Marion Nestle on the Powerful Forces Shaping What We Eat
The Bay Area’s Hotly Contested Congressional Races
Economists Make the Case For and Against California’s Billionaire Tax
Claudia Rankine on the Friendships That Unsettle and Sustain Us
Concerts, Art, and Festivals Not to Miss in the Bay This Fall
The Hidden Psychology Behind Procrastination
Player sponsored by
window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"forum_2010101915679": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "forum_2010101915679",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915679",
"found": true
},
"title": "GettyImages-2249801048",
"publishDate": 1791924314,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 2010101915678,
"modified": 1791924354,
"caption": "SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 03: Boxes of Cheerios are displayed on a store shelf on December 03, 2025 in San Anselmo, California.",
"credit": "Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-2000x1343.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1343,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-2000x1343.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1343,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-768x516.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 516,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-1536x1032.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1032,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-2048x1376.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1376,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-2000x1343.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1343,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/GettyImages-2249801048-3639147a-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1719
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"forum_2010101915580": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "forum_2010101915580",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915580",
"found": true
},
"title": "kqed-debate",
"publishDate": 1791318273,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 2010101915579,
"modified": 1791318346,
"caption": "From left: State Sen. Scott Wiener and San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan debate at KQED in San Francisco on Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026. The two Democrats are running for California’s 11th District, a seat Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi is leaving. The debate was co-hosted by KQED and the San Francisco Chronicle.",
"credit": "Santiago Mejia/S.F. Chronicle/Pool",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/kqed-debate-2-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/kqed-debate-2-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/kqed-debate-2-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/kqed-debate-2-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/kqed-debate-2-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/10/kqed-debate-2-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"forum_2010101915266": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "forum_2010101915266",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915266",
"found": true
},
"title": "GettyImages-2261843469",
"publishDate": 1789397700,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 2010101915264,
"modified": 1789397734,
"caption": "US Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, speaks during the campaign kickoff for the California Billionaire Tax Act at The Wiltern in Los Angeles, February 18, 2026. Sanders is seeking the support of California voters for a November's ballot initiative of an emergency tax on billionaires to help the state's healthcare system.",
"credit": "Patrick T. Fallon / AFP via Getty Images",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-2000x1333.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-2000x1333.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-2048x1365.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"height": 1365,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-2000x1333.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/GettyImages-2261843469-1-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1707
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"forum_2010101915225": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "forum_2010101915225",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915225",
"found": true
},
"title": "Copy of 1920x1080 WP split image (1)",
"publishDate": 1788991474,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 2010101915217,
"modified": 1788991549,
"caption": null,
"credit": "Courtesy of Dirk Skiba and Graywolf Press",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Copy-of-1920x1080-WP-split-image-1-160x90.png",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Copy-of-1920x1080-WP-split-image-1-768x432.png",
"width": 768,
"height": 432,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Copy-of-1920x1080-WP-split-image-1-1536x864.png",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Copy-of-1920x1080-WP-split-image-1-672x372.png",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Copy-of-1920x1080-WP-split-image-1-1038x576.png",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/png"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Copy-of-1920x1080-WP-split-image-1.png",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"forum_2010101915167": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "forum_2010101915167",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915167",
"found": true
},
"title": "Courtesy-of-Yerba-Buena-Gardens-1536x1022",
"publishDate": 1788474706,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 2010101915164,
"modified": 1788474726,
"caption": "Performances at the Yerba Buena Gardens Festival are always free.",
"credit": "Courtesy/Yerba Buena Gardens Festival",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Courtesy-of-Yerba-Buena-Gardens-1536x1022-1-160x106.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 106,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Courtesy-of-Yerba-Buena-Gardens-1536x1022-1-768x511.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 511,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Courtesy-of-Yerba-Buena-Gardens-1536x1022-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Courtesy-of-Yerba-Buena-Gardens-1536x1022-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/09/Courtesy-of-Yerba-Buena-Gardens-1536x1022-1.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1022
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"forum_2010101915012": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "forum_2010101915012",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915012",
"found": true
},
"title": "Untitled design (2)",
"publishDate": 1787607833,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 2010101915007,
"modified": 1787607888,
"caption": "Itamar Shatz is the author of \"Solving Procrastination The Science of Why We Put Things Off and How to (Finally!) Stop.\"",
"credit": "Courtesy/Penguin Random House",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/08/Untitled-design-2-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/08/Untitled-design-2-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/08/Untitled-design-2-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/08/Untitled-design-2-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/08/Untitled-design-2-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2026/08/Untitled-design-2.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"lsims": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "12020",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "12020",
"found": true
},
"name": "lsims",
"firstName": "Lenea",
"lastName": "Sims",
"slug": "lsims",
"email": "lsims@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "lsims | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lsims"
},
"minakim": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "243",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "243",
"found": true
},
"name": "Mina Kim",
"firstName": "Mina",
"lastName": "Kim",
"slug": "minakim",
"email": "mkim@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Host, Forum",
"bio": "Mina Kim is host of the 10 a.m. statewide hour of Forum; a live daily talk show for curious Californians on issues that matter to the state and nation, with a particular emphasis on race and equity.\r\n\r\nBefore joining the Forum team, Mina was KQED’s evening news anchor, and health reporter for The California Report. Her award-winning work has included natural disasters in Napa and gun violence in Oakland. Mina grew up in St. John’s, Newfoundland.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/145ce657a2d08cb86d93686beb958982?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "mkimreporter",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Mina Kim | KQED",
"description": "Host, Forum",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/145ce657a2d08cb86d93686beb958982?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/145ce657a2d08cb86d93686beb958982?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/minakim"
},
"amadrigal": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11757",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11757",
"found": true
},
"name": "Alexis Madrigal",
"firstName": "Alexis",
"lastName": "Madrigal",
"slug": "amadrigal",
"email": "amadrigal@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "Co-Host Forum",
"bio": "Alexis Madrigal is the co-host of Forum. He is also a contributing writer at \u003cem>The Atlantic \u003c/em>and the co-founder of the COVID Tracking Project. He's the creator of the podcast, \u003cem>Containers\u003c/em>, and has been a staff writer at \u003cem>Wired. \u003c/em>He was a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley's Information School, and is working on a book about Oakland and the Bay Area's revolutionary ideas.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ffeee1fe99a3e31957381f377ca63502bdcc0c3dbccaaa701e579a10aa0c5e1f?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "alexismadrigal",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Alexis Madrigal | KQED",
"description": "Co-Host Forum",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ffeee1fe99a3e31957381f377ca63502bdcc0c3dbccaaa701e579a10aa0c5e1f?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/ffeee1fe99a3e31957381f377ca63502bdcc0c3dbccaaa701e579a10aa0c5e1f?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/amadrigal"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"author_lsims": {
"type": "pages",
"id": "12020",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "12020",
"score": 6.3033514,
"site": "authors"
},
"name": "lsims",
"firstName": "Lenea",
"lastName": "Sims",
"slug": "lsims",
"email": "lsims@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "lsims | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"hasAllInfo": true,
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/staff-member",
"attrs": {
"author": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "12020",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "12020",
"score": 6.3033514
},
"name": "lsims",
"firstName": "Lenea",
"lastName": "Sims",
"slug": "lsims",
"email": "lsims@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": null,
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "lsims | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4548e92eaa2c38ba53e744f5718f7f0a02f99a19606170178e6583af5b7c8ab1?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lsims",
"hasAllInfo": true
}
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"query": "posts?author=12020&authorName=lsims",
"title": "By lsims",
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"className": "wp-block--nomargintop",
"seeMore": true
}
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://hls.kqed.org/hls/kqed_app/playlist.m3u8",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"forum_2010101915678": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "forum_2010101915678",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915678",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1791924368000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "marion-nestle-on-the-powerful-forces-shaping-what-we-eat",
"title": "Marion Nestle on the Powerful Forces Shaping What We Eat",
"publishDate": 1791924368,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Marion Nestle on the Powerful Forces Shaping What We Eat | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 3,
"site": "forum"
},
"content": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For more than five decades, renowned nutritionist, molecular biologist and food activist Marion Nestle has worked to expose the connections between Americans’ health and the powerful agendas shaping what we eat. Her newest book, co-authored with Dr. Lisa Sutherland, “Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food” examines the politics of our morning meal. We talk with Nestle about the shifts in attitudes and regulations of what we eat — from soda taxes to the MAHA movement — and about what she believes it will take to build a healthier food system for all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University; her latest book is \u003cem>Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Marion Nestle is a legend of the food world. Her work over many decades, including her pathbreaking book, \u003cem>Food Politics\u003c/em>, has changed the terms of the debate about food. And her blog, foodpolitics.com, is an incredible repository of news, ideas, and information about the broad world of food, nutrition, science, and politics. And for the fourth or even fifth time, we believe, Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU, joins us here on \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, so happy to be back!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We are delighted to have you, in part because there is a measure on Berkeley’s ballot for a kind of update of the soda tax. You wrote a book in 2015 called \u003cem>Soda Politics\u003c/em>, and you, of course, know this history. So give us sort of the little summary: where did the soda taxes come from, and where did Berkeley’s role in it lie?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, Berkeley really took the leadership on all of this. There were some other towns that tried to pass soda taxes before, but Berkeley really — I use Berkeley as a case study of how to do food advocacy right. They did real community organizing. They went door to door in every community, the ones in the flats and the ones high up in the hills. And they talked to people about the effects of consuming large amounts of sugar in liquid form on obesity, diabetes risks for chronic disease. They talked to people about whether they knew anybody with type 2 diabetes and whether they understood that drinking a lot of your sugar isn’t a really good way to do it. And people got it. And then they promised that they would use the tax revenues for community initiatives, and they have done that. They have, you know, they’ve lived their promises. And this is a success story, with research that shows that it reduces soda consumption and maybe, maybe, maybe is helping people manage their weight better.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, it’s interesting, too, because it was in the original ballot measure, right? There was a lot of spending against it from the — oh, tons. Who didn’t pass with 80% of the vote, is that —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I believe it was 60-something percent, but it was huge. And, you know, it was an enormous, unqualified passing with a very large percentage, and that was because of the fabulous way in which the committee that was running the campaign did it. I mean, they did real community organizing, which is what you have to do to make this stuff work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So why do we need something else on the ballot in Berkeley?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, that has to do with how long the initiative lasted and California politics. I live in New York. I’m not up on these details. I do know that there has to be another vote on it. Maybe you could explain it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think they’re just adding another cent to it, right? I mean, that’s my —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, because it was really not as high as what they wanted to begin with. The evidence had shown that the higher the tax, the more effective it was. The amount that they actually did the tax at was a compromise, and so this is to kind of fix the compromise a little bit. So, you know —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Opponents of soda taxes, both here and elsewhere, have said, you know, they burden lower-income consumers. You know, government shouldn’t try to influence people’s personal food choices through taxes. What do you think about those critiques?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the government has an enormous influence on what people eat, based on what the government subsidizes, how the government gives food companies tax advantages for marketing. I mean, there are just a million ways in which the government influences what we eat. This is only a different way of doing it. Taxes are regressive, and there’s no question that this is a regressive tax. But the answer to that is type 2 diabetes is regressive, and it hurts the poor much more than it hurts the rich.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And sodas are a really convenient target. They’re different from any other food in that they’re sugars and water and flavors. And marketing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And marketing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But nothing else of any nutritional value. So, in that sense, sodas differ from any other kind of junk or ultra-processed food in having no nutritional value at all other than the calories. And dumping large amounts of sugar into a metabolic system turns out not to be good for that metabolic system. We’re just not equipped to handle that amount of sugar at any one time. It’s much better to consume your sugar mixed up with other dietary components and much more slowly.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what about cereals, then? You’ve got a new book, which you co-wrote with Lisa Sutherland, who we’re going to talk about in just a second. Why cereal, though? Was it sort of the next most convenient target?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I’ve collected cereal boxes for years because they have the most hilarious advertising and marketing on them. I’ve collected mainly boxes with health claims on them, the more ridiculous the better. And at some point, I needed to think of another project, and I told my literary agent that it was time to do something with my cereal box collection. And so that’s how this came about.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s interesting. I mean, one of the fascinating components of this book is that your co-author was actually a Kellogg’s executive.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> A vice president for nutrition at Kellogg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I don’t know. Is this like dancing with the enemy? What’s going on?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and she was anything but an enemy. I had met Lisa Sutherland probably 20 years ago when she was working for Hannaford Supermarkets, which is a chain of supermarkets in the Northeast. And she worked out their Guiding Stars program, which was a way of labeling house-brand foods for the ones that had the least amounts of salt, sugar, and saturated fat. And then she worked for Walmart, and then she worked for Chobani. And, you know, her view of that was she was trying to keep them nutritionally honest.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then at some point she called me and said, “I hope you’re not going to be mad at me, but I’m working for Kellogg.” And as it turned out, I wasn’t mad at all because I had been trying for months to get Kellogg to let me come and look at their archives. Because I wanted to look at packaging before Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling Act of 1990, and I had asked to see them, and they had said they would consider it. Nothing happened. So when she said, “I’m working for Kellogg,” I said, “Great, get me into the archives.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You got a woman on the inside now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, I was thrilled! And months went by, and then she wrote and said, “Okay, come.” So I flew out to Battle Creek, and we went into the Kellogg’s library, and they said, “Do you want the good news or the bad news?” And I said, “Oh, all right, I’ll take the bad news first.” And the bad news was the lawyers weren’t going to let me anywhere near the files.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I said, “Oh, okay, what could the good news possibly be?” Well, the good news was spectacular because what they had done — and I still can’t believe this — was they had made color Xeroxes of the front and back of the three cereals I had asked to look at, from the year they were introduced until 2010, which is when this was. And they handed me a box of all-brand facsimiles from 1919 to 2010, Rice Krispies from 1928, and Froot Loops from 1963.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And we’re looking at these and paging through them, and the Kellogg nutritionists are saying things like, “Oh, this is when the FDA passed this regulation,” and, “Oh, look at this. This is when that research came out on oat bran,” and, “Oh, this is when the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued us.” And we were sitting there and looking at these things and saying, “There’s a book in this. There’s absolutely a book that’s going to tell the history of nutrition policy in the United States, the history of labeling policy, and a lot about marketing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we didn’t do it, and we drifted apart. And 15 years later, when I was thinking of doing this, I had this sudden guilty thought: maybe I should check with Lisa Sutherland and at least tell her that I’m doing this. And her response — I had to track her down. I hadn’t seen her in more than 10 years or heard from her in 10 years. And when I tracked her down and said, “This is what I’m doing,” she wrote back one sentence: “I’m in this with you.” We were off and running.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, what was interesting to you about those three cereals? I mean, I also love Lucky Charms, but what was interesting about them?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I particularly wanted All-Bran because I knew that Kellogg had used All-Bran cereal as a way to break the FDA’s restriction on health claims. They had done an end run around the FDA and gone straight to the National Cancer Institute to put a “National Cancer Institute says fiber is good for preventing cancer” claim on All-Bran, and I wanted that All-Bran box.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s like a case study of how —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, a case study. I wanted Rice Krispies because it was an old cereal that started advertising Rice Krispies Treats right from the beginning, and it was sort of a normal, run-of-the-mill cereal. And I wanted Froot Loops also for a case study because Froot Loops was the cereal box that got the first Smart Choices logo, when the food industry had gotten together with nutritionists to put a kind of front-of-package symbol that would indicate that something was healthy. And the first one landed on Froot Loops, and so I wanted that box. So those were the three that I had picked. I also wanted Special K, but they didn’t think they could get me Special K.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As one that, like, targeted women in specific ways.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> So, you know, these I have, and they turn out to be — and they gave them to me. I have them in my office at NYU, and they’re fabulous for saying, “Well, how much sugar was in cereal in 1958?” I can answer that question. And it’s just enormously useful to have them. I’m quite grateful.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, and what it’ll take to make it healthier. We’re joined by Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And we want to hear from you. Is there a food you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Or maybe, how has your understanding of the food industry changed the way you shop or eat? Give us a call, 866-733-6786, or email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Marion Nestle. She’s got a new book out. It is about cereal. It is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>. It was co-authored with Lisa Sutherland. Of course, she’s a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. And we want to hear from you if there’s a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now. Or maybe, you know, with so much nutrition advice and information available now, how do you decide what foods you eat? 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email, of course, is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. Social media: Bluesky, Instagram, Discord. We’re KQED Forum.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Before we talk about some other ultra-processed foods, what is the takeaway people should have about cereal? Like, if their kids want to have Honey Nut Cheerios, hypothetically, um, what would you say about that kind of food?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> They’re a once-in-a-while treat. Some of my friends who have kids who are demanding sugary cereals — I mean, first of all, these cereals are marketed directly to children. You know this because of the cartoon characters on the front. And now the toys are back in cereals. So the whole purpose of this is to get kids to demand the foods, to pester their parents for them. It’s called the pester factor, and nobody wants to fight with their kids about food, so everybody gives in. But I do have friends who give their kids a healthier cereal and sprinkle a little bit of this stuff on top of it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we do that with our dog. He gets, like, kibble, and then he gets the stuff he really likes just a little bit on top. I understand. Is there any cereal that you would recommend, or is it just sort of —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the one that I like is mini shredded wheat, and they’re a one-ingredient cereal. There’s one ingredient: whole wheat. That’s it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You’re not talking about Frosted Mini-Wheats.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I’m not. I like adding my own sugar, and I can put in a spoonful of sugar. It’ll be a third of the amount that’s in pre-sweetened cereals.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, so let’s talk about these ultra-processed foods. I mean, this is a label, or a way of talking about foods, I feel like has emerged over the last five or —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Since 2009. Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so over time, and we now in California have a law that’s establishing a new non-ultra-processed-certified label for food products. What do you think about this kind of non-ultra-processed-certified label?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the Non-GMO Project did it first. Non-GMO is the most successful front-of-package indicator. Lisa and I call them widgets — the most-used one on packages. And they have started a non-UPF, ultra-processed food designation. I don’t know how it’s going. It’s just started, and California will be the first state to have this. I’m very interested to see what the symbol is going to look like. The law didn’t have any prototypes that I’m aware of.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think it’s a good idea because the ultra-processed food concept is a specific category of junk food, where the foods are industrially produced, usually have a lot of salt, sugar, and fat, and a lot of color, flavor, and texture additives. But they are designed specifically for profit and designed specifically to be irresistibly delicious, if not addictive. And there is now a phenomenal amount of evidence that links diets high in ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes. And those are observational studies, and they don’t show causation. But there are also some very well-controlled, although short-term, clinical trials that show that these foods induce people to eat more calories — a lot more calories — without being aware that they’re doing it. So there are good reasons for cutting down on ultra-processed foods, and people are doing that. And it would be great, too, because there are issues about the definition. There are some categories of foods that some people argue are highly nutritious but meet the definition of ultra-processed foods, like commercial whole-wheat breads and yogurts. There are only a few plant-based meats —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And those kinds of things, and medical foods. So there are some exceptions, but I think — so there’s a big issue about the definition. I don’t think there should be an issue about the definition.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think it’s kind of a red herring that the food is —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because most people get the concept, and it’s pretty obvious what most of them are. And so having something that puts a label on the most obvious ultra-processed foods would help people identify them very quickly. So I can’t wait to see what it looks like.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Before we go to the phones, I just want to ask you: you know, here in San Francisco, City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit last year against 10 of the country’s largest food manufacturers, saying these companies knowingly designed and marketed harmful, addictive products. This is true. Do you think that litigation will succeed? Do you think it’s going to be an effective way to hold the food industry accountable?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I have no idea. The food industry is remarkably powerful. And we see that in the Make America Healthy Again movement. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — apparently, they have a definition of ultra-processed foods, which would be the basis for regulation, although this is not a group that wants to regulate much. But they have put that definition and sent it to the White House, and it’s being held up. And I just saw an account of the food industry enterprises that have met with the White House officials to argue against a definition of ultra-processed food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So the politics of this are enormous, and Berkeley and San Francisco both saw this during the soda tax things 10 years ago, or whenever it was. The amount of money that the soda industry put into fighting the idea of a soda tax is similar to the amount of money that they are willing to spend to defeat anything having to do with ultra-processed foods.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Noreen in Oakland. Welcome, Noreen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Hi there! Love the program. It’s worth noting that my maiden name is Post, and we were indeed the reckoning of Post Toasties.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You have venerable ancestors.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> I do. I do, in so many ways. But I wanted to share my love of Grape-Nuts cereal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Yeah, have you ever ate a pine cone? Many parts are edible. Right away, and it’s super crunchy and delicious, or you could let it sit there for a little while and it turns into kind of an oatmeal thing. And you can carve out a moon and let the milk be on one side, and then just gently enjoy it. And my mom used to take our leftover cereal and use it to make bread.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow. Oh, good idea. Wow, Noreen, really appreciate that. I mean, this is — I would make cookies. Yeah, I think of Grape-Nuts. That was one of the things in our house, for sure, that it was like, okay, Grape-Nuts are a healthy cereal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and people are telling me that they’re really hard to find.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting, interesting. Is it true, though? Like, is it a healthy cereal, or is it just kind of a health halo?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, I need to look at the ingredient list. I can’t really tell until I look at that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But I hear about — I’m hearing a lot about Grape-Nuts these days. I should go look at that ingredient list.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You know, let’s talk a little bit about — you mentioned MAHA and this movement that calls itself the Make America Healthy Again movement. How do you relate to it? Because I would imagine — I mean, I know from your blog that you believe in vaccination, you know, and have, I believe, standard public health kind of measures, which that movement has not always done. So how do you relate to it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I started out thinking that there were a lot of — with respect to the food issues — that there were a lot of very hopeful things in it. But as it’s turning out, they are unable to accomplish a lot of what they started out doing. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came in saying he was going to get rid of — that the food industry was poisoning America. That’s a little extreme. And he wanted ultra-processed foods out of the food supply. He wanted glyphosate, Roundup, out of the food supply. They wanted to get rid of all the chemicals and pesticides and herbicides that are contaminating food, PFAS and all those other things, and the artificial color dyes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the only thing they’ve been able to accomplish so far is they are actually getting the artificial color dyes out of breakfast cereals. And you can go to the store and see that you can buy Trix with vegetable dyes instead of the petroleum dyes, but the cereal’s still the same.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And getting rid of the dyes is not going to make America healthy again. Doing something about ultra-processed foods might, but they’re stuck in politics on that one. And they’ve not been able to accomplish much. So it’s been all talk, no action.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I guess, was what you found hopeful in it the actual measures that MAHA wanted to take, or was it more that the coalition was kind of an unusual one in current American politics, and that it kind of cut across a lot of partisan divides?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I’ve wanted color additives out of the food supply for a long time. I didn’t think they were the be-all and end-all. They’re not the most important issue by any means, and they seemed like a no-brainer to me. It ought to be that, with the stroke of a pen, they should have been able to do that. But they’re not taking a regulatory approach. Kennedy has said that he thinks regulation is the nanny state, and so the companies have been pressured voluntarily to remove the color dyes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, General Mills did that once before. Nobody bought Trix when it was brown and yellow, and they brought the color dyes back. So maybe that’ll happen this time, too. It’s, you know, they’re just not accomplishing much, and they had the chance to do that. They had three branches of government. But it turns out eating less is very, very bad for business, and the food industry is not interested in public health measures that might reduce sales and profits.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Surprise. So this is interesting because there is a thing happening in American life right now that is causing people to eat less. That is the growth of GLP-1s and similar drugs that have, you know, tended to reduce people’s caloric intake. What’s your take on them?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re fascinating. I’m riveted by them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, same.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And for a year, whenever I gave a public talk, I would say, “If you’re taking GLP-1 drugs and are willing to share your experience, come up afterwards and let’s talk about it privately.” And I have now talked to dozens and dozens and dozens of people who are taking the drugs. And what’s interesting to me about it is that the personal accounts that I’ve heard are very consistent with what the research is showing — extraordinarily consistent. So there’s a wide range of responses. Some people lose lots of weight, some people only lose a little, some people have terrible side effects, some people don’t have any. It really varies. But overall, the drugs really do help people lose weight. People feel better, they feel stronger, they feel livelier. They feel better; their metabolic issues disappear. They’re doing great as long as they’re on the drug. The problem is what happens when you come off them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And there, most people regain the weight. Not all, but most people do. And that’s a problem, too, or you have to be on a maintenance dose for life. We’re still waiting to see what the side effects are, how serious some of the side effects are. There’ve been some rare ones that are pretty bad. Most people have GI side effects. Some are tolerable, some are not.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Are you interested in the mechanisms of it? That’s been the thing that’s been so interesting to me, is that most of the work seems to be happening in people’s minds as much as anything else. Like, there are the sort of changes that people experience in their digestive tract, but it’s mostly that people just think about eating a little bit less.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, the main overall effect is it reduces what’s called “food noise.” I had never heard the term before. I like it a lot. I get it totally. It’s the obsessive thinking about food, and that stops. Although people who are serious foodies tell me they still love food, they still think about food, they —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’d like to cook still.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, they do all of that, and it’s not affected. They’re just not eating as much. They just don’t want to eat as much. So the drugs affect the gut, various organs, and the brain, and scientists are hard at work trying to figure all that out. But there’s no question that they eat less, and they selectively eat less. So they’re eating less ultra-processed food. They’re eating less junk food. They’re eating healthier. Well, isn’t that amazing?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. How do you think they’re going to respond? I mean, this does —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, they’re already responding. I mean, the food industry is in trouble in general, overall. It’s in trouble because of RFK Jr. saying they’re poisoning people. It’s in trouble because of ultra-processed foods. It’s in trouble because of GLP-1 drugs. And it’s in trouble because of inflation. You know, I mean, I can’t believe what’s happened to the cost of food in the last couple of years. It’s just shocking.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what are their prospective responses? I mean, if I were putting on my executive hat, you would have to say, like, okay, well, if right now GLP-1s are most widely distributed in sort of middle-class, upper-middle-class households, so we’ve got to double down on targeting people who can’t afford GLP-1s and who maybe are also being hit harder by inflation, to even sell more to those people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, they’re certainly marketing, but they’re also reformulating products. You know, and you have to understand the context for this: in our investment system, it’s not enough to make a profit. You have to grow the profit and report growth to Wall Street every quarter. That’s very difficult to do if people are eating less. And so, if growth is flat or declining, these companies are in very, very serious trouble, and they are scrambling to try to dream up products that will be as profitable as ultra-processed products are. And they’re having a hard time doing it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But if you want to know why protein is on absolutely everything, everybody’s looking for protein, whether that’s reasonable or not, we can argue about. But everybody’s looking for protein. And so the food companies are putting protein into everything and marketing it, and they’re putting protein into the most ridiculous products. I just read that there’s a protein vodka you could drink. Are you kidding me? And because I’m so interested in cereals, my favorite current cereal product is Cookies ‘n’ Creme Oreos protein. You cannot make this stuff up.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It does — it sounds like, yeah, a ’90s postmodernist novel product, for sure. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, GLP-1s, MAHA, so much more, with food icon Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>One listener writes in to say, “I was not a food obsessive for most of my life. My mother did make us eat wheat germ sprinkled on our Lucky Charms, as if this might counteract the problems of the magically delicious marshmallows. But when I had my own kids, I started to pay more attention to this, and we became the house where you can’t find snacks like Goldfish or potato chips, and we were not a breakfast cereal family. And to this day, my kids are not snackers, as far as I know.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We want to hear from you. Is there a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Just want to ask Marion Nestle something. 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for more.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. I’m here with Marion Nestle, icon, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, what it might take to make us all healthier. We’ve got a lot of callers here, so I want to make sure that we get them in. Let’s go to Hamayat in Fremont. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hamayat:\u003c/strong> Hi, good morning. I had a two-part question slash comment. And the first part is, I wanted to know, is there a difference in our processed food versus processed foods in other countries, such as in European countries? Because in the summer we went to London and Paris for a month, and before we went I checked my weight. And then when we came back, I had lost eight pounds, even though all of our meals were outside because we were staying in hotels in both places. So we weren’t eating home-cooked meals. There were restaurants and fast food, and that’s what we were having. So I was wondering if there’s any difference.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The second thing I wanted to bring up is about the GLP-1 question. Since the last year and a half, everyone that we know was talking about it and trying to sell it on, even though nobody works for them as the only one thing. But I was reluctant to start because my father is a pediatrician, and he told me it depends on every person’s history. So I just started watching my calories using an Amazon skill, and I found that to be a lot more effective than doing something where you might have to continue it. So those are my two comments.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think one reason people have gotten into GLP-1s is that so many analyses of diets were just showing it wasn’t really working in the long term for most people, and so GLP-1s seem to have had some success. But let’s take the European processed food versus American processed food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, people in Europe eat differently. They have processed foods there. They have different rules than we do, and some of the additives that we use here are not allowed there. But I just think that when you’re traveling, you eat differently. First of all, you’re not snacking all day long because you can’t get at it. You’re doing an awful lot of walking. It’s a healthier lifestyle. You’re not in a car. And lots of people experience weight loss when they’re traveling. And the food is good, and they have a different food culture that’s in some ways very admirable. On the other hand, American fast-food companies are quite prevalent. They have outlets there, and it’s quite possible to eat badly there, as well as it is here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Greg in Redwood City. Welcome, Greg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Greg:\u003c/strong> Morning. I’d like to say, you know, I was a huge consumer of those cereals, everything from other kids’ favorites, Brilliant, Sugar Smacks, and Honeycomb, and I got older, Special K. You know, all the claims that it was not so bad. And now I look back, and I’m just so angry that I was, you know, the victim of that. You know, as consumers, we just don’t have the information to make intelligent decisions. And, uh, you know, now I’m just much more conscious of what I’m eating, and it’s really just the outer perimeter of the grocery store. And, you know, I don’t even like to go to restaurants because they don’t tell you what’s in it. They don’t tell you if it’s got a hundred ingredients and artificial cheese and all the rest of it. And I can really see the difference just by eating one meal, like how my body feels. So it’s incredibly frustrating that Americans can’t get the information to keep their family healthy. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the way I put it is, if you’re trying to eat healthfully in today’s food environment, you’re fighting an entire food system on your own. And the food system is set up to sell more food, not less. My mantra on this is: eating less is bad for business. And once you understand that, you get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. You mentioned earlier, you said people are all trying to eat more protein, reasonable or not. Why don’t you talk a little bit about whether you do think it’s reasonable or not?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I don’t, because most people are already eating twice the protein that’s essential for replacing the protein losses in their body. And eating more protein doesn’t do much good except for people who are elite athletes or people who aren’t watching their — well, but that’s a very small minority. Most people get plenty of the protein they need, even if they’re vegetarian, even if they are vegan. They’re getting enough protein.