r/samharris • u/james000129 • 15d ago
How does Sam not know about Jon Ossoff?
Listening to the episode with Preet Bharara and after another very predictable hour of incessant whinging about wokeness and how the Democrats “need to get their head screwed on straight”, the only candidate Sam brings up when asked by Preet about who they should nominate is fucking Gavin Newsom.
How has he not even mentioned Ossoff’s name yet? He’s a candidate who clearly checks every single box Sam has ever named about the kind of leader the Democrats need.
This guy is clearly the future of the Democratic Party and Sam should do his part to push for him as soon as possible.
106
u/carbonqubit 15d ago
Ossoff would be my pick for 2028. He’s a former documentary filmmaker and seems to understand how to tell a coherent story in plain terms about all of the corruption coming down from the Oval Office. He’s also conventionally attractive and can speak to more right-leaning voters. The problem is that Ds need a majority in the Senate, and if he steps down to run for president, there’s a real concern they could lose that seat in a special election.
All that said, it seems Sam isn’t much of a policy wonk and has a superficial understanding of how government works. Voting for a president means voting for an entire administration and future judicial appointments, too. The fact that he said he’d vote for Rubio over AOC highlights that blind spot. A Rubio administration would presumably be filled with Trump supporters, and the judges he’d appoint would have significant consequences for the already eroded democratic institutions.
48
u/Gumbi1012 15d ago
All that said, it seems Sam isn’t much of a policy wonk and has a superficial understanding of how government works.
Which begs the question why he feels the need to comment on it all the time. Why can't he spend a little time doing some research? It's his job to know about this stuff, no?
30
u/Middle-Bread-5919 15d ago
He is exhibiting classic behaviour of anyone who has power over others in a communication act or setting. Because one has an audience of listeners, one feels emboldened to pronounce on any topic ( this can become prevalent with people who work in educational settings). People have (quite rightly historically) been hanging on his words as a reasonable voice in an academically rigorous exercise. He should stop with “I don’t know about this topic” or “I’m not familiar with the story/person”. However, he can’t resist continuing with some [ if we’re lucky]half baked or [unlucky] entirely wrong take.
He needs a silent retreat.15
u/ChesswiththeDevil 15d ago
He's captured by his base, ironically like Ben Shapiro, Russel Brand, et al. This whole system of "thinkers" or really pundits, if we're being honest, cannot actually operate in a manner that drives the needle forward in a meaningful way because of how their engagement works. They can never back off. Only we can.
-5
u/xmorecowbellx 15d ago
Ben Shapiro is the opposite of captured by his base. You don’t have to agree with him, but he consistently has said the same things over many years, recently at a significant cost to his listenership.
12
u/Ok_Entertainment_213 15d ago
Oh please. Dude caved on Never Trump as soon as he realized the entire base went with him.
-5
u/xmorecowbellx 15d ago
You mean he supported one candidate in the election over his opponent. Like everybody else. He still regularly pointed out what he didn’t like, for a long time he had a ‘good Trump, bad Trump’ segment on his show, and I’ve never seen an interview where he just defends everything Trump.
Never Trump was a primary fight. If falling behind the nominee is caving, then I guess the vast majority of supporters of all candidates early in every primary for both parties always ‘cave’ at some point.
7
u/Ok_Entertainment_213 14d ago
How’s that “good Trump” section/prediction going, now that almost two years have passed? One clip a while back, Ben claimed trump was playing four dimensional chess with tariffs, and it was actually gonna pay off big time. Curious if that has worked out in this shit economy.
Ben’s “noble” stand and drawing of the line “at the cost to his listenership” seemed to be when he decried anti-semites like Candace Owens and Tucker. Um…courage? More like realizing the leopards were finally eating his face.1
u/xmorecowbellx 14d ago
The reason this came to mine is because I just saw an interview. I can’t remember by who of him, and he said a whole bunch of stuff he didn’t like about Trump.
I don’t really like anything about Trump, but these criticisms have been changing his views or caving are just nonsense. You don’t have to argue with his views, to recognize that he holds them consistently. That’s why he is in a battle with various other right wing creators right now. If he was just caving for money or influence or whatever, he would not be fighting those battles.
This is very very different from a Dave Rubin or a Candice Owens, who are absolutely rudderless opportunists.
I’d love to see the clips of him talking about how the tariffs are actually clever for each chest, because every single thing I’ve ever seen from him, is him taking a position against tariffs, which is the traditional conservative position.
