about making sure candidates for President of the United States had to sit across the table from Black voters, rural voters, working people, veterans, faith leaders, young people and families across the South, and earn their trust from the beginning.

And it sent a simple but powerful message to Black voters:

We see you. We hear you. We value you.

A commitment like that should mean something.

That is why, on July 9, I wrote to the members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee urging them to keep South Carolina First in the Nation.

I am sharing that letter publicly today because I believe this conversation is bigger than any committee, any state or any one presidential election.

It is about whether institutions keep their promises.

And whether the Democratic Party will keep faith with the voters who have so faithfully kept faith with us.

Here is my letter:

Keeping Faith with the Voters Who Kept Faith with Us

Why South Carolina Should Remain First in the Nation

July 9, 2026

Dear Chair Jim Roosevelt, Chair Minyon Moore & Members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee:

History rarely announces itself while it is being made.

Most decisions made by institutions resolve immediate questions. They establish procedures or settle disputes. They matter in the moment they are made, but their significance rarely extends far beyond it.

Every so often, however, an institution is presented with a decision whose importance reaches well beyond the question immediately before it.

I believe this is one of those moments.

As members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, your responsibility extends well beyond determining the order of presidential primaries. The decision before you is not simply about calendars or tradition. It is about what the Democratic Party chooses to say about itself, about the coalition that has sustained it, and about the values that will define it for years to come.

Every member who has served on this Committee understands that debates over the presidential calendar have often involved spirited disagreements, competing regional interests, and the difficult compromises that naturally accompany institutional decision making. That has always been part of the Committee’s work.

But I respectfully submit that this moment is different.

The decisions you make today will have political ramifications.

They will have institutional ramifications.

And I believe they may have generational consequences.

At a time when so many Americans are questioning whether institutions still keep their promises, your work will help answer an equally important question:

Will the Democratic Party keep faith with the people who have kept faith with it?

That is why I am writing to you today.

Why the DNC Changed the Calendar

Before we debate where the Democratic presidential calendar should go next, it is worth remembering why we changed it in the first place.

Too often, the discussion has been reduced to personalities, politics, or geography. Some have suggested the calendar changed because President Biden won South Carolina or wanted to secure his re-election. Others have portrayed it as a dispute among states competing for influence or tradition.

Those explanations miss the larger story.

The decision to modernize the Democratic presidential calendar began with a far more fundamental question:

Does our presidential nominating process reflect the coalition that elects Democratic presidents?

For too long, the answer was incomplete.

The Democratic Party is the broadest and most diverse political coalition in American life. Our victories are built by Black Americans, White Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, organized labor, women, young voters, LGBTQ+ Americans, people with disabilities, veterans, suburban families, rural communities, and working people from every corner of our nation.

Yet the opening chapter of our presidential nominating process did not fully reflect that coalition.

The reforms adopted for 2024 were not intended to diminish any state’s contribution to our Party. Every early state has made meaningful contributions to our democracy and to the Democratic Party’s success.

Instead, the goal was to ensure that the states opening our presidential nominating process collectively reflected the coalition we ask our eventual nominee to unite in a general election.

It was a recognition that our process should reflect our principles.

That is why the Democratic National Committee acted.

Not to favor one state.

Not to punish another.

But to better reflect the Democratic Party we are today and better prepare our nominee to win tomorrow.

That principle remains just as compelling today as it was when the Committee first embraced it.

Why This Moment Matters Even More Today

There is another reason I believe the Committee’s work carries such significance at this moment.

The Democratic Party is making this decision at a time when many Americans are asking profound questions about the future of our democracy and the institutions they have long believed in. For many Black Americans, those questions are especially urgent. They are asking whether the institutions they have steadfastly supported, including the Democratic Party, will continue to stand with them at a moment when their political voice, representation, and hard won gains are increasingly under pressure.

As a lifelong Democrat, a former Chairman of this Party, and a Black man who has spent much of my life organizing, campaigning, and asking people to believe in the Democratic Party, I would be less than candid if I did not share one concern.

I believe we are at another crossroads in the relationship between the Democratic Party and Black Americans.

For generations, Black Americans have been the Democratic Party’s most steadfast constituency. Election after election, they have organized, volunteered, voted, and defended this Party through victories and defeats alike. That is not sentiment. It is not conjecture. It is one of the most enduring statistical realities in modern American politics.

Yet today, many Black Americans are watching institutions they have long supported make decisions that cause them to question whether their voices will continue to matter.

They have watched protections for voting rights narrowed.

They have watched attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

They have watched accomplished Black leaders become targets of coordinated political and cultural attacks.

They have watched corporations that only a few years ago proudly proclaimed their commitment to racial equity quietly retreat from many of those commitments.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Callais has only heightened those concerns by further weakening protections for fair representation and reinforcing the belief among many that Black political power is under sustained assault.

Whether one agrees with every individual decision is not the point.