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s never been an issue. Do you have a nutrition guideline for it? Do you like some measure or metric that you use?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I just never think about these things. I follow my own advice.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Not protein-maxing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I’m very fond of quoting Michael Pollan: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” That really takes care of it. And that’s how I eat, and that’s why I advise other people to eat. I think food is one of life’s greatest pleasures. It’s something lovely that you get to do for yourself several times a day. I don’t want to do anything to take away the pleasure of food, but I think it’s possible to enjoy eating — eating real food, not too much, mostly plants. I mean, it seems really easy to me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So maybe you’ve already answered this, but the Trump administration does have a new version of the food pyramid, part of its dietary guidelines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Emphasizing protein, full-fat dairy, whole foods. What do you think? What do you think about the pyramid?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s a mixed bag. And it’s really sad that it’s a mixed bag, because the advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed foods is good advice. They didn’t use the words “ultra-processed,” which I wish they had, but they did pretty well on it. But then the rest of it is just a jumble of misinformation, things that are scientifically dubious, and one absolutely shocking nutritional error. You know, it made me think, this is why we have committees — to keep people from getting into trouble. And the shocking nutritional error was to say that beef tallow, olive oil, and butter were good sources of essential fatty acids. They’re not.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And this is because — and Alice writes in to ask about this — there is this real hatred in that part of the MAHA world for seed oils.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah. It’s bizarre.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So Alice writes, “Seed oils are categorically branded as unhealthy these days. Can Marion share her views on these?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think that’s — you know, they have 120 calories per tablespoon, like every other fat, and you don’t want to eat too much of them, like any other fat, because they’re very high in calories. But the seed oils are clean. They’ve been refined, but okay, and they have lots and lots of essential fatty acids, which we need. These are fatty acids that we can’t make, and then we have to eat them in our diet. They’re by far the best source of them. I don’t get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, where does that come from?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, I know where it comes from. It comes from the processing — it comes from the idea, the correlation between the increase in consumption of seed oils parallels the rise in prevalence of obesity. That’s correlation, not causation. You know, obesity is — nobody wants to talk about calories. I turn out to be a calorie person. I really believe in them. If you eat more calories than you expend in activity, you’re going to gain weight. That is thermodynamics, and that still holds. And I think, you know, what you eat is important for health, but how much you eat is extraordinarily important for how much you weigh.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s go to — let’s take Lily in San Francisco. Welcome, Lily.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lily:\u003c/strong> Hi. Hey, go ahead. Hi, Marion. Hi. I just wanted to say, so in college, I ended up writing my senior-year work, and that was in part because my uncle had died from obesity the year before I had gone to college. And it was a deep question in my mind of how that could have happened, and I think it spurred this whole research career, actually. But at the time, I was really using your work. I just wanted to thank you for all of that. And I was examining how our sociocultural or political-cultural values and messaging around choice and freedom, specifically, have contributed to how we consume food and how it changes our behavior around food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I’m curious because I feel like, as a senior in college, you know, we have now the rise of influencers and trends around food. And I’m curious about how you see messaging, whether that’s through advertising or lobbying, or just kind of the cultural zeitgeist around how we consume food and what it means about us. And, yeah, if you’ve seen anything change with that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, social media has changed everything. First of all, I’m so excited that you’ve read my work. That’s really touching. Thank you. I don’t know what to say about the influencer culture and what’s happening on social media. I worry about it a lot because the idea comes straight out of Orwell’s \u003cem>1984\u003c/em>: that if you repeat the same message over and over and again, and louder and louder and louder, people will believe it whether it has any relationship to truth or not. And we seem to be seeing a lot of that these days.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>How to deal with social media is an enormous problem. I sure am glad I raised my kids long before any of this. It was a lot easier. And we, as a society, have to figure out how to deal with a level of misinformation in which scientific facts are treated as if they’re just like any other opinion. Facts and opinion are different. The facts are facts, but if we as a society don’t agree about what those facts are, I think we’re in real trouble, and I worry about it a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think one of the tricky things — and I think on your blog, you run these posts pretty much every week, I think, that take a look at an industry-funded study. A food-industry-funded study looks like a fact, but it’s sort of often not. As you break down in these posts, they’re sort of bad science by design, dressed up as a fact.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the science actually is pretty good. It’s the way they’ve formulated the research question to give them the answer that they want, or interpreted the results in a way that they want. These are industry-funded studies. I mean, there’s an enormous amount of research that shows a very high correlation between the funder and the outcome of the study. And, you know, some of these are just really funny. I look at the title and I know exactly who must have paid for it, because nobody else would do a study like that. There’s only one reason for doing that study, and that’s to prove that your product is healthy or not harmful. And there are so many of them, each one funnier than the next. So that’s my Monday morning amusement: to post the latest industry-funded study, where you really can predict — if you know who the funder is, you can predict the outcome. You shouldn’t be able to do that in science.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, one listener writes, “As a busy working parent, I often find myself pinched for dinner for the family. Often my choices are a frozen-food dinner from Trader Joe’s or, quote, healthy fast food like Chipotle. Is one better than the other? Any advice?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s so hard to say whether one product is good or better. What you have to look at is the whole diet, and that, of course, is very difficult to do, particularly since nobody can remember what they ate. You want to do the best you can: real foods, mostly plants, not exclusively necessarily, although exclusively is okay, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be only plants. And balancing calories so that you’re not consuming excessive numbers of calories. And the easiest way to cut down on calories is, first of all, the one food I would say to eliminate is sugar-sweetened beverages, because they’re demonstrably harmful. You’re getting a lot of calories and a lot of sugar all at once. So those should be absolutely minimized. And after that, you just want to eat foods that are foods, and processed as little as possible.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Speaking of drinks, one listener writes in to say, “What do you think of the new wave of soda, seltzers, drinks with zero sugar, no calories, no sweeteners, no sodium, no gluten, zero carbonation?” There’s just a million of these things, you know? Your Spindrifts and your LaCroix and all these things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and the ones with CBD.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, the ones that have CBD. Yeah, that’s awesome. That’s Daytrip, et cetera. Yeah, what do you think of that?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they don’t have sugar — well, not much — and in that sense, they’re — I mean, whatever happened to water?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s still out there, I hear. Not a good marketing team, though.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Apparently not. They have some sweetener. I don’t like the ones with artificial sweeteners or the so-called natural sweeteners. I do not think they taste good. A lot of places have really good water supplies. If your community has a really good supply, I highly recommend it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, let me ask you one more on this question. How many Diet Cokes a month can I have and not feel bad about it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Um, it depends on everyone —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Less than 100.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> — and everything else you’re eating. You know, I’m not a Diet Coke fan because I’m not interested in artificial sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners are a marker of ultra-processing, and I’d just as soon avoid them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, I know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I don’t think they taste good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, I d — I can’t help myself. Um —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And I don’t judge what you eat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> If anyone can judge it, I’ll give you a pat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> How about this? We make a deal: I won’t say anything about what you eat if you don’t say anything about what I eat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Fair enough. Um, I, you know, I want you to kind of take the sweep of your career, you know? I mean, you have been working on these things for —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and, you know, you’ve been really working on the food industry. You’ve got policies changed. You’ve been deeply involved in some of these things. Like, where do you think we are relative to, you know, the year 2000? How have we done in the 21st century? Do we have a better food system than we used to? Do we not?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> In some ways, yes; in some ways, no. I mean, it’s possible now to go into any supermarket in America and eat healthfully if you make those kinds of choices. That wasn’t always true. Many, many, many more people are interested in these issues now and have generated a market for healthier foods. I think that’s a good thing, and it’s possible to get healthier foods practically everywhere, unless you happen to be living in a place where you have to drive miles to get to a supermarket. But most places, certainly in cities, you can do that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And because I’m associated with the university, I get to deal with young people. And because my particular piece of the university is nutrition and food studies, we attract a population of people who are deeply interested in the way food is produced, sold, and consumed. I mean, deeply interested, and there are lots of them. And to me, that’s enormously exciting. And that’s new, too, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah, yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Relatively, yeah. We have been talking with Marion Nestle, of course, an incredible food scientist and nutritionist who has been working on these issues for many years. The latest book is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>, and it is about breakfast cereal. So next time you want to fight with your kids in a supermarket aisle, you’ll be armed with everything you need. She co-wrote it with Lisa Sutherland, former executive at Kellogg. Fascinating. Of course, she’s also a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And you really, if you’re interested in these things, you need to be reading her blog, foodpolitics.com, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Not dot com — yeah, dot com.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Marion Nestle, thank you so much for joining us this morning. An absolute pleasure. And thank you to all of our \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> listeners, commenters, callers. You’re the best. Thank you so much. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with Mina.\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Airdate: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 at 9 AM",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>For more than five decades, renowned nutritionist, molecular biologist and food activist Marion Nestle has worked to expose the connections between Americans’ health and the powerful agendas shaping what we eat. Her newest book, co-authored with Dr. Lisa Sutherland, “Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food” examines the politics of our morning meal. We talk with Nestle about the shifts in attitudes and regulations of what we eat — from soda taxes to the MAHA movement — and about what she believes it will take to build a healthier food system for all.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>For more than five decades, renowned nutritionist, molecular biologist and food activist Marion Nestle has worked to expose the connections between Americans’ health and the powerful agendas shaping what we eat. Her newest book, co-authored with Dr. Lisa Sutherland, “Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food” examines the politics of our morning meal. We talk with Nestle about the shifts in attitudes and regulations of what we eat — from soda taxes to the MAHA movement — and about what she believes it will take to build a healthier food system for all.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University; her latest book is Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University; her latest book is \u003cem>Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University; her latest book is \u003cem>Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Marion Nestle is a legend of the food world. Her work over many decades, including her pathbreaking book, \u003cem>Food Politics\u003c/em>, has changed the terms of the debate about food. And her blog, foodpolitics.com, is an incredible repository of news, ideas, and information about the broad world of food, nutrition, science, and politics. And for the fourth or even fifth time, we believe, Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU, joins us here on \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Marion Nestle is a legend of the food world. Her work over many decades, including her pathbreaking book, \u003cem>Food Politics\u003c/em>, has changed the terms of the debate about food. And her blog, foodpolitics.com, is an incredible repository of news, ideas, and information about the broad world of food, nutrition, science, and politics. And for the fourth or even fifth time, we believe, Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU, joins us here on \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, so happy to be back!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, so happy to be back!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We are delighted to have you, in part because there is a measure on Berkeley’s ballot for a kind of update of the soda tax. You wrote a book in 2015 called \u003cem>Soda Politics\u003c/em>, and you, of course, know this history. So give us sort of the little summary: where did the soda taxes come from, and where did Berkeley’s role in it lie?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We are delighted to have you, in part because there is a measure on Berkeley’s ballot for a kind of update of the soda tax. You wrote a book in 2015 called \u003cem>Soda Politics\u003c/em>, and you, of course, know this history. So give us sort of the little summary: where did the soda taxes come from, and where did Berkeley’s role in it lie?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, Berkeley really took the leadership on all of this. There were some other towns that tried to pass soda taxes before, but Berkeley really — I use Berkeley as a case study of how to do food advocacy right. They did real community organizing. They went door to door in every community, the ones in the flats and the ones high up in the hills. And they talked to people about the effects of consuming large amounts of sugar in liquid form on obesity, diabetes risks for chronic disease. They talked to people about whether they knew anybody with type 2 diabetes and whether they understood that drinking a lot of your sugar isn’t a really good way to do it. And people got it. And then they promised that they would use the tax revenues for community initiatives, and they have done that. They have, you know, they’ve lived their promises. And this is a success story, with research that shows that it reduces soda consumption and maybe, maybe, maybe is helping people manage their weight better.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, Berkeley really took the leadership on all of this. There were some other towns that tried to pass soda taxes before, but Berkeley really — I use Berkeley as a case study of how to do food advocacy right. They did real community organizing. They went door to door in every community, the ones in the flats and the ones high up in the hills. And they talked to people about the effects of consuming large amounts of sugar in liquid form on obesity, diabetes risks for chronic disease. They talked to people about whether they knew anybody with type 2 diabetes and whether they understood that drinking a lot of your sugar isn’t a really good way to do it. And people got it. And then they promised that they would use the tax revenues for community initiatives, and they have done that. They have, you know, they’ve lived their promises. And this is a success story, with research that shows that it reduces soda consumption and maybe, maybe, maybe is helping people manage their weight better.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, it’s interesting, too, because it was in the original ballot measure, right? There was a lot of spending against it from the — oh, tons. Who didn’t pass with 80% of the vote, is that —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, it’s interesting, too, because it was in the original ballot measure, right? There was a lot of spending against it from the — oh, tons. Who didn’t pass with 80% of the vote, is that —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I believe it was 60-something percent, but it was huge. And, you know, it was an enormous, unqualified passing with a very large percentage, and that was because of the fabulous way in which the committee that was running the campaign did it. I mean, they did real community organizing, which is what you have to do to make this stuff work.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I believe it was 60-something percent, but it was huge. And, you know, it was an enormous, unqualified passing with a very large percentage, and that was because of the fabulous way in which the committee that was running the campaign did it. I mean, they did real community organizing, which is what you have to do to make this stuff work.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So why do we need something else on the ballot in Berkeley?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So why do we need something else on the ballot in Berkeley?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, that has to do with how long the initiative lasted and California politics. I live in New York. I’m not up on these details. I do know that there has to be another vote on it. Maybe you could explain it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, that has to do with how long the initiative lasted and California politics. I live in New York. I’m not up on these details. I do know that there has to be another vote on it. Maybe you could explain it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think they’re just adding another cent to it, right? I mean, that’s my —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think they’re just adding another cent to it, right? I mean, that’s my —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, because it was really not as high as what they wanted to begin with. The evidence had shown that the higher the tax, the more effective it was. The amount that they actually did the tax at was a compromise, and so this is to kind of fix the compromise a little bit. So, you know —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, because it was really not as high as what they wanted to begin with. The evidence had shown that the higher the tax, the more effective it was. The amount that they actually did the tax at was a compromise, and so this is to kind of fix the compromise a little bit. So, you know —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Opponents of soda taxes, both here and elsewhere, have said, you know, they burden lower-income consumers. You know, government shouldn’t try to influence people’s personal food choices through taxes. What do you think about those critiques?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Opponents of soda taxes, both here and elsewhere, have said, you know, they burden lower-income consumers. You know, government shouldn’t try to influence people’s personal food choices through taxes. What do you think about those critiques?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the government has an enormous influence on what people eat, based on what the government subsidizes, how the government gives food companies tax advantages for marketing. I mean, there are just a million ways in which the government influences what we eat. This is only a different way of doing it. Taxes are regressive, and there’s no question that this is a regressive tax. But the answer to that is type 2 diabetes is regressive, and it hurts the poor much more than it hurts the rich.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the government has an enormous influence on what people eat, based on what the government subsidizes, how the government gives food companies tax advantages for marketing. I mean, there are just a million ways in which the government influences what we eat. This is only a different way of doing it. Taxes are regressive, and there’s no question that this is a regressive tax. But the answer to that is type 2 diabetes is regressive, and it hurts the poor much more than it hurts the rich.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And sodas are a really convenient target. They’re different from any other food in that they’re sugars and water and flavors. And marketing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And sodas are a really convenient target. They’re different from any other food in that they’re sugars and water and flavors. And marketing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And marketing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And marketing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But nothing else of any nutritional value. So, in that sense, sodas differ from any other kind of junk or ultra-processed food in having no nutritional value at all other than the calories. And dumping large amounts of sugar into a metabolic system turns out not to be good for that metabolic system. We’re just not equipped to handle that amount of sugar at any one time. It’s much better to consume your sugar mixed up with other dietary components and much more slowly.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But nothing else of any nutritional value. So, in that sense, sodas differ from any other kind of junk or ultra-processed food in having no nutritional value at all other than the calories. And dumping large amounts of sugar into a metabolic system turns out not to be good for that metabolic system. We’re just not equipped to handle that amount of sugar at any one time. It’s much better to consume your sugar mixed up with other dietary components and much more slowly.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what about cereals, then? You’ve got a new book, which you co-wrote with Lisa Sutherland, who we’re going to talk about in just a second. Why cereal, though? Was it sort of the next most convenient target?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what about cereals, then? You’ve got a new book, which you co-wrote with Lisa Sutherland, who we’re going to talk about in just a second. Why cereal, though? Was it sort of the next most convenient target?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I’ve collected cereal boxes for years because they have the most hilarious advertising and marketing on them. I’ve collected mainly boxes with health claims on them, the more ridiculous the better. And at some point, I needed to think of another project, and I told my literary agent that it was time to do something with my cereal box collection. And so that’s how this came about.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I’ve collected cereal boxes for years because they have the most hilarious advertising and marketing on them. I’ve collected mainly boxes with health claims on them, the more ridiculous the better. And at some point, I needed to think of another project, and I told my literary agent that it was time to do something with my cereal box collection. And so that’s how this came about.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s interesting. I mean, one of the fascinating components of this book is that your co-author was actually a Kellogg’s executive.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s interesting. I mean, one of the fascinating components of this book is that your co-author was actually a Kellogg’s executive.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> A vice president for nutrition at Kellogg.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> A vice president for nutrition at Kellogg.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I don’t know. Is this like dancing with the enemy? What’s going on?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I don’t know. Is this like dancing with the enemy? What’s going on?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and she was anything but an enemy. I had met Lisa Sutherland probably 20 years ago when she was working for Hannaford Supermarkets, which is a chain of supermarkets in the Northeast. And she worked out their Guiding Stars program, which was a way of labeling house-brand foods for the ones that had the least amounts of salt, sugar, and saturated fat. And then she worked for Walmart, and then she worked for Chobani. And, you know, her view of that was she was trying to keep them nutritionally honest.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and she was anything but an enemy. I had met Lisa Sutherland probably 20 years ago when she was working for Hannaford Supermarkets, which is a chain of supermarkets in the Northeast. And she worked out their Guiding Stars program, which was a way of labeling house-brand foods for the ones that had the least amounts of salt, sugar, and saturated fat. And then she worked for Walmart, and then she worked for Chobani. And, you know, her view of that was she was trying to keep them nutritionally honest.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then at some point she called me and said, “I hope you’re not going to be mad at me, but I’m working for Kellogg.” And as it turned out, I wasn’t mad at all because I had been trying for months to get Kellogg to let me come and look at their archives. Because I wanted to look at packaging before Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling Act of 1990, and I had asked to see them, and they had said they would consider it. Nothing happened. So when she said, “I’m working for Kellogg,” I said, “Great, get me into the archives.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then at some point she called me and said, “I hope you’re not going to be mad at me, but I’m working for Kellogg.” And as it turned out, I wasn’t mad at all because I had been trying for months to get Kellogg to let me come and look at their archives. Because I wanted to look at packaging before Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling Act of 1990, and I had asked to see them, and they had said they would consider it. Nothing happened. So when she said, “I’m working for Kellogg,” I said, “Great, get me into the archives.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You got a woman on the inside now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You got a woman on the inside now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, I was thrilled! And months went by, and then she wrote and said, “Okay, come.” So I flew out to Battle Creek, and we went into the Kellogg’s library, and they said, “Do you want the good news or the bad news?” And I said, “Oh, all right, I’ll take the bad news first.” And the bad news was the lawyers weren’t going to let me anywhere near the files.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, I was thrilled! And months went by, and then she wrote and said, “Okay, come.” So I flew out to Battle Creek, and we went into the Kellogg’s library, and they said, “Do you want the good news or the bad news?” And I said, “Oh, all right, I’ll take the bad news first.” And the bad news was the lawyers weren’t going to let me anywhere near the files.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I said, “Oh, okay, what could the good news possibly be?” Well, the good news was spectacular because what they had done — and I still can’t believe this — was they had made color Xeroxes of the front and back of the three cereals I had asked to look at, from the year they were introduced until 2010, which is when this was. And they handed me a box of all-brand facsimiles from 1919 to 2010, Rice Krispies from 1928, and Froot Loops from 1963.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I said, “Oh, okay, what could the good news possibly be?” Well, the good news was spectacular because what they had done — and I still can’t believe this — was they had made color Xeroxes of the front and back of the three cereals I had asked to look at, from the year they were introduced until 2010, which is when this was. And they handed me a box of all-brand facsimiles from 1919 to 2010, Rice Krispies from 1928, and Froot Loops from 1963.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And we’re looking at these and paging through them, and the Kellogg nutritionists are saying things like, “Oh, this is when the FDA passed this regulation,” and, “Oh, look at this. This is when that research came out on oat bran,” and, “Oh, this is when the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued us.” And we were sitting there and looking at these things and saying, “There’s a book in this. There’s absolutely a book that’s going to tell the history of nutrition policy in the United States, the history of labeling policy, and a lot about marketing.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And we’re looking at these and paging through them, and the Kellogg nutritionists are saying things like, “Oh, this is when the FDA passed this regulation,” and, “Oh, look at this. This is when that research came out on oat bran,” and, “Oh, this is when the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued us.” And we were sitting there and looking at these things and saying, “There’s a book in this. There’s absolutely a book that’s going to tell the history of nutrition policy in the United States, the history of labeling policy, and a lot about marketing.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But we didn’t do it, and we drifted apart. And 15 years later, when I was thinking of doing this, I had this sudden guilty thought: maybe I should check with Lisa Sutherland and at least tell her that I’m doing this. And her response — I had to track her down. I hadn’t seen her in more than 10 years or heard from her in 10 years. And when I tracked her down and said, “This is what I’m doing,” she wrote back one sentence: “I’m in this with you.” We were off and running.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But we didn’t do it, and we drifted apart. And 15 years later, when I was thinking of doing this, I had this sudden guilty thought: maybe I should check with Lisa Sutherland and at least tell her that I’m doing this. And her response — I had to track her down. I hadn’t seen her in more than 10 years or heard from her in 10 years. And when I tracked her down and said, “This is what I’m doing,” she wrote back one sentence: “I’m in this with you.” We were off and running.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, what was interesting to you about those three cereals? I mean, I also love Lucky Charms, but what was interesting about them?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, what was interesting to you about those three cereals? I mean, I also love Lucky Charms, but what was interesting about them?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I particularly wanted All-Bran because I knew that Kellogg had used All-Bran cereal as a way to break the FDA’s restriction on health claims. They had done an end run around the FDA and gone straight to the National Cancer Institute to put a “National Cancer Institute says fiber is good for preventing cancer” claim on All-Bran, and I wanted that All-Bran box.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I particularly wanted All-Bran because I knew that Kellogg had used All-Bran cereal as a way to break the FDA’s restriction on health claims. They had done an end run around the FDA and gone straight to the National Cancer Institute to put a “National Cancer Institute says fiber is good for preventing cancer” claim on All-Bran, and I wanted that All-Bran box.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s like a case study of how —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s like a case study of how —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, a case study. I wanted Rice Krispies because it was an old cereal that started advertising Rice Krispies Treats right from the beginning, and it was sort of a normal, run-of-the-mill cereal. And I wanted Froot Loops also for a case study because Froot Loops was the cereal box that got the first Smart Choices logo, when the food industry had gotten together with nutritionists to put a kind of front-of-package symbol that would indicate that something was healthy. And the first one landed on Froot Loops, and so I wanted that box. So those were the three that I had picked. I also wanted Special K, but they didn’t think they could get me Special K.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, a case study. I wanted Rice Krispies because it was an old cereal that started advertising Rice Krispies Treats right from the beginning, and it was sort of a normal, run-of-the-mill cereal. And I wanted Froot Loops also for a case study because Froot Loops was the cereal box that got the first Smart Choices logo, when the food industry had gotten together with nutritionists to put a kind of front-of-package symbol that would indicate that something was healthy. And the first one landed on Froot Loops, and so I wanted that box. So those were the three that I had picked. I also wanted Special K, but they didn’t think they could get me Special K.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As one that, like, targeted women in specific ways.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As one that, like, targeted women in specific ways.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> So, you know, these I have, and they turn out to be — and they gave them to me. I have them in my office at NYU, and they’re fabulous for saying, “Well, how much sugar was in cereal in 1958?” I can answer that question. And it’s just enormously useful to have them. I’m quite grateful.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> So, you know, these I have, and they turn out to be — and they gave them to me. I have them in my office at NYU, and they’re fabulous for saying, “Well, how much sugar was in cereal in 1958?” I can answer that question. And it’s just enormously useful to have them. I’m quite grateful.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, and what it’ll take to make it healthier. We’re joined by Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And we want to hear from you. Is there a food you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Or maybe, how has your understanding of the food industry changed the way you shop or eat? Give us a call, 866-733-6786, or email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, and what it’ll take to make it healthier. We’re joined by Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And we want to hear from you. Is there a food you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Or maybe, how has your understanding of the food industry changed the way you shop or eat? Give us a call, 866-733-6786, or email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Marion Nestle. She’s got a new book out. It is about cereal. It is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>. It was co-authored with Lisa Sutherland. Of course, she’s a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. And we want to hear from you if there’s a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now. Or maybe, you know, with so much nutrition advice and information available now, how do you decide what foods you eat? 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email, of course, is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. Social media: Bluesky, Instagram, Discord. We’re KQED Forum.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Marion Nestle. She’s got a new book out. It is about cereal. It is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>. It was co-authored with Lisa Sutherland. Of course, she’s a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. And we want to hear from you if there’s a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now. Or maybe, you know, with so much nutrition advice and information available now, how do you decide what foods you eat? 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email, of course, is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. Social media: Bluesky, Instagram, Discord. We’re KQED Forum.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Before we talk about some other ultra-processed foods, what is the takeaway people should have about cereal? Like, if their kids want to have Honey Nut Cheerios, hypothetically, um, what would you say about that kind of food?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Before we talk about some other ultra-processed foods, what is the takeaway people should have about cereal? Like, if their kids want to have Honey Nut Cheerios, hypothetically, um, what would you say about that kind of food?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> They’re a once-in-a-while treat. Some of my friends who have kids who are demanding sugary cereals — I mean, first of all, these cereals are marketed directly to children. You know this because of the cartoon characters on the front. And now the toys are back in cereals. So the whole purpose of this is to get kids to demand the foods, to pester their parents for them. It’s called the pester factor, and nobody wants to fight with their kids about food, so everybody gives in. But I do have friends who give their kids a healthier cereal and sprinkle a little bit of this stuff on top of it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> They’re a once-in-a-while treat. Some of my friends who have kids who are demanding sugary cereals — I mean, first of all, these cereals are marketed directly to children. You know this because of the cartoon characters on the front. And now the toys are back in cereals. So the whole purpose of this is to get kids to demand the foods, to pester their parents for them. It’s called the pester factor, and nobody wants to fight with their kids about food, so everybody gives in. But I do have friends who give their kids a healthier cereal and sprinkle a little bit of this stuff on top of it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we do that with our dog. He gets, like, kibble, and then he gets the stuff he really likes just a little bit on top. I understand. Is there any cereal that you would recommend, or is it just sort of —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we do that with our dog. He gets, like, kibble, and then he gets the stuff he really likes just a little bit on top. I understand. Is there any cereal that you would recommend, or is it just sort of —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the one that I like is mini shredded wheat, and they’re a one-ingredient cereal. There’s one ingredient: whole wheat. That’s it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the one that I like is mini shredded wheat, and they’re a one-ingredient cereal. There’s one ingredient: whole wheat. That’s it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You’re not talking about Frosted Mini-Wheats.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You’re not talking about Frosted Mini-Wheats.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I’m not. I like adding my own sugar, and I can put in a spoonful of sugar. It’ll be a third of the amount that’s in pre-sweetened cereals.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I’m not. I like adding my own sugar, and I can put in a spoonful of sugar. It’ll be a third of the amount that’s in pre-sweetened cereals.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, so let’s talk about these ultra-processed foods. I mean, this is a label, or a way of talking about foods, I feel like has emerged over the last five or —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, so let’s talk about these ultra-processed foods. I mean, this is a label, or a way of talking about foods, I feel like has emerged over the last five or —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Since 2009. Yeah.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Since 2009. Yeah.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so over time, and we now in California have a law that’s establishing a new non-ultra-processed-certified label for food products. What do you think about this kind of non-ultra-processed-certified label?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so over time, and we now in California have a law that’s establishing a new non-ultra-processed-certified label for food products. What do you think about this kind of non-ultra-processed-certified label?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the Non-GMO Project did it first. Non-GMO is the most successful front-of-package indicator. Lisa and I call them widgets — the most-used one on packages. And they have started a non-UPF, ultra-processed food designation. I don’t know how it’s going. It’s just started, and California will be the first state to have this. I’m very interested to see what the symbol is going to look like. The law didn’t have any prototypes that I’m aware of.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the Non-GMO Project did it first. Non-GMO is the most successful front-of-package indicator. Lisa and I call them widgets — the most-used one on packages. And they have started a non-UPF, ultra-processed food designation. I don’t know how it’s going. It’s just started, and California will be the first state to have this. I’m very interested to see what the symbol is going to look like. The law didn’t have any prototypes that I’m aware of.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I think it’s a good idea because the ultra-processed food concept is a specific category of junk food, where the foods are industrially produced, usually have a lot of salt, sugar, and fat, and a lot of color, flavor, and texture additives. But they are designed specifically for profit and designed specifically to be irresistibly delicious, if not addictive. And there is now a phenomenal amount of evidence that links diets high in ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes. And those are observational studies, and they don’t show causation. But there are also some very well-controlled, although short-term, clinical trials that show that these foods induce people to eat more calories — a lot more calories — without being aware that they’re doing it. So there are good reasons for cutting down on ultra-processed foods, and people are doing that. And it would be great, too, because there are issues about the definition. There are some categories of foods that some people argue are highly nutritious but meet the definition of ultra-processed foods, like commercial whole-wheat breads and yogurts. There are only a few plant-based meats —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I think it’s a good idea because the ultra-processed food concept is a specific category of junk food, where the foods are industrially produced, usually have a lot of salt, sugar, and fat, and a lot of color, flavor, and texture additives. But they are designed specifically for profit and designed specifically to be irresistibly delicious, if not addictive. And there is now a phenomenal amount of evidence that links diets high in ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes. And those are observational studies, and they don’t show causation. But there are also some very well-controlled, although short-term, clinical trials that show that these foods induce people to eat more calories — a lot more calories — without being aware that they’re doing it. So there are good reasons for cutting down on ultra-processed foods, and people are doing that. And it would be great, too, because there are issues about the definition. There are some categories of foods that some people argue are highly nutritious but meet the definition of ultra-processed foods, like commercial whole-wheat breads and yogurts. There are only a few plant-based meats —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And those kinds of things, and medical foods. So there are some exceptions, but I think — so there’s a big issue about the definition. I don’t think there should be an issue about the definition.