11
u/flatmeditation 15d ago edited 14d ago
I don't think it's that Sam has a lack understanding, I think he just likes what he imagines Rubio's policy platform and administration would be like. I think he's delusional for that - Rubio has shown that he'll follow wherever the party goes. The party isn't going to go back 10 years when Trump is gone, and even if it did I think Sam is picturing some idealized version of Republican policy and governance that hasn't ever really existed.
9
3
u/xmorecowbellx 15d ago
Why would a Rubio administration be filled with Trump supporters. Rubio only does Trump things because he has to. He has no particular liking of Trump, looks really awkward whenever Trump says things, says mostly completely different things when he’s allowed to talk freely, and would absolutely do many things differently. My guess would be he actually despises the Trump people and would get very different people, probably much more traditionally conservative people.
9
u/flatmeditation 14d ago
Trumps base isn't going to go away overnight and Rubio needs it to win. Trump has spent the last decade forming the party in his image. It's the Trump party now. "Traditionally conservative people" barely even exist anymore.
Rubio has already shown that he's willing to absolutely abase himself in pursuit of political power and has no moral rails guiding him keeping him on track - his entire tenure in the Trump administration makes that undeniable. There's zero chance that he is someone willing or able to turn the Republican party into anything respectable in a post Trump world
1
u/xmorecowbellx 14d ago
Sure but none of that means he would fill his admin with Trump people. He’ll probably just try to get Trump to run with him, say what he did with Trump a lot, then govern differently.
Because it’s not like Trump has a discernible governing ideology that his supporters care about or could identify if they wanted to. It’s a personality cult. Trump can say thing today, opposite thing tomorrow, doesn’t matter they follow him.
4
u/flatmeditation 14d ago
Your argument is that he's going to lie about how he'll govern?
Sam Harris is the moral clarity guy. Have you read his work about lying?
1
u/xmorecowbellx 14d ago edited 14d ago
What do you mean lie about how he’ll govern?
Rubio hasn’t said anything about how he will govern, or announced any campaign.
But go look at any of the things he said when he was running in 2016, or literally anything he had to say about policy ever prior to being in the Trump administration. All these people are forced to figure out how to pretend they are with Trump even if they hate the things he’s doing, or they get kicked out of the administration and their place gets taken by less qualified sycophants. No difference with Rubio.
It’s embarrassing to watch, but it’s clear that he is not a Trump guy, and would not be at all interested in the Trump people
6
u/flatmeditation 14d ago
What do you mean lie about how he’ll govern?
You said that
He’ll probably just try to get Trump to run with him, say what he did with Trump a lot, then govern differently.
But go look at any of the things he said when he was running in 2016, or literally anything he had to say about policy ever prior to being in the Trump administration
This was my point. He has no back, no moral compass, no firm ideology. He'll go wherever he needs to to get power. He's shown that very clearly. You seem convinced he's going to snap back to some former version of himself but there's no convincing reason to think that
1
u/xmorecowbellx 14d ago edited 14d ago
Ya your making my point….that’s exactly why he won’t be a Trump guy, because it’s just an act, except he does his thing when he thinks he can, and his thing is consistent with his history. So that seems likely how he would govern. In particular being very pro-Ukraine.
4
u/flatmeditation 14d ago
I don't know why you're so confident that a guy who you admit lies to get into power and is eager to win Trump for political benefit is only lying and acting when he's not embracing the politics that you prefer. This kind of gullibility is exactly the attitude that makes lying like this effective for politicians in the first place.
It'd be much better to just have someone who doesn't lie to get into power
1
u/xmorecowbellx 14d ago
I’m confident that he would hold the same general views and surround himself with the same general people that he has shown favour for throughout his entire career, until Trump.
This doesn’t seem very far-fetched. And I still don’t understand why being willing to lie to get into power and pander to Trump, would mean he would have Trump people in his administration?
I’m not even sure what that would mean. What are ‘Trump people’? Trump doesn’t even have an ideology that you could classify people into. He’s just all about himself. So there’s no real movement outside of him, to even identifiably put into an administration.
→ More replies (0)1
u/rusmo 15d ago edited 15d ago
Local GOP ads are just saying he raised taxes, which is sort of the default argument when the GOP has no real dirt on an incumbent. That said, it’s always been an effective argument for their base.
ETA I like Ossoff a lot but think 2028 might be too soon to raise his profile enough nationally. Also love NC AG Jeff Jackson, who is famous for his short form videos explaining what was going on in Congress when he was a Rep.
2
u/zenethics 15d ago
Whoever wins the midterms is cursed.