The broader reality is that many Black Americans are asking a deeply personal question:

When the pressure comes, who will continue to stand with us? And who will quietly step back?

I do not raise these questions to divide our Party or to suggest that the Democratic Party has all the answers. I raise them because I love this Party, because I believe in its mission, and because I believe institutions are strengthened when they have the courage to live up to the values they profess.

The Democratic Party cannot answer every challenge confronting Black Americans through a decision about the presidential calendar.

But it can answer one important question.

Will we continue to demonstrate, not merely declare, that Black Americans remain central to the coalition that elects Democratic presidents?

Will we continue to align our actions with our values?

The question, then, is not whether Black Americans should have a meaningful voice in our presidential nominating process. The Democratic Party answered that question in 2024.

The question before this Committee is whether we will keep that commitment.

Keeping South Carolina First in the Nation can be part of our answer.

Why South Carolina Was the Right Choice

The question before this Committee is not whether South Carolina is perfect. No state is.

Nor is this a criticism of any other state. New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan, and the other state applicants each bring unique strengths to our presidential nominating process and each plays an important role in preparing our Party for the general election. The question before this Committee is not whether those contributions matter. They unquestionably do.

The question is whether the principles that led the Democratic Party to make South Carolina First in the Nation remain valid.

I believe they do.

South Carolina was not selected because it was politically convenient. It was selected because it reflected the values the Democratic Party sought to elevate through a modernized presidential nominating process.

First and foremost, South Carolina requires every Democratic presidential candidate to earn the trust of Black voters from the very beginning of the campaign, not after momentum has already been established elsewhere. It ensures that the Democratic Party’s most steadfast constituency helps shape the nomination from the outset rather than being asked to ratify decisions already made.

But South Carolina is about far more than one constituency.

Like the Democratic coalition itself, South Carolina is diverse in race, geography, faith, generation, and economic background. Candidates must build support in urban neighborhoods and rural communities, in growing suburbs and small towns, among faith leaders, organized labor, military families, business leaders, students, and working people. Success is not achieved by appealing to one community alone. It is earned by building the broad coalition Democrats must ultimately assemble to win the White House.

South Carolina also reflects where America is headed, not simply where it has been. It is one of the fastest growing states in the nation and sits within the fastest growing region of the country. Following the 2030 Census, congressional seats and Electoral College votes are expected to continue shifting toward the South. If Democrats intend to build durable national majorities, we cannot afford to retreat from the region that will increasingly shape our nation’s political future.

South Carolina has also demonstrated something every early state should aspire to do: identify the Democratic nominee. Since 2008, every Democratic candidate who has won South Carolina’s presidential primary has gone on to become our Party’s nominee. That is not hyperbole. It is history.

There is another reason South Carolina matters.

Few places are more central to the story of Black America. Historians estimate that more than ninety percent of Black Americans can trace at least one ancestor to the Charleston region, one of the principal ports through which forty percent of enslaved Africans entered what became the United States. South Carolina occupies a singular place in our nation’s history, from the horrors of slavery to Reconstruction, from the long struggle for civil rights to the continuing pursuit of a more perfect Union.

The descendants of slaves whose hands picked cotton are now helping pick presidents.

That is not merely a powerful symbol. It is a powerful statement about American democracy. It reflects a nation still striving to fulfill its founding promise and a Democratic Party willing to align its nominating process with the coalition that has so often carried it to victory.

Those are the reasons South Carolina was the right choice in 2024.

Those reasons are even more compelling today than they were then.

President Biden’s Vision

One of the greatest misconceptions about the 2024 calendar is the belief that President Biden’s decision was driven by political expediency or personal advantage.

That is not what I witnessed.

As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I participated in many of the discussions surrounding the presidential calendar. I was not present for every conversation, nor did I know what recommendation President Biden would ultimately make. At the time, we were reviewing presentations from every state seeking a place in the early window. South Carolina was one of several states making its case.

During one of those discussions, President Biden stopped the presentation.

He said, “Hold up a minute. Let’s go back to South Carolina. I do not care where I go in this country. When talking to African Americans, almost every one of them has some family or a relative from South Carolina. South Carolina is important to the Black community, and I just want everyone to know that and understand that.”

That moment has stayed with me ever since.

What struck me was not that the President was focused on one state. He was focused on what that state represented.

He understood that the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating process should better reflect the coalition that elects Democratic presidents. He understood the unique place South Carolina holds in the history of Black America. And he understood that beginning our process in South Carolina would send a powerful message to millions of Americans who had stood faithfully with the Democratic Party for generations.

President Biden did not change the calendar simply because he believed South Carolina deserved to go first.

He changed it because he believed the Democratic Party should better reflect its own values.

Throughout his presidency, that belief was reflected in his actions. He selected the first Black woman to serve as Vice President of the United States. He appointed the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. And he championed a presidential nominating calendar that recognized the indispensable role Black Americans have played in building and sustaining the Democratic Party.