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And those kinds of things, and medical foods. So there are some exceptions, but I think — so there’s a big issue about the definition. I don’t think there should be an issue about the definition.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think it’s kind of a red herring that the food is —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think it’s kind of a red herring that the food is —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because most people get the concept, and it’s pretty obvious what most of them are. And so having something that puts a label on the most obvious ultra-processed foods would help people identify them very quickly. So I can’t wait to see what it looks like.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because most people get the concept, and it’s pretty obvious what most of them are. And so having something that puts a label on the most obvious ultra-processed foods would help people identify them very quickly. So I can’t wait to see what it looks like.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Before we go to the phones, I just want to ask you: you know, here in San Francisco, City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit last year against 10 of the country’s largest food manufacturers, saying these companies knowingly designed and marketed harmful, addictive products. This is true. Do you think that litigation will succeed? Do you think it’s going to be an effective way to hold the food industry accountable?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Before we go to the phones, I just want to ask you: you know, here in San Francisco, City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit last year against 10 of the country’s largest food manufacturers, saying these companies knowingly designed and marketed harmful, addictive products. This is true. Do you think that litigation will succeed? Do you think it’s going to be an effective way to hold the food industry accountable?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I have no idea. The food industry is remarkably powerful. And we see that in the Make America Healthy Again movement. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — apparently, they have a definition of ultra-processed foods, which would be the basis for regulation, although this is not a group that wants to regulate much. But they have put that definition and sent it to the White House, and it’s being held up. And I just saw an account of the food industry enterprises that have met with the White House officials to argue against a definition of ultra-processed food.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I have no idea. The food industry is remarkably powerful. And we see that in the Make America Healthy Again movement. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — apparently, they have a definition of ultra-processed foods, which would be the basis for regulation, although this is not a group that wants to regulate much. But they have put that definition and sent it to the White House, and it’s being held up. And I just saw an account of the food industry enterprises that have met with the White House officials to argue against a definition of ultra-processed food.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So the politics of this are enormous, and Berkeley and San Francisco both saw this during the soda tax things 10 years ago, or whenever it was. The amount of money that the soda industry put into fighting the idea of a soda tax is similar to the amount of money that they are willing to spend to defeat anything having to do with ultra-processed foods.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So the politics of this are enormous, and Berkeley and San Francisco both saw this during the soda tax things 10 years ago, or whenever it was. The amount of money that the soda industry put into fighting the idea of a soda tax is similar to the amount of money that they are willing to spend to defeat anything having to do with ultra-processed foods.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Noreen in Oakland. Welcome, Noreen.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Noreen in Oakland. Welcome, Noreen.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Hi there! Love the program. It’s worth noting that my maiden name is Post, and we were indeed the reckoning of Post Toasties.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Hi there! Love the program. It’s worth noting that my maiden name is Post, and we were indeed the reckoning of Post Toasties.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You have venerable ancestors.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You have venerable ancestors.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> I do. I do, in so many ways. But I wanted to share my love of Grape-Nuts cereal.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> I do. I do, in so many ways. But I wanted to share my love of Grape-Nuts cereal.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Yeah, have you ever ate a pine cone? Many parts are edible. Right away, and it’s super crunchy and delicious, or you could let it sit there for a little while and it turns into kind of an oatmeal thing. And you can carve out a moon and let the milk be on one side, and then just gently enjoy it. And my mom used to take our leftover cereal and use it to make bread.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Yeah, have you ever ate a pine cone? Many parts are edible. Right away, and it’s super crunchy and delicious, or you could let it sit there for a little while and it turns into kind of an oatmeal thing. And you can carve out a moon and let the milk be on one side, and then just gently enjoy it. And my mom used to take our leftover cereal and use it to make bread.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow. Oh, good idea. Wow, Noreen, really appreciate that. I mean, this is — I would make cookies. Yeah, I think of Grape-Nuts. That was one of the things in our house, for sure, that it was like, okay, Grape-Nuts are a healthy cereal.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow. Oh, good idea. Wow, Noreen, really appreciate that. I mean, this is — I would make cookies. Yeah, I think of Grape-Nuts. That was one of the things in our house, for sure, that it was like, okay, Grape-Nuts are a healthy cereal.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and people are telling me that they’re really hard to find.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and people are telling me that they’re really hard to find.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting, interesting. Is it true, though? Like, is it a healthy cereal, or is it just kind of a health halo?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting, interesting. Is it true, though? Like, is it a healthy cereal, or is it just kind of a health halo?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, I need to look at the ingredient list. I can’t really tell until I look at that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, I need to look at the ingredient list. I can’t really tell until I look at that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But I hear about — I’m hearing a lot about Grape-Nuts these days. I should go look at that ingredient list.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But I hear about — I’m hearing a lot about Grape-Nuts these days. I should go look at that ingredient list.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You know, let’s talk a little bit about — you mentioned MAHA and this movement that calls itself the Make America Healthy Again movement. How do you relate to it? Because I would imagine — I mean, I know from your blog that you believe in vaccination, you know, and have, I believe, standard public health kind of measures, which that movement has not always done. So how do you relate to it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You know, let’s talk a little bit about — you mentioned MAHA and this movement that calls itself the Make America Healthy Again movement. How do you relate to it? Because I would imagine — I mean, I know from your blog that you believe in vaccination, you know, and have, I believe, standard public health kind of measures, which that movement has not always done. So how do you relate to it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I started out thinking that there were a lot of — with respect to the food issues — that there were a lot of very hopeful things in it. But as it’s turning out, they are unable to accomplish a lot of what they started out doing. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came in saying he was going to get rid of — that the food industry was poisoning America. That’s a little extreme. And he wanted ultra-processed foods out of the food supply. He wanted glyphosate, Roundup, out of the food supply. They wanted to get rid of all the chemicals and pesticides and herbicides that are contaminating food, PFAS and all those other things, and the artificial color dyes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I started out thinking that there were a lot of — with respect to the food issues — that there were a lot of very hopeful things in it. But as it’s turning out, they are unable to accomplish a lot of what they started out doing. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came in saying he was going to get rid of — that the food industry was poisoning America. That’s a little extreme. And he wanted ultra-processed foods out of the food supply. He wanted glyphosate, Roundup, out of the food supply. They wanted to get rid of all the chemicals and pesticides and herbicides that are contaminating food, PFAS and all those other things, and the artificial color dyes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the only thing they’ve been able to accomplish so far is they are actually getting the artificial color dyes out of breakfast cereals. And you can go to the store and see that you can buy Trix with vegetable dyes instead of the petroleum dyes, but the cereal’s still the same.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the only thing they’ve been able to accomplish so far is they are actually getting the artificial color dyes out of breakfast cereals. And you can go to the store and see that you can buy Trix with vegetable dyes instead of the petroleum dyes, but the cereal’s still the same.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And getting rid of the dyes is not going to make America healthy again. Doing something about ultra-processed foods might, but they’re stuck in politics on that one. And they’ve not been able to accomplish much. So it’s been all talk, no action.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And getting rid of the dyes is not going to make America healthy again. Doing something about ultra-processed foods might, but they’re stuck in politics on that one. And they’ve not been able to accomplish much. So it’s been all talk, no action.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I guess, was what you found hopeful in it the actual measures that MAHA wanted to take, or was it more that the coalition was kind of an unusual one in current American politics, and that it kind of cut across a lot of partisan divides?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I guess, was what you found hopeful in it the actual measures that MAHA wanted to take, or was it more that the coalition was kind of an unusual one in current American politics, and that it kind of cut across a lot of partisan divides?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I’ve wanted color additives out of the food supply for a long time. I didn’t think they were the be-all and end-all. They’re not the most important issue by any means, and they seemed like a no-brainer to me. It ought to be that, with the stroke of a pen, they should have been able to do that. But they’re not taking a regulatory approach. Kennedy has said that he thinks regulation is the nanny state, and so the companies have been pressured voluntarily to remove the color dyes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I’ve wanted color additives out of the food supply for a long time. I didn’t think they were the be-all and end-all. They’re not the most important issue by any means, and they seemed like a no-brainer to me. It ought to be that, with the stroke of a pen, they should have been able to do that. But they’re not taking a regulatory approach. Kennedy has said that he thinks regulation is the nanny state, and so the companies have been pressured voluntarily to remove the color dyes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, General Mills did that once before. Nobody bought Trix when it was brown and yellow, and they brought the color dyes back. So maybe that’ll happen this time, too. It’s, you know, they’re just not accomplishing much, and they had the chance to do that. They had three branches of government. But it turns out eating less is very, very bad for business, and the food industry is not interested in public health measures that might reduce sales and profits.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, General Mills did that once before. Nobody bought Trix when it was brown and yellow, and they brought the color dyes back. So maybe that’ll happen this time, too. It’s, you know, they’re just not accomplishing much, and they had the chance to do that. They had three branches of government. But it turns out eating less is very, very bad for business, and the food industry is not interested in public health measures that might reduce sales and profits.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Surprise. So this is interesting because there is a thing happening in American life right now that is causing people to eat less. That is the growth of GLP-1s and similar drugs that have, you know, tended to reduce people’s caloric intake. What’s your take on them?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Surprise. So this is interesting because there is a thing happening in American life right now that is causing people to eat less. That is the growth of GLP-1s and similar drugs that have, you know, tended to reduce people’s caloric intake. What’s your take on them?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re fascinating. I’m riveted by them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re fascinating. I’m riveted by them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, same.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, same.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And for a year, whenever I gave a public talk, I would say, “If you’re taking GLP-1 drugs and are willing to share your experience, come up afterwards and let’s talk about it privately.” And I have now talked to dozens and dozens and dozens of people who are taking the drugs. And what’s interesting to me about it is that the personal accounts that I’ve heard are very consistent with what the research is showing — extraordinarily consistent. So there’s a wide range of responses. Some people lose lots of weight, some people only lose a little, some people have terrible side effects, some people don’t have any. It really varies. But overall, the drugs really do help people lose weight. People feel better, they feel stronger, they feel livelier. They feel better; their metabolic issues disappear. They’re doing great as long as they’re on the drug. The problem is what happens when you come off them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And for a year, whenever I gave a public talk, I would say, “If you’re taking GLP-1 drugs and are willing to share your experience, come up afterwards and let’s talk about it privately.” And I have now talked to dozens and dozens and dozens of people who are taking the drugs. And what’s interesting to me about it is that the personal accounts that I’ve heard are very consistent with what the research is showing — extraordinarily consistent. So there’s a wide range of responses. Some people lose lots of weight, some people only lose a little, some people have terrible side effects, some people don’t have any. It really varies. But overall, the drugs really do help people lose weight. People feel better, they feel stronger, they feel livelier. They feel better; their metabolic issues disappear. They’re doing great as long as they’re on the drug. The problem is what happens when you come off them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And there, most people regain the weight. Not all, but most people do. And that’s a problem, too, or you have to be on a maintenance dose for life. We’re still waiting to see what the side effects are, how serious some of the side effects are. There’ve been some rare ones that are pretty bad. Most people have GI side effects. Some are tolerable, some are not.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And there, most people regain the weight. Not all, but most people do. And that’s a problem, too, or you have to be on a maintenance dose for life. We’re still waiting to see what the side effects are, how serious some of the side effects are. There’ve been some rare ones that are pretty bad. Most people have GI side effects. Some are tolerable, some are not.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Are you interested in the mechanisms of it? That’s been the thing that’s been so interesting to me, is that most of the work seems to be happening in people’s minds as much as anything else. Like, there are the sort of changes that people experience in their digestive tract, but it’s mostly that people just think about eating a little bit less.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Are you interested in the mechanisms of it? That’s been the thing that’s been so interesting to me, is that most of the work seems to be happening in people’s minds as much as anything else. Like, there are the sort of changes that people experience in their digestive tract, but it’s mostly that people just think about eating a little bit less.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, the main overall effect is it reduces what’s called “food noise.” I had never heard the term before. I like it a lot. I get it totally. It’s the obsessive thinking about food, and that stops. Although people who are serious foodies tell me they still love food, they still think about food, they —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, the main overall effect is it reduces what’s called “food noise.” I had never heard the term before. I like it a lot. I get it totally. It’s the obsessive thinking about food, and that stops. Although people who are serious foodies tell me they still love food, they still think about food, they —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’d like to cook still.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’d like to cook still.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, they do all of that, and it’s not affected. They’re just not eating as much. They just don’t want to eat as much. So the drugs affect the gut, various organs, and the brain, and scientists are hard at work trying to figure all that out. But there’s no question that they eat less, and they selectively eat less. So they’re eating less ultra-processed food. They’re eating less junk food. They’re eating healthier. Well, isn’t that amazing?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, they do all of that, and it’s not affected. They’re just not eating as much. They just don’t want to eat as much. So the drugs affect the gut, various organs, and the brain, and scientists are hard at work trying to figure all that out. But there’s no question that they eat less, and they selectively eat less. So they’re eating less ultra-processed food. They’re eating less junk food. They’re eating healthier. Well, isn’t that amazing?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. How do you think they’re going to respond? I mean, this does —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. How do you think they’re going to respond? I mean, this does —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, they’re already responding. I mean, the food industry is in trouble in general, overall. It’s in trouble because of RFK Jr. saying they’re poisoning people. It’s in trouble because of ultra-processed foods. It’s in trouble because of GLP-1 drugs. And it’s in trouble because of inflation. You know, I mean, I can’t believe what’s happened to the cost of food in the last couple of years. It’s just shocking.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, they’re already responding. I mean, the food industry is in trouble in general, overall. It’s in trouble because of RFK Jr. saying they’re poisoning people. It’s in trouble because of ultra-processed foods. It’s in trouble because of GLP-1 drugs. And it’s in trouble because of inflation. You know, I mean, I can’t believe what’s happened to the cost of food in the last couple of years. It’s just shocking.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what are their prospective responses? I mean, if I were putting on my executive hat, you would have to say, like, okay, well, if right now GLP-1s are most widely distributed in sort of middle-class, upper-middle-class households, so we’ve got to double down on targeting people who can’t afford GLP-1s and who maybe are also being hit harder by inflation, to even sell more to those people.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what are their prospective responses? I mean, if I were putting on my executive hat, you would have to say, like, okay, well, if right now GLP-1s are most widely distributed in sort of middle-class, upper-middle-class households, so we’ve got to double down on targeting people who can’t afford GLP-1s and who maybe are also being hit harder by inflation, to even sell more to those people.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, they’re certainly marketing, but they’re also reformulating products. You know, and you have to understand the context for this: in our investment system, it’s not enough to make a profit. You have to grow the profit and report growth to Wall Street every quarter. That’s very difficult to do if people are eating less. And so, if growth is flat or declining, these companies are in very, very serious trouble, and they are scrambling to try to dream up products that will be as profitable as ultra-processed products are. And they’re having a hard time doing it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, they’re certainly marketing, but they’re also reformulating products. You know, and you have to understand the context for this: in our investment system, it’s not enough to make a profit. You have to grow the profit and report growth to Wall Street every quarter. That’s very difficult to do if people are eating less. And so, if growth is flat or declining, these companies are in very, very serious trouble, and they are scrambling to try to dream up products that will be as profitable as ultra-processed products are. And they’re having a hard time doing it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But if you want to know why protein is on absolutely everything, everybody’s looking for protein, whether that’s reasonable or not, we can argue about. But everybody’s looking for protein. And so the food companies are putting protein into everything and marketing it, and they’re putting protein into the most ridiculous products. I just read that there’s a protein vodka you could drink. Are you kidding me? And because I’m so interested in cereals, my favorite current cereal product is Cookies ‘n’ Creme Oreos protein. You cannot make this stuff up.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But if you want to know why protein is on absolutely everything, everybody’s looking for protein, whether that’s reasonable or not, we can argue about. But everybody’s looking for protein. And so the food companies are putting protein into everything and marketing it, and they’re putting protein into the most ridiculous products. I just read that there’s a protein vodka you could drink. Are you kidding me? And because I’m so interested in cereals, my favorite current cereal product is Cookies ‘n’ Creme Oreos protein. You cannot make this stuff up.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It does — it sounds like, yeah, a ’90s postmodernist novel product, for sure. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, GLP-1s, MAHA, so much more, with food icon Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It does — it sounds like, yeah, a ’90s postmodernist novel product, for sure. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, GLP-1s, MAHA, so much more, with food icon Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>One listener writes in to say, “I was not a food obsessive for most of my life. My mother did make us eat wheat germ sprinkled on our Lucky Charms, as if this might counteract the problems of the magically delicious marshmallows. But when I had my own kids, I started to pay more attention to this, and we became the house where you can’t find snacks like Goldfish or potato chips, and we were not a breakfast cereal family. And to this day, my kids are not snackers, as far as I know.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>One listener writes in to say, “I was not a food obsessive for most of my life. My mother did make us eat wheat germ sprinkled on our Lucky Charms, as if this might counteract the problems of the magically delicious marshmallows. But when I had my own kids, I started to pay more attention to this, and we became the house where you can’t find snacks like Goldfish or potato chips, and we were not a breakfast cereal family. And to this day, my kids are not snackers, as far as I know.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We want to hear from you. Is there a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Just want to ask Marion Nestle something. 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for more.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We want to hear from you. Is there a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Just want to ask Marion Nestle something. 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for more.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. I’m here with Marion Nestle, icon, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, what it might take to make us all healthier. We’ve got a lot of callers here, so I want to make sure that we get them in. Let’s go to Hamayat in Fremont. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. I’m here with Marion Nestle, icon, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, what it might take to make us all healthier. We’ve got a lot of callers here, so I want to make sure that we get them in. Let’s go to Hamayat in Fremont. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hamayat:\u003c/strong> Hi, good morning. I had a two-part question slash comment. And the first part is, I wanted to know, is there a difference in our processed food versus processed foods in other countries, such as in European countries? Because in the summer we went to London and Paris for a month, and before we went I checked my weight. And then when we came back, I had lost eight pounds, even though all of our meals were outside because we were staying in hotels in both places. So we weren’t eating home-cooked meals. There were restaurants and fast food, and that’s what we were having. So I was wondering if there’s any difference.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hamayat:\u003c/strong> Hi, good morning. I had a two-part question slash comment. And the first part is, I wanted to know, is there a difference in our processed food versus processed foods in other countries, such as in European countries? Because in the summer we went to London and Paris for a month, and before we went I checked my weight. And then when we came back, I had lost eight pounds, even though all of our meals were outside because we were staying in hotels in both places. So we weren’t eating home-cooked meals. There were restaurants and fast food, and that’s what we were having. So I was wondering if there’s any difference.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The second thing I wanted to bring up is about the GLP-1 question. Since the last year and a half, everyone that we know was talking about it and trying to sell it on, even though nobody works for them as the only one thing. But I was reluctant to start because my father is a pediatrician, and he told me it depends on every person’s history. So I just started watching my calories using an Amazon skill, and I found that to be a lot more effective than doing something where you might have to continue it. So those are my two comments.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The second thing I wanted to bring up is about the GLP-1 question. Since the last year and a half, everyone that we know was talking about it and trying to sell it on, even though nobody works for them as the only one thing. But I was reluctant to start because my father is a pediatrician, and he told me it depends on every person’s history. So I just started watching my calories using an Amazon skill, and I found that to be a lot more effective than doing something where you might have to continue it. So those are my two comments.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think one reason people have gotten into GLP-1s is that so many analyses of diets were just showing it wasn’t really working in the long term for most people, and so GLP-1s seem to have had some success. But let’s take the European processed food versus American processed food.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think one reason people have gotten into GLP-1s is that so many analyses of diets were just showing it wasn’t really working in the long term for most people, and so GLP-1s seem to have had some success. But let’s take the European processed food versus American processed food.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, people in Europe eat differently. They have processed foods there. They have different rules than we do, and some of the additives that we use here are not allowed there. But I just think that when you’re traveling, you eat differently. First of all, you’re not snacking all day long because you can’t get at it. You’re doing an awful lot of walking. It’s a healthier lifestyle. You’re not in a car. And lots of people experience weight loss when they’re traveling. And the food is good, and they have a different food culture that’s in some ways very admirable. On the other hand, American fast-food companies are quite prevalent. They have outlets there, and it’s quite possible to eat badly there, as well as it is here.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, people in Europe eat differently. They have processed foods there. They have different rules than we do, and some of the additives that we use here are not allowed there. But I just think that when you’re traveling, you eat differently. First of all, you’re not snacking all day long because you can’t get at it. You’re doing an awful lot of walking. It’s a healthier lifestyle. You’re not in a car. And lots of people experience weight loss when they’re traveling. And the food is good, and they have a different food culture that’s in some ways very admirable. On the other hand, American fast-food companies are quite prevalent. They have outlets there, and it’s quite possible to eat badly there, as well as it is here.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Greg in Redwood City. Welcome, Greg.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Greg in Redwood City. Welcome, Greg.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Greg:\u003c/strong> Morning. I’d like to say, you know, I was a huge consumer of those cereals, everything from other kids’ favorites, Brilliant, Sugar Smacks, and Honeycomb, and I got older, Special K. You know, all the claims that it was not so bad. And now I look back, and I’m just so angry that I was, you know, the victim of that. You know, as consumers, we just don’t have the information to make intelligent decisions. And, uh, you know, now I’m just much more conscious of what I’m eating, and it’s really just the outer perimeter of the grocery store. And, you know, I don’t even like to go to restaurants because they don’t tell you what’s in it. They don’t tell you if it’s got a hundred ingredients and artificial cheese and all the rest of it. And I can really see the difference just by eating one meal, like how my body feels. So it’s incredibly frustrating that Americans can’t get the information to keep their family healthy. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Greg:\u003c/strong> Morning. I’d like to say, you know, I was a huge consumer of those cereals, everything from other kids’ favorites, Brilliant, Sugar Smacks, and Honeycomb, and I got older, Special K. You know, all the claims that it was not so bad. And now I look back, and I’m just so angry that I was, you know, the victim of that. You know, as consumers, we just don’t have the information to make intelligent decisions. And, uh, you know, now I’m just much more conscious of what I’m eating, and it’s really just the outer perimeter of the grocery store. And, you know, I don’t even like to go to restaurants because they don’t tell you what’s in it. They don’t tell you if it’s got a hundred ingredients and artificial cheese and all the rest of it. And I can really see the difference just by eating one meal, like how my body feels. So it’s incredibly frustrating that Americans can’t get the information to keep their family healthy. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the way I put it is, if you’re trying to eat healthfully in today’s food environment, you’re fighting an entire food system on your own. And the food system is set up to sell more food, not less. My mantra on this is: eating less is bad for business. And once you understand that, you get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the way I put it is, if you’re trying to eat healthfully in today’s food environment, you’re fighting an entire food system on your own. And the food system is set up to sell more food, not less. My mantra on this is: eating less is bad for business. And once you understand that, you get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. You mentioned earlier, you said people are all trying to eat more protein, reasonable or not. Why don’t you talk a little bit about whether you do think it’s reasonable or not?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. You mentioned earlier, you said people are all trying to eat more protein, reasonable or not. Why don’t you talk a little bit about whether you do think it’s reasonable or not?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I don’t, because most people are already eating twice the protein that’s essential for replacing the protein losses in their body. And eating more protein doesn’t do much good except for people who are elite athletes or people who aren’t watching their — well, but that’s a very small minority. Most people get plenty of the protein they need, even if they’re vegetarian, even if they are vegan. They’re getting enough protein.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I don’t, because most people are already eating twice the protein that’s essential for replacing the protein losses in their body. And eating more protein doesn’t do much good except for people who are elite athletes or people who aren’t watching their — well, but that’s a very small minority. Most people get plenty of the protein they need, even if they’re vegetarian, even if they are vegan. They’re getting enough protein.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s never been an issue. Do you have a nutrition guideline for it? Do you like some measure or metric that you use?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s never been an issue. Do you have a nutrition guideline for it? Do you like some measure or metric that you use?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I just never think about these things. I follow my own advice.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I just never think about these things. I follow my own advice.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Not protein-maxing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Not protein-maxing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I’m very fond of quoting Michael Pollan: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” That really takes care of it. And that’s how I eat, and that’s why I advise other people to eat. I think food is one of life’s greatest pleasures. It’s something lovely that you get to do for yourself several times a day. I don’t want to do anything to take away the pleasure of food, but I think it’s possible to enjoy eating — eating real food, not too much, mostly plants. I mean, it seems really easy to me.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I’m very fond of quoting Michael Pollan: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” That really takes care of it. And that’s how I eat, and that’s why I advise other people to eat. I think food is one of life’s greatest pleasures. It’s something lovely that you get to do for yourself several times a day. I don’t want to do anything to take away the pleasure of food, but I think it’s possible to enjoy eating — eating real food, not too much, mostly plants. I mean, it seems really easy to me.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So maybe you’ve already answered this, but the Trump administration does have a new version of the food pyramid, part of its dietary guidelines.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So maybe you’ve already answered this, but the Trump administration does have a new version of the food pyramid, part of its dietary guidelines.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Emphasizing protein, full-fat dairy, whole foods. What do you think? What do you think about the pyramid?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Emphasizing protein, full-fat dairy, whole foods. What do you think? What do you think about the pyramid?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s a mixed bag. And it’s really sad that it’s a mixed bag, because the advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed foods is good advice. They didn’t use the words “ultra-processed,” which I wish they had, but they did pretty well on it. But then the rest of it is just a jumble of misinformation, things that are scientifically dubious, and one absolutely shocking nutritional error. You know, it made me think, this is why we have committees — to keep people from getting into trouble. And the shocking nutritional error was to say that beef tallow, olive oil, and butter were good sources of essential fatty acids. They’re not.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s a mixed bag. And it’s really sad that it’s a mixed bag, because the advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed foods is good advice. They didn’t use the words “ultra-processed,” which I wish they had, but they did pretty well on it. But then the rest of it is just a jumble of misinformation, things that are scientifically dubious, and one absolutely shocking nutritional error. You know, it made me think, this is why we have committees — to keep people from getting into trouble. And the shocking nutritional error was to say that beef tallow, olive oil, and butter were good sources of essential fatty acids. They’re not.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And this is because — and Alice writes in to ask about this — there is this real hatred in that part of the MAHA world for seed oils.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And this is because — and Alice writes in to ask about this — there is this real hatred in that part of the MAHA world for seed oils.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah. It’s bizarre.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah. It’s bizarre.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So Alice writes, “Seed oils are categorically branded as unhealthy these days. Can Marion share her views on these?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So Alice writes, “Seed oils are categorically branded as unhealthy these days. Can Marion share her views on these?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think that’s — you know, they have 120 calories per tablespoon, like every other fat, and you don’t want to eat too much of them, like any other fat, because they’re very high in calories. But the seed oils are clean. They’ve been refined, but okay, and they have lots and lots of essential fatty acids, which we need. These are fatty acids that we can’t make, and then we have to eat them in our diet. They’re by far the best source of them. I don’t get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think that’s — you know, they have 120 calories per tablespoon, like every other fat, and you don’t want to eat too much of them, like any other fat, because they’re very high in calories. But the seed oils are clean. They’ve been refined, but okay, and they have lots and lots of essential fatty acids, which we need. These are fatty acids that we can’t make, and then we have to eat them in our diet. They’re by far the best source of them. I don’t get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, where does that come from?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, where does that come from?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, I know where it comes from. It comes from the processing — it comes from the idea, the correlation between the increase in consumption of seed oils parallels the rise in prevalence of obesity. That’s correlation, not causation. You know, obesity is — nobody wants to talk about calories. I turn out to be a calorie person. I really believe in them. If you eat more calories than you expend in activity, you’re going to gain weight. That is thermodynamics, and that still holds. And I think, you know, what you eat is important for health, but how much you eat is extraordinarily important for how much you weigh.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, I know where it comes from. It comes from the processing — it comes from the idea, the correlation between the increase in consumption of seed oils parallels the rise in prevalence of obesity. That’s correlation, not causation. You know, obesity is — nobody wants to talk about calories. I turn out to be a calorie person. I really believe in them. If you eat more calories than you expend in activity, you’re going to gain weight. That is thermodynamics, and that still holds. And I think, you know, what you eat is important for health, but how much you eat is extraordinarily important for how much you weigh.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s go to — let’s take Lily in San Francisco. Welcome, Lily.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s go to — let’s take Lily in San Francisco. Welcome, Lily.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lily:\u003c/strong> Hi. Hey, go ahead. Hi, Marion. Hi. I just wanted to say, so in college, I ended up writing my senior-year work, and that was in part because my uncle had died from obesity the year before I had gone to college. And it was a deep question in my mind of how that could have happened, and I think it spurred this whole research career, actually. But at the time, I was really using your work. I just wanted to thank you for all of that. And I was examining how our sociocultural or political-cultural values and messaging around choice and freedom, specifically, have contributed to how we consume food and how it changes our behavior around food.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lily:\u003c/strong> Hi. Hey, go ahead. Hi, Marion. Hi. I just wanted to say, so in college, I ended up writing my senior-year work, and that was in part because my uncle had died from obesity the year before I had gone to college. And it was a deep question in my mind of how that could have happened, and I think it spurred this whole research career, actually. But at the time, I was really using your work. I just wanted to thank you for all of that. And I was examining how our sociocultural or political-cultural values and messaging around choice and freedom, specifically, have contributed to how we consume food and how it changes our behavior around food.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I’m curious because I feel like, as a senior in college, you know, we have now the rise of influencers and trends around food. And I’m curious about how you see messaging, whether that’s through advertising or lobbying, or just kind of the cultural zeitgeist around how we consume food and what it means about us. And, yeah, if you’ve seen anything change with that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I’m curious because I feel like, as a senior in college, you know, we have now the rise of influencers and trends around food. And I’m curious about how you see messaging, whether that’s through advertising or lobbying, or just kind of the cultural zeitgeist around how we consume food and what it means about us. And, yeah, if you’ve seen anything change with that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, social media has changed everything. First of all, I’m so excited that you’ve read my work. That’s really touching. Thank you. I don’t know what to say about the influencer culture and what’s happening on social media. I worry about it a lot because the idea comes straight out of Orwell’s \u003cem>1984\u003c/em>: that if you repeat the same message over and over and again, and louder and louder and louder, people will believe it whether it has any relationship to truth or not. And we seem to be seeing a lot of that these days.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, social media has changed everything. First of all, I’m so excited that you’ve read my work. That’s really touching. Thank you. I don’t know what to say about the influencer culture and what’s happening on social media. I worry about it a lot because the idea comes straight out of Orwell’s \u003cem>1984\u003c/em>: that if you repeat the same message over and over and again, and louder and louder and louder, people will believe it whether it has any relationship to truth or not. And we seem to be seeing a lot of that these days.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>How to deal with social media is an enormous problem. I sure am glad I raised my kids long before any of this. It was a lot easier. And we, as a society, have to figure out how to deal with a level of misinformation in which scientific facts are treated as if they’re just like any other opinion. Facts and opinion are different. The facts are facts, but if we as a society don’t agree about what those facts are, I think we’re in real trouble, and I worry about it a lot.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>How to deal with social media is an enormous problem. I sure am glad I raised my kids long before any of this. It was a lot easier. And we, as a society, have to figure out how to deal with a level of misinformation in which scientific facts are treated as if they’re just like any other opinion. Facts and opinion are different. The facts are facts, but if we as a society don’t agree about what those facts are, I think we’re in real trouble, and I worry about it a lot.