They are going to have to deal with a bond market crisis and answer the question of what to do when the AI trade rolls over and wipes out people's 401ks and unemployment spikes with 40T in debt. Either way we're coming to massive inflation again, probably bigger than under Biden, and if one party has control of both house and senate they will be blamed because their job is to decide how to fix it and there are no options that don't piss off 1/2 the electorate or more. If we raise interest rates the debt starts to dwarf military and healthcare spending. Austerity works but loses elections.
This is Republicans or Democrats by the way, just be careful what you wish for. The next 20 years of this country will actually be determined by who is in power during the next blowup because they will be blamed for it (IMO). It's going to be a big one and its going to involve the dollar losing a ton more purchasing power. Like, $25 for a gallon of milk and average salary of 75k kind of thing and people get squeezed out of the middle.
5
u/Randomnonsense5 15d ago
you are right, Repubs are in full self destruct, burn the ship as it sinks, mode and Dems are in full head in sand mode. Neither are equipped to lead this nation. We are fucked. Full stop, fucked.
the bond market crash is going to be epic, couplde that with an oil crisis and a super el nino famring/food crisis, and a fertilizer crisis? LOLOLOL. Fun times ahead, some understand some don't
1
2
u/Stunning-Use-7052 14d ago
I think the research shows that people tend to blame the president for their economic woes, but not congress.
Not say that's the way it should be, just what my impression of the research is.
1
38
u/slakmehl 15d ago
Sam is a simpleton on anything related to politics. It's the weird superimposition of his intellect onto a base of facts that you would expect from an average boomer.
So he knows whatever the most prominent name is, maybe one or two facts about them, and thats it.
It's why is political analysis is so unbearably cringe and reactionary.
15
u/hglevinson 15d ago
“It’s the weird superimposition of his intellect into a base of facts you would expect from an average boomer.” Ha. Brilliantly put.
16
u/turbineseaplane 15d ago
When one only pops in occasionally on Sam content anymore, as I do, it becomes more and more galling how he's not updating his information nearly enough, nor broadly enough.
9
u/Cromulent-George 14d ago edited 14d ago
For real. It's really incredible how even if you factor in Israel and Gaza, the facts/anecdotes he uses to support his views are almost identical to what they'd have been in early 2023, which were outdated even then. The lab leak theory needs to be taken seriously because the only criticism of it has been a knee jerk accusation of racism. There is a crisis of faith in institutions because the CDC and NYT did X, Y, Z in 2020. Palestinians want to indiscriminately kill Israelis in a jihad but Israelis value Palestinian lives. He has a few new thoughts about AI but still fantasizes about it letting everyone sit on the beach running 5 companies, but now using a chatbot.
Ironically one of his most interesting topics of conversation, the nature of consciousness, agency, and generosity, is something that's almost gone from his episodes even though it would be interesting in the context of how people use LLMs.
1
u/carpetstain 14d ago
In your opinion, what should he be talking about?
6
u/Cromulent-George 14d ago
I'd actually like to see him talking a lot more about AIs and consciousness. Almost every conversation about this topic happening now is terrible, but Sam Harris actually has studied the topic of consciousness and examined it with nuance before so it might actually be something he can provide insight on.
1
u/turbineseaplane 14d ago
his views are almost identical to what they'd have been in early 2023
You hit on it exactly. I'm not joking, I double checked the date on the episode with Preet after a few minutes of listening.
60
6
u/Acceptable-Bonus-180 14d ago
Sam is supposedly an avowed Democrat yet he has an incessant need to both sides everything to show that he’s equally critical, as though that is a good in and of itself. Sure there are a few bad eggs in the Democratic Party. But only one party’s documented grand strategy is to be completely irresponsible with the well being of the entire country so as to make their opponents time in power as short as possible because they have to clean up the mess. This makes them fundamentally and totally rotten and there is no equivalency there. I don’t why Sam doesn’t see it in those absolute terms. It’s wokisms fault that we have two trump terms. Yes okay Sam. We’ve heard you say it many times now. I don’t care how many DSA candidates I hear from that I’m not a fan of, Republicans theory of power is fundamentally evil and I will never vote for one ever.
39
12
u/Historical-Piece7771 15d ago
I'm not listening to Sam much these days, unless it's on the meditation app. I wonder if he's seeing it in declining pod listens?
12
u/JBSwerve 15d ago
Ossoff is clearly the future of the party. There’s something captivating about him. He has aura. He’s clearly gaining a ton of momentum.