His message was both simple and profound.

I see you. I hear you. I value you.

That was the spirit behind the 2024 calendar.

The question before this Committee is whether that spirit will continue to guide our Party’s future.

The Early Window Works

One of the greatest strengths of the Democratic Party’s 2024 presidential calendar is that it recognizes no single state can test every quality we seek in a nominee.

Instead, each state in the early window contributes something distinct, creating a process that is stronger because of their collective strengths.

South Carolina ensures that every candidate demonstrates the ability to earn the trust of Black voters and build the broad, multiracial coalition that defines the Democratic Party. It is the place where candidates must connect across race, geography, faith, and class while demonstrating the coalition building skills required to lead our Party and our nation.

New Hampshire continues one of the most important traditions in American politics. Its culture of retail politics requires candidates to answer difficult questions directly, engage voters face to face, and demonstrate authenticity through countless personal interactions. It reminds us that democracy is built one conversation at a time.

Nevada reflects the growing diversity of the American West and the indispensable role of organized labor in the Democratic coalition. It tests a campaign’s ability to organize among working families, engage Latino and Asian American communities, and compete in one of the fastest changing regions of our country.

Michigan represents the industrial heartland of America. It challenges candidates to connect with union households, manufacturing communities, suburban voters, and one of our nation’s premier battleground electorates. It demonstrates whether candidates can compete where general elections are often decided.

Together, these four states create a presidential nominating process that is more representative, more rigorous, and more reflective of the Democratic coalition than any one state could provide on its own.

That was the vision behind the 2024 calendar.

It remains the right vision today.

As the Committee considers the future of our nominating process, I encourage you to view these states not as competitors for influence, but as partners in preparing the strongest possible Democratic nominee.

Our Party is strongest when every state contributes its unique strengths to a process that reflects who we are, what we value, and the coalition we must build to win.

That is exactly what the 2024 calendar set out to accomplish.

Keeping Faith

This discussion is ultimately about more than the order of presidential primaries.

It is about the future of the Democratic Party.

But demographics alone are not the reason to keep South Carolina First in the Nation.

The stronger reason is this:

The Democratic Party made a commitment.

In 2024, our Party chose to align its presidential nominating process with the coalition that has sustained it for generations. It chose to recognize that Black Americans should not simply be asked to deliver victories in November. They should help shape the choice of our nominee from the very beginning of the process.

That commitment should not be abandoned after a single election cycle.

Institutions are not strengthened simply because they make bold decisions.

They are strengthened because they keep their commitments.

I recognize that reasonable people can disagree about the presidential calendar. They can disagree about which four(or five)states belong in the early window or what order best serves our Party.

Those are legitimate debates.

But I believe the principles that guided the Democratic Party’s decision in 2024 are even more compelling today than they were then.

At a time when many Americans, and especially many Black Americans, are questioning whether the institutions they have believed in will continue to stand with them, the Democratic Party has an opportunity to answer with more than words.

We can answer with action.

Keeping South Carolina First in the Nation will not solve every challenge confronting our Party or our nation.

But it will reaffirm something fundamental.

It will reaffirm that the Democratic Party keeps its promises.

It will reaffirm that we understand who has stood with us through victories and defeats.

It will reaffirm that our actions are consistent with our values.

President Biden’s decision in 2024 was about more than changing a calendar.

It was about making a statement regarding who the Democratic Party is and who it aspires to be.

That statement is no less true today.

Indeed, it is even more important.

History will not judge this Committee simply by the order of four or five presidential primaries.

History will judge whether, at a consequential moment, the Democratic Party had the courage to keep faith with the voters who had so faithfully kept faith with it.

I believe we should.

Respectfully,

Jaime R. Harrison
Former Chair, Democratic National Committee (2021-2025)

Subscribe now

This week on At Our Table, I sit down with Roger Wolfson to talk about storytelling, politics, and why human connection may be one of the most important tools Democrats have. We have a candid discussion about Blue Heartbeat, our new joint venture, and why facts alone rarely move people unless they are tied to emotion and lived experience.

A lot of Americans are drowning in information but starving for connection. Roger’s message is clear: leaders have to know why their work matters before they can persuade anyone else, and the future of our politics will depend on whether we can tell stories strong enough to rebuild trust, resist cynicism, and cut through disinformation.

Pull up a chair

—Jaime

Subscribe now

This week on At Our Table, I sit down with Kelley Robinson, President of the Human Rights Campaign, to talk about LGBTQ+ rights and the fight over who gets to belong in America. We have a candid discussion about anti-trans attacks and why equality has to be defended in courts, campaigns, and communities.

A lot of Americans thought these rights were settled. But progress is never permanent unless people keep showing up to protect it. Kelley’s message is clear: no community can be thrown under the bus for political convenience, and the future of equality will depend on whether voters, candidates, and allies refuse to leave anyone behind.