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think one of the tricky things — and I think on your blog, you run these posts pretty much every week, I think, that take a look at an industry-funded study. A food-industry-funded study looks like a fact, but it’s sort of often not. As you break down in these posts, they’re sort of bad science by design, dressed up as a fact.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think one of the tricky things — and I think on your blog, you run these posts pretty much every week, I think, that take a look at an industry-funded study. A food-industry-funded study looks like a fact, but it’s sort of often not. As you break down in these posts, they’re sort of bad science by design, dressed up as a fact.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the science actually is pretty good. It’s the way they’ve formulated the research question to give them the answer that they want, or interpreted the results in a way that they want. These are industry-funded studies. I mean, there’s an enormous amount of research that shows a very high correlation between the funder and the outcome of the study. And, you know, some of these are just really funny. I look at the title and I know exactly who must have paid for it, because nobody else would do a study like that. There’s only one reason for doing that study, and that’s to prove that your product is healthy or not harmful. And there are so many of them, each one funnier than the next. So that’s my Monday morning amusement: to post the latest industry-funded study, where you really can predict — if you know who the funder is, you can predict the outcome. You shouldn’t be able to do that in science.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the science actually is pretty good. It’s the way they’ve formulated the research question to give them the answer that they want, or interpreted the results in a way that they want. These are industry-funded studies. I mean, there’s an enormous amount of research that shows a very high correlation between the funder and the outcome of the study. And, you know, some of these are just really funny. I look at the title and I know exactly who must have paid for it, because nobody else would do a study like that. There’s only one reason for doing that study, and that’s to prove that your product is healthy or not harmful. And there are so many of them, each one funnier than the next. So that’s my Monday morning amusement: to post the latest industry-funded study, where you really can predict — if you know who the funder is, you can predict the outcome. You shouldn’t be able to do that in science.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, one listener writes, “As a busy working parent, I often find myself pinched for dinner for the family. Often my choices are a frozen-food dinner from Trader Joe’s or, quote, healthy fast food like Chipotle. Is one better than the other? Any advice?”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, one listener writes, “As a busy working parent, I often find myself pinched for dinner for the family. Often my choices are a frozen-food dinner from Trader Joe’s or, quote, healthy fast food like Chipotle. Is one better than the other? Any advice?”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s so hard to say whether one product is good or better. What you have to look at is the whole diet, and that, of course, is very difficult to do, particularly since nobody can remember what they ate. You want to do the best you can: real foods, mostly plants, not exclusively necessarily, although exclusively is okay, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be only plants. And balancing calories so that you’re not consuming excessive numbers of calories. And the easiest way to cut down on calories is, first of all, the one food I would say to eliminate is sugar-sweetened beverages, because they’re demonstrably harmful. You’re getting a lot of calories and a lot of sugar all at once. So those should be absolutely minimized. And after that, you just want to eat foods that are foods, and processed as little as possible.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s so hard to say whether one product is good or better. What you have to look at is the whole diet, and that, of course, is very difficult to do, particularly since nobody can remember what they ate. You want to do the best you can: real foods, mostly plants, not exclusively necessarily, although exclusively is okay, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be only plants. And balancing calories so that you’re not consuming excessive numbers of calories. And the easiest way to cut down on calories is, first of all, the one food I would say to eliminate is sugar-sweetened beverages, because they’re demonstrably harmful. You’re getting a lot of calories and a lot of sugar all at once. So those should be absolutely minimized. And after that, you just want to eat foods that are foods, and processed as little as possible.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Speaking of drinks, one listener writes in to say, “What do you think of the new wave of soda, seltzers, drinks with zero sugar, no calories, no sweeteners, no sodium, no gluten, zero carbonation?” There’s just a million of these things, you know? Your Spindrifts and your LaCroix and all these things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Speaking of drinks, one listener writes in to say, “What do you think of the new wave of soda, seltzers, drinks with zero sugar, no calories, no sweeteners, no sodium, no gluten, zero carbonation?” There’s just a million of these things, you know? Your Spindrifts and your LaCroix and all these things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and the ones with CBD.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and the ones with CBD.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, the ones that have CBD. Yeah, that’s awesome. That’s Daytrip, et cetera. Yeah, what do you think of that?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, the ones that have CBD. Yeah, that’s awesome. That’s Daytrip, et cetera. Yeah, what do you think of that?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they don’t have sugar — well, not much — and in that sense, they’re — I mean, whatever happened to water?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they don’t have sugar — well, not much — and in that sense, they’re — I mean, whatever happened to water?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s still out there, I hear. Not a good marketing team, though.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s still out there, I hear. Not a good marketing team, though.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Apparently not. They have some sweetener. I don’t like the ones with artificial sweeteners or the so-called natural sweeteners. I do not think they taste good. A lot of places have really good water supplies. If your community has a really good supply, I highly recommend it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Apparently not. They have some sweetener. I don’t like the ones with artificial sweeteners or the so-called natural sweeteners. I do not think they taste good. A lot of places have really good water supplies. If your community has a really good supply, I highly recommend it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, let me ask you one more on this question. How many Diet Cokes a month can I have and not feel bad about it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, let me ask you one more on this question. How many Diet Cokes a month can I have and not feel bad about it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Um, it depends on everyone —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Um, it depends on everyone —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Less than 100.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Less than 100.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> — and everything else you’re eating. You know, I’m not a Diet Coke fan because I’m not interested in artificial sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners are a marker of ultra-processing, and I’d just as soon avoid them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> — and everything else you’re eating. You know, I’m not a Diet Coke fan because I’m not interested in artificial sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners are a marker of ultra-processing, and I’d just as soon avoid them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, I know.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, I know.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I don’t think they taste good.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I don’t think they taste good.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, I d — I can’t help myself. Um —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, I d — I can’t help myself. Um —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And I don’t judge what you eat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And I don’t judge what you eat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> If anyone can judge it, I’ll give you a pat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> If anyone can judge it, I’ll give you a pat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> How about this? We make a deal: I won’t say anything about what you eat if you don’t say anything about what I eat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> How about this? We make a deal: I won’t say anything about what you eat if you don’t say anything about what I eat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Fair enough. Um, I, you know, I want you to kind of take the sweep of your career, you know? I mean, you have been working on these things for —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Fair enough. Um, I, you know, I want you to kind of take the sweep of your career, you know? I mean, you have been working on these things for —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and, you know, you’ve been really working on the food industry. You’ve got policies changed. You’ve been deeply involved in some of these things. Like, where do you think we are relative to, you know, the year 2000? How have we done in the 21st century? Do we have a better food system than we used to? Do we not?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and, you know, you’ve been really working on the food industry. You’ve got policies changed. You’ve been deeply involved in some of these things. Like, where do you think we are relative to, you know, the year 2000? How have we done in the 21st century? Do we have a better food system than we used to? Do we not?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> In some ways, yes; in some ways, no. I mean, it’s possible now to go into any supermarket in America and eat healthfully if you make those kinds of choices. That wasn’t always true. Many, many, many more people are interested in these issues now and have generated a market for healthier foods. I think that’s a good thing, and it’s possible to get healthier foods practically everywhere, unless you happen to be living in a place where you have to drive miles to get to a supermarket. But most places, certainly in cities, you can do that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> In some ways, yes; in some ways, no. I mean, it’s possible now to go into any supermarket in America and eat healthfully if you make those kinds of choices. That wasn’t always true. Many, many, many more people are interested in these issues now and have generated a market for healthier foods. I think that’s a good thing, and it’s possible to get healthier foods practically everywhere, unless you happen to be living in a place where you have to drive miles to get to a supermarket. But most places, certainly in cities, you can do that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And because I’m associated with the university, I get to deal with young people. And because my particular piece of the university is nutrition and food studies, we attract a population of people who are deeply interested in the way food is produced, sold, and consumed. I mean, deeply interested, and there are lots of them. And to me, that’s enormously exciting. And that’s new, too, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And because I’m associated with the university, I get to deal with young people. And because my particular piece of the university is nutrition and food studies, we attract a population of people who are deeply interested in the way food is produced, sold, and consumed. I mean, deeply interested, and there are lots of them. And to me, that’s enormously exciting. And that’s new, too, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah, yeah.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah, yeah.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Relatively, yeah. We have been talking with Marion Nestle, of course, an incredible food scientist and nutritionist who has been working on these issues for many years. The latest book is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>, and it is about breakfast cereal. So next time you want to fight with your kids in a supermarket aisle, you’ll be armed with everything you need. She co-wrote it with Lisa Sutherland, former executive at Kellogg. Fascinating. Of course, she’s also a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And you really, if you’re interested in these things, you need to be reading her blog, foodpolitics.com, right?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Relatively, yeah. We have been talking with Marion Nestle, of course, an incredible food scientist and nutritionist who has been working on these issues for many years. The latest book is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>, and it is about breakfast cereal. So next time you want to fight with your kids in a supermarket aisle, you’ll be armed with everything you need. She co-wrote it with Lisa Sutherland, former executive at Kellogg. Fascinating. Of course, she’s also a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And you really, if you’re interested in these things, you need to be reading her blog, foodpolitics.com, right?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Not dot com — yeah, dot com.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Not dot com — yeah, dot com.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Marion Nestle, thank you so much for joining us this morning. An absolute pleasure. And thank you to all of our \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> listeners, commenters, callers. You’re the best. Thank you so much. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with Mina.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Marion Nestle, thank you so much for joining us this morning. An absolute pleasure. And thank you to all of our \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> listeners, commenters, callers. You’re the best. Thank you so much. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with Mina.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "We discuss food shifts, from soda taxes to MAHA, and her vision for a healthier food system overall.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1792003456,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 152,
"wordCount": 8673
},
"headData": {
"title": "Marion Nestle on the Powerful Forces Shaping What We Eat | KQED",
"description": "We discuss food shifts, from soda taxes to MAHA, and her vision for a healthier food system overall.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Marion Nestle on the Powerful Forces Shaping What We Eat",
"datePublished": "2026-10-13T13:46:08-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-10-14T11:44:16-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 1623,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC2510515824.mp3",
"airdate": 1791993600,
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/forum/2010101915678/marion-nestle-on-the-powerful-forces-shaping-what-we-eat",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>For more than five decades, renowned nutritionist, molecular biologist and food activist Marion Nestle has worked to expose the connections between Americans’ health and the powerful agendas shaping what we eat. Her newest book, co-authored with Dr. Lisa Sutherland, “Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food” examines the politics of our morning meal. We talk with Nestle about the shifts in attitudes and regulations of what we eat — from soda taxes to the MAHA movement — and about what she believes it will take to build a healthier food system for all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health emerita, New York University; her latest book is \u003cem>Sugar Coated: Unboxing the Hidden Forces Shaping America’s Favorite Breakfast Food\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Marion Nestle is a legend of the food world. Her work over many decades, including her pathbreaking book, \u003cem>Food Politics\u003c/em>, has changed the terms of the debate about food. And her blog, foodpolitics.com, is an incredible repository of news, ideas, and information about the broad world of food, nutrition, science, and politics. And for the fourth or even fifth time, we believe, Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU, joins us here on \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, so happy to be back!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We are delighted to have you, in part because there is a measure on Berkeley’s ballot for a kind of update of the soda tax. You wrote a book in 2015 called \u003cem>Soda Politics\u003c/em>, and you, of course, know this history. So give us sort of the little summary: where did the soda taxes come from, and where did Berkeley’s role in it lie?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, Berkeley really took the leadership on all of this. There were some other towns that tried to pass soda taxes before, but Berkeley really — I use Berkeley as a case study of how to do food advocacy right. They did real community organizing. They went door to door in every community, the ones in the flats and the ones high up in the hills. And they talked to people about the effects of consuming large amounts of sugar in liquid form on obesity, diabetes risks for chronic disease. They talked to people about whether they knew anybody with type 2 diabetes and whether they understood that drinking a lot of your sugar isn’t a really good way to do it. And people got it. And then they promised that they would use the tax revenues for community initiatives, and they have done that. They have, you know, they’ve lived their promises. And this is a success story, with research that shows that it reduces soda consumption and maybe, maybe, maybe is helping people manage their weight better.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, it’s interesting, too, because it was in the original ballot measure, right? There was a lot of spending against it from the — oh, tons. Who didn’t pass with 80% of the vote, is that —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I believe it was 60-something percent, but it was huge. And, you know, it was an enormous, unqualified passing with a very large percentage, and that was because of the fabulous way in which the committee that was running the campaign did it. I mean, they did real community organizing, which is what you have to do to make this stuff work.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So why do we need something else on the ballot in Berkeley?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, that has to do with how long the initiative lasted and California politics. I live in New York. I’m not up on these details. I do know that there has to be another vote on it. Maybe you could explain it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think they’re just adding another cent to it, right? I mean, that’s my —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, because it was really not as high as what they wanted to begin with. The evidence had shown that the higher the tax, the more effective it was. The amount that they actually did the tax at was a compromise, and so this is to kind of fix the compromise a little bit. So, you know —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Opponents of soda taxes, both here and elsewhere, have said, you know, they burden lower-income consumers. You know, government shouldn’t try to influence people’s personal food choices through taxes. What do you think about those critiques?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the government has an enormous influence on what people eat, based on what the government subsidizes, how the government gives food companies tax advantages for marketing. I mean, there are just a million ways in which the government influences what we eat. This is only a different way of doing it. Taxes are regressive, and there’s no question that this is a regressive tax. But the answer to that is type 2 diabetes is regressive, and it hurts the poor much more than it hurts the rich.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And sodas are a really convenient target. They’re different from any other food in that they’re sugars and water and flavors. And marketing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And marketing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But nothing else of any nutritional value. So, in that sense, sodas differ from any other kind of junk or ultra-processed food in having no nutritional value at all other than the calories. And dumping large amounts of sugar into a metabolic system turns out not to be good for that metabolic system. We’re just not equipped to handle that amount of sugar at any one time. It’s much better to consume your sugar mixed up with other dietary components and much more slowly.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what about cereals, then? You’ve got a new book, which you co-wrote with Lisa Sutherland, who we’re going to talk about in just a second. Why cereal, though? Was it sort of the next most convenient target?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I’ve collected cereal boxes for years because they have the most hilarious advertising and marketing on them. I’ve collected mainly boxes with health claims on them, the more ridiculous the better. And at some point, I needed to think of another project, and I told my literary agent that it was time to do something with my cereal box collection. And so that’s how this came about.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s interesting. I mean, one of the fascinating components of this book is that your co-author was actually a Kellogg’s executive.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> A vice president for nutrition at Kellogg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I don’t know. Is this like dancing with the enemy? What’s going on?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and she was anything but an enemy. I had met Lisa Sutherland probably 20 years ago when she was working for Hannaford Supermarkets, which is a chain of supermarkets in the Northeast. And she worked out their Guiding Stars program, which was a way of labeling house-brand foods for the ones that had the least amounts of salt, sugar, and saturated fat. And then she worked for Walmart, and then she worked for Chobani. And, you know, her view of that was she was trying to keep them nutritionally honest.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then at some point she called me and said, “I hope you’re not going to be mad at me, but I’m working for Kellogg.” And as it turned out, I wasn’t mad at all because I had been trying for months to get Kellogg to let me come and look at their archives. Because I wanted to look at packaging before Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling Act of 1990, and I had asked to see them, and they had said they would consider it. Nothing happened. So when she said, “I’m working for Kellogg,” I said, “Great, get me into the archives.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You got a woman on the inside now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, I was thrilled! And months went by, and then she wrote and said, “Okay, come.” So I flew out to Battle Creek, and we went into the Kellogg’s library, and they said, “Do you want the good news or the bad news?” And I said, “Oh, all right, I’ll take the bad news first.” And the bad news was the lawyers weren’t going to let me anywhere near the files.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I said, “Oh, okay, what could the good news possibly be?” Well, the good news was spectacular because what they had done — and I still can’t believe this — was they had made color Xeroxes of the front and back of the three cereals I had asked to look at, from the year they were introduced until 2010, which is when this was. And they handed me a box of all-brand facsimiles from 1919 to 2010, Rice Krispies from 1928, and Froot Loops from 1963.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And we’re looking at these and paging through them, and the Kellogg nutritionists are saying things like, “Oh, this is when the FDA passed this regulation,” and, “Oh, look at this. This is when that research came out on oat bran,” and, “Oh, this is when the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued us.” And we were sitting there and looking at these things and saying, “There’s a book in this. There’s absolutely a book that’s going to tell the history of nutrition policy in the United States, the history of labeling policy, and a lot about marketing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But we didn’t do it, and we drifted apart. And 15 years later, when I was thinking of doing this, I had this sudden guilty thought: maybe I should check with Lisa Sutherland and at least tell her that I’m doing this. And her response — I had to track her down. I hadn’t seen her in more than 10 years or heard from her in 10 years. And when I tracked her down and said, “This is what I’m doing,” she wrote back one sentence: “I’m in this with you.” We were off and running.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, what was interesting to you about those three cereals? I mean, I also love Lucky Charms, but what was interesting about them?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I particularly wanted All-Bran because I knew that Kellogg had used All-Bran cereal as a way to break the FDA’s restriction on health claims. They had done an end run around the FDA and gone straight to the National Cancer Institute to put a “National Cancer Institute says fiber is good for preventing cancer” claim on All-Bran, and I wanted that All-Bran box.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s like a case study of how —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Right, a case study. I wanted Rice Krispies because it was an old cereal that started advertising Rice Krispies Treats right from the beginning, and it was sort of a normal, run-of-the-mill cereal. And I wanted Froot Loops also for a case study because Froot Loops was the cereal box that got the first Smart Choices logo, when the food industry had gotten together with nutritionists to put a kind of front-of-package symbol that would indicate that something was healthy. And the first one landed on Froot Loops, and so I wanted that box. So those were the three that I had picked. I also wanted Special K, but they didn’t think they could get me Special K.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As one that, like, targeted women in specific ways.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> So, you know, these I have, and they turn out to be — and they gave them to me. I have them in my office at NYU, and they’re fabulous for saying, “Well, how much sugar was in cereal in 1958?” I can answer that question. And it’s just enormously useful to have them. I’m quite grateful.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, and what it’ll take to make it healthier. We’re joined by Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And we want to hear from you. Is there a food you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Or maybe, how has your understanding of the food industry changed the way you shop or eat? Give us a call, 866-733-6786, or email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Marion Nestle. She’s got a new book out. It is about cereal. It is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>. It was co-authored with Lisa Sutherland. Of course, she’s a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. And we want to hear from you if there’s a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now. Or maybe, you know, with so much nutrition advice and information available now, how do you decide what foods you eat? 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email, of course, is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. Social media: Bluesky, Instagram, Discord. We’re KQED Forum.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Before we talk about some other ultra-processed foods, what is the takeaway people should have about cereal? Like, if their kids want to have Honey Nut Cheerios, hypothetically, um, what would you say about that kind of food?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> They’re a once-in-a-while treat. Some of my friends who have kids who are demanding sugary cereals — I mean, first of all, these cereals are marketed directly to children. You know this because of the cartoon characters on the front. And now the toys are back in cereals. So the whole purpose of this is to get kids to demand the foods, to pester their parents for them. It’s called the pester factor, and nobody wants to fight with their kids about food, so everybody gives in. But I do have friends who give their kids a healthier cereal and sprinkle a little bit of this stuff on top of it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, we do that with our dog. He gets, like, kibble, and then he gets the stuff he really likes just a little bit on top. I understand. Is there any cereal that you would recommend, or is it just sort of —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the one that I like is mini shredded wheat, and they’re a one-ingredient cereal. There’s one ingredient: whole wheat. That’s it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You’re not talking about Frosted Mini-Wheats.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I’m not. I like adding my own sugar, and I can put in a spoonful of sugar. It’ll be a third of the amount that’s in pre-sweetened cereals.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, so let’s talk about these ultra-processed foods. I mean, this is a label, or a way of talking about foods, I feel like has emerged over the last five or —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Since 2009. Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so over time, and we now in California have a law that’s establishing a new non-ultra-processed-certified label for food products. What do you think about this kind of non-ultra-processed-certified label?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the Non-GMO Project did it first. Non-GMO is the most successful front-of-package indicator. Lisa and I call them widgets — the most-used one on packages. And they have started a non-UPF, ultra-processed food designation. I don’t know how it’s going. It’s just started, and California will be the first state to have this. I’m very interested to see what the symbol is going to look like. The law didn’t have any prototypes that I’m aware of.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think it’s a good idea because the ultra-processed food concept is a specific category of junk food, where the foods are industrially produced, usually have a lot of salt, sugar, and fat, and a lot of color, flavor, and texture additives. But they are designed specifically for profit and designed specifically to be irresistibly delicious, if not addictive. And there is now a phenomenal amount of evidence that links diets high in ultra-processed foods to poor health outcomes. And those are observational studies, and they don’t show causation. But there are also some very well-controlled, although short-term, clinical trials that show that these foods induce people to eat more calories — a lot more calories — without being aware that they’re doing it. So there are good reasons for cutting down on ultra-processed foods, and people are doing that. And it would be great, too, because there are issues about the definition. There are some categories of foods that some people argue are highly nutritious but meet the definition of ultra-processed foods, like commercial whole-wheat breads and yogurts. There are only a few plant-based meats —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And those kinds of things, and medical foods. So there are some exceptions, but I think — so there’s a big issue about the definition. I don’t think there should be an issue about the definition.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think it’s kind of a red herring that the food is —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because most people get the concept, and it’s pretty obvious what most of them are. And so having something that puts a label on the most obvious ultra-processed foods would help people identify them very quickly. So I can’t wait to see what it looks like.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Before we go to the phones, I just want to ask you: you know, here in San Francisco, City Attorney David Chiu filed a lawsuit last year against 10 of the country’s largest food manufacturers, saying these companies knowingly designed and marketed harmful, addictive products. This is true. Do you think that litigation will succeed? Do you think it’s going to be an effective way to hold the food industry accountable?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I have no idea. The food industry is remarkably powerful. And we see that in the Make America Healthy Again movement. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — apparently, they have a definition of ultra-processed foods, which would be the basis for regulation, although this is not a group that wants to regulate much. But they have put that definition and sent it to the White House, and it’s being held up. And I just saw an account of the food industry enterprises that have met with the White House officials to argue against a definition of ultra-processed food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So the politics of this are enormous, and Berkeley and San Francisco both saw this during the soda tax things 10 years ago, or whenever it was. The amount of money that the soda industry put into fighting the idea of a soda tax is similar to the amount of money that they are willing to spend to defeat anything having to do with ultra-processed foods.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Noreen in Oakland. Welcome, Noreen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Hi there! Love the program. It’s worth noting that my maiden name is Post, and we were indeed the reckoning of Post Toasties.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You have venerable ancestors.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> I do. I do, in so many ways. But I wanted to share my love of Grape-Nuts cereal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I hear this a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Noreen:\u003c/strong> Yeah, have you ever ate a pine cone? Many parts are edible. Right away, and it’s super crunchy and delicious, or you could let it sit there for a little while and it turns into kind of an oatmeal thing. And you can carve out a moon and let the milk be on one side, and then just gently enjoy it. And my mom used to take our leftover cereal and use it to make bread.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow. Oh, good idea. Wow, Noreen, really appreciate that. I mean, this is — I would make cookies. Yeah, I think of Grape-Nuts. That was one of the things in our house, for sure, that it was like, okay, Grape-Nuts are a healthy cereal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and people are telling me that they’re really hard to find.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting, interesting. Is it true, though? Like, is it a healthy cereal, or is it just kind of a health halo?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, I need to look at the ingredient list. I can’t really tell until I look at that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> But I hear about — I’m hearing a lot about Grape-Nuts these days. I should go look at that ingredient list.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> You know, let’s talk a little bit about — you mentioned MAHA and this movement that calls itself the Make America Healthy Again movement. How do you relate to it? Because I would imagine — I mean, I know from your blog that you believe in vaccination, you know, and have, I believe, standard public health kind of measures, which that movement has not always done. So how do you relate to it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I started out thinking that there were a lot of — with respect to the food issues — that there were a lot of very hopeful things in it. But as it’s turning out, they are unable to accomplish a lot of what they started out doing. For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came in saying he was going to get rid of — that the food industry was poisoning America. That’s a little extreme. And he wanted ultra-processed foods out of the food supply. He wanted glyphosate, Roundup, out of the food supply. They wanted to get rid of all the chemicals and pesticides and herbicides that are contaminating food, PFAS and all those other things, and the artificial color dyes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the only thing they’ve been able to accomplish so far is they are actually getting the artificial color dyes out of breakfast cereals. And you can go to the store and see that you can buy Trix with vegetable dyes instead of the petroleum dyes, but the cereal’s still the same.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And getting rid of the dyes is not going to make America healthy again. Doing something about ultra-processed foods might, but they’re stuck in politics on that one. And they’ve not been able to accomplish much. So it’s been all talk, no action.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, I guess, was what you found hopeful in it the actual measures that MAHA wanted to take, or was it more that the coalition was kind of an unusual one in current American politics, and that it kind of cut across a lot of partisan divides?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I’ve wanted color additives out of the food supply for a long time. I didn’t think they were the be-all and end-all. They’re not the most important issue by any means, and they seemed like a no-brainer to me. It ought to be that, with the stroke of a pen, they should have been able to do that. But they’re not taking a regulatory approach. Kennedy has said that he thinks regulation is the nanny state, and so the companies have been pressured voluntarily to remove the color dyes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, General Mills did that once before. Nobody bought Trix when it was brown and yellow, and they brought the color dyes back. So maybe that’ll happen this time, too. It’s, you know, they’re just not accomplishing much, and they had the chance to do that. They had three branches of government. But it turns out eating less is very, very bad for business, and the food industry is not interested in public health measures that might reduce sales and profits.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Surprise. So this is interesting because there is a thing happening in American life right now that is causing people to eat less. That is the growth of GLP-1s and similar drugs that have, you know, tended to reduce people’s caloric intake. What’s your take on them?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re fascinating. I’m riveted by them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, same.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And for a year, whenever I gave a public talk, I would say, “If you’re taking GLP-1 drugs and are willing to share your experience, come up afterwards and let’s talk about it privately.” And I have now talked to dozens and dozens and dozens of people who are taking the drugs. And what’s interesting to me about it is that the personal accounts that I’ve heard are very consistent with what the research is showing — extraordinarily consistent. So there’s a wide range of responses. Some people lose lots of weight, some people only lose a little, some people have terrible side effects, some people don’t have any. It really varies. But overall, the drugs really do help people lose weight. People feel better, they feel stronger, they feel livelier. They feel better; their metabolic issues disappear. They’re doing great as long as they’re on the drug. The problem is what happens when you come off them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And there, most people regain the weight. Not all, but most people do. And that’s a problem, too, or you have to be on a maintenance dose for life. We’re still waiting to see what the side effects are, how serious some of the side effects are. There’ve been some rare ones that are pretty bad. Most people have GI side effects. Some are tolerable, some are not.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Are you interested in the mechanisms of it? That’s been the thing that’s been so interesting to me, is that most of the work seems to be happening in people’s minds as much as anything else. Like, there are the sort of changes that people experience in their digestive tract, but it’s mostly that people just think about eating a little bit less.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, the main overall effect is it reduces what’s called “food noise.” I had never heard the term before. I like it a lot. I get it totally. It’s the obsessive thinking about food, and that stops. Although people who are serious foodies tell me they still love food, they still think about food, they —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’d like to cook still.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> You know, they do all of that, and it’s not affected. They’re just not eating as much. They just don’t want to eat as much. So the drugs affect the gut, various organs, and the brain, and scientists are hard at work trying to figure all that out. But there’s no question that they eat less, and they selectively eat less. So they’re eating less ultra-processed food. They’re eating less junk food. They’re eating healthier. Well, isn’t that amazing?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. How do you think they’re going to respond? I mean, this does —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, they’re already responding. I mean, the food industry is in trouble in general, overall. It’s in trouble because of RFK Jr. saying they’re poisoning people. It’s in trouble because of ultra-processed foods. It’s in trouble because of GLP-1 drugs. And it’s in trouble because of inflation. You know, I mean, I can’t believe what’s happened to the cost of food in the last couple of years. It’s just shocking.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So what are their prospective responses? I mean, if I were putting on my executive hat, you would have to say, like, okay, well, if right now GLP-1s are most widely distributed in sort of middle-class, upper-middle-class households, so we’ve got to double down on targeting people who can’t afford GLP-1s and who maybe are also being hit harder by inflation, to even sell more to those people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, they’re certainly marketing, but they’re also reformulating products. You know, and you have to understand the context for this: in our investment system, it’s not enough to make a profit. You have to grow the profit and report growth to Wall Street every quarter. That’s very difficult to do if people are eating less. And so, if growth is flat or declining, these companies are in very, very serious trouble, and they are scrambling to try to dream up products that will be as profitable as ultra-processed products are. And they’re having a hard time doing it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But if you want to know why protein is on absolutely everything, everybody’s looking for protein, whether that’s reasonable or not, we can argue about. But everybody’s looking for protein. And so the food companies are putting protein into everything and marketing it, and they’re putting protein into the most ridiculous products. I just read that there’s a protein vodka you could drink. Are you kidding me? And because I’m so interested in cereals, my favorite current cereal product is Cookies ‘n’ Creme Oreos protein. You cannot make this stuff up.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It does — it sounds like, yeah, a ’90s postmodernist novel product, for sure. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, GLP-1s, MAHA, so much more, with food icon Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>One listener writes in to say, “I was not a food obsessive for most of my life. My mother did make us eat wheat germ sprinkled on our Lucky Charms, as if this might counteract the problems of the magically delicious marshmallows. But when I had my own kids, I started to pay more attention to this, and we became the house where you can’t find snacks like Goldfish or potato chips, and we were not a breakfast cereal family. And to this day, my kids are not snackers, as far as I know.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We want to hear from you. Is there a food that you grew up thinking was healthy that you see differently now? Just want to ask Marion Nestle something. 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for more.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. I’m here with Marion Nestle, icon, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. We’re talking about the powerful forces shaping what Americans eat, the politics of our food, what it might take to make us all healthier. We’ve got a lot of callers here, so I want to make sure that we get them in. Let’s go to Hamayat in Fremont. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Hamayat:\u003c/strong> Hi, good morning. I had a two-part question slash comment. And the first part is, I wanted to know, is there a difference in our processed food versus processed foods in other countries, such as in European countries? Because in the summer we went to London and Paris for a month, and before we went I checked my weight. And then when we came back, I had lost eight pounds, even though all of our meals were outside because we were staying in hotels in both places. So we weren’t eating home-cooked meals. There were restaurants and fast food, and that’s what we were having. So I was wondering if there’s any difference.