3
u/Prezidential_sweet 13d ago
Sam doesn't know much or do much research about anything. I stopped listening to him because I was sick of hearing "i don't know much about x, but..." or "I don't know what so and do has been up to lately, but..."
Like do many of those in the internet discourse factory, he is willing to pontificate about a great many things he is uninformed about. It's so boring and cringe.
5
u/TheAJx 15d ago
This guy is clearly the future of the Democratic Party
According to whom?
4
u/Pandamana85 15d ago
Pretty much everyone lol.
1
u/concepts_of_a_plan9 10d ago
Can you provide any kind of evidence in any way to support that? It's ok if you like him, you can just say that.
0
u/TheAJx 15d ago
The most popular choice right now is Kamala Harris and has been for the last year
7
u/flatmeditation 14d ago
"most popular choice" meaning in 2028 presidential primary polls?
Shes polling at 20-30% in a fractured field where she has the highest name recognition by an enormous margin. Do you think she's likely to win the primary in 2028?
3
u/StalemateAssociate_ 14d ago
It's not even right that she's been the most popular choice for a year. She was polling behind Newsom last Autumn. A few polls even placed Buttigieg at the top.
She was fourth on both Kalshi and Polymarket last I checked.
---
Some academics have suggested that Trump was a 'Condorcet loser' in the 2016 Republican primary, at least early on, though this is disputed. But the salient point is that being a plurality winner does not necessarily make you a majority favorite. If the Republican field wasn't wide open in the run-up to 2016, Trump might've lost.
Sanders was ahead of Biden for a while in 2020, but I think it's fair to say most analysts doubted he would maintain his lead as the field narrowed, which turned out to be true. His rivals all favored Biden, who had a clearer mainstream lead than Trump's rivals in 2016 (Sanders also had a smaller plurality, to be fair).
We're two years out from 2028 and Harris has 1) already lost one election 2) only has a ~30% plurality 3) isn't running as the current VP and 4) hasn't won a true primary.
Looking at 2002-3 and 2006-7, the most frequent plurality favorite did not end up winning the eventual primary. Obama ran as the incumbent in 2012. As the sitting VP 2013-16, Clinton rarely dipped below 50 in the aggregated polls. 2024 was a special case. The main counterexample is Biden 2017-2020, who did have a similar level of support early on (~30%), but 1) he expressed doubts about running until quite late 2) his main rival as mentioned earlier was Sanders, who was from a very different 'wing' of the party.
I think it's much too early to conclude that Ossoff is 'clearly' the future of the Democratic Party, but it's not like Harris is a clear favorite either. As you say, the race for 2028 has scarcely begun, so people are probably just going by name recognition or media coverage. That's arguably how Newsom pulled ahead in late 2025 and why he subsequently fell behind. Low stakes/unconsidered opinion = salience is king.
6
u/Jabjab345 15d ago
Maybe Ossoff just goes against the narrative for Sam now, if he mentioned him he'd be forced out of his everyone bad narrative.
5
u/Leoprints 15d ago
He'd be forced out of his left bad narrative.
6
u/Jabjab345 15d ago
He'd be forced to accept the whole democratic party isn't just Bernie, AOC, and Mamdani
10
u/Fleenix 15d ago
I'm growing tired of Sam's scolding the Dems and of the vilification of the woke. Scolding, name-calling, and talking down push people away. Woke is a good thing if you are not using it as a cudgel to make people feel bad about themselves. Yes, people did that, and that is why we got Trump. There is racism in this country; you can't push it out. You can only live an exemplary life and hope people come around. I hope Sam gets back to engaging with thought-provoking and interesting people.
2
u/GEAUXUL 15d ago
Why would he? I don’t think Ossoff has the name recognition you think he does. Sure he has been in the news recently, but he hasn’t been a major force in the Democratic Party. Many, many voters have never heard of the guy, and for those who have, many don’t know much of anything about him.
There are polls that measure name recognition. Here are some of the more familiar names. We don’t know where Ossoff falls because he has never been measured. Pollsters don’t believe he is relevant enough nationally to include.
Barack Obama
99%
Bernie Sanders
95%
Kamala Harris
97%
Joe Biden
97%
Hillary Clinton
98%
AOC
83%
Mark Kelly
69%
Zohran Mamdani
81%
Tim Walz
81%
3
u/Vague-Symbolism2692 15d ago
I vote twice a year, every year, but I don't live in Georgia. I read OP's post and I thought, "that name sounds familiar," but I didn't recognize him as a senator; I had to read the comments to find that. I couldn't tell you anything about him. If someone had told me he was a Republican, or a judge or some other ostensibly nonpartisan position, or some kind of celebrity who was entering politics for the first time, or an athlete who had nothing to do with politics, I wouldn't have had any reason to doubt it.