Pull up a chair

—Jaime

Subscribe now

This week on At Our Table, I sit down with Rep. Yvette Clarke, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, to talk about voting rights, political representation, and the growing fight over the future of American democracy. We have a candid discussion on why the CBC is pressing major corporations to publicly defend the Voting Rights Act and the communities affected by its erosion.

A lot of Americans assume democracy is something permanent. Rep. Clarke argues that every generation is responsible for protecting it. Her message is that representation, voting rights, and political power are never guaranteed—and that the outcome of this moment will depend on whether people choose to get involved before those rights are harder to reclaim.

Pull up a chair

—Jaime

Subscribe now

This week on At Our Table I sit down with Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward and one of the leading legal voices challenging abuses of power in the courts. We talk about DOGE’s access to Social Security data, the fight over voting rights, the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, and why government accountability now depends on legal action and public pressure working together.

A lot of Americans are waiting for institutions to save democracy. Skye argues that the people have always been the ones who force institutions to change. Her message is clear: courts matter, but the future will depend on whether ordinary people organize, show up, and refuse to let their voices be erased.

Pull up a chair

—Jaime

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 8:00pm ET.

Today’s guest is Dr. Jamal Bryant, pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, longtime activist, and former NAACP youth leader. We talk about the Black church’s role in moments of democratic crisis, the fight over voting rights in the South, and why economic power and organized consumer action may become some of the most important political tools of the next decade.

A lot of Americans are searching for institutions they can still trust. Dr. Bryant argues that trust is rebuilt through action, not rhetoric. Whether the issue is voting rights, housing, or economic justice, his message is that hope only matters if people are willing to organize around it.

Join us today at 8:00pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 8:00pm ET.

Today’s guest is Stephanie Miller, one of the most influential voices in progressive media and host of “The Stephanie Miller Show.” We talk about the collapse of trust in mainstream institutions, the double standards women still face in politics and media, and why humor has become both a coping mechanism and a form of political resistance in the Trump era.

A lot of people are exhausted right now. But exhaustion can also create clarity. People are searching for voices that can help them process what is happening without surrendering to cynicism or despair. Sometimes survival starts with finding a way to laugh, stay connected, and keep showing up for the fight ahead.

Join us today at 8:00pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 8:00pm ET.

Today’s guest is , the district attorney of Mississippi’s 16th Circuit Court District and a candidate for the U.S. Senate. We talk about his decision to take on an incumbent in one of the toughest political environments in the country and why campaigns are still won by showing up, listening, and delivering for people who feel ignored.

Too much of modern politics is built around performance instead of presence. Voters know the difference. They know when leaders are speaking to them and when they are speaking at them. Real trust is built in town halls, church fellowship halls, and kitchen table conversations—not just on television screens or social media feeds.

Join us today at 8:00pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

But there are also times when you feel like history is being forced upon you. Those moments make you feel powerless. The ground shifts beneath your feet. If you’re like me, you look at your children, and you can’t think of anything to say other than, “I’m sorry.”

The recent decision in Callais v. Louisiana was one of those moments for many of us.

On paper, it is a redistricting case. In reality, it is part of a much larger effort to weaken the protections that made American democracy more representative in the first place. For people who grew up in the South, especially Black Americans, there is nothing abstract about that fight. We know exactly what happens when political power is concentrated in fewer hands and entire communities are told their voices matter less.

The Medicine We Need

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was an attempt to correct a deliberate system of exclusion. Jim Crow was designed not just to suppress Black votes, but to erase Black political power entirely. This isn’t ancient history. My grandparents told me stories of being taxed, policed, and governed by people they had no real power to choose or hold accountable.

The Voting Rights Act gave the federal government the authority to stop discriminatory election laws before they took effect. It made it possible for communities that had been shut out for generations to finally elect leaders who looked like them, understood them, and were accountable to them.

That progress changed the South. It helped produce Black mayors, legislators, members of Congress, statewide officials, and community leaders across states where that kind of representation had once been treated as impossible. It allowed democracy to function a little more like democracy.

None of that happened by accident. It happened because people fought for it. They marched, organized, litigated, and in many cases put their lives on the line for the basic idea that citizenship should come with actual political power.

Now those protections are being dismantled piece by piece.

First came Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act. That decision was sold as evidence that the country had changed enough that extraordinary protections were no longer necessary. Anyone paying attention knew better. It was not the end of discrimination. It was the removal of the guardrails.

Now comes Callais, another reminder that once protections are weakened, the next attack is never far behind.

When people talk about these decisions as if they are technical legal disputes, they miss the real consequence. When you remove the medicine, the disease does not disappear. It comes back.

It returns through redistricting maps designed to weaken Black voting strength. Legal theories are dressed up as neutrality. There’s a familiar insistence that fairness has gone too far and that equal representation somehow became unfair to those who were comfortable with inequality.