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The second thing I wanted to bring up is about the GLP-1 question. Since the last year and a half, everyone that we know was talking about it and trying to sell it on, even though nobody works for them as the only one thing. But I was reluctant to start because my father is a pediatrician, and he told me it depends on every person’s history. So I just started watching my calories using an Amazon skill, and I found that to be a lot more effective than doing something where you might have to continue it. So those are my two comments.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think one reason people have gotten into GLP-1s is that so many analyses of diets were just showing it wasn’t really working in the long term for most people, and so GLP-1s seem to have had some success. But let’s take the European processed food versus American processed food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, people in Europe eat differently. They have processed foods there. They have different rules than we do, and some of the additives that we use here are not allowed there. But I just think that when you’re traveling, you eat differently. First of all, you’re not snacking all day long because you can’t get at it. You’re doing an awful lot of walking. It’s a healthier lifestyle. You’re not in a car. And lots of people experience weight loss when they’re traveling. And the food is good, and they have a different food culture that’s in some ways very admirable. On the other hand, American fast-food companies are quite prevalent. They have outlets there, and it’s quite possible to eat badly there, as well as it is here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Greg in Redwood City. Welcome, Greg.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Greg:\u003c/strong> Morning. I’d like to say, you know, I was a huge consumer of those cereals, everything from other kids’ favorites, Brilliant, Sugar Smacks, and Honeycomb, and I got older, Special K. You know, all the claims that it was not so bad. And now I look back, and I’m just so angry that I was, you know, the victim of that. You know, as consumers, we just don’t have the information to make intelligent decisions. And, uh, you know, now I’m just much more conscious of what I’m eating, and it’s really just the outer perimeter of the grocery store. And, you know, I don’t even like to go to restaurants because they don’t tell you what’s in it. They don’t tell you if it’s got a hundred ingredients and artificial cheese and all the rest of it. And I can really see the difference just by eating one meal, like how my body feels. So it’s incredibly frustrating that Americans can’t get the information to keep their family healthy. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the way I put it is, if you’re trying to eat healthfully in today’s food environment, you’re fighting an entire food system on your own. And the food system is set up to sell more food, not less. My mantra on this is: eating less is bad for business. And once you understand that, you get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. You mentioned earlier, you said people are all trying to eat more protein, reasonable or not. Why don’t you talk a little bit about whether you do think it’s reasonable or not?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, I don’t, because most people are already eating twice the protein that’s essential for replacing the protein losses in their body. And eating more protein doesn’t do much good except for people who are elite athletes or people who aren’t watching their — well, but that’s a very small minority. Most people get plenty of the protein they need, even if they’re vegetarian, even if they are vegan. They’re getting enough protein.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s never been an issue. Do you have a nutrition guideline for it? Do you like some measure or metric that you use?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> No, I just never think about these things. I follow my own advice.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Not protein-maxing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I’m very fond of quoting Michael Pollan: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.” That really takes care of it. And that’s how I eat, and that’s why I advise other people to eat. I think food is one of life’s greatest pleasures. It’s something lovely that you get to do for yourself several times a day. I don’t want to do anything to take away the pleasure of food, but I think it’s possible to enjoy eating — eating real food, not too much, mostly plants. I mean, it seems really easy to me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So maybe you’ve already answered this, but the Trump administration does have a new version of the food pyramid, part of its dietary guidelines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Emphasizing protein, full-fat dairy, whole foods. What do you think? What do you think about the pyramid?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s a mixed bag. And it’s really sad that it’s a mixed bag, because the advice to eat real food and avoid highly processed foods is good advice. They didn’t use the words “ultra-processed,” which I wish they had, but they did pretty well on it. But then the rest of it is just a jumble of misinformation, things that are scientifically dubious, and one absolutely shocking nutritional error. You know, it made me think, this is why we have committees — to keep people from getting into trouble. And the shocking nutritional error was to say that beef tallow, olive oil, and butter were good sources of essential fatty acids. They’re not.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And this is because — and Alice writes in to ask about this — there is this real hatred in that part of the MAHA world for seed oils.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah. It’s bizarre.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So Alice writes, “Seed oils are categorically branded as unhealthy these days. Can Marion share her views on these?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think that’s — you know, they have 120 calories per tablespoon, like every other fat, and you don’t want to eat too much of them, like any other fat, because they’re very high in calories. But the seed oils are clean. They’ve been refined, but okay, and they have lots and lots of essential fatty acids, which we need. These are fatty acids that we can’t make, and then we have to eat them in our diet. They’re by far the best source of them. I don’t get the whole thing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, where does that come from?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, I know where it comes from. It comes from the processing — it comes from the idea, the correlation between the increase in consumption of seed oils parallels the rise in prevalence of obesity. That’s correlation, not causation. You know, obesity is — nobody wants to talk about calories. I turn out to be a calorie person. I really believe in them. If you eat more calories than you expend in activity, you’re going to gain weight. That is thermodynamics, and that still holds. And I think, you know, what you eat is important for health, but how much you eat is extraordinarily important for how much you weigh.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s go to — let’s take Lily in San Francisco. Welcome, Lily.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lily:\u003c/strong> Hi. Hey, go ahead. Hi, Marion. Hi. I just wanted to say, so in college, I ended up writing my senior-year work, and that was in part because my uncle had died from obesity the year before I had gone to college. And it was a deep question in my mind of how that could have happened, and I think it spurred this whole research career, actually. But at the time, I was really using your work. I just wanted to thank you for all of that. And I was examining how our sociocultural or political-cultural values and messaging around choice and freedom, specifically, have contributed to how we consume food and how it changes our behavior around food.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I’m curious because I feel like, as a senior in college, you know, we have now the rise of influencers and trends around food. And I’m curious about how you see messaging, whether that’s through advertising or lobbying, or just kind of the cultural zeitgeist around how we consume food and what it means about us. And, yeah, if you’ve seen anything change with that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, social media has changed everything. First of all, I’m so excited that you’ve read my work. That’s really touching. Thank you. I don’t know what to say about the influencer culture and what’s happening on social media. I worry about it a lot because the idea comes straight out of Orwell’s \u003cem>1984\u003c/em>: that if you repeat the same message over and over and again, and louder and louder and louder, people will believe it whether it has any relationship to truth or not. And we seem to be seeing a lot of that these days.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>How to deal with social media is an enormous problem. I sure am glad I raised my kids long before any of this. It was a lot easier. And we, as a society, have to figure out how to deal with a level of misinformation in which scientific facts are treated as if they’re just like any other opinion. Facts and opinion are different. The facts are facts, but if we as a society don’t agree about what those facts are, I think we’re in real trouble, and I worry about it a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I think one of the tricky things — and I think on your blog, you run these posts pretty much every week, I think, that take a look at an industry-funded study. A food-industry-funded study looks like a fact, but it’s sort of often not. As you break down in these posts, they’re sort of bad science by design, dressed up as a fact.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, the science actually is pretty good. It’s the way they’ve formulated the research question to give them the answer that they want, or interpreted the results in a way that they want. These are industry-funded studies. I mean, there’s an enormous amount of research that shows a very high correlation between the funder and the outcome of the study. And, you know, some of these are just really funny. I look at the title and I know exactly who must have paid for it, because nobody else would do a study like that. There’s only one reason for doing that study, and that’s to prove that your product is healthy or not harmful. And there are so many of them, each one funnier than the next. So that’s my Monday morning amusement: to post the latest industry-funded study, where you really can predict — if you know who the funder is, you can predict the outcome. You shouldn’t be able to do that in science.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, one listener writes, “As a busy working parent, I often find myself pinched for dinner for the family. Often my choices are a frozen-food dinner from Trader Joe’s or, quote, healthy fast food like Chipotle. Is one better than the other? Any advice?”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, it’s so hard to say whether one product is good or better. What you have to look at is the whole diet, and that, of course, is very difficult to do, particularly since nobody can remember what they ate. You want to do the best you can: real foods, mostly plants, not exclusively necessarily, although exclusively is okay, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be only plants. And balancing calories so that you’re not consuming excessive numbers of calories. And the easiest way to cut down on calories is, first of all, the one food I would say to eliminate is sugar-sweetened beverages, because they’re demonstrably harmful. You’re getting a lot of calories and a lot of sugar all at once. So those should be absolutely minimized. And after that, you just want to eat foods that are foods, and processed as little as possible.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Speaking of drinks, one listener writes in to say, “What do you think of the new wave of soda, seltzers, drinks with zero sugar, no calories, no sweeteners, no sodium, no gluten, zero carbonation?” There’s just a million of these things, you know? Your Spindrifts and your LaCroix and all these things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Oh, and the ones with CBD.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, the ones that have CBD. Yeah, that’s awesome. That’s Daytrip, et cetera. Yeah, what do you think of that?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Well, they don’t have sugar — well, not much — and in that sense, they’re — I mean, whatever happened to water?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> It’s still out there, I hear. Not a good marketing team, though.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Apparently not. They have some sweetener. I don’t like the ones with artificial sweeteners or the so-called natural sweeteners. I do not think they taste good. A lot of places have really good water supplies. If your community has a really good supply, I highly recommend it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, let me ask you one more on this question. How many Diet Cokes a month can I have and not feel bad about it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Um, it depends on everyone —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Less than 100.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> — and everything else you’re eating. You know, I’m not a Diet Coke fan because I’m not interested in artificial sweeteners. Artificial sweeteners are a marker of ultra-processing, and I’d just as soon avoid them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, I know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> I don’t think they taste good.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, I d — I can’t help myself. Um —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> And I don’t judge what you eat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> If anyone can judge it, I’ll give you a pat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> How about this? We make a deal: I won’t say anything about what you eat if you don’t say anything about what I eat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Fair enough. Um, I, you know, I want you to kind of take the sweep of your career, you know? I mean, you have been working on these things for —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and, you know, you’ve been really working on the food industry. You’ve got policies changed. You’ve been deeply involved in some of these things. Like, where do you think we are relative to, you know, the year 2000? How have we done in the 21st century? Do we have a better food system than we used to? Do we not?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> In some ways, yes; in some ways, no. I mean, it’s possible now to go into any supermarket in America and eat healthfully if you make those kinds of choices. That wasn’t always true. Many, many, many more people are interested in these issues now and have generated a market for healthier foods. I think that’s a good thing, and it’s possible to get healthier foods practically everywhere, unless you happen to be living in a place where you have to drive miles to get to a supermarket. But most places, certainly in cities, you can do that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And because I’m associated with the university, I get to deal with young people. And because my particular piece of the university is nutrition and food studies, we attract a population of people who are deeply interested in the way food is produced, sold, and consumed. I mean, deeply interested, and there are lots of them. And to me, that’s enormously exciting. And that’s new, too, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, yeah, yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Yeah.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Relatively, yeah. We have been talking with Marion Nestle, of course, an incredible food scientist and nutritionist who has been working on these issues for many years. The latest book is called \u003cem>Sugar Coated\u003c/em>, and it is about breakfast cereal. So next time you want to fight with your kids in a supermarket aisle, you’ll be armed with everything you need. She co-wrote it with Lisa Sutherland, former executive at Kellogg. Fascinating. Of course, she’s also a professor emerita of nutrition, food studies, and public health at NYU. And you really, if you’re interested in these things, you need to be reading her blog, foodpolitics.com, right?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Marion Nestle:\u003c/strong> Not dot com — yeah, dot com.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Marion Nestle, thank you so much for joining us this morning. An absolute pleasure. And thank you to all of our \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> listeners, commenters, callers. You’re the best. Thank you so much. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with Mina.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/forum/2010101915678/marion-nestle-on-the-powerful-forces-shaping-what-we-eat",
"authors": [
"11757",
"12020"
],
"programs": [
"forum_3"
],
"categories": [
"forum_1623"
],
"featImg": "forum_2010101915679",
"label": "forum_3"
},
"forum_2010101915579": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "forum_2010101915579",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915579",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1791318404000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-bay-areas-hotly-contested-congressional-races",
"title": "The Bay Area’s Hotly Contested Congressional Races",
"publishDate": 1791318404,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "The Bay Area’s Hotly Contested Congressional Races | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 3,
"site": "forum"
},
"content": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 7, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Some of the Bay Area’s biggest political battles this fall are happening between fellow Democrats in hotly contested races for Congress. There’s a fierce fight for retiring former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat in San Francisco. In Napa, where redistricting has shaken up the district, a multimillionaire is courting votes from Republicans and progressives to unseat an establishment fellow Democrat. And in Sacramento, younger progressive challengers are taking on longtime incumbents, raising a bigger question about what Democratic voters value right now: a new generation of leadership, or the experience that comes with years in office? KQED’s politics team joins us to break down the races, the candidates and what to watch heading into Election Day.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati,\u003c/strong> correspondent, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-host of Political Breakdown\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom, \u003c/strong>reporter and producer, KQED California Politics & Government Desk\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. A month out from the midterms, it looks like a Democrat could win for Senate in Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia. Poll after poll shows an unpopular president dragging down the Republican Party across the country. Nobody knows how big the blue wave will be, but it’s looking pretty big.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Locally, many congressional races pit Democrats against Democrats, sometimes in districts that have been transformed by Prop 50 redistricting. Will the blue wave push our congressional delegation to the left? The highest-profile contest is the race to represent San Francisco, almost all of it at least, replacing the legendary Nancy Pelosi. But there are other interesting races in the East Bay, in the North Bay, up towards Sacramento. We’re gonna cover them all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here to talk with us, we’ve got some folks from KQED’s politics team. Scott Shafer, of course, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course has a new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. I think episode four dropped today, Scott.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s right. Get it wherever you get your podcasts.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s right. Thanks for joining us. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent on KQED’s politics and government desk. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Hey, good morning.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So, Scott, you were one of the moderators of last week’s debate at KQED between Supervisor Connie Chan, Senator Scott Wiener. What can you tell us about the two candidates, core components, what’s kind of the texture, landscape of this campaign?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, I think underlying all of it is Nancy Pelosi. She has a big shadow. And when she endorsed Connie Chan just before the primary, it boosted Connie Chan into second place. And both she and the third-place finisher, Shoykat Chakrabarti, are really stepping on the gas pedal to try to get Chan to win the seat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s a bit of an uphill battle because Scott Wiener has been around for a long time. He was on the Board of Supervisors. He was in the state Senate. He’s been a very prolific lawmaker. He sort of led the charge on housing, issues ranging from taking on Trump over ICE, masking, other things like that, as well as AI regulation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Connie Chan, more progressive, close with labor, has been a representative of her district, the Richmond, in ways that don’t necessarily help her citywide, for example, opposing closure of the Great Highway to make way for Sunset Dunes Park, a very popular inner district, maybe less so citywide in this congressional district.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But these are two very distinctive people and personalities. They both have interesting biographies. Connie Chan came to the U.S. when she was young from China. Scott Wiener, openly gay, came from the East Coast.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think their differences over issues are, I think, in all these races we’re going to talk about, how these folks are going to vote. Whoever wins and goes back to D.C. among the Democrats, they’re going to vote the same way the vast majority of the time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think for me as a voter and as voters evaluate this race, it’s who will be the most effective, who is gonna go back there and get things done, who’s gonna represent our values, who can build coalitions. And I think that’s really something that voters are grappling with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, in this one, it feels like there is a pretty clear choice, at least around housing stuff, right? I mean, Scott Wiener being known as like kind of the most YIMBY guy in the state of California, perhaps. And Connie Chan, definitely not in the —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. I mean, Scott Wiener has not just championed more housing, but has been relentless. If a bill failed, he went back and talked to the people who voted against it, talked to the governor. He did that with AI as well. And so there is now evidence that there is some evidence that the legislation that he’s gotten through and signed is having an impact. There’s more housing being built.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The thing is, though, there is also — that can be a polarizing issue. People can say, oh, yes, we need to build more housing. But not in my backyard. You know, that’s the whole nitty-gritty. That’s where that phrase comes from, you know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so I think, you know, in a number of ways, Scott Wiener is, while he’s prolific and often seen by colleagues up in Sacramento as one of the most effective lawmakers, he’s also polarizing. And there are people both in the gay community and outside, in labor certainly, that, you know, find him to be not their cup of tea for one reason or another.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think, yes, if you’re pro-housing, Scott Wiener is, you know, pretty clearly the person you’re going to support. But, you know, like I said, there’s nuances to that issue.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, can you talk a little bit about some of the dynamics of this race? Like, have things changed? Have people changed their positions on any key issues, trying to pick up and increase their coalition’s breadth?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Biggest change in dynamic is Nancy Pelosi deciding to be a main character in this election. The question of how she would weigh in and at what point, as Scott said, late in the primary, her endorsement helped boost Chan into the top two, but really that was the start for her. She decided to continue her involvement in the campaign, rallying financial support for Chan, had a key staff member go work on Connie Chan’s campaign.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think you really saw this crystallize most when Scott Wiener made what was perhaps his biggest misstep in the campaign to date, which was when he rolled out this AI chatbot that mocked Connie Chan, basically to show that Chan stands in the way of housing and other things. The chatbot was supposed to give answers like Connie Chan would give and kind of portray an obstructionist.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Nancy Pelosi was able to marshal opposition to this chatbot, labeling it sexist, racist, in a way that, within a matter of days, got Wiener to take down the chatbot and profusely apologize. It was just — it was a master class in kind of the way Pelosi was able to leverage relationships. She had it on official House of Representatives letterhead, opposition from members of the delegation, and so that, to me, stood out as like, okay, this could be the biggest kind of roadblock for Wiener if Pelosi really kind of takes on this role and makes it not so much about Chan versus Wiener, but about her legacy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because I was listening to you guys on the debate and one of the most fascinating things for me was that Connie Chan didn’t mention her Pelosi endorsement, but then Scott Wiener gave a sort of like sweet thing about —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Nancy Pelosi. That’s so interesting. And, you know, I think that, you know, I asked Ian Kramer, who’s the staffer from Pelosi’s office, like, why didn’t, you know, Connie Chan mention Pelosi at all? Just for the mic. And he was like, well, you know, elections are about the future, you know. And we think most people know that Nancy Pelosi is already for Connie Chan.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m not sure that rings entirely true. I’m sure that if they thought it would benefit her, Chan would have mentioned it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, Wiener has always been deferential publicly toward Pelosi. But what irritated Pelosi, and I think this is what fueled a lot of conspiracy theories about why is she so adamant for Connie Chan, in 2006, Scott Wiener began raising money for a congressional race. He said, “I’m not going to run against Speaker Pelosi, and I hope she doesn’t retire. But if she does or when she does, I am going to be ready.” And then in October of last year, he actually announced he was going to run before she was retiring.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, in the world of Pelosi — you know, and the Burton machine, and I see this election kind of is the last gasp of the Burton machine. Loyalty is everything. And by Wiener stepping out before it was, quote unquote, his turn, you know, they saw that as very disloyal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Interesting, because that’s exactly what Pelosi did when she ran for leadership back after the 2000 election. They were like, no, it’s not your turn. She said, I don’t care. I’m going to run. I am going to win.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So anyway, I do think that, you know, what was poignant, I think, and what humanized Scott Wiener in that debate was his closing statement where he said, you know, back in 1987, the year that Pelosi got elected, she went back to Washington and she fought for AIDS funding. And there was a gay teenager in the closet back in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, I forget where he was, who saw that as permission to come out and be who I am. And I thank Nancy Pelosi. That person is on the stage now tonight.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so he is always publicly, even after Pelosi has done some things, like Guy mentioned, for Connie Chan, always been very deferential. There’s really not much in it for him to go after her. She is an icon, you know, and so he has to be very careful. I mean, he did push back a little bit on some of the characterization of the chatbot, but, you know, it’s careful. It’s tricky for him.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Also, just noting for folks, Phil Burton and then Sala Burton succeeded him, which is going to come up later with another —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And don’t forget John Burton.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, yeah, and John. So we’ve got just a whole bunch of the California politicians who have been running in San Francisco with the last name of Burton.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanted to ask you one other issue on this campaign. Where are these candidates on Prop 40, California’s billionaire wealth tax?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this is an issue where they actually are split. Wiener opposes Prop 40, the billionaire wealth tax; Chan is for it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This came up in the debate, and I think, if anything, it illustrates Wiener on these issues of taxes being, in kind of San Francisco, California Democratic circles, more moderate. He’s expressed his opposition to this, and honestly to an earlier corporate tax on the ballot this year in San Francisco, as perhaps creating a climate that would be too unfriendly to business.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>His concerns with Prop 40 on the ballot are similar to concerns we’ve heard from Gavin Newsom, other Democrats, about this just being a one-time tax, this concentrating too much of the benefits just on health care to the exclusion of education, et cetera.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I can also imagine, because he’s such a kind of technocratic thinker, that he’s like, we should really solve this at the national level. That all kind of checks out with his sort of version of —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, I mean, to Scott’s point, these folks are going to vote the same 90, 95 percent of the time in Washington. There are a few issues where they have differences. This is one of them on taxation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think another one, and this came up in the debate as well, is how they’d approach the American relationship with Israel. We heard Connie Chan say she wants a full arms embargo against Israel, meaning no American funding even for defensive systems like the Dome. Scott Wiener’s kind of drawn the line there where he says, I don’t want to send offensive military assistance, but I’m okay with funding the Iron Dome and those kind of missile defense projects.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Where is this race, Scott? Like, do we know, you know, is it close? Is it not close?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there has been some polling that shows, you know, Scott — let’s go back to the primary. Wiener got 41% of the vote. Chan got 20-something. I mean, it was maybe it was 30. But Wiener was way ahead.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So it’s a different electorate for the general election. But generally, it seems like Wiener is ahead still. The chatbot was a big unforced error on his part. But there’s been a lot going on. You know, I’m not sure how closely people are paying attention to this. You know, now they begin to focus because they have a ballot on their table.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think, you know, based on all the things that Pelosi is doing, the things Wiener is doing, you know, what people are saying, the dynamic, you know, reputational — I think Wiener’s positive ratings have come down a bit, you know, since before this campaign started because, you know, there’s been a lot of attacks on him.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I still think it’s, like I said, his to lose. But, you know, we try to stay out of the prediction business, but I wish — from everything I have heard, it seems like Wiener has the edge right now. Ha, ha.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, do you have anything that we should be looking out for just the last month, either of them closing on anything different or special?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, let’s go back to this Pelosi thing. There was a pro-Wiener super PAC that did some polling in this race that they released last week. And the data point that stood out to me, fewer than half of voters were aware that Pelosi had endorsed Chan. Which is interesting because she didn’t bring it up. That’s why we go back to this debate and say, was that a missed opportunity for her to just remind folks, hey, I’m running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat and Nancy Pelosi’s endorsing me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with people from KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer and Guy Marzorati. We’re of course gonna talk about Napa County. We’re gonna talk Alameda County when we get back from the break. And we wanna hear from you. What issues matter most to you in these congressional races? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy. Let us know, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. We’ve got KQED’s politics team in the house here. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course, got a new podcast series out about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em> that’s coming out now. Episode four just dropped. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s politics and government desk. And we want to bring in Izzy Bloom, a reporter and producer on KQED’s politics desk. Thanks so much for joining us, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s talk about Napa. This is congressional district four, although they always confuse me, and now with redistricting it’s even more confusing. But anyway, it’s Napa, long-time Democratic congressman Mike Thompson, now facing a challenge from Eric Jones, right? 35-year-old, former venture capitalist. Give us a lay of the land here on this race.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so intra-party fight. The incumbent, Mike Thompson, has been in Congress since 1999. He served in the state legislature for eight years before that. He was born in St. Helena, raised his family here, still lives there. And he’s a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He’s a Blue Dog Democrat with establishment support from the likes of Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Adam Schiff and Governor Gavin Newsom.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he’s facing a challenge, as you said, 35-year-old Eric Jones, former venture capitalist. He moved to Napa in 2021 with his young family. And he is really running on some progressive policies, fighting for working families. He sort of points to his upbringing in Maine as the son of a disabled veteran, said his family was low income and, you know, relied on Medicaid and food stamps and disability checks at certain times.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so he is running on some of these progressive policies like universal child care, a $10,000 tax credit for working-class households. And he’s also part of this wave of generational-change candidates that we’ve seen across the state, with sort of younger, often progressive Democrats challenging their party’s aging incumbents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> How has that been going for people, though?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I would say, you know, there was like five races in the primary with these younger Democrats challenging incumbents, and Eric Jones made it through the primary, and Mai Vang in District 7 out in Sacramento was the other candidate. The other three didn’t make it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think that at least shows that it wasn’t a mandate from voters that they necessarily want generational change. There has been polling from NPR that shows eight in 10 Americans are in favor of setting age caps and term limits on Congress members, but that’s not really going anywhere.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right, right.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> And I think also people might be generally in favor of an age cap, but when it comes to their own representative, they tend to like them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’ll say, I mean, there has been, like, the New York Times did an analysis of this nationwide, and it was like nine in 10 of these older incumbents won their primary challenge.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What’s different here is we have a top-two primary. I think so much of the challenge in these generational contests is you run in a primary, it’s a lower turnout, it’s very hard to establish your name and also then draw a contrast all in the course of a primary.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we have here with Eric Jones is like, and Mai Vang as well, just get out of the primary. Get to that general election where you can have a one-on-one runoff against the older incumbent. I think that creates a very different dynamic than what you see across the country.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think those two races, though, the one in Sacramento with Doris Matsui, who’s 82, versus Mai Vang, who’s 41, and the Thompson-Jones issue is, first of all, Thompson’s not quite as old. He’s 75, I think. But he’s also — he’s from the district, as he said. He’s in the district a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you mentioned Napa. This district goes from Petaluma all the way to like Yuba City now with the — after Prop 50. It’s a huge district. And, you know, Eric Jones… Not as well known in the district, and he’s trying to thread this interesting needle where he’s progressive and promoting progressive causes and issues, but he’s also trying to get Republican votes because the district has a lot of Republicans and they may not like Thompson because he’s a Democrat and well-known Democrat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, you know, so the one top Republican in the primary, he didn’t make it into the top two, but Ray Relyea has endorsed Jones. And so, you know, you’ve got this kind of odd Republican, but also progressive. And that, to me, raises the question for voters of authenticity. Who is this person?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> There’s so much 2014 Ro Khanna in this Eric Jones campaign to me, which is — he, like, to Izzy’s point, very hard to pin down on exactly where on the policy spectrum is he. He’s kind of taking positions that appeal very broadly. And also, yes, running a campaign that’s really centered on this, my opponent’s been in office for a long time, I want to do something different.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And kind of, you know, kind of got, you know, blown out the first time he ran in the primary against Mike Honda, got a little closer in the general election, came back and ran the next time. It would not shock me at all if Eric Jones lost this race, he pulls a Forrest Gump and just keeps running. I mean, it just keeps going. And he’s, you know, back on the ballot in two years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Those kind of parallels where it’s like, where does it work? You know, where is he actually standing? He has support from Our Revolution, but then also the Bernie PAC, but then also the top Republican opponent. Yeah, it’s — it’s a —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Well, also, the person who ran Ro Khanna’s campaign, Brian Parveshavi, is now the campaign manager for Eric Jones. And they really say, I mean, in 2014, Ro Khanna did lose, but he made up 17 points between the primary and the general election. And Brian Parveshavi says, you know, that runway time between the primary and general really gives Eric Jones the opportunity to build name ID.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They also say that the general electorate tends to be younger and more diverse and working class, which they say is all sort of the types of voters that Eric Jones’s campaign appeals to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. I mean, is there a lane that I want to — I guess, populist lane that’s different from moderate-progressive, or just like somehow opens up some other political space?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think, you know, there are a lot of voters, and we see this, like, in Michigan, where Al-Sayed is actually attracting a fair number of Trump voters, you know, from 2024. People, you know, if you’re anti-establishment, sort of anti-corruption, you know, accountability, those kinds of issues that are, you know, could be progressive, but also appeal to some of the more, you know, conservative voters as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that, you know, that is a possibility. I think, though, you can also kind of overreach and be a little too cute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think Jones did a video where Obama is talking about the need for generational change. Not talking about this race, not talking about Eric Jones, hasn’t endorsed Eric Jones or Mike Thompson. And then you’ve got pictures of Eric Jones kind of, you know, woven in with Obama and then like a really grainy, old-looking picture of Thompson.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, I think that did not go over well in Obama world, you know, and so it’s one of those things where it’s like, okay, that’s clever, but, you know, maybe not a little bit misleading.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Also, Thompson’s campaign sort of pushed back on that this week, saying that it’s part of Jones’ being deceptive to voters, because earlier this year there was sort of a similar thing with ads. I mean, the Obama one, if you weren’t paying attention, maybe implied that Obama was endorsing him, but in the caption it said it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, Jones put out a video of him talking to Representative Latifah and Dolores Huerta, and then it didn’t say that it wasn’t an endorsement, sort of implied that it was. They didn’t know he was recording. They said that it wasn’t an endorsement. He had to take it down and then reposted it saying it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Ethics, ethical issues.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting. We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, Izzy Bloom here in the studio with us. We want to hear from you. If you’re looking at one of these congressional races here in Northern California, what issues matter most to you? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy, I don’t know, data centers. That’s probably it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Give us a call. 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. You can email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord. You know, let’s go to Patricia in San Rafael. Welcome, Patricia.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, can you hear me?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, sure can. Go ahead.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, great. I just wanted to bring up something about Wiener’s legislation for housing and the way it’s affecting San Rafael is that the developers are going way out of scale with 17-story, 24-story buildings and others that aren’t quite that outrageous. And the city people are not allowed, because of the way the legislation favors the developers, to question whether or not we have the infrastructure, the parking, and all kinds of things like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s just, those are being thrown out the window, and I’m all for housing, but I think it’s just gone over the edge for that kind of building.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Patricia, thanks for that perspective. I’m curious, Scott, you mentioned in our first segment that Scott Wiener has gotten lots of stuff done. You also mentioned that housing can cut both ways. That seemed like such a perfect example that when you get something done, you change the law and the law enables new things like big towers in San Rafael. Now there’s some opposition.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He’s not running in San Rafael. He’s probably happy about having heard that call. Yeah, no, there was the Marina Safeway as well, which caused a lot of consternation among people in that neighborhood, but also support as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, some of these things that get ascribed to Wiener legislation aren’t really because of that. There’s other issues. Some of these zoning and permitting issues are a little bit complicated, but there’s no question that he has authored legislation that will allow for more density, higher buildings, especially near transit corridors.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now, I’m not sure where that building is, proposed building in San Rafael. But here in San Francisco, if you’re on a Muni line, a BART line, and I think a lot of public policy people would say that is where you want higher density, because so that people don’t need to rely on cars, they can use the public transit.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But it is controversial, and it’s like, well, I like more housing, but not here. Do it over there. And that was the point, kind of, Connie Chan sort of made as well. Her district has had the least amount of housing of any of the Supervisors since she got there in 2021, 2022. And she said, yeah, but, you know, there’s all this new housing in South of Market in the Mission, you know. It’s like, well, that’s kind of the point.