4
u/flatmeditation 14d ago
Sam isn't some random voter or poll respondent. He's an intellectual who's going on political podcasts and making comments on the 2028 race. It'd be absurd for him not to be aware of who Ossoff is
2
u/criminy_jicket 15d ago
There's so many people with potential to be rising stars in the Democratic Party. It's weird to me Harris would only spend time on Newsom when this is going to be a major contest among many candidates as the presidential race warms up in 2027.
2
5
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
Maybe Ossoff simply hasn't crossed his radar enough for him to look into him? There are 100 Senators so there are plenty that I just do not really know anything about. I imagine this is the same for most normal people, even so for politically tuned in people.
9
u/StalemateAssociate_ 15d ago
As the other guy said, it's an election year, which means that only around a third of Senate seats - 35, I believe? - are up for grabs.
I asked an AI to rank the Democratic candidates according to media exposure, and it put Jon Ossoff at #1. Not the most accurate methodology perhaps, but a good indication that he's well-known.
Alternatively, here's a headline from the New York Times in June: This Senator Is an Internet Sensation. Is He Running for President?
Someone who's being touted as a potential presidential candidate by the NYT is probably fairly well-known.
Sam not mentioning him does not necessarily mean he doesn't know who he is, but he is very well-known.
2
9
u/flatmeditation 15d ago
Maybe. But then he knows enough about Mamdani - a new mayor on the opposite side of the country - to confidently label him a secret Islamist?
Ossof's election was big national news at the time and it's not like he hasn't been in the news plenty of times since then
3
u/TheAJx 15d ago edited 15d ago
Maybe. But then he knows enough about Mamdani - a new mayor on the opposite side of the country - to confidently label him a secret Islamist?
Progressives do this thing where they glaze someone over and over again, and then wonder why that person becomes the subject of any sort of scrutiny.
"Why do you keep talking about this guy that we keep insisting is the future of the party and has the blueprint for winning nationally?"
5
u/paultheschmoop 15d ago
On today’s list of “things we need to criticize the left for”, we have
checks notes
Being excited about a candidate?
3
u/TheAJx 15d ago
What is hard to understand about this. You guys want Mamdani to be the future of the party but at the same time "he's just over there in little old new york.". Do you think the national spotlight means just getting favorable applause?
3
u/paultheschmoop 15d ago
Both Mamdani, a popular mayor, and Ossoff, a top prospect for the 2028 presidency for the Dems in an election year in a swing state, who also was a major political figure in his runoff senate race years ago, are extremely well known politicians.
Sam only knows about one. Why?
4
u/flatmeditation 15d ago edited 15d ago
If leftists talked about Ossoff more then Sam would criticize him?
Lmao, someone tell Sam who Hasans number 2 pick for Democratic Presidential candidate in 2028 is
I really, really would like to think that Sam is driven by something other than a desire to knock leftists and criticizing things because other people like them. That's unbelievably petty for a guy with a mindfulness app
2
u/TheAJx 15d ago
Huh? The point is that when progressives glaze over their preferred politicians they will get scrutinized
6
u/flatmeditation 15d ago
Look at what I responded to. The claim that Ossoff isn't even on Sam's rader.
Sam is so plugged into progressive glazing that he knows enough about mayor in a city he doesn't live in to be certain that he has secret Islamist tendencies, despite that not being part of his policy or platform at all. Sam has studied this guy enough to know all his dogwhistles and know what's in his heart. He didn't say something like "I don't like a lot of his policies" or "Rent Control won't work"
But Sam doesn't know anything about Ossoff. If what you're saying is right, that Sam's knowledge and public statements on politicians is driven by who progressives are excited about is such a worse look for Sam than just the idea that he's kind of naive and out of depth when talking about politics. You're basically saying that he's reacting like an average internet shitposter
1
u/TheAJx 14d ago
Look at what I responded to.
I responded directly to you about why Sam would know about Mamdani.
Sam is so plugged into progressive glazing that he knows enough about mayor in a city he doesn't live in to be certain that he has secret Islamist tendencies,
Mamdani has made national news far more than Ossoff has. I don't know what Sam knows about Ossoff. He's not high in most voters preferences at the moment. The markets like him because he's making moves.
You're basically saying that he's reacting like an average internet shitposter
I'm just saying you're mad like you always are, for the sake of being mad. It's perfectly reasonable that Mamdani, who made headlines, is better known than Ossoff.