Share

Coming to a State Near You

If you think this stops in Louisiana, you have not been paying attention.

There are already signs that Republicans, emboldened by Donald Trump and empowered by the Supreme Court, are looking at states like South Carolina for the next round of congressional redistricting fights.

Because in South Carolina, these fights are never just about lines on a map. They are about whether communities that spent generations fighting for representation will once again have their political voices weakened and diluted.

This one feels personal. As a Black man born and raised in Orangeburg, South Carolina, I grew up understanding what representation meant because I also understood what happened when our communities did not have it.

When there is nobody at the table fighting for you, your community suffers.

School investment becomes optional. Hospital access becomes negotiable. Your roads, your jobs, your economic future all become somebody else’s afterthought.

And for parts of the Black community, this moment needs to be a wake-up call.

We cannot afford indifference or cynicism. Now is not the time to check out because politics feels exhausting or disappointing. Because when representation disappears, power disappears.

And when power disappears, somebody else makes decisions about your life.

Leave a comment

This Cannot Be Met With Silence

Black voters are not simply one constituency inside the Democratic coalition. They are the backbone of the modern Democratic Party. Cycle after cycle, election after election, Black communities have stood up and defended democracy in some of the hardest places in this country. And right now, they need more than talking points.

That loyalty requires strategy, investment, and seriousness.

That is why I have begun working with Democratic Party chairs across the South to coordinate our efforts to educate, organize, and mobilize voters throughout the region.

And candidly, this may be one of the first efforts of its kind in more than 50 years—Southern Democrats standing shoulder to shoulder with a shared understanding that we cannot allow history to repeat itself.

Because that is exactly what this moment is about.

It is now crystal clear why Donald Trump and his MAGA allies have spent so much time trying to wipe away history, especially Black history.

They do not want people to understand that this has all happened before.

They do not want folks connecting today’s legal arguments to yesterday’s suppression. They do not want people recognizing how power was stripped away after Reconstruction through maps, courts, laws, intimidation, and division. Because when people understand history, they become harder to fool.

Well, there are those of us who know that history, and we are fully committed to making sure it remains exactly that: Our history. Not our future.

But let me be crystal clear: We are not powerless. This moment should awaken every single one of us.

We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while others redraw the future of our families and our communities.

The people who built movements before us did not do it because success was guaranteed. They did it because surrender was unacceptable.

We will organize. We will mobilize. We will fight for representation not because it is politically convenient, but because it is morally necessary.

And to anyone who believes our voices can be diluted, erased, or pushed aside, understand this: We know what this fight looks like because we have lived it before.

We are not confused about what is happening.

And we are sure as hell not going back.

Share

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 3:30pm ET.

Today’s guest is Kinney Zalesne, a former White House and Justice Department official who is now running for Congress in Washington, DC. We talk about her decision to leave power behind for nonprofit work, the fight to expand college opportunity, and why DC’s lack of voting representation is both a local injustice and a national democratic failure.

Leadership is easy to praise in theory and much harder to measure in practice. The real test is not the title someone held, but what they were willing to walk away from, who they chose to fight for, and whether they know how to turn influence into lasting change for people without a seat at the table.

Join us today at 3:30pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 3:30pm ET.

Today’s guest is former Health and Human Services Secretary and current California gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, who joins us for a conversation about leadership and what it takes to govern in difficult moments. We talk about his journey from a working-class family in California to helping pass the Affordable Care Act in Congress and leading HHS during COVID. We also discuss why experience matters in a race where voters are asking who is actually ready to lead.

Too often, we confuse performance with preparation. But governing is not a trial run. When the stakes are real—whether it’s health care, affordability, or the future of a state—experience stops being a résumé line and becomes the difference between stability and chaos.

Join us today at 3:30pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

But over time, we dropped the hard work part. Now folks seem to think that leadership can be learned in real time.

The modern campaign doesn’t look anything like what our founding fathers went through. In fact, they didn’t aggressively campaign at all. They envisioned a system where communities would recognize and nominate their leaders. They were suspicious of anyone who actively sought out power.

But 250 years later, we have a political apparatus that duct tapes together two completely different ecosystems: campaigns reward message discipline and performance while governing demands judgment under pressure and fluency in complex systems. Even though the two worlds overlap, the skillsets do not.

What Crisis Reveals

The gap becomes impossible to ignore in moments of crisis. When systems are under strain and time disappears, there is no learning curve that can unfold gradually. The job is already in motion.

Crisis has a way of exposing what’s underneath. It strips away the messaging, the framing, and the carefully constructed narratives. When the problem in front of you can’t be spun, the only thing that matters is whether you can make decisions and execute them.

The pandemic made that distinction impossible to ignore. The Department of Health and Human Services was not an abstract policy shop when COVID surged. It was the center of a national effort to move vaccines, distribute equipment, and stabilize a system under enormous stress. Decisions were tied directly to outcomes measured in lives, not headlines.