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But I mean, we talk about housing as an issue that could potentially kind of scramble coalition and alliances in the map in this race, because Connie Chan in the primary won the Sunset neighborhood. That’s traditionally a neighborhood that goes for more moderate candidates. Daniel Lurie won the Sunset when he ran for mayor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, who are the Chan-Lurie voters in this race? And is the issue of housing one of those kind of parochial issues where people feel like, look, maybe Connie Chan is too far left for me on issues like public safety. She, you know, said, I want to dismantle the police department a few years ago. She said that was kind of a misquote, but like, that’s something that stuck with her.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Um, is that an issue where voters on the West Side feel like, oh, I have some hesitation about Scott Wiener, even though he’s more of a moderate politician, because of housing? Chan will, if she’s going to win this race, she will need those kinds of realignments, uh, to kind of change —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Connie Chan speaks for me, but only on housing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think Wiener did win her district, right? In the Richmond. He did win the Richmond in the primary, for what it’s worth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Caroline in San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s perfect because I am from the Richmond district and in Connie Chan’s, and I am voting for Wiener because, for me, as a die-hard progressive, we have to send somebody to Washington who can get things done. And so I have voted for Chan in the past, but I will be voting for Wiener as I — I just really, truly believe we have — we have to see more, um, we had to get some of that Pelosi energy back, which we haven’t had for a long time representing us. And I’m really excited to see him to be there and to drive that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And on the other note, especially on the housing note, he’s just the technocratic side of him. One of the first things he worked on was SB 35, which was the bill for affordable housing, and everybody in San Francisco, progressives, moderates, want to see affordable housing. And so that’s just demonstrative of how effective he will be. And I’ve gotten very passionate, more passionate about this than I thought I would, but I just wanted to give my two cents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, appreciate the passion. People getting into this race, clearly, this is a hot one here in the city for sure.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanna turn things briefly to another race. Congressional District 1 reaches into Sonoma County. This is one that pits incumbent Republican James Gallagher and Democrat Mike McGuire.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> About this. So James Gallagher took office this year. He won a special election following the death of Representative Doug LaMalfa. He ran in that election under the old lines, under our old congressional district lines, in which the first district was really a safe Republican seat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This district was completely reshaped and transformed by Proposition 50, and the way that happened was the lines were dragged down into Sonoma County. Suddenly you have all these blue Democratic voters in Sonoma County that will make up the base of this district now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Gallagher now faces an uphill climb to win reelection under the new line. So he’s facing Mike McGuire, who is a state senator, previously the pro tem of the state Senate, who under these new lines gets to run with all these North Bay Democrats.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is one of the seats when Democrats kind of drew up that Proposition 50 map. They felt like, okay, we know we’re gonna get — flip this seat as part of their effort to take back the House of Representatives.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So just to put some numbers to it, I think these are your numbers, Guy. Under the previous map, Donald Trump carried the district by roughly 25 points in 2024. Under the new boundaries, Kamala Harris would have carried it by about 12. And that’s just basically Santa Rosa is the end.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. And when you’re talking about, you know, breaking down any House district in America, the single best predictor, how do they vote for president?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. And is this just essentially a down-the-line, like, partisan battle? Like, are you voting R? Are you voting D in this one?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I would guess that’s how it breaks out. I would imagine Gallagher, you know, retain strength in more of the more northern rural parts of this district. And those numbers are simply just outweighed by the number of voters in Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I’m sure for folks in the North Bay, like, this is an exciting organizing opportunity. They get to be in one of the seats that will potentially flip and help Democrats potentially retake the House of Representatives. So I’m sure you’re going to see a strong turnout there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, curious. I mean, how important is California to this, you know, effort to retake the House? I mean, how’s it looking?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s very important just because we have so many seats. I mean, with Prop 50, I think the hope among Democrats was that they could flip five of those seats. They had a near-death experience with one of those seats where Kevin Kiley up in the Sacramento foothills area, very, very — he switched to independent. And he and a very kind of fringy Republican almost made it into the top two before all the votes were counted.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So some of these things are a little hard to tell ahead of time. But, you know, many of these races, I mean, as Guy said, it went from a whatever-plus for Trump to 12 for Harris, you know, the new district. That’s, you know, that looks good for Democrats, but some of these, they’re not slam dunks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, if you look at the one, the seat down in San Diego, Riverside, where you’ve got Issa not running and you’ve got a Republican and a Democrat, that’s a competitive seat. Same with Adam Gray, the incumbent Democrat. I mean, so, you know, these are not slam dunks. You know, easy layups for the Democrats. They’re gonna have to earn some of these wins.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But to your point, your question, you know, they need to pick up three or four in California, I think, you know, or at least they would like to. I mean, we’re talking, how big is the margin gonna be? You know, I think certainly the conventional wisdom is Democrats are gonna win back the House. Question is how big the majority is gonna be. And California could be a big part. Yeah, absolutely.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. But less of a big — I mean, the fact is Prop 50 reduced the playing field of what’s competitive. That’s the point, right? It’s like, make it more Democratic. In previous years, we had four, five, six, seven, eight competitive districts. Now we’re down to three.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although one of the more interesting ones has two Republicans running, you know, Young Kim versus Ken Calvert, who are both currently in Congress. And they are going at it, you know, hammer and tong at each other. That one’s going to be very interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi, \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. Great baseline for thinking about this Scott Wiener, Connie Chan race.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’ve got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics Desk. We’ve got Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer on the desk as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We wanna hear from you. I mean, do you have newly drawn congressional district lines? Has it changed where you’re voting? Do you feel like it’s gonna have an impact? What about, how much do you value experience and seniority in Congress, or are you more drawn to candidates who are promising kind of generational change or newness just in general?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can give us a call. The number is 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord, or KQED Forum for all those things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Before we go to the break, real quick, Guy, do you wanna give the pitch for our KQED voter guide?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s do it. KQED.org/voter-guide, state elections, Bay Area elections, and this year, for the first time, a school board voter guide. I know that’s one that often goes overlooked, hard to find information. You’re probably like texting, oh, who’s my friend who might know something about school? No, we sent out a questionnaire to every school board candidate in the Bay Area on a variety of relevant issues and hope you’ll check it out.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Am I going to figure out Props 40, 41, 42, whatever, all that whole set of props? I had Marissa Lagos on that. You will understand it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’ll be back with more on our local congressional races right after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, and Izzy Bloom from KQED’s politics team. We’re talking about our local congressional races. We’re gonna get to Alameda County in a second, but first let’s bring in Chris in Sonoma County. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, you know, I was calling because I’m a younger voter. I have a young family. I’m progressive that supports a lot of the new wave like El-Sayed and Mamdani and AOC, but I’m very, very much pro-Mike Thompson here from Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I just feel like the Eric Jones race has been really disingenuous. He’s backed by Reform California, which is a right-wing conservative PAC. And I just wanna put in there that people think Mike Thompson’s a Blue Dog, but in my experience, not only has he stood up for us for fire survivors, the nine-year anniversary of the Tubbs fire, but he’s got a 97% environmental voting record, 95% labor, he was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, like… Seem to know —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Big fans!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Chris, I know. I appreciate your taking a look at this race and providing your perspective as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Let’s bring in Bob in Santa Rosa and we’ll take these together. Hey, Bob, I’m Santa Rosa, welcome!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Oh, hi!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, thank you very much. Listen, I’ve heard everything everybody’s saying, but what I haven’t heard is anyone talking about the immigration issues, particularly in Sonoma County, probably Napa also, and the collaboration with ICE in the sheriff’s department up here, the amount of deportation centers and camps that people are sent to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think it’s a shadow issue, actually, for sure, in Sonoma. It’s easy to be what seems to be a liberal and not deal at all with the fact that our sheriff here in Sonoma County turns people, the names of people who are being released from jail, over to ICE and they get picked up outside the county jail.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And you haven’t heard it from any of the congressional candidates.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Not that I can tell. No. They all say, I’m against that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Bob in Santa Rosa, thanks so much. How much do you think, you know, obviously nationally immigration for Donald Trump still remains one of his better issues and still under water, but relative to, say, the economy, it’s doing relatively better there. How much has this played into any of the races that we know about up here around here?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> That’s — yeah, go ahead. That’s interesting. I mean, that point specifically, I have not heard the candidates talk about local sheriff cooperation. So that was fascinating to hear.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It does depend. I mean, the law in California does allow if there’s a violent criminal who is going to be released, I think the sheriff can let them know. They don’t turn them over, right. But, you know, certainly — yeah. So I’ll just leave it at that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think with most of the races that we’ve been talking about in the Bay Area, there’s not a lot of daylight between the candidates. You know, maybe Gallagher and McGuire up there. That’s a different question. But here in the Bay Area, I think maybe it hasn’t come up because there’s not much difference between the two candidates.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I do think that’s — in District 4, they’re pretty much on the same page. Eric Jones has said that he would want to move ICE out of the Department of Homeland Security, to eliminate additional funding he received in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year. But I don’t think he’s taking quite as strong a position as Mai Vang in District 7 over in Sacramento, where she’s calling for abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Uh-huh. Yeah, it’s — my thing, and we’re going to turn to the Alameda County race again in a second. But is Mai Vang kind of our most progressive-wave kind of a candidate out there?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think she’s taking on that mantle a lot more. You know, she’s taken on like Medicare for All and, like I said, abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> These are like Bernie cred out here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, definitely. And I think, you know, the not accepting corporate PAC money is something that we see from also Eric Jones, but Mai Vang as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> All right, let’s bring in Sunil in Livermore. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you. I want to talk about the district here in Livermore, Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, that is Eric Swalwell’s former district. I’m waiting for — I’m definitely voting for Aisha Wahab.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What I wanted to talk is the lack of enthusiasm among the South Asian. And I see a hint of Islamophobia with Ayesha Wahhab. And I would like to hear from your guest who is leading right now between these two candidates and any thoughts on, because there is a large population of Indian Americans, unfortunately, I have not seen that kind of enthusiasm for Ayesha Wahab. Any comment?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Sunil, really, really appreciate it. That is, of course, Aisha Wahab, Melissa Hernandez, seat formerly held by Eric Swalwell. Guy, do you wanna take this one on?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was an election, you know, Hernandez, Wahab both on the ballot in the June primary because Swalwell had decided to run for governor, not for reelection. Then scandal broke, sexual misconduct allegations, he resigns from his seat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There was also a concurrent special election between these two. Wahab won the initial primary there. Things got really interesting in the special election in August because we started to see millions of dollars come from AIPAC supporting Melissa Hernandez.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There had not really been any public discussion about America’s relationship with Israel besides Wahab making a comment in a candidate forum that she considered Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. Nevertheless, we saw this money pour in. All of a sudden, the special election got pretty close. Hernandez was down 20 points in the primary. The special election, Wahab ended up winning by only six points.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So there was this thinking, okay, this is now potentially a collision course. In the November election, where we’re gonna see this national discussion about Israel play out here, that hasn’t happened. Instead, AIPAC has completely stopped spending money after the special election. Hernandez has not had that outside backing that she had. Wahab is now running as an incumbent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so a very different race than where we thought it might just be even just a few weeks ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>To the caller’s point, though, I have not done any reporting on what he raised about — are there concerns, Islamophobia, concerns about Wahab. I will note, though, the areas where we saw some of the biggest falloff in support for Wahab, Mission San Jose neighborhood in Fremont, a lot of Indian American neighborhoods where we heard her vote totals drop between the primary election and the special election.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There were a lot of negative ads run against her on a variety of issues. And I wondered… Some of that, issues that caller brought up, I have not done any more in-depth reporting into that, but I do wonder if some of those kind of negative attacks took a hit on Wahab ahead of the August election.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and there was a piece of legislation that she authored that basically would have beefed up civil rights protections against caste discrimination. And that really divided the Asian community in that district. I think Newsom ultimately vetoed that bill, but she took a lot of heat for that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t know if that’s what reflects what the caller is talking about, but that did happen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, I remember we did a show on some of the reporting around these caste issues, and it was very, very heated on the phone lines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And just to set the table, let’s see, Wahab defeated Hernandez in the August runoff 53-47, right? So it was like fairly close. And so the presumption here is maybe things are not as close, but we just don’t know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think we might look at that as the high-water mark, at least of, like, outside support for Hernandez, because that’s really what propelled her.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, I think AIPAC, these outside groups made a bet that we have this really short window in a special election where if we just flood the zone with money — I mean, they were running broadcast TV ads that were running across the Bay Area. Most of the people watching those ads didn’t even vote in the district, but it was just pouring money into this. Let’s try to get a quick win in an election.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You saw members of California’s congressional delegation add on support Hernandez. It’s a very different thing once Wahab is the incumbent. Now, are those same members of the delegation, folks like Zoe Lofgren who is critical of Wahab, is she going to be spending her time going after a member of the delegation when, like, Democrats are trying to take back the House nationally? A little bit of a different calculation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there was also kind of a brushback from organized labor. Lorena Gonzalez, you know, when Zoe Lofgren released a video just before the election attacking Wahab for — I don’t know if we want to go into it, but, you know, she declined — she declined to step aside so they could have a caretaker when Swalwell resigned, and they had a kind of, you know, they wanted to avoid an expensive, messy primary, in which they ended up having.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, you know, but I think to Guy’s point, she’s now the incumbent. And they’re all about loyalty. Also, does the worm turn on AIPAC —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> PAC spending, right. It was effective because there was a few weeks stretch there where it was just — they were blanketing the district with ads, and it’s like, where’s this — what’s happening? Where’s this coming from?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then once the story kind of takes shape that, oh, this is spending from this group that Democrats nationwide have kind of started to be critical of, takes on a little bit different picture.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, and they — I think they just saw they tried a whole bunch of different attacks. Aisha Wahab, it didn’t work, and they’re probably trying to spend their money on other races. They’ve been kind of like kryptonite for a lot of the candidates they’ve supported in this election cycle.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Colin in San Francisco, kind of a callback to the top of the show and Scott Wiener, but also on the topic of Israel. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Good morning. Today the third anniversary of the October 7 attack on Israel. At the time, Scott Wiener posted on that, that what’s happening in Israel is not a both-side situation. Scott also referenced Israel’s right to defend itself without any mention of Palestinian civilian casualties, even though by then the Israeli government had signaled that it would respond harshly to the Hamas assault.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>As a state legislator, Wiener also criticized the nonviolent BDS movement and was instrumental in passing AB 715 as a law that would potentially subject students and teachers to disciplinary actions for criticism of Israel.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I’d have to question whether Wiener’s calling Israel’s actions in Gaza to be genocide is all that genuine. Is he just saying what he thinks he needs to say to win in the district, where Israel’s actions over the past three years and AIPAC spending on our elections have proven to be deeply unpopular?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Come on, let’s take that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our panel here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, the issue of whether or not what Israel has done in Gaza is genocide came up in one of the debates during the primary, where Wiener declined to say yes or no, and then had to — you know, he got some blowback and said yes, it’s genocide.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>He’s, you know, to be fair, Wiener, who’s Jewish, has been very critical of Israel, Netanyahu for sure, and I think the differences between Chan and Wiener on this issue have narrowed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, Guy mentioned earlier that Chan is now supporting a full arms embargo, even for defensive weapons. Though that is a difference. I think if you had to say who is more, I don’t know, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, however you wanna say it, Chan is certainly more to the left, I guess you would say, from Wiener.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think really, there’s not a lot of daylight between the two of them. I mean, there are some nuances, but the reality is, I mean, if this is your top issue, that’s how you’re going to vote. And there are some voters for whom this is the top issue, and they’ll decide one way or the other on both sides of that question.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, yeah, for sure.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Brandon in Foster City. Welcome, Brandon.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you, guys. Good morning. I just want to say I had attended the rally with Bernie and Jane Kim in Rilcon last Saturday at the Curran Theater. It was originally scheduled to be at the Warfield, but they had to change it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I just wanna say that Bernie was born in 1941 and he’s 85 years old, and I can’t believe how sharp that guy is. And I just want to say he inspires everybody to be, you know, for progressives. And I’m about to vote yes on Prop 40 and no on 41 and 42, and I just want to give a little plug for that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And thank you, KQED. I hope my business does well and I can become a sponsor. And bless you guys. You guys are having such good times.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Thanks, Brandon. Appreciate that. Appreciate people’s civic enthusiasm always. Love it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, Emily’s on the Discord writes in to say, you know, this is about the McGuire-Gallagher race. She says, “I’m in that redrawn district and a registered Democrat. I haven’t seen or heard anything from either candidate yet. It’s hard to buy TV since it stretches across three TV markets. But my neighbors who are registered no party preference are getting flooded with Gallagher direct mail pieces, trying to disqualify McGuire on character grounds. Even with the Harris-Tilton 2024, I wonder what proportion of the district is no party preference and getting a very different picture of the candidates than registered Democrats.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Mm-hmm. That’s interesting. That does seem interesting, isn’t it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, you definitely — they do target, like, the mail that you will get, the, you know, stuff that will pop up on, you know, digital and stuff like that is very targeted towards, you know, households based on who’s registered for what.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Scott, you can look up the registration while I’m venting here. But I think, yeah, I mean, I would expect McGuire — I don’t think, like, I agree with the caller in the sense that, like, I wouldn’t expect a huge TV campaign just given all the different areas that it touches. But that’s interesting that that’s Gallagher’s play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah. Let’s bring in Rick into —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Looks like about 20 percent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Twenty percent?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Is no party preference.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Hey, Rick, uh, welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, well, for my member of Congress, I’m voting for Dr. Richard Pan. Pan is your man. And I’m voting — because there were so many different propositions on the ballot, I’m only going to talk about two of them. I care enough for housing, so I’m voting yes on Prop 1 and yes on Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If Kevin Kiley is elected to my district, I’d probably be back in an institution because I have multiple disabilities. And that is exactly what Trump wants. For people with disabilities to put them away, out of sight, out of mind. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Rick, appreciate that. Why don’t you — we haven’t talked about this race yet.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> This is another one Democrats have circled to kind of pick up. A little kind of strange backstory. Scott talked a little bit about it in the primary. Kiley, a Republican, switched parties, became an independent, survival tactic, also switched districts.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So this is — he’s running in a somewhat new district. His district kind of got fractured by Prop 50. Richard Pan, a former state senator, Ami Bera switched districts. He’s another Sacramento-area Democrat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So the net result is Democrats could still pick up the seat here if they’re able to knock off Kiley. This is one, again, Kiley is going from running in a district that was pretty friendly towards Republicans. Now he’s having to run in the Sacramento suburbs, a place Kamala Harris did very well. Kamala was in town last week campaigning for Richard Pan.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So this is one Democrats also feel pretty confident.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I would also imagine this is one where there’s probably still at least a chunk of undecided voters, right? Because people don’t know these people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think this honestly plays across all of these districts. Like, we talk about the Mike Thompson seat. Yes, he’s the incumbent. Yes, he’s been in Congress for a long time. About 50 percent of those voters were not in his district before Prop 50.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So even for these longtime incumbents, there is a little bit of a reintroduction that has to take place that honestly could scramble some of these races.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. Is a national party getting involved? You mentioned Kamala Harris coming out to campaign in these cases. How much is the sort of National Democratic Party sort of investing in California?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re certainly helping out in some of the key tight races, like in the Central Valley with Adam Gray, Democratic incumbent. And then the one where David Valadao, the Republican, they’re trying to flip that seat. He’s been very difficult to beat. It’s a little bit like Lucy in the football. They’ve tried to defeat him and think they can’t — haven’t.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think they’re playing in that one. Also in the San Diego-Riverside seat where you’ve got Desmond, the Republican, and Von Wilpert, the Democrat. They’re definitely playing in that one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t think they’re going to — they’re not going to play in the ones that are not going to flip. So that’s what I know. Maybe you guys know something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I do think the money piece is interesting this year because it’s different. Democrats in these last few midterms have had a financial advantage. That is not the case this year.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So you look at a district like the one in Bakersfield with Valadao, Republicans — the outside spending there is over — they have a huge advantage right now. I think they’ve spent the fourth most on any district in America to try to help David Valadao.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So when you talk, when people talk about the blue wave this year, I think it needs to be tempered with two things: the money and the map. The money being Republicans have more of a financial advantage than they’ve had in previous years. And the map, the gerrymandering that has occurred across the country, has put a lower ceiling on where Democrats can go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The idea that, like, yes, they may end up getting a nine-point advantage in kind of the generic polling or the popular vote, that’s not going to translate into 30, 40 seats the way it did in previous elections, just because, A, through natural sorting, Democrats have already kind of picked off areas where people don’t like Trump, and, B, this gerrymandering is just kind of lowered how the reach of how far a blue wave could go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think the caveat to that is that, like in Texas, you know, in the Rio Grande Valley, you know, they drew those districts assuming that the voters who voted for Trump would vote for the Republican, and, you know, Latino voters have flipped completely. And so some of those that they thought they would pick up, maybe they may not.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the same is true in California, the reverse. I mean, I think some of these races could be closer than Democrats would like to think.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve been talking with KQED’s politics team about the hotly contested races for Congress across the Bay Area. I’ve been joined by Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thanks, Guy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Thanks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve had Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thank you. Thanks, Alexis.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And we’ve had Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thank you so much, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m Alexis Madrigal. Thank you so, so much to all of our callers, listeners. Appreciate you all getting involved in your local politics here. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with guest host Laura Klivans.\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Airdate: Wednesday, October 7, 2026 at 9 AM",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 7, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 7, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Some of the Bay Area’s biggest political battles this fall are happening between fellow Democrats in hotly contested races for Congress. There’s a fierce fight for retiring former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat in San Francisco. In Napa, where redistricting has shaken up the district, a multimillionaire is courting votes from Republicans and progressives to unseat an establishment fellow Democrat. And in Sacramento, younger progressive challengers are taking on longtime incumbents, raising a bigger question about what Democratic voters value right now: a new generation of leadership, or the experience that comes with years in office? KQED’s politics team joins us to break down the races, the candidates and what to watch heading into Election Day.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Some of the Bay Area’s biggest political battles this fall are happening between fellow Democrats in hotly contested races for Congress. There’s a fierce fight for retiring former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat in San Francisco. In Napa, where redistricting has shaken up the district, a multimillionaire is courting votes from Republicans and progressives to unseat an establishment fellow Democrat. And in Sacramento, younger progressive challengers are taking on longtime incumbents, raising a bigger question about what Democratic voters value right now: a new generation of leadership, or the experience that comes with years in office? KQED’s politics team joins us to break down the races, the candidates and what to watch heading into Election Day.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Guy Marzorati, correspondent, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk",
"Scott Shafer, senior editor, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-host of Political Breakdown",
"Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer, KQED California Politics & Government Desk"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n\n\n\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati,\u003c/strong> correspondent, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati,\u003c/strong> correspondent, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-host of Political Breakdown\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-host of Political Breakdown\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom, \u003c/strong>reporter and producer, KQED California Politics & Government Desk\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom, \u003c/strong>reporter and producer, KQED California Politics & Government Desk\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. A month out from the midterms, it looks like a Democrat could win for Senate in Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia. Poll after poll shows an unpopular president dragging down the Republican Party across the country. Nobody knows how big the blue wave will be, but it’s looking pretty big.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. A month out from the midterms, it looks like a Democrat could win for Senate in Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia. Poll after poll shows an unpopular president dragging down the Republican Party across the country. Nobody knows how big the blue wave will be, but it’s looking pretty big.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Locally, many congressional races pit Democrats against Democrats, sometimes in districts that have been transformed by Prop 50 redistricting. Will the blue wave push our congressional delegation to the left? The highest-profile contest is the race to represent San Francisco, almost all of it at least, replacing the legendary Nancy Pelosi. But there are other interesting races in the East Bay, in the North Bay, up towards Sacramento. We’re gonna cover them all.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Locally, many congressional races pit Democrats against Democrats, sometimes in districts that have been transformed by Prop 50 redistricting. Will the blue wave push our congressional delegation to the left? The highest-profile contest is the race to represent San Francisco, almost all of it at least, replacing the legendary Nancy Pelosi. But there are other interesting races in the East Bay, in the North Bay, up towards Sacramento. We’re gonna cover them all.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Here to talk with us, we’ve got some folks from KQED’s politics team. Scott Shafer, of course, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course has a new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. I think episode four dropped today, Scott.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Here to talk with us, we’ve got some folks from KQED’s politics team. Scott Shafer, of course, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course has a new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. I think episode four dropped today, Scott.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s right. Get it wherever you get your podcasts.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s right. Get it wherever you get your podcasts.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s right. Thanks for joining us. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent on KQED’s politics and government desk. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s right. Thanks for joining us. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent on KQED’s politics and government desk. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Hey, good morning.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Hey, good morning.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So, Scott, you were one of the moderators of last week’s debate at KQED between Supervisor Connie Chan, Senator Scott Wiener. What can you tell us about the two candidates, core components, what’s kind of the texture, landscape of this campaign?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So, Scott, you were one of the moderators of last week’s debate at KQED between Supervisor Connie Chan, Senator Scott Wiener. What can you tell us about the two candidates, core components, what’s kind of the texture, landscape of this campaign?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, I think underlying all of it is Nancy Pelosi. She has a big shadow. And when she endorsed Connie Chan just before the primary, it boosted Connie Chan into second place. And both she and the third-place finisher, Shoykat Chakrabarti, are really stepping on the gas pedal to try to get Chan to win the seat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, I think underlying all of it is Nancy Pelosi. She has a big shadow. And when she endorsed Connie Chan just before the primary, it boosted Connie Chan into second place. And both she and the third-place finisher, Shoykat Chakrabarti, are really stepping on the gas pedal to try to get Chan to win the seat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It’s a bit of an uphill battle because Scott Wiener has been around for a long time. He was on the Board of Supervisors. He was in the state Senate. He’s been a very prolific lawmaker. He sort of led the charge on housing, issues ranging from taking on Trump over ICE, masking, other things like that, as well as AI regulation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It’s a bit of an uphill battle because Scott Wiener has been around for a long time. He was on the Board of Supervisors. He was in the state Senate. He’s been a very prolific lawmaker. He sort of led the charge on housing, issues ranging from taking on Trump over ICE, masking, other things like that, as well as AI regulation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Connie Chan, more progressive, close with labor, has been a representative of her district, the Richmond, in ways that don’t necessarily help her citywide, for example, opposing closure of the Great Highway to make way for Sunset Dunes Park, a very popular inner district, maybe less so citywide in this congressional district.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Connie Chan, more progressive, close with labor, has been a representative of her district, the Richmond, in ways that don’t necessarily help her citywide, for example, opposing closure of the Great Highway to make way for Sunset Dunes Park, a very popular inner district, maybe less so citywide in this congressional district.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But these are two very distinctive people and personalities. They both have interesting biographies. Connie Chan came to the U.S. when she was young from China. Scott Wiener, openly gay, came from the East Coast.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But these are two very distinctive people and personalities. They both have interesting biographies. Connie Chan came to the U.S. when she was young from China. Scott Wiener, openly gay, came from the East Coast.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think their differences over issues are, I think, in all these races we’re going to talk about, how these folks are going to vote. Whoever wins and goes back to D.C. among the Democrats, they’re going to vote the same way the vast majority of the time.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think their differences over issues are, I think, in all these races we’re going to talk about, how these folks are going to vote. Whoever wins and goes back to D.C. among the Democrats, they’re going to vote the same way the vast majority of the time.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think for me as a voter and as voters evaluate this race, it’s who will be the most effective, who is gonna go back there and get things done, who’s gonna represent our values, who can build coalitions. And I think that’s really something that voters are grappling with.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think for me as a voter and as voters evaluate this race, it’s who will be the most effective, who is gonna go back there and get things done, who’s gonna represent our values, who can build coalitions. And I think that’s really something that voters are grappling with.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, in this one, it feels like there is a pretty clear choice, at least around housing stuff, right? I mean, Scott Wiener being known as like kind of the most YIMBY guy in the state of California, perhaps. And Connie Chan, definitely not in the —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, in this one, it feels like there is a pretty clear choice, at least around housing stuff, right? I mean, Scott Wiener being known as like kind of the most YIMBY guy in the state of California, perhaps. And Connie Chan, definitely not in the —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. I mean, Scott Wiener has not just championed more housing, but has been relentless. If a bill failed, he went back and talked to the people who voted against it, talked to the governor. He did that with AI as well. And so there is now evidence that there is some evidence that the legislation that he’s gotten through and signed is having an impact. There’s more housing being built.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. I mean, Scott Wiener has not just championed more housing, but has been relentless. If a bill failed, he went back and talked to the people who voted against it, talked to the governor. He did that with AI as well. And so there is now evidence that there is some evidence that the legislation that he’s gotten through and signed is having an impact. There’s more housing being built.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The thing is, though, there is also — that can be a polarizing issue. People can say, oh, yes, we need to build more housing. But not in my backyard. You know, that’s the whole nitty-gritty. That’s where that phrase comes from, you know.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The thing is, though, there is also — that can be a polarizing issue. People can say, oh, yes, we need to build more housing. But not in my backyard. You know, that’s the whole nitty-gritty. That’s where that phrase comes from, you know.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so I think, you know, in a number of ways, Scott Wiener is, while he’s prolific and often seen by colleagues up in Sacramento as one of the most effective lawmakers, he’s also polarizing. And there are people both in the gay community and outside, in labor certainly, that, you know, find him to be not their cup of tea for one reason or another.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so I think, you know, in a number of ways, Scott Wiener is, while he’s prolific and often seen by colleagues up in Sacramento as one of the most effective lawmakers, he’s also polarizing. And there are people both in the gay community and outside, in labor certainly, that, you know, find him to be not their cup of tea for one reason or another.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think, yes, if you’re pro-housing, Scott Wiener is, you know, pretty clearly the person you’re going to support. But, you know, like I said, there’s nuances to that issue.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think, yes, if you’re pro-housing, Scott Wiener is, you know, pretty clearly the person you’re going to support. But, you know, like I said, there’s nuances to that issue.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, can you talk a little bit about some of the dynamics of this race? Like, have things changed? Have people changed their positions on any key issues, trying to pick up and increase their coalition’s breadth?