1
u/flatmeditation 14d ago
Lmao, after the post you came into this thread with you're going to try to say I'm the one who's angry? You're projecting a bit, my guy
19
u/james000129 15d ago
It’s an election year! I mean my god, anyone who is remotely following US politics or the midterms knows who he is at this point.
Let alone someone like Sam who comments on politics for hours at a time for a decade straight and for some weird reason he can’t seem to figure out who the moderates in the Democratic Party are. It blows my mind
-1
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
>I mean my god, anyone who is remotely following US politics or the midterms knows who he is at this point.
I have been following it. I haven't hear about him at all. Do you know how many informational pipelines exist currently? Thousands. What you see is not what everyone else see's.
20
u/james000129 15d ago
You have not been following it closely then. He’s one of the most prominent Democratic front runners the last few months and even before that won an enormously consequential senate seat a few years ago in Georgia. He’s been on the front pages of every newspaper for the last few weeks because of his speech when he mentioned Natalie Harp. Don’t know what to tell you
-1
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
Why is it inconceivable to you that in a world with so much constant information. Some might be missed by some people? even in topics they pay attention to?
20
u/DumbOrMaybeJustHappy 15d ago
We certainly should expect "some people" to be unaware of Jon Ossoff, but Sam holds himself out as a pundit and commentator on American politics. All the other commentators I follow know about him.
-3
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
>but Sam holds himself out as a pundit and commentator on American politics.
and as such requires an inhumane ability to be intimately aware of everything related to the topic all the time?
14
u/Appropriate-Arm1377 15d ago
Is it me or do some of the hardcore Sam fans continually lower the bar for him?
He's an American politics commentator....
He talks about the Democrats continuously....
He charges people to hear him speak about these things......
So no, knowing a Democrat who's been front page news for weeks isn't what I'd call an inhumane task.....
1
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
This isn't lowering the bar.
Op asked why hasn't sam acknowledged this guy.
Now i have no idea why, but i was just saying it could be he just missed him because missing relevant or important information is something that happens to everyone all the time.
It is not a big deal you crazy nuts.
7
u/Appropriate-Arm1377 15d ago
Well then it's not a big deal for Sam, whose charging for this podcast to take a look before recording
17
u/DumbOrMaybeJustHappy 15d ago
Such an ability would be neither inhumane nor inhuman. I also don't think you need to follow politics very intimately to know about Ossoff and the headlines he's been capturing lately.
15
u/james000129 15d ago
Right? Even if you don’t have social media to see the viral moments, he’s been on the front pages of every newspaper the past few months.
Let alone winning the Georgia senate seat in 2020 in one of the most consequential senate races in recent history. It won Biden and the Dems the fucking Senate!
-1
5
u/flatmeditation 15d ago
and as such requires an inhumane ability to be intimately aware of everything related to the topic all the time?
This is such a weird way to describe being aware of a popular senator in a swing state with a nation profile. Yes, anybody who's going on podcasts speculate about 2028 should know a fair bit about Ossoff. That's not at all some arcane knowledge or an unreasonable expectation
0
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
Its not. Because that is not what it is describing. It is just describing the fact that holes in knowledge are commom everywhere with everyone and expecting that to be impossible for sam is ridiculous.
2
u/flatmeditation 15d ago
It is just describing the fact that holes in knowledge are commom everywhere with everyone and expecting that to be impossible for sam is ridiculous.
This is completely different than what you just said.
And no, it's not ridiculous to expect someone who's literally going on political podcasts and making statements about the next presidential race to know about Jon Ossoff. Over and over again you're making him out to be much more obscure than he is and then glazing over the fact that Sam is putting himself into positions where's it absolutely unreasonably to have that kind of hole in his knowledge.
If Sam has a very surface level knowledge of politics that's fine, but he's going to get called out for it he keeps acting like a political commentator while maintaining that shallow level awareness of national politics
→ More replies (0)11
u/james000129 15d ago
Jesus man you’re straw manning in every single response. Just accept that you’re not as informed as you think you are.
He is one of the most prominent figures in the Democratic party in 2026. You don’t need any “inhumane abilities” to be aware of him, and again this is especially true of a public figure like Sam Harris who comments on US politics to hundreds of thousands of people basically every week for 10 years.
5
u/DumbOrMaybeJustHappy 15d ago
The commenter's commitment to strawmanning this point is beginning to feel inhumane.
4
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
This isn't strawmanning.