The skills required to lead in that moment don’t magically show up when you need them. If they’re not already there, people pay for it. As former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said on this week’s episode of At Our Table, we cannot afford to have leaders who need on-the-job training.

The directive inside HHS was simple on paper: save lives. The reality was tragically much more complicated. Thousands of Americans were dying each day. Supply chains were strained. Public confidence was fragile. Coordination had to stretch across agencies and into the private sector. There was no version of that moment where improvisation alone would carry you through.

Leave a comment

When Competence Gets Replaced

The risk doesn’t stop with inexperience. It gets worse when politics starts to replace competence.

There has been a steady drift toward treating expertise as optional, as if technical knowledge can be swapped out for instinct or narrative. In some arenas, that might only lead to confusion. In healthcare, it leads to harm.

“That’s not science, that’s politics,” Becerra said during our conversation. It’s a simple line, but it captures something bigger. When decision-making isn’t backed by expertise, systems break down.

You don’t have to look far to see how this plays out. The current administration has made the case more clearly than any op-ed could. It turns out that if you remove the expectation of preparation, talent, and intelligence, truly anyone can rise to the top. Mediocrity is not new in politics. Neither is incompetence. But it’s concerning how quickly we became comfortable with both at the highest levels of power.

Campaigning vs. Governing

Part of the problem is that we treat campaigning and governing as if they require the same skillset. They don’t.

Campaigns deal in possibilities. Governing deals in constraints. Campaigns can adjust. Governing has to deliver.

On the campaign trail, broad ideas are an asset. You can refine them later. In office, the questions get specific very quickly. What gets funded? What gets cut? What happens first? What happens if it doesn’t work?

Those decisions sit inside systems that are big, complicated, and often unforgiving. Running a federal department means managing budgets as large as entire states, leading teams across the country, and making decisions that affect people’s daily lives. At the state level, housing, infrastructure, education, and health care all collide in ways that don’t have clean answers.

Setting direction and relying on your political instincts will only take you so far. You need to know how to keep everything moving.

Share

What Experience Actually Means

The kind of experience that matters in those environments rarely translates into a compelling campaign moment. It doesn’t produce viral clips. It doesn’t come with sweeping promises.

It shows up in decisions that prevent problems from getting worse and in systems that keep working when they’re under pressure. You’re actively rooting for outcomes that look uneventful because the worst-case scenario never happened.

That’s hard to measure. It’s even harder to campaign on. So voters are left evaluating candidates based on traits that are easier to see but less relevant to the job.

This helps explain why the loudest voices tend to rise. Volume can look like confidence, and confidence can look like readiness. But the environments that reward those traits are not the ones that test them.

A campaign can absorb mistakes and recalibrate. A governing institution in the middle of a crisis cannot. The feedback loop is immediate, and the consequences add up quickly.

The challenge going forward is not simply to identify experienced candidates. It is to understand what that experience represents. Years in office do not guarantee competence, but exposure to complex decision-making environments increases the likelihood that a leader has developed the necessary instincts. It builds familiarity with tradeoffs and an appreciation for the limits of any single solution. It creates a baseline for making quick decisions.

This doesn’t mean new voices shouldn’t lead. That’s the point of elections. The real question is where and when that leadership happens.

Some roles give you room to learn as you go. Others don’t. We’ve stopped treating those roles differently.

The Choice Ahead

As the next election gets closer, the conversation will shift back to policy, ideology, and campaign strategy. That all matters. But there’s a more basic question underneath it: who can actually do the job?

Who has managed something complicated? Who has worked under real pressure when the outcome wasn’t guaranteed? Who can make decisions and then follow through?

There’s no clean metric for that. You have to look past the campaign and pay attention to what someone has actually done. Not what they say they’ll do, but how they’ve handled real responsibility.

At a certain point, the difference between looking prepared and actually being prepared stops being a matter of opinion. It shows up in outcomes.

And that brings us back to the American Dream.

And right now, we’re getting a very clear example of what happens when preparation is treated as optional.

Donald Trump didn’t rise through the kind of effort the American Dream is supposed to reward. He inherited wealth, bullied his way to access, and built a life around performance. The people around him didn’t get there by proving they could run anything. They got there by proving they would say yes. Power, in that orbit, is handed out based on loyalty, not competence.

The American Dream was never about skipping the work. It was about the idea that hard work and preparation would open doors that were once closed. That merit would matter. That responsibility would be earned before it was handed over.

It’s time to ask ourselves which dream is worth pursuing.

Leave a comment

They worked harder than anyone I’ve ever known, and we barely got by. But we made it work.

Every month, more and more families around the country find themselves in a similar situation. They keep asking themselves the same question: how did it get this high? Electricity, gas, groceries, rent—it all adds up in ways that feel random and out of reach. And they don’t have any idea why.