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, can you talk a little bit about some of the dynamics of this race? Like, have things changed? Have people changed their positions on any key issues, trying to pick up and increase their coalition’s breadth?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Biggest change in dynamic is Nancy Pelosi deciding to be a main character in this election. The question of how she would weigh in and at what point, as Scott said, late in the primary, her endorsement helped boost Chan into the top two, but really that was the start for her. She decided to continue her involvement in the campaign, rallying financial support for Chan, had a key staff member go work on Connie Chan’s campaign.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Biggest change in dynamic is Nancy Pelosi deciding to be a main character in this election. The question of how she would weigh in and at what point, as Scott said, late in the primary, her endorsement helped boost Chan into the top two, but really that was the start for her. She decided to continue her involvement in the campaign, rallying financial support for Chan, had a key staff member go work on Connie Chan’s campaign.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think you really saw this crystallize most when Scott Wiener made what was perhaps his biggest misstep in the campaign to date, which was when he rolled out this AI chatbot that mocked Connie Chan, basically to show that Chan stands in the way of housing and other things. The chatbot was supposed to give answers like Connie Chan would give and kind of portray an obstructionist.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think you really saw this crystallize most when Scott Wiener made what was perhaps his biggest misstep in the campaign to date, which was when he rolled out this AI chatbot that mocked Connie Chan, basically to show that Chan stands in the way of housing and other things. The chatbot was supposed to give answers like Connie Chan would give and kind of portray an obstructionist.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Nancy Pelosi was able to marshal opposition to this chatbot, labeling it sexist, racist, in a way that, within a matter of days, got Wiener to take down the chatbot and profusely apologize. It was just — it was a master class in kind of the way Pelosi was able to leverage relationships. She had it on official House of Representatives letterhead, opposition from members of the delegation, and so that, to me, stood out as like, okay, this could be the biggest kind of roadblock for Wiener if Pelosi really kind of takes on this role and makes it not so much about Chan versus Wiener, but about her legacy.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Nancy Pelosi was able to marshal opposition to this chatbot, labeling it sexist, racist, in a way that, within a matter of days, got Wiener to take down the chatbot and profusely apologize. It was just — it was a master class in kind of the way Pelosi was able to leverage relationships. She had it on official House of Representatives letterhead, opposition from members of the delegation, and so that, to me, stood out as like, okay, this could be the biggest kind of roadblock for Wiener if Pelosi really kind of takes on this role and makes it not so much about Chan versus Wiener, but about her legacy.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because I was listening to you guys on the debate and one of the most fascinating things for me was that Connie Chan didn’t mention her Pelosi endorsement, but then Scott Wiener gave a sort of like sweet thing about —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because I was listening to you guys on the debate and one of the most fascinating things for me was that Connie Chan didn’t mention her Pelosi endorsement, but then Scott Wiener gave a sort of like sweet thing about —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Nancy Pelosi. That’s so interesting. And, you know, I think that, you know, I asked Ian Kramer, who’s the staffer from Pelosi’s office, like, why didn’t, you know, Connie Chan mention Pelosi at all? Just for the mic. And he was like, well, you know, elections are about the future, you know. And we think most people know that Nancy Pelosi is already for Connie Chan.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Nancy Pelosi. That’s so interesting. And, you know, I think that, you know, I asked Ian Kramer, who’s the staffer from Pelosi’s office, like, why didn’t, you know, Connie Chan mention Pelosi at all? Just for the mic. And he was like, well, you know, elections are about the future, you know. And we think most people know that Nancy Pelosi is already for Connie Chan.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m not sure that rings entirely true. I’m sure that if they thought it would benefit her, Chan would have mentioned it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m not sure that rings entirely true. I’m sure that if they thought it would benefit her, Chan would have mentioned it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, Wiener has always been deferential publicly toward Pelosi. But what irritated Pelosi, and I think this is what fueled a lot of conspiracy theories about why is she so adamant for Connie Chan, in 2006, Scott Wiener began raising money for a congressional race. He said, “I’m not going to run against Speaker Pelosi, and I hope she doesn’t retire. But if she does or when she does, I am going to be ready.” And then in October of last year, he actually announced he was going to run before she was retiring.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, Wiener has always been deferential publicly toward Pelosi. But what irritated Pelosi, and I think this is what fueled a lot of conspiracy theories about why is she so adamant for Connie Chan, in 2006, Scott Wiener began raising money for a congressional race. He said, “I’m not going to run against Speaker Pelosi, and I hope she doesn’t retire. But if she does or when she does, I am going to be ready.” And then in October of last year, he actually announced he was going to run before she was retiring.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, you know, in the world of Pelosi — you know, and the Burton machine, and I see this election kind of is the last gasp of the Burton machine. Loyalty is everything. And by Wiener stepping out before it was, quote unquote, his turn, you know, they saw that as very disloyal.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, you know, in the world of Pelosi — you know, and the Burton machine, and I see this election kind of is the last gasp of the Burton machine. Loyalty is everything. And by Wiener stepping out before it was, quote unquote, his turn, you know, they saw that as very disloyal.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Interesting, because that’s exactly what Pelosi did when she ran for leadership back after the 2000 election. They were like, no, it’s not your turn. She said, I don’t care. I’m going to run. I am going to win.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Interesting, because that’s exactly what Pelosi did when she ran for leadership back after the 2000 election. They were like, no, it’s not your turn. She said, I don’t care. I’m going to run. I am going to win.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So anyway, I do think that, you know, what was poignant, I think, and what humanized Scott Wiener in that debate was his closing statement where he said, you know, back in 1987, the year that Pelosi got elected, she went back to Washington and she fought for AIDS funding. And there was a gay teenager in the closet back in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, I forget where he was, who saw that as permission to come out and be who I am. And I thank Nancy Pelosi. That person is on the stage now tonight.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So anyway, I do think that, you know, what was poignant, I think, and what humanized Scott Wiener in that debate was his closing statement where he said, you know, back in 1987, the year that Pelosi got elected, she went back to Washington and she fought for AIDS funding. And there was a gay teenager in the closet back in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, I forget where he was, who saw that as permission to come out and be who I am. And I thank Nancy Pelosi. That person is on the stage now tonight.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so he is always publicly, even after Pelosi has done some things, like Guy mentioned, for Connie Chan, always been very deferential. There’s really not much in it for him to go after her. She is an icon, you know, and so he has to be very careful. I mean, he did push back a little bit on some of the characterization of the chatbot, but, you know, it’s careful. It’s tricky for him.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so he is always publicly, even after Pelosi has done some things, like Guy mentioned, for Connie Chan, always been very deferential. There’s really not much in it for him to go after her. She is an icon, you know, and so he has to be very careful. I mean, he did push back a little bit on some of the characterization of the chatbot, but, you know, it’s careful. It’s tricky for him.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Also, just noting for folks, Phil Burton and then Sala Burton succeeded him, which is going to come up later with another —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Also, just noting for folks, Phil Burton and then Sala Burton succeeded him, which is going to come up later with another —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And don’t forget John Burton.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And don’t forget John Burton.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, yeah, and John. So we’ve got just a whole bunch of the California politicians who have been running in San Francisco with the last name of Burton.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, yeah, and John. So we’ve got just a whole bunch of the California politicians who have been running in San Francisco with the last name of Burton.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanted to ask you one other issue on this campaign. Where are these candidates on Prop 40, California’s billionaire wealth tax?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanted to ask you one other issue on this campaign. Where are these candidates on Prop 40, California’s billionaire wealth tax?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this is an issue where they actually are split. Wiener opposes Prop 40, the billionaire wealth tax; Chan is for it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this is an issue where they actually are split. Wiener opposes Prop 40, the billionaire wealth tax; Chan is for it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This came up in the debate, and I think, if anything, it illustrates Wiener on these issues of taxes being, in kind of San Francisco, California Democratic circles, more moderate. He’s expressed his opposition to this, and honestly to an earlier corporate tax on the ballot this year in San Francisco, as perhaps creating a climate that would be too unfriendly to business.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This came up in the debate, and I think, if anything, it illustrates Wiener on these issues of taxes being, in kind of San Francisco, California Democratic circles, more moderate. He’s expressed his opposition to this, and honestly to an earlier corporate tax on the ballot this year in San Francisco, as perhaps creating a climate that would be too unfriendly to business.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>His concerns with Prop 40 on the ballot are similar to concerns we’ve heard from Gavin Newsom, other Democrats, about this just being a one-time tax, this concentrating too much of the benefits just on health care to the exclusion of education, et cetera.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>His concerns with Prop 40 on the ballot are similar to concerns we’ve heard from Gavin Newsom, other Democrats, about this just being a one-time tax, this concentrating too much of the benefits just on health care to the exclusion of education, et cetera.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I can also imagine, because he’s such a kind of technocratic thinker, that he’s like, we should really solve this at the national level. That all kind of checks out with his sort of version of —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I can also imagine, because he’s such a kind of technocratic thinker, that he’s like, we should really solve this at the national level. That all kind of checks out with his sort of version of —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, I mean, to Scott’s point, these folks are going to vote the same 90, 95 percent of the time in Washington. There are a few issues where they have differences. This is one of them on taxation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, I mean, to Scott’s point, these folks are going to vote the same 90, 95 percent of the time in Washington. There are a few issues where they have differences. This is one of them on taxation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think another one, and this came up in the debate as well, is how they’d approach the American relationship with Israel. We heard Connie Chan say she wants a full arms embargo against Israel, meaning no American funding even for defensive systems like the Dome. Scott Wiener’s kind of drawn the line there where he says, I don’t want to send offensive military assistance, but I’m okay with funding the Iron Dome and those kind of missile defense projects.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think another one, and this came up in the debate as well, is how they’d approach the American relationship with Israel. We heard Connie Chan say she wants a full arms embargo against Israel, meaning no American funding even for defensive systems like the Dome. Scott Wiener’s kind of drawn the line there where he says, I don’t want to send offensive military assistance, but I’m okay with funding the Iron Dome and those kind of missile defense projects.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Where is this race, Scott? Like, do we know, you know, is it close? Is it not close?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Where is this race, Scott? Like, do we know, you know, is it close? Is it not close?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there has been some polling that shows, you know, Scott — let’s go back to the primary. Wiener got 41% of the vote. Chan got 20-something. I mean, it was maybe it was 30. But Wiener was way ahead.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there has been some polling that shows, you know, Scott — let’s go back to the primary. Wiener got 41% of the vote. Chan got 20-something. I mean, it was maybe it was 30. But Wiener was way ahead.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So it’s a different electorate for the general election. But generally, it seems like Wiener is ahead still. The chatbot was a big unforced error on his part. But there’s been a lot going on. You know, I’m not sure how closely people are paying attention to this. You know, now they begin to focus because they have a ballot on their table.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So it’s a different electorate for the general election. But generally, it seems like Wiener is ahead still. The chatbot was a big unforced error on his part. But there’s been a lot going on. You know, I’m not sure how closely people are paying attention to this. You know, now they begin to focus because they have a ballot on their table.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I think, you know, based on all the things that Pelosi is doing, the things Wiener is doing, you know, what people are saying, the dynamic, you know, reputational — I think Wiener’s positive ratings have come down a bit, you know, since before this campaign started because, you know, there’s been a lot of attacks on him.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I think, you know, based on all the things that Pelosi is doing, the things Wiener is doing, you know, what people are saying, the dynamic, you know, reputational — I think Wiener’s positive ratings have come down a bit, you know, since before this campaign started because, you know, there’s been a lot of attacks on him.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I still think it’s, like I said, his to lose. But, you know, we try to stay out of the prediction business, but I wish — from everything I have heard, it seems like Wiener has the edge right now. Ha, ha.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I still think it’s, like I said, his to lose. But, you know, we try to stay out of the prediction business, but I wish — from everything I have heard, it seems like Wiener has the edge right now. Ha, ha.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, do you have anything that we should be looking out for just the last month, either of them closing on anything different or special?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, do you have anything that we should be looking out for just the last month, either of them closing on anything different or special?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, let’s go back to this Pelosi thing. There was a pro-Wiener super PAC that did some polling in this race that they released last week. And the data point that stood out to me, fewer than half of voters were aware that Pelosi had endorsed Chan. Which is interesting because she didn’t bring it up. That’s why we go back to this debate and say, was that a missed opportunity for her to just remind folks, hey, I’m running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat and Nancy Pelosi’s endorsing me.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, let’s go back to this Pelosi thing. There was a pro-Wiener super PAC that did some polling in this race that they released last week. And the data point that stood out to me, fewer than half of voters were aware that Pelosi had endorsed Chan. Which is interesting because she didn’t bring it up. That’s why we go back to this debate and say, was that a missed opportunity for her to just remind folks, hey, I’m running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat and Nancy Pelosi’s endorsing me.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with people from KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer and Guy Marzorati. We’re of course gonna talk about Napa County. We’re gonna talk Alameda County when we get back from the break. And we wanna hear from you. What issues matter most to you in these congressional races? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy. Let us know, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with people from KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer and Guy Marzorati. We’re of course gonna talk about Napa County. We’re gonna talk Alameda County when we get back from the break. And we wanna hear from you. What issues matter most to you in these congressional races? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy. Let us know, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. We’ve got KQED’s politics team in the house here. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course, got a new podcast series out about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em> that’s coming out now. Episode four just dropped. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s politics and government desk. And we want to bring in Izzy Bloom, a reporter and producer on KQED’s politics desk. Thanks so much for joining us, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. We’ve got KQED’s politics team in the house here. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course, got a new podcast series out about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em> that’s coming out now. Episode four just dropped. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s politics and government desk. And we want to bring in Izzy Bloom, a reporter and producer on KQED’s politics desk. Thanks so much for joining us, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s talk about Napa. This is congressional district four, although they always confuse me, and now with redistricting it’s even more confusing. But anyway, it’s Napa, long-time Democratic congressman Mike Thompson, now facing a challenge from Eric Jones, right? 35-year-old, former venture capitalist. Give us a lay of the land here on this race.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s talk about Napa. This is congressional district four, although they always confuse me, and now with redistricting it’s even more confusing. But anyway, it’s Napa, long-time Democratic congressman Mike Thompson, now facing a challenge from Eric Jones, right? 35-year-old, former venture capitalist. Give us a lay of the land here on this race.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so intra-party fight. The incumbent, Mike Thompson, has been in Congress since 1999. He served in the state legislature for eight years before that. He was born in St. Helena, raised his family here, still lives there. And he’s a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He’s a Blue Dog Democrat with establishment support from the likes of Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Adam Schiff and Governor Gavin Newsom.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so intra-party fight. The incumbent, Mike Thompson, has been in Congress since 1999. He served in the state legislature for eight years before that. He was born in St. Helena, raised his family here, still lives there. And he’s a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He’s a Blue Dog Democrat with establishment support from the likes of Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Adam Schiff and Governor Gavin Newsom.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And he’s facing a challenge, as you said, 35-year-old Eric Jones, former venture capitalist. He moved to Napa in 2021 with his young family. And he is really running on some progressive policies, fighting for working families. He sort of points to his upbringing in Maine as the son of a disabled veteran, said his family was low income and, you know, relied on Medicaid and food stamps and disability checks at certain times.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And he’s facing a challenge, as you said, 35-year-old Eric Jones, former venture capitalist. He moved to Napa in 2021 with his young family. And he is really running on some progressive policies, fighting for working families. He sort of points to his upbringing in Maine as the son of a disabled veteran, said his family was low income and, you know, relied on Medicaid and food stamps and disability checks at certain times.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so he is running on some of these progressive policies like universal child care, a $10,000 tax credit for working-class households. And he’s also part of this wave of generational-change candidates that we’ve seen across the state, with sort of younger, often progressive Democrats challenging their party’s aging incumbents.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so he is running on some of these progressive policies like universal child care, a $10,000 tax credit for working-class households. And he’s also part of this wave of generational-change candidates that we’ve seen across the state, with sort of younger, often progressive Democrats challenging their party’s aging incumbents.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> How has that been going for people, though?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> How has that been going for people, though?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I would say, you know, there was like five races in the primary with these younger Democrats challenging incumbents, and Eric Jones made it through the primary, and Mai Vang in District 7 out in Sacramento was the other candidate. The other three didn’t make it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I would say, you know, there was like five races in the primary with these younger Democrats challenging incumbents, and Eric Jones made it through the primary, and Mai Vang in District 7 out in Sacramento was the other candidate. The other three didn’t make it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think that at least shows that it wasn’t a mandate from voters that they necessarily want generational change. There has been polling from NPR that shows eight in 10 Americans are in favor of setting age caps and term limits on Congress members, but that’s not really going anywhere.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think that at least shows that it wasn’t a mandate from voters that they necessarily want generational change. There has been polling from NPR that shows eight in 10 Americans are in favor of setting age caps and term limits on Congress members, but that’s not really going anywhere.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right, right.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right, right.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> And I think also people might be generally in favor of an age cap, but when it comes to their own representative, they tend to like them.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> And I think also people might be generally in favor of an age cap, but when it comes to their own representative, they tend to like them.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’ll say, I mean, there has been, like, the New York Times did an analysis of this nationwide, and it was like nine in 10 of these older incumbents won their primary challenge.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’ll say, I mean, there has been, like, the New York Times did an analysis of this nationwide, and it was like nine in 10 of these older incumbents won their primary challenge.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What’s different here is we have a top-two primary. I think so much of the challenge in these generational contests is you run in a primary, it’s a lower turnout, it’s very hard to establish your name and also then draw a contrast all in the course of a primary.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What’s different here is we have a top-two primary. I think so much of the challenge in these generational contests is you run in a primary, it’s a lower turnout, it’s very hard to establish your name and also then draw a contrast all in the course of a primary.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What we have here with Eric Jones is like, and Mai Vang as well, just get out of the primary. Get to that general election where you can have a one-on-one runoff against the older incumbent. I think that creates a very different dynamic than what you see across the country.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What we have here with Eric Jones is like, and Mai Vang as well, just get out of the primary. Get to that general election where you can have a one-on-one runoff against the older incumbent. I think that creates a very different dynamic than what you see across the country.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think those two races, though, the one in Sacramento with Doris Matsui, who’s 82, versus Mai Vang, who’s 41, and the Thompson-Jones issue is, first of all, Thompson’s not quite as old. He’s 75, I think. But he’s also — he’s from the district, as he said. He’s in the district a lot.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think those two races, though, the one in Sacramento with Doris Matsui, who’s 82, versus Mai Vang, who’s 41, and the Thompson-Jones issue is, first of all, Thompson’s not quite as old. He’s 75, I think. But he’s also — he’s from the district, as he said. He’s in the district a lot.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And you mentioned Napa. This district goes from Petaluma all the way to like Yuba City now with the — after Prop 50. It’s a huge district. And, you know, Eric Jones… Not as well known in the district, and he’s trying to thread this interesting needle where he’s progressive and promoting progressive causes and issues, but he’s also trying to get Republican votes because the district has a lot of Republicans and they may not like Thompson because he’s a Democrat and well-known Democrat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And you mentioned Napa. This district goes from Petaluma all the way to like Yuba City now with the — after Prop 50. It’s a huge district. And, you know, Eric Jones… Not as well known in the district, and he’s trying to thread this interesting needle where he’s progressive and promoting progressive causes and issues, but he’s also trying to get Republican votes because the district has a lot of Republicans and they may not like Thompson because he’s a Democrat and well-known Democrat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, you know, so the one top Republican in the primary, he didn’t make it into the top two, but Ray Relyea has endorsed Jones. And so, you know, you’ve got this kind of odd Republican, but also progressive. And that, to me, raises the question for voters of authenticity. Who is this person?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, you know, so the one top Republican in the primary, he didn’t make it into the top two, but Ray Relyea has endorsed Jones. And so, you know, you’ve got this kind of odd Republican, but also progressive. And that, to me, raises the question for voters of authenticity. Who is this person?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> There’s so much 2014 Ro Khanna in this Eric Jones campaign to me, which is — he, like, to Izzy’s point, very hard to pin down on exactly where on the policy spectrum is he. He’s kind of taking positions that appeal very broadly. And also, yes, running a campaign that’s really centered on this, my opponent’s been in office for a long time, I want to do something different.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> There’s so much 2014 Ro Khanna in this Eric Jones campaign to me, which is — he, like, to Izzy’s point, very hard to pin down on exactly where on the policy spectrum is he. He’s kind of taking positions that appeal very broadly. And also, yes, running a campaign that’s really centered on this, my opponent’s been in office for a long time, I want to do something different.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And kind of, you know, kind of got, you know, blown out the first time he ran in the primary against Mike Honda, got a little closer in the general election, came back and ran the next time. It would not shock me at all if Eric Jones lost this race, he pulls a Forrest Gump and just keeps running. I mean, it just keeps going. And he’s, you know, back on the ballot in two years.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And kind of, you know, kind of got, you know, blown out the first time he ran in the primary against Mike Honda, got a little closer in the general election, came back and ran the next time. It would not shock me at all if Eric Jones lost this race, he pulls a Forrest Gump and just keeps running. I mean, it just keeps going. And he’s, you know, back on the ballot in two years.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Those kind of parallels where it’s like, where does it work? You know, where is he actually standing? He has support from Our Revolution, but then also the Bernie PAC, but then also the top Republican opponent. Yeah, it’s — it’s a —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Those kind of parallels where it’s like, where does it work? You know, where is he actually standing? He has support from Our Revolution, but then also the Bernie PAC, but then also the top Republican opponent. Yeah, it’s — it’s a —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Well, also, the person who ran Ro Khanna’s campaign, Brian Parveshavi, is now the campaign manager for Eric Jones. And they really say, I mean, in 2014, Ro Khanna did lose, but he made up 17 points between the primary and the general election. And Brian Parveshavi says, you know, that runway time between the primary and general really gives Eric Jones the opportunity to build name ID.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Well, also, the person who ran Ro Khanna’s campaign, Brian Parveshavi, is now the campaign manager for Eric Jones. And they really say, I mean, in 2014, Ro Khanna did lose, but he made up 17 points between the primary and the general election. And Brian Parveshavi says, you know, that runway time between the primary and general really gives Eric Jones the opportunity to build name ID.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>They also say that the general electorate tends to be younger and more diverse and working class, which they say is all sort of the types of voters that Eric Jones’s campaign appeals to.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>They also say that the general electorate tends to be younger and more diverse and working class, which they say is all sort of the types of voters that Eric Jones’s campaign appeals to.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. I mean, is there a lane that I want to — I guess, populist lane that’s different from moderate-progressive, or just like somehow opens up some other political space?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. I mean, is there a lane that I want to — I guess, populist lane that’s different from moderate-progressive, or just like somehow opens up some other political space?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think, you know, there are a lot of voters, and we see this, like, in Michigan, where Al-Sayed is actually attracting a fair number of Trump voters, you know, from 2024. People, you know, if you’re anti-establishment, sort of anti-corruption, you know, accountability, those kinds of issues that are, you know, could be progressive, but also appeal to some of the more, you know, conservative voters as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think, you know, there are a lot of voters, and we see this, like, in Michigan, where Al-Sayed is actually attracting a fair number of Trump voters, you know, from 2024. People, you know, if you’re anti-establishment, sort of anti-corruption, you know, accountability, those kinds of issues that are, you know, could be progressive, but also appeal to some of the more, you know, conservative voters as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think that, you know, that is a possibility. I think, though, you can also kind of overreach and be a little too cute.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think that, you know, that is a possibility. I think, though, you can also kind of overreach and be a little too cute.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I think Jones did a video where Obama is talking about the need for generational change. Not talking about this race, not talking about Eric Jones, hasn’t endorsed Eric Jones or Mike Thompson. And then you’ve got pictures of Eric Jones kind of, you know, woven in with Obama and then like a really grainy, old-looking picture of Thompson.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I think Jones did a video where Obama is talking about the need for generational change. Not talking about this race, not talking about Eric Jones, hasn’t endorsed Eric Jones or Mike Thompson. And then you’ve got pictures of Eric Jones kind of, you know, woven in with Obama and then like a really grainy, old-looking picture of Thompson.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And, you know, I think that did not go over well in Obama world, you know, and so it’s one of those things where it’s like, okay, that’s clever, but, you know, maybe not a little bit misleading.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And, you know, I think that did not go over well in Obama world, you know, and so it’s one of those things where it’s like, okay, that’s clever, but, you know, maybe not a little bit misleading.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Also, Thompson’s campaign sort of pushed back on that this week, saying that it’s part of Jones’ being deceptive to voters, because earlier this year there was sort of a similar thing with ads. I mean, the Obama one, if you weren’t paying attention, maybe implied that Obama was endorsing him, but in the caption it said it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Also, Thompson’s campaign sort of pushed back on that this week, saying that it’s part of Jones’ being deceptive to voters, because earlier this year there was sort of a similar thing with ads. I mean, the Obama one, if you weren’t paying attention, maybe implied that Obama was endorsing him, but in the caption it said it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, Jones put out a video of him talking to Representative Latifah and Dolores Huerta, and then it didn’t say that it wasn’t an endorsement, sort of implied that it was. They didn’t know he was recording. They said that it wasn’t an endorsement. He had to take it down and then reposted it saying it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, Jones put out a video of him talking to Representative Latifah and Dolores Huerta, and then it didn’t say that it wasn’t an endorsement, sort of implied that it was. They didn’t know he was recording. They said that it wasn’t an endorsement. He had to take it down and then reposted it saying it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Ethics, ethical issues.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Ethics, ethical issues.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting. We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, Izzy Bloom here in the studio with us. We want to hear from you. If you’re looking at one of these congressional races here in Northern California, what issues matter most to you? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy, I don’t know, data centers. That’s probably it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting. We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, Izzy Bloom here in the studio with us. We want to hear from you. If you’re looking at one of these congressional races here in Northern California, what issues matter most to you? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy, I don’t know, data centers. That’s probably it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Give us a call. 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. You can email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord. You know, let’s go to Patricia in San Rafael. Welcome, Patricia.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Give us a call. 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. You can email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord. You know, let’s go to Patricia in San Rafael. Welcome, Patricia.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, can you hear me?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, can you hear me?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, sure can. Go ahead.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, sure can. Go ahead.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, great. I just wanted to bring up something about Wiener’s legislation for housing and the way it’s affecting San Rafael is that the developers are going way out of scale with 17-story, 24-story buildings and others that aren’t quite that outrageous. And the city people are not allowed, because of the way the legislation favors the developers, to question whether or not we have the infrastructure, the parking, and all kinds of things like that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, great. I just wanted to bring up something about Wiener’s legislation for housing and the way it’s affecting San Rafael is that the developers are going way out of scale with 17-story, 24-story buildings and others that aren’t quite that outrageous. And the city people are not allowed, because of the way the legislation favors the developers, to question whether or not we have the infrastructure, the parking, and all kinds of things like that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>It’s just, those are being thrown out the window, and I’m all for housing, but I think it’s just gone over the edge for that kind of building.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>It’s just, those are being thrown out the window, and I’m all for housing, but I think it’s just gone over the edge for that kind of building.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Patricia, thanks for that perspective. I’m curious, Scott, you mentioned in our first segment that Scott Wiener has gotten lots of stuff done. You also mentioned that housing can cut both ways. That seemed like such a perfect example that when you get something done, you change the law and the law enables new things like big towers in San Rafael. Now there’s some opposition.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Patricia, thanks for that perspective. I’m curious, Scott, you mentioned in our first segment that Scott Wiener has gotten lots of stuff done. You also mentioned that housing can cut both ways. That seemed like such a perfect example that when you get something done, you change the law and the law enables new things like big towers in San Rafael. Now there’s some opposition.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He’s not running in San Rafael. He’s probably happy about having heard that call. Yeah, no, there was the Marina Safeway as well, which caused a lot of consternation among people in that neighborhood, but also support as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He’s not running in San Rafael. He’s probably happy about having heard that call. Yeah, no, there was the Marina Safeway as well, which caused a lot of consternation among people in that neighborhood, but also support as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, some of these things that get ascribed to Wiener legislation aren’t really because of that. There’s other issues. Some of these zoning and permitting issues are a little bit complicated, but there’s no question that he has authored legislation that will allow for more density, higher buildings, especially near transit corridors.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, some of these things that get ascribed to Wiener legislation aren’t really because of that. There’s other issues. Some of these zoning and permitting issues are a little bit complicated, but there’s no question that he has authored legislation that will allow for more density, higher buildings, especially near transit corridors.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Now, I’m not sure where that building is, proposed building in San Rafael. But here in San Francisco, if you’re on a Muni line, a BART line, and I think a lot of public policy people would say that is where you want higher density, because so that people don’t need to rely on cars, they can use the public transit.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Now, I’m not sure where that building is, proposed building in San Rafael. But here in San Francisco, if you’re on a Muni line, a BART line, and I think a lot of public policy people would say that is where you want higher density, because so that people don’t need to rely on cars, they can use the public transit.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But it is controversial, and it’s like, well, I like more housing, but not here. Do it over there. And that was the point, kind of, Connie Chan sort of made as well. Her district has had the least amount of housing of any of the Supervisors since she got there in 2021, 2022. And she said, yeah, but, you know, there’s all this new housing in South of Market in the Mission, you know. It’s like, well, that’s kind of the point.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But it is controversial, and it’s like, well, I like more housing, but not here. Do it over there. And that was the point, kind of, Connie Chan sort of made as well. Her district has had the least amount of housing of any of the Supervisors since she got there in 2021, 2022. And she said, yeah, but, you know, there’s all this new housing in South of Market in the Mission, you know. It’s like, well, that’s kind of the point.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But I mean, we talk about housing as an issue that could potentially kind of scramble coalition and alliances in the map in this race, because Connie Chan in the primary won the Sunset neighborhood. That’s traditionally a neighborhood that goes for more moderate candidates. Daniel Lurie won the Sunset when he ran for mayor.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But I mean, we talk about housing as an issue that could potentially kind of scramble coalition and alliances in the map in this race, because Connie Chan in the primary won the Sunset neighborhood. That’s traditionally a neighborhood that goes for more moderate candidates. Daniel Lurie won the Sunset when he ran for mayor.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Like, who are the Chan-Lurie voters in this race? And is the issue of housing one of those kind of parochial issues where people feel like, look, maybe Connie Chan is too far left for me on issues like public safety. She, you know, said, I want to dismantle the police department a few years ago. She said that was kind of a misquote, but like, that’s something that stuck with her.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Like, who are the Chan-Lurie voters in this race? And is the issue of housing one of those kind of parochial issues where people feel like, look, maybe Connie Chan is too far left for me on issues like public safety. She, you know, said, I want to dismantle the police department a few years ago. She said that was kind of a misquote, but like, that’s something that stuck with her.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Um, is that an issue where voters on the West Side feel like, oh, I have some hesitation about Scott Wiener, even though he’s more of a moderate politician, because of housing? Chan will, if she’s going to win this race, she will need those kinds of realignments, uh, to kind of change —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Um, is that an issue where voters on the West Side feel like, oh, I have some hesitation about Scott Wiener, even though he’s more of a moderate politician, because of housing? Chan will, if she’s going to win this race, she will need those kinds of realignments, uh, to kind of change —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Connie Chan speaks for me, but only on housing.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Connie Chan speaks for me, but only on housing.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think Wiener did win her district, right? In the Richmond. He did win the Richmond in the primary, for what it’s worth.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think Wiener did win her district, right? In the Richmond. He did win the Richmond in the primary, for what it’s worth.