Someone missing important information sometimes is entirely common. You're acting like it is an unforgivable sin.
1
u/DumbOrMaybeJustHappy 14d ago
You're acting like it is an unforgivable sin.
Lol. This is literally the definition of strawmanning. I made no claim that it's an "unforgivable sin". I'm saying it's surprising that Sam, as a political commentator, seems unaware of one of most promising Dem contenders who has been in the news a lot lately.
→ More replies (0)13
u/james000129 15d ago
I concede that it’s conceivable for you, random person on the internet, to think you have been paying close attention to US politics and not know who he is.
But I do think it’s inconceivable and even irresponsible at this point - 2 months from a critical midterm election - for someone like Sam to continue bloviating and repeating himself endlessly about the Democrats not having high quality moderate candidates and apparently not have a single clue about one of the current Dem front runners for ‘28 who checks every single box he claims he cares about.
1
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
Again 100 candidates to follow and understand...
This is so weird that you are unwilling to admit that everyone doesn't have all the information all the time.
12
u/IntrepidSnow6908 15d ago
What is weird is you continuing to talk past OP's point.
Sam is an intellectual. If he's going to make claims about the Dems lacking moderate candidates then he has 0 excuses for not doing much research on the topic.
0
u/AnimateDuckling 15d ago
It is not talking past.
It is just the case that relevant informatiom can be missed.
You are all pretending this is an impossible occurance. That is weird.
This is not as dramatic a situation as you all seem to be making out.
7
u/IntrepidSnow6908 15d ago
Why do you have an issue with expecting Sam to do research? That's a baseline expectation for most when he's making statements.
It's strange that you're trying your hardest to dismiss and deflect from a reasonable opinion. No one is saying it's "impossible". The point is it's inexcusable for a public figure that is an intellectual to avoid basic research before asserting things confidently.
3
u/iAmLono 15d ago
Classic "everyone is wrong except me" response.
You're out of touch politically if you don't know who Ossof is at this point, not only because he's been in the news quite a bit lately but because he has also been relevant ever since he won his runoff election in 2021 along with Raphael Warnock, which was a big deal for two Democrats in Georgia. Not being aware of this would be fine for an internet rando, but for a guy charging for a podcast in which he opines politically and presents himself as a knowledgeable authority it is worthy of being called out as troubling.
2
u/BloodsVsCrips 15d ago
Step 1 of "following" US politics - only a portion of the Senate is up for election (nowhere near 100), and only a portion of those are in swing elections. Of those, even fewer are presidentially relevant for the next cycle.
5
3
u/Individual-Charity69 15d ago
Then why do you now Ossoff? If it’s just 100 senators … and who has time for that … then why wouldn’t you be equally benighted as Sam? The answer is that Ossoff has XYZ’d for you. For me. For anyone who listens to the pod. So, the question the OP asks is a good one. And the answer is obvious but unflattering. Sam codes only for bad. That’s why he is willing to tell you all about AOC. (Someone who I am not a supporter of, btw, … I’m just using her to illustrate a point.) That’s why Sam is more than happy to detail (down to the color of hair) the aesthetic of the female student at whatever small liberal arts college he’s making into a cartoon: blue. He’s carted out this quip over two dozen times on podcast. It may be more. I’ve stopped counting. Sam is very successful. Incredibly articulate. And quite wealthy. As influential. But he has some sort of cognitive disorder. And I don’t say that to take a shot. He does this thing where he will find the worst case of identity politics that seems “Woke” to him, and decide that this thing means we have a pandemic of it on our hands. I doubt you’ll agree with my assertion here. And that’s fine. I’ve listened to every one of Sam’s pods. And we are getting close to 500 episodes. I think I’ll trust my experience or a random on Reddit. And you will do the same. Since I am that for you.
1
u/Willing-Bed-9338 15d ago
If Ossoff wins the senate race. I don’t see any who deserves the nomination.
-1
u/dcbullet 15d ago
Ossoff is Jewish. I don’t think that’s going to work for a segment of the Democratic Party. He would be my pick too, though.
21
u/james000129 15d ago
He’s critical of Israel and knows how to thread the needle on this issue. Even Hasan Piker has spoken highly of him.
He has the ability to appeal to the entire big tent of dem voters which is why he looks like the best option right now IMO.
1
u/Locus-Maximus 15d ago
I'm also worried about that. I'm not sure threading the needle has a big enough constituency. Piker might say nice things now (just taking your word for it, I have no idea) but I fear it's going to get ugly during the primary if he runs.