Most people don’t track policy decisions or regulatory fights. They just feel the result. If we ask questions of the people in power, we get the same story about prices going up and markets shifting. We have to accept it because that’s just how the world works.

That explanation is convenient, but it’s incomplete.

How This Really Works

Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois spent years in the energy business before coming to Congress. On this week’s episode of At Our Table, he made sense of it for us. He said higher costs don’t just happen. They are shaped by decisions about what we build, what we block, and who we protect. That idea reframes the conversation. Instead of asking why life is so expensive, we should ask who made it that way.

You can see it playing out in real time. Decisions that slow down cheaper energy are defended in the name of something else—and then we’re told rising costs are out of anyone’s control.

Once you look at it from that angle, a pattern emerges. You see that scarcity is the result of choices but presented as beyond anyone’s control. Energy is a clear example, but the logic shows up everywhere. Cheaper or more efficient options are treated as a threat to the existing system instead of an improvement. So they get delayed, restricted, or buried under process. The result is higher costs that are later described as inevitable.

Rep. Casten shared a story that captures the dynamic. A project using long-established technology could generate electricity at lower cost. It worked, but connecting it to the grid took years of resistance because it challenged the business model of the current provider. The barrier was not physics. It was permission.

That is how scarcity gets invented. It requires a system that gives some players the ability to slow down change and protect their position. Over time, those decisions add up. The cheaper option arrives late or not at all. Someone is making money off that, and it’s not you.

Share

The Burden Doesn’t Fall Evenly

My grandparents both worked with their hands. I grew up surrounded by working folks like them. Their jobs were never glamorous, but they were steady. And when things got tight, people worked harder and found a way through.

Over time, that kind of work started to disappear. Not all at once—but just enough. Year after year, things felt a little more uncertain than they used to.

But when that uncertainty happened, nobody came in and said, “We’re going to rebuild this.” What people like my grandparents heard instead was some version of the same line: “This is just how it works. You’ve got to adapt.”

The thing is that working people have heard that many times before, so we know what “adapt” really means.

We’ve been promised new investment, new industries, and a transition to replace what was lost. Sometimes it shows up. A lot of times it doesn’t. So when the next version of that promise comes along, it doesn’t land the same way.

But that same “this is just how it works” argument disappears when more powerful people are on the losing end.

When cheaper options threaten the status quo, things slow down. Projects that should move get stuck. Rules start to change. Suddenly there’s a long conversation about stability and reliability. Not because the system can’t handle change—but because some people don’t want to “adapt.”

That’s the difference.

In one place, people are told to adjust. In another, the system adjusts for them.

And when you’ve lived through that first version—when you’ve watched work disappear and promises fall through—you don’t have much patience left for explanations. You start to assume the next one won’t be any different.

For a lot of people, that’s where they are right now.

They’re not reading policy reports. They’re looking at their bills and making choices: what to cut, what to put off, and what can wait another month. After a while, that does something to how you see things. You start to believe this is just how it is.

That’s the real cost.

Ask Better Questions and Don’t Let Them Go

The next time your bill jumps, don’t just shrug it off. Ask what decision led to that number—and who made it. Then keep asking.

Look at what’s getting built in your state and what keeps getting blocked. Watch who shows up to defend those decisions. And when they turn around and talk about affordability, don’t take the line at face value. Press them on it.

Because this doesn’t change until people start treating these decisions like they matter.

These decisions are made by people. They can be challenged. They can be changed.

But not if everyone accepts the outcome and moves on.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 3:30pm ET.

Today’s guest is Rep. Sean Casten, who joins us for a conversation about why rising energy costs aren’t random and what policy decisions are actually driving families’ monthly bills. We talk about blocked clean energy projects, the tension between producers and consumers, and how protecting the status quo is keeping prices higher than they need to be.

We’ve been told to accept higher costs as inevitable. But when cheaper options are slowed down or shut out, it’s a choice—not the market at work. And if we don’t understand those choices, we can’t change them.

Join us today at 3:30pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 3:30pm ET.

Today’s guest is , who joins us for a conversation about what Democrats have lost and what it would take to look strong, focused, and future-oriented again. We talk about the party’s drift from accountability, the tension between cultural debates and economic priorities, and why reconnecting with working people requires more than messaging.

We’ve built a political environment that’s loud, constant, and increasingly disconnected from the results people can see in their own lives. And when everything becomes the fight, nothing becomes the focus. If Democrats want to rebuild trust, we have to prove that government can still deliver.

Join us today at 3:30pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

An older man answered the door and got right to the point: “Son, who are you and what do you want?”

I went straight into my field script about the most consequential election of our lifetime, but he cut me off quickly and asked, “Son, do you see that road you drove up on?” I said yes.

He asked, “What kind of road is that?” I said it was a dirt road.

He said, “Son, that was a dirt road when Ronald Reagan was president. It was a dirt road when both Bushes were president. It was a dirt road when Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were president. And Son, it’s still a goddamn dirt road. And until a Democrat or a Republican paves my road, I don’t want to deal with any of you.” Then he shut the door.