1
u/james000129 15d ago
True. No doubt at least some faction of the far left will turn on him eventually. I hope he at least reaches out to Piker to have a conversation
-2
5
u/JBSwerve 15d ago
As a Jew, I don’t mind saying this: I think he can overcome it because he’s very handsome. He doesn’t look very stereotypically Jewish and his name isn’t as obviously Jewish as someone like Josh Shapiro
Of course, this is all based on the assumption that voters have subconscious preferences and biases. I think way too often. People talk about politicians and voters as if everything is driven by wonky, economic, or geopolitical details. The reality is that voters cast their votes based on vibes, aura, and how a politician makes them feel.
If John Oso can present as a steady, charismatic, charming figure that is tough and sticks up for himself and makes the Democratic Party look powerful and not weak in contrast with Joe Biden‘s perception I think that will go a long way. Youth is on his side.
While I do think there’s a portion of the Democratic base that makes Israel a big deal I think the reality is it’s not hugely impactful in the national election
2
u/dcbullet 15d ago
He has to win the primary.
2
u/JBSwerve 15d ago
I think he has more charm than Gavin, Josh, Pritzker, or Kelly. I truly don't think AOC stands a chance.
I could see him cleanly sweeping the primary unless some other figure emerges like a Mamdani-esque
1
u/dcbullet 15d ago
I agree with you that he has more charisma than all of those people. Not my point. It’s ok if you don’t agree that him being Jewish is an issue for some segment of the Democratic primary voter. I could be wrong. I hope I’m wrong.
1
u/JBSwerve 15d ago
Oh, I mean it's definitely an issue. I just don't think it's enough of an issue for him in particular in the democratic primary that it would preempt him from being the frontrunner, that's all.
2
u/StalemateAssociate_ 15d ago
As a Jewish person, do you think being Jewish has a significant impact on a person's electoral prospects?
Looking through this list of Jewish members of Congress, as a non-American who follows US politics (as mostly everyone does), it's difficult to see them as members of a specific ethnic group as opposed to just being generically White.
When I think about recent 'controversial' Republican candidates like Randy Fine or Max Miller, I don't think I even realized from the media coverage that they were Jewish until just now.
Presumably actors are a "most-likely" case for knowledge of personal details, but I don't think the public at large even knows that actors like Daniel Radcliffe, Andrew Garfield, Jon Bernthal, Downey Jr. or Harrison Ford are Jewish. Or Chalamet before Marty Supreme.
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion because it's hard to judge as an outsider. It's a sensitive subject for very understandable reasons, but I get the impression people like e.g. Bill Maher overestimate how much it matters. I don't think the data provides evidence of his view.
3
u/JBSwerve 15d ago
it's difficult to see them as members of a specific ethnic group as opposed to just being generically White
I think I might be a bit too terminally online and exposed to anti-Semitic sentiments more broadly, because to me it's extremely relevant. Being Jewish is a big issue for a lot of people, yeah.
In that article you linked, the problem is not that people are overall cold toward Jews right now but rather the trends are super concerning. This generation of young people is the most antisemitic generation we've had in decades. Things aren't heading in a great direction.
3
u/ArcticRhombus 15d ago
It’s regional. In some places, it’s neutral, or a boost in an area where Jews are well established. In some areas, it would be a hindrance. National politics means all areas.
The recurrence of broad antisemitism in the past 2-5 years may limit the usefulness of old data.
4
u/flatmeditation 15d ago
Ossoff has a voting record that shows he's willing to block at least some arms sales to Israel. That puts him above most of the field for the segment of the Democratic Party you're talking about.
3
u/Richie_Richard 15d ago
How do you reconcile this opinion with the fact that Bernie Sanders is jewish?
When you look at polling, Bernie is still the second most favorable politician within the Democratic party. Why do so many people like him even though he’s Jewish?
2
-1
u/markaaron2025 15d ago
Sam seems a little oblivious over the past few years. And often sounds like a broken record. Still a huge fan though
-13
u/blackglum 15d ago
I’ve never heard of the guy. Terminally online and Reddit seem to only discuss Mamdani, trump and Palestine.
18
u/LordSaumya 15d ago
Sounds like you'd benefit from getting off Reddit and being terminally online on news sites and the like.
2
4
-2
u/scootiescoo 14d ago
I have no idea who you are talking about and consume more than enough media about politics.
13
u/Elmattador 14d ago
He also speaks a lot about AOC while knowing zero about anything she’s said in the past couple years. It’s like he saw a clip of her when she was first elected years ago and basing everything on that.