That conversation changed how I see politics.

Because it stripped away everything you hear the pundits say about what matters to voters. They don’t care about the talking points designed by your campaign team. They just want to know what you are going to do to make their lives better, and they want proof that you’ll actually do it.

There is a growing distance between the political rhetoric and voters’ lived experience. Inside the bubble, the conversation is constant, loud, and reactive. Outside of it, people are asking simpler, more direct questions. Can I afford this? Is my family going to be okay? Is anything actually getting better?

As the Republican Party narrows itself around one man, Democrats have an opportunity to make a broader case. But when you look at campaigns and messaging, you see a different problem: Democrats have lost a sense of proportion.

We’ve allowed cultural noise to crowd out economic urgency. Not because those issues don’t matter. They do. But when everything is treated as equally central, nothing lands with the weight it should. The result is a conversation that feels disconnected from the stakes people are living with every day.

We let this happen.

The incentives are everywhere. Media cycles reward conflict. Social platforms elevate the most polarizing takes. Internal debates spill outward and become the message instead of informing it. A niche issue catches fire online, gets picked up on cable, and within 24 hours it’s the question every candidate is expected to answer. It’s not central to people’s lives, but it ends up defining the conversation.

We’re caught in a cycle of reacting instead of leading.

When joined me on At Our Table, he made a version of this argument in his own way. He talked about a party that has drifted from accountability and focus. You can agree or disagree with his conclusions, but the underlying point is harder to dismiss. When politics becomes a collection of arguments instead of a case for what you will deliver, voters stop hearing you.

The fact is that we talk a lot. It’s not just politicians. In our permanently online society, there is a lot of talk from experts, influencers, wannabe experts, and wannabe influencers. Then you layer in friends and family and cat videos, and it feels like we’re drinking from a fire hose of content.

But the thing is that most of that talk is little more than noise.

The man on that dirt road was sick of all the talk and looking for action. He was measuring politics against his life. Has anything changed? Has anyone delivered? Is this worth my time?

That’s how most voters engage. They are situational. They are pragmatic. They are trying to make sense of a world that feels more expensive, less stable, and harder to navigate than it used to.

And when the political conversation doesn’t speak directly to that, it stops being persuasive.

That’s where the cost shows up.

Share

When Democrats lose discipline in how we talk about priorities, we lose clarity in what we stand for. That makes it easier for opponents to define us through the loudest, least representative parts of the debate. It makes it harder for even strong policies to connect because they’re not being heard in a way that feels relevant.

You can be right on the issues and still lose the argument.

Because persuasion is about what people can actually hear, understand, and connect to in their own lives.

That requires discipline.

A disciplined message anchors the conversation in economic stakes and lived experience. It means deciding that when voters hear from us, they immediately understand what we are fighting for and how it affects them.

It means making real choices.

We can spend our time responding to every debate that breaks through the noise. Or we can stay focused on what actually moves people’s lives—what they earn, what they pay, what their kids learn, whether their community is improving or standing still.

We can talk about everything. Or we can make sure people hear something.

Strength in politics is focus—not volume.

It’s the ability to say, clearly and consistently, what you are fighting for—and to make that case in a way that cuts through everything else competing for attention. It’s the discipline to stay there, even when the conversation tries to pull you somewhere else.

That’s what’s missing right now.

And until we get that right, the gap will keep widening.

Because out on that dirt road, the expectations aren’t complicated. That man wasn’t asking for a perfect ideology or a flawless message. He was asking for something that connected to his life. Something that shows up. Something that delivers.

Until the conversation starts to sound more like that dirt road—and less like the daily noise—we’re going to keep talking.

And voters are going to keep tuning out.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 3:30pm ET.

Today’s guest is Heather Williams, president of , who joins us for a conversation about why the fight for power in 2026 will be decided in state legislatures. We talk about flipping seats in unexpected places to break Republican supermajorities, the real impact of state houses on voting rights and everyday life, and why a favorable political environment means nothing without the hard work to match it.

Too often, we treat national races as the whole game. But the truth is the decisions that shape our lives—and our democracy—are being made much closer to home.

Join us today at 3:30pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime

Subscribe now

The newest episode of At Our Table will premiere live on YouTube at 3:30pm ET.

Today’s guest is Senator Elizabeth Warren, who joins us for a conversation about what’s actually driving the economic pressure so many Americans are feeling—and what it will take for Democrats to meet this moment with clarity and courage. We talk about the shrinking middle class, the cost of housing and health care, taking on corporate power, and why the story we tell about economic struggle matters just as much as the policies we pass.

Too often, we’re told that if you’re struggling, it’s because you’ve done something wrong. But what happens when millions of people are doing everything right and still falling behind?

Join us today at 3:30pm ET and jump into the live chat.

See you there

—Jaime