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Caroline in San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Caroline in San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s perfect because I am from the Richmond district and in Connie Chan’s, and I am voting for Wiener because, for me, as a die-hard progressive, we have to send somebody to Washington who can get things done. And so I have voted for Chan in the past, but I will be voting for Wiener as I — I just really, truly believe we have — we have to see more, um, we had to get some of that Pelosi energy back, which we haven’t had for a long time representing us. And I’m really excited to see him to be there and to drive that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s perfect because I am from the Richmond district and in Connie Chan’s, and I am voting for Wiener because, for me, as a die-hard progressive, we have to send somebody to Washington who can get things done. And so I have voted for Chan in the past, but I will be voting for Wiener as I — I just really, truly believe we have — we have to see more, um, we had to get some of that Pelosi energy back, which we haven’t had for a long time representing us. And I’m really excited to see him to be there and to drive that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And on the other note, especially on the housing note, he’s just the technocratic side of him. One of the first things he worked on was SB 35, which was the bill for affordable housing, and everybody in San Francisco, progressives, moderates, want to see affordable housing. And so that’s just demonstrative of how effective he will be. And I’ve gotten very passionate, more passionate about this than I thought I would, but I just wanted to give my two cents.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And on the other note, especially on the housing note, he’s just the technocratic side of him. One of the first things he worked on was SB 35, which was the bill for affordable housing, and everybody in San Francisco, progressives, moderates, want to see affordable housing. And so that’s just demonstrative of how effective he will be. And I’ve gotten very passionate, more passionate about this than I thought I would, but I just wanted to give my two cents.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, appreciate the passion. People getting into this race, clearly, this is a hot one here in the city for sure.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, appreciate the passion. People getting into this race, clearly, this is a hot one here in the city for sure.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanna turn things briefly to another race. Congressional District 1 reaches into Sonoma County. This is one that pits incumbent Republican James Gallagher and Democrat Mike McGuire.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanna turn things briefly to another race. Congressional District 1 reaches into Sonoma County. This is one that pits incumbent Republican James Gallagher and Democrat Mike McGuire.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> About this. So James Gallagher took office this year. He won a special election following the death of Representative Doug LaMalfa. He ran in that election under the old lines, under our old congressional district lines, in which the first district was really a safe Republican seat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> About this. So James Gallagher took office this year. He won a special election following the death of Representative Doug LaMalfa. He ran in that election under the old lines, under our old congressional district lines, in which the first district was really a safe Republican seat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This district was completely reshaped and transformed by Proposition 50, and the way that happened was the lines were dragged down into Sonoma County. Suddenly you have all these blue Democratic voters in Sonoma County that will make up the base of this district now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This district was completely reshaped and transformed by Proposition 50, and the way that happened was the lines were dragged down into Sonoma County. Suddenly you have all these blue Democratic voters in Sonoma County that will make up the base of this district now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Gallagher now faces an uphill climb to win reelection under the new line. So he’s facing Mike McGuire, who is a state senator, previously the pro tem of the state Senate, who under these new lines gets to run with all these North Bay Democrats.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Gallagher now faces an uphill climb to win reelection under the new line. So he’s facing Mike McGuire, who is a state senator, previously the pro tem of the state Senate, who under these new lines gets to run with all these North Bay Democrats.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This is one of the seats when Democrats kind of drew up that Proposition 50 map. They felt like, okay, we know we’re gonna get — flip this seat as part of their effort to take back the House of Representatives.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This is one of the seats when Democrats kind of drew up that Proposition 50 map. They felt like, okay, we know we’re gonna get — flip this seat as part of their effort to take back the House of Representatives.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So just to put some numbers to it, I think these are your numbers, Guy. Under the previous map, Donald Trump carried the district by roughly 25 points in 2024. Under the new boundaries, Kamala Harris would have carried it by about 12. And that’s just basically Santa Rosa is the end.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So just to put some numbers to it, I think these are your numbers, Guy. Under the previous map, Donald Trump carried the district by roughly 25 points in 2024. Under the new boundaries, Kamala Harris would have carried it by about 12. And that’s just basically Santa Rosa is the end.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. And when you’re talking about, you know, breaking down any House district in America, the single best predictor, how do they vote for president?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. And when you’re talking about, you know, breaking down any House district in America, the single best predictor, how do they vote for president?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. And is this just essentially a down-the-line, like, partisan battle? Like, are you voting R? Are you voting D in this one?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. And is this just essentially a down-the-line, like, partisan battle? Like, are you voting R? Are you voting D in this one?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I would guess that’s how it breaks out. I would imagine Gallagher, you know, retain strength in more of the more northern rural parts of this district. And those numbers are simply just outweighed by the number of voters in Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I would guess that’s how it breaks out. I would imagine Gallagher, you know, retain strength in more of the more northern rural parts of this district. And those numbers are simply just outweighed by the number of voters in Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I’m sure for folks in the North Bay, like, this is an exciting organizing opportunity. They get to be in one of the seats that will potentially flip and help Democrats potentially retake the House of Representatives. So I’m sure you’re going to see a strong turnout there.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I’m sure for folks in the North Bay, like, this is an exciting organizing opportunity. They get to be in one of the seats that will potentially flip and help Democrats potentially retake the House of Representatives. So I’m sure you’re going to see a strong turnout there.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, curious. I mean, how important is California to this, you know, effort to retake the House? I mean, how’s it looking?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, curious. I mean, how important is California to this, you know, effort to retake the House? I mean, how’s it looking?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s very important just because we have so many seats. I mean, with Prop 50, I think the hope among Democrats was that they could flip five of those seats. They had a near-death experience with one of those seats where Kevin Kiley up in the Sacramento foothills area, very, very — he switched to independent. And he and a very kind of fringy Republican almost made it into the top two before all the votes were counted.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s very important just because we have so many seats. I mean, with Prop 50, I think the hope among Democrats was that they could flip five of those seats. They had a near-death experience with one of those seats where Kevin Kiley up in the Sacramento foothills area, very, very — he switched to independent. And he and a very kind of fringy Republican almost made it into the top two before all the votes were counted.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So some of these things are a little hard to tell ahead of time. But, you know, many of these races, I mean, as Guy said, it went from a whatever-plus for Trump to 12 for Harris, you know, the new district. That’s, you know, that looks good for Democrats, but some of these, they’re not slam dunks.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So some of these things are a little hard to tell ahead of time. But, you know, many of these races, I mean, as Guy said, it went from a whatever-plus for Trump to 12 for Harris, you know, the new district. That’s, you know, that looks good for Democrats, but some of these, they’re not slam dunks.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I mean, if you look at the one, the seat down in San Diego, Riverside, where you’ve got Issa not running and you’ve got a Republican and a Democrat, that’s a competitive seat. Same with Adam Gray, the incumbent Democrat. I mean, so, you know, these are not slam dunks. You know, easy layups for the Democrats. They’re gonna have to earn some of these wins.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I mean, if you look at the one, the seat down in San Diego, Riverside, where you’ve got Issa not running and you’ve got a Republican and a Democrat, that’s a competitive seat. Same with Adam Gray, the incumbent Democrat. I mean, so, you know, these are not slam dunks. You know, easy layups for the Democrats. They’re gonna have to earn some of these wins.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But to your point, your question, you know, they need to pick up three or four in California, I think, you know, or at least they would like to. I mean, we’re talking, how big is the margin gonna be? You know, I think certainly the conventional wisdom is Democrats are gonna win back the House. Question is how big the majority is gonna be. And California could be a big part. Yeah, absolutely.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But to your point, your question, you know, they need to pick up three or four in California, I think, you know, or at least they would like to. I mean, we’re talking, how big is the margin gonna be? You know, I think certainly the conventional wisdom is Democrats are gonna win back the House. Question is how big the majority is gonna be. And California could be a big part. Yeah, absolutely.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. But less of a big — I mean, the fact is Prop 50 reduced the playing field of what’s competitive. That’s the point, right? It’s like, make it more Democratic. In previous years, we had four, five, six, seven, eight competitive districts. Now we’re down to three.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. But less of a big — I mean, the fact is Prop 50 reduced the playing field of what’s competitive. That’s the point, right? It’s like, make it more Democratic. In previous years, we had four, five, six, seven, eight competitive districts. Now we’re down to three.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although one of the more interesting ones has two Republicans running, you know, Young Kim versus Ken Calvert, who are both currently in Congress. And they are going at it, you know, hammer and tong at each other. That one’s going to be very interesting.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although one of the more interesting ones has two Republicans running, you know, Young Kim versus Ken Calvert, who are both currently in Congress. And they are going at it, you know, hammer and tong at each other. That one’s going to be very interesting.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi, \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. Great baseline for thinking about this Scott Wiener, Connie Chan race.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi, \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. Great baseline for thinking about this Scott Wiener, Connie Chan race.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’ve got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics Desk. We’ve got Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer on the desk as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’ve got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics Desk. We’ve got Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer on the desk as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We wanna hear from you. I mean, do you have newly drawn congressional district lines? Has it changed where you’re voting? Do you feel like it’s gonna have an impact? What about, how much do you value experience and seniority in Congress, or are you more drawn to candidates who are promising kind of generational change or newness just in general?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We wanna hear from you. I mean, do you have newly drawn congressional district lines? Has it changed where you’re voting? Do you feel like it’s gonna have an impact? What about, how much do you value experience and seniority in Congress, or are you more drawn to candidates who are promising kind of generational change or newness just in general?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You can give us a call. The number is 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord, or KQED Forum for all those things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You can give us a call. The number is 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord, or KQED Forum for all those things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Before we go to the break, real quick, Guy, do you wanna give the pitch for our KQED voter guide?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Before we go to the break, real quick, Guy, do you wanna give the pitch for our KQED voter guide?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s do it. KQED.org/voter-guide, state elections, Bay Area elections, and this year, for the first time, a school board voter guide. I know that’s one that often goes overlooked, hard to find information. You’re probably like texting, oh, who’s my friend who might know something about school? No, we sent out a questionnaire to every school board candidate in the Bay Area on a variety of relevant issues and hope you’ll check it out.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s do it. KQED.org/voter-guide, state elections, Bay Area elections, and this year, for the first time, a school board voter guide. I know that’s one that often goes overlooked, hard to find information. You’re probably like texting, oh, who’s my friend who might know something about school? No, we sent out a questionnaire to every school board candidate in the Bay Area on a variety of relevant issues and hope you’ll check it out.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Am I going to figure out Props 40, 41, 42, whatever, all that whole set of props? I had Marissa Lagos on that. You will understand it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Am I going to figure out Props 40, 41, 42, whatever, all that whole set of props? I had Marissa Lagos on that. You will understand it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’ll be back with more on our local congressional races right after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’ll be back with more on our local congressional races right after the break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, and Izzy Bloom from KQED’s politics team. We’re talking about our local congressional races. We’re gonna get to Alameda County in a second, but first let’s bring in Chris in Sonoma County. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, and Izzy Bloom from KQED’s politics team. We’re talking about our local congressional races. We’re gonna get to Alameda County in a second, but first let’s bring in Chris in Sonoma County. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, you know, I was calling because I’m a younger voter. I have a young family. I’m progressive that supports a lot of the new wave like El-Sayed and Mamdani and AOC, but I’m very, very much pro-Mike Thompson here from Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, you know, I was calling because I’m a younger voter. I have a young family. I’m progressive that supports a lot of the new wave like El-Sayed and Mamdani and AOC, but I’m very, very much pro-Mike Thompson here from Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I just feel like the Eric Jones race has been really disingenuous. He’s backed by Reform California, which is a right-wing conservative PAC. And I just wanna put in there that people think Mike Thompson’s a Blue Dog, but in my experience, not only has he stood up for us for fire survivors, the nine-year anniversary of the Tubbs fire, but he’s got a 97% environmental voting record, 95% labor, he was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, like… Seem to know —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I just feel like the Eric Jones race has been really disingenuous. He’s backed by Reform California, which is a right-wing conservative PAC. And I just wanna put in there that people think Mike Thompson’s a Blue Dog, but in my experience, not only has he stood up for us for fire survivors, the nine-year anniversary of the Tubbs fire, but he’s got a 97% environmental voting record, 95% labor, he was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, like… Seem to know —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Big fans!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Big fans!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Chris, I know. I appreciate your taking a look at this race and providing your perspective as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Chris, I know. I appreciate your taking a look at this race and providing your perspective as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Let’s bring in Bob in Santa Rosa and we’ll take these together. Hey, Bob, I’m Santa Rosa, welcome!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Let’s bring in Bob in Santa Rosa and we’ll take these together. Hey, Bob, I’m Santa Rosa, welcome!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Oh, hi!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Oh, hi!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Well, thank you very much. Listen, I’ve heard everything everybody’s saying, but what I haven’t heard is anyone talking about the immigration issues, particularly in Sonoma County, probably Napa also, and the collaboration with ICE in the sheriff’s department up here, the amount of deportation centers and camps that people are sent to.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Well, thank you very much. Listen, I’ve heard everything everybody’s saying, but what I haven’t heard is anyone talking about the immigration issues, particularly in Sonoma County, probably Napa also, and the collaboration with ICE in the sheriff’s department up here, the amount of deportation centers and camps that people are sent to.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I think it’s a shadow issue, actually, for sure, in Sonoma. It’s easy to be what seems to be a liberal and not deal at all with the fact that our sheriff here in Sonoma County turns people, the names of people who are being released from jail, over to ICE and they get picked up outside the county jail.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I think it’s a shadow issue, actually, for sure, in Sonoma. It’s easy to be what seems to be a liberal and not deal at all with the fact that our sheriff here in Sonoma County turns people, the names of people who are being released from jail, over to ICE and they get picked up outside the county jail.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And you haven’t heard it from any of the congressional candidates.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And you haven’t heard it from any of the congressional candidates.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Not that I can tell. No. They all say, I’m against that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Not that I can tell. No. They all say, I’m against that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Bob in Santa Rosa, thanks so much. How much do you think, you know, obviously nationally immigration for Donald Trump still remains one of his better issues and still under water, but relative to, say, the economy, it’s doing relatively better there. How much has this played into any of the races that we know about up here around here?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Bob in Santa Rosa, thanks so much. How much do you think, you know, obviously nationally immigration for Donald Trump still remains one of his better issues and still under water, but relative to, say, the economy, it’s doing relatively better there. How much has this played into any of the races that we know about up here around here?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> That’s — yeah, go ahead. That’s interesting. I mean, that point specifically, I have not heard the candidates talk about local sheriff cooperation. So that was fascinating to hear.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> That’s — yeah, go ahead. That’s interesting. I mean, that point specifically, I have not heard the candidates talk about local sheriff cooperation. So that was fascinating to hear.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It does depend. I mean, the law in California does allow if there’s a violent criminal who is going to be released, I think the sheriff can let them know. They don’t turn them over, right. But, you know, certainly — yeah. So I’ll just leave it at that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It does depend. I mean, the law in California does allow if there’s a violent criminal who is going to be released, I think the sheriff can let them know. They don’t turn them over, right. But, you know, certainly — yeah. So I’ll just leave it at that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think with most of the races that we’ve been talking about in the Bay Area, there’s not a lot of daylight between the candidates. You know, maybe Gallagher and McGuire up there. That’s a different question. But here in the Bay Area, I think maybe it hasn’t come up because there’s not much difference between the two candidates.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think with most of the races that we’ve been talking about in the Bay Area, there’s not a lot of daylight between the candidates. You know, maybe Gallagher and McGuire up there. That’s a different question. But here in the Bay Area, I think maybe it hasn’t come up because there’s not much difference between the two candidates.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I do think that’s — in District 4, they’re pretty much on the same page. Eric Jones has said that he would want to move ICE out of the Department of Homeland Security, to eliminate additional funding he received in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year. But I don’t think he’s taking quite as strong a position as Mai Vang in District 7 over in Sacramento, where she’s calling for abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I do think that’s — in District 4, they’re pretty much on the same page. Eric Jones has said that he would want to move ICE out of the Department of Homeland Security, to eliminate additional funding he received in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year. But I don’t think he’s taking quite as strong a position as Mai Vang in District 7 over in Sacramento, where she’s calling for abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Uh-huh. Yeah, it’s — my thing, and we’re going to turn to the Alameda County race again in a second. But is Mai Vang kind of our most progressive-wave kind of a candidate out there?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Uh-huh. Yeah, it’s — my thing, and we’re going to turn to the Alameda County race again in a second. But is Mai Vang kind of our most progressive-wave kind of a candidate out there?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think she’s taking on that mantle a lot more. You know, she’s taken on like Medicare for All and, like I said, abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think she’s taking on that mantle a lot more. You know, she’s taken on like Medicare for All and, like I said, abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> These are like Bernie cred out here.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> These are like Bernie cred out here.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, definitely. And I think, you know, the not accepting corporate PAC money is something that we see from also Eric Jones, but Mai Vang as well.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, definitely. And I think, you know, the not accepting corporate PAC money is something that we see from also Eric Jones, but Mai Vang as well.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> All right, let’s bring in Sunil in Livermore. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> All right, let’s bring in Sunil in Livermore. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you. I want to talk about the district here in Livermore, Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, that is Eric Swalwell’s former district. I’m waiting for — I’m definitely voting for Aisha Wahab.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you. I want to talk about the district here in Livermore, Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, that is Eric Swalwell’s former district. I’m waiting for — I’m definitely voting for Aisha Wahab.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What I wanted to talk is the lack of enthusiasm among the South Asian. And I see a hint of Islamophobia with Ayesha Wahhab. And I would like to hear from your guest who is leading right now between these two candidates and any thoughts on, because there is a large population of Indian Americans, unfortunately, I have not seen that kind of enthusiasm for Ayesha Wahab. Any comment?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What I wanted to talk is the lack of enthusiasm among the South Asian. And I see a hint of Islamophobia with Ayesha Wahhab. And I would like to hear from your guest who is leading right now between these two candidates and any thoughts on, because there is a large population of Indian Americans, unfortunately, I have not seen that kind of enthusiasm for Ayesha Wahab. Any comment?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Sunil, really, really appreciate it. That is, of course, Aisha Wahab, Melissa Hernandez, seat formerly held by Eric Swalwell. Guy, do you wanna take this one on?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Sunil, really, really appreciate it. That is, of course, Aisha Wahab, Melissa Hernandez, seat formerly held by Eric Swalwell. Guy, do you wanna take this one on?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was an election, you know, Hernandez, Wahab both on the ballot in the June primary because Swalwell had decided to run for governor, not for reelection. Then scandal broke, sexual misconduct allegations, he resigns from his seat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was an election, you know, Hernandez, Wahab both on the ballot in the June primary because Swalwell had decided to run for governor, not for reelection. Then scandal broke, sexual misconduct allegations, he resigns from his seat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There was also a concurrent special election between these two. Wahab won the initial primary there. Things got really interesting in the special election in August because we started to see millions of dollars come from AIPAC supporting Melissa Hernandez.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There was also a concurrent special election between these two. Wahab won the initial primary there. Things got really interesting in the special election in August because we started to see millions of dollars come from AIPAC supporting Melissa Hernandez.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There had not really been any public discussion about America’s relationship with Israel besides Wahab making a comment in a candidate forum that she considered Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. Nevertheless, we saw this money pour in. All of a sudden, the special election got pretty close. Hernandez was down 20 points in the primary. The special election, Wahab ended up winning by only six points.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There had not really been any public discussion about America’s relationship with Israel besides Wahab making a comment in a candidate forum that she considered Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. Nevertheless, we saw this money pour in. All of a sudden, the special election got pretty close. Hernandez was down 20 points in the primary. The special election, Wahab ended up winning by only six points.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So there was this thinking, okay, this is now potentially a collision course. In the November election, where we’re gonna see this national discussion about Israel play out here, that hasn’t happened. Instead, AIPAC has completely stopped spending money after the special election. Hernandez has not had that outside backing that she had. Wahab is now running as an incumbent.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So there was this thinking, okay, this is now potentially a collision course. In the November election, where we’re gonna see this national discussion about Israel play out here, that hasn’t happened. Instead, AIPAC has completely stopped spending money after the special election. Hernandez has not had that outside backing that she had. Wahab is now running as an incumbent.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so a very different race than where we thought it might just be even just a few weeks ago.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so a very different race than where we thought it might just be even just a few weeks ago.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>To the caller’s point, though, I have not done any reporting on what he raised about — are there concerns, Islamophobia, concerns about Wahab. I will note, though, the areas where we saw some of the biggest falloff in support for Wahab, Mission San Jose neighborhood in Fremont, a lot of Indian American neighborhoods where we heard her vote totals drop between the primary election and the special election.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>To the caller’s point, though, I have not done any reporting on what he raised about — are there concerns, Islamophobia, concerns about Wahab. I will note, though, the areas where we saw some of the biggest falloff in support for Wahab, Mission San Jose neighborhood in Fremont, a lot of Indian American neighborhoods where we heard her vote totals drop between the primary election and the special election.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>There were a lot of negative ads run against her on a variety of issues. And I wondered… Some of that, issues that caller brought up, I have not done any more in-depth reporting into that, but I do wonder if some of those kind of negative attacks took a hit on Wahab ahead of the August election.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>There were a lot of negative ads run against her on a variety of issues. And I wondered… Some of that, issues that caller brought up, I have not done any more in-depth reporting into that, but I do wonder if some of those kind of negative attacks took a hit on Wahab ahead of the August election.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and there was a piece of legislation that she authored that basically would have beefed up civil rights protections against caste discrimination. And that really divided the Asian community in that district. I think Newsom ultimately vetoed that bill, but she took a lot of heat for that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and there was a piece of legislation that she authored that basically would have beefed up civil rights protections against caste discrimination. And that really divided the Asian community in that district. I think Newsom ultimately vetoed that bill, but she took a lot of heat for that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I don’t know if that’s what reflects what the caller is talking about, but that did happen.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I don’t know if that’s what reflects what the caller is talking about, but that did happen.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, I remember we did a show on some of the reporting around these caste issues, and it was very, very heated on the phone lines.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, I remember we did a show on some of the reporting around these caste issues, and it was very, very heated on the phone lines.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And just to set the table, let’s see, Wahab defeated Hernandez in the August runoff 53-47, right? So it was like fairly close. And so the presumption here is maybe things are not as close, but we just don’t know.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And just to set the table, let’s see, Wahab defeated Hernandez in the August runoff 53-47, right? So it was like fairly close. And so the presumption here is maybe things are not as close, but we just don’t know.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think we might look at that as the high-water mark, at least of, like, outside support for Hernandez, because that’s really what propelled her.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think we might look at that as the high-water mark, at least of, like, outside support for Hernandez, because that’s really what propelled her.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I mean, I think AIPAC, these outside groups made a bet that we have this really short window in a special election where if we just flood the zone with money — I mean, they were running broadcast TV ads that were running across the Bay Area. Most of the people watching those ads didn’t even vote in the district, but it was just pouring money into this. Let’s try to get a quick win in an election.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I mean, I think AIPAC, these outside groups made a bet that we have this really short window in a special election where if we just flood the zone with money — I mean, they were running broadcast TV ads that were running across the Bay Area. Most of the people watching those ads didn’t even vote in the district, but it was just pouring money into this. Let’s try to get a quick win in an election.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You saw members of California’s congressional delegation add on support Hernandez. It’s a very different thing once Wahab is the incumbent. Now, are those same members of the delegation, folks like Zoe Lofgren who is critical of Wahab, is she going to be spending her time going after a member of the delegation when, like, Democrats are trying to take back the House nationally? A little bit of a different calculation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You saw members of California’s congressional delegation add on support Hernandez. It’s a very different thing once Wahab is the incumbent. Now, are those same members of the delegation, folks like Zoe Lofgren who is critical of Wahab, is she going to be spending her time going after a member of the delegation when, like, Democrats are trying to take back the House nationally? A little bit of a different calculation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there was also kind of a brushback from organized labor. Lorena Gonzalez, you know, when Zoe Lofgren released a video just before the election attacking Wahab for — I don’t know if we want to go into it, but, you know, she declined — she declined to step aside so they could have a caretaker when Swalwell resigned, and they had a kind of, you know, they wanted to avoid an expensive, messy primary, in which they ended up having.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there was also kind of a brushback from organized labor. Lorena Gonzalez, you know, when Zoe Lofgren released a video just before the election attacking Wahab for — I don’t know if we want to go into it, but, you know, she declined — she declined to step aside so they could have a caretaker when Swalwell resigned, and they had a kind of, you know, they wanted to avoid an expensive, messy primary, in which they ended up having.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, you know, but I think to Guy’s point, she’s now the incumbent. And they’re all about loyalty. Also, does the worm turn on AIPAC —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, you know, but I think to Guy’s point, she’s now the incumbent. And they’re all about loyalty. Also, does the worm turn on AIPAC —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> PAC spending, right. It was effective because there was a few weeks stretch there where it was just — they were blanketing the district with ads, and it’s like, where’s this — what’s happening? Where’s this coming from?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> PAC spending, right. It was effective because there was a few weeks stretch there where it was just — they were blanketing the district with ads, and it’s like, where’s this — what’s happening? Where’s this coming from?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Then once the story kind of takes shape that, oh, this is spending from this group that Democrats nationwide have kind of started to be critical of, takes on a little bit different picture.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Then once the story kind of takes shape that, oh, this is spending from this group that Democrats nationwide have kind of started to be critical of, takes on a little bit different picture.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, and they — I think they just saw they tried a whole bunch of different attacks. Aisha Wahab, it didn’t work, and they’re probably trying to spend their money on other races. They’ve been kind of like kryptonite for a lot of the candidates they’ve supported in this election cycle.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, and they — I think they just saw they tried a whole bunch of different attacks. Aisha Wahab, it didn’t work, and they’re probably trying to spend their money on other races. They’ve been kind of like kryptonite for a lot of the candidates they’ve supported in this election cycle.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Colin in San Francisco, kind of a callback to the top of the show and Scott Wiener, but also on the topic of Israel. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Colin in San Francisco, kind of a callback to the top of the show and Scott Wiener, but also on the topic of Israel. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Good morning. Today the third anniversary of the October 7 attack on Israel. At the time, Scott Wiener posted on that, that what’s happening in Israel is not a both-side situation. Scott also referenced Israel’s right to defend itself without any mention of Palestinian civilian casualties, even though by then the Israeli government had signaled that it would respond harshly to the Hamas assault.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Good morning. Today the third anniversary of the October 7 attack on Israel. At the time, Scott Wiener posted on that, that what’s happening in Israel is not a both-side situation. Scott also referenced Israel’s right to defend itself without any mention of Palestinian civilian casualties, even though by then the Israeli government had signaled that it would respond harshly to the Hamas assault.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>As a state legislator, Wiener also criticized the nonviolent BDS movement and was instrumental in passing AB 715 as a law that would potentially subject students and teachers to disciplinary actions for criticism of Israel.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>As a state legislator, Wiener also criticized the nonviolent BDS movement and was instrumental in passing AB 715 as a law that would potentially subject students and teachers to disciplinary actions for criticism of Israel.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I’d have to question whether Wiener’s calling Israel’s actions in Gaza to be genocide is all that genuine. Is he just saying what he thinks he needs to say to win in the district, where Israel’s actions over the past three years and AIPAC spending on our elections have proven to be deeply unpopular?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I’d have to question whether Wiener’s calling Israel’s actions in Gaza to be genocide is all that genuine. Is he just saying what he thinks he needs to say to win in the district, where Israel’s actions over the past three years and AIPAC spending on our elections have proven to be deeply unpopular?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Come on, let’s take that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Come on, let’s take that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our panel here.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our panel here.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, the issue of whether or not what Israel has done in Gaza is genocide came up in one of the debates during the primary, where Wiener declined to say yes or no, and then had to — you know, he got some blowback and said yes, it’s genocide.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, the issue of whether or not what Israel has done in Gaza is genocide came up in one of the debates during the primary, where Wiener declined to say yes or no, and then had to — you know, he got some blowback and said yes, it’s genocide.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>He’s, you know, to be fair, Wiener, who’s Jewish, has been very critical of Israel, Netanyahu for sure, and I think the differences between Chan and Wiener on this issue have narrowed.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>He’s, you know, to be fair, Wiener, who’s Jewish, has been very critical of Israel, Netanyahu for sure, and I think the differences between Chan and Wiener on this issue have narrowed.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I mean, Guy mentioned earlier that Chan is now supporting a full arms embargo, even for defensive weapons. Though that is a difference. I think if you had to say who is more, I don’t know, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, however you wanna say it, Chan is certainly more to the left, I guess you would say, from Wiener.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I mean, Guy mentioned earlier that Chan is now supporting a full arms embargo, even for defensive weapons. Though that is a difference. I think if you had to say who is more, I don’t know, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, however you wanna say it, Chan is certainly more to the left, I guess you would say, from Wiener.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>But I think really, there’s not a lot of daylight between the two of them. I mean, there are some nuances, but the reality is, I mean, if this is your top issue, that’s how you’re going to vote. And there are some voters for whom this is the top issue, and they’ll decide one way or the other on both sides of that question.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>But I think really, there’s not a lot of daylight between the two of them. I mean, there are some nuances, but the reality is, I mean, if this is your top issue, that’s how you’re going to vote. And there are some voters for whom this is the top issue, and they’ll decide one way or the other on both sides of that question.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah, yeah, for sure.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah, yeah, for sure.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Brandon in Foster City. Welcome, Brandon.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Brandon in Foster City. Welcome, Brandon.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you, guys. Good morning. I just want to say I had attended the rally with Bernie and Jane Kim in Rilcon last Saturday at the Curran Theater. It was originally scheduled to be at the Warfield, but they had to change it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you, guys. Good morning. I just want to say I had attended the rally with Bernie and Jane Kim in Rilcon last Saturday at the Curran Theater. It was originally scheduled to be at the Warfield, but they had to change it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I just wanna say that Bernie was born in 1941 and he’s 85 years old, and I can’t believe how sharp that guy is. And I just want to say he inspires everybody to be, you know, for progressives. And I’m about to vote yes on Prop 40 and no on 41 and 42, and I just want to give a little plug for that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I just wanna say that Bernie was born in 1941 and he’s 85 years old, and I can’t believe how sharp that guy is. And I just want to say he inspires everybody to be, you know, for progressives. And I’m about to vote yes on Prop 40 and no on 41 and 42, and I just want to give a little plug for that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And thank you, KQED. I hope my business does well and I can become a sponsor. And bless you guys. You guys are having such good times.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And thank you, KQED. I hope my business does well and I can become a sponsor. And bless you guys. You guys are having such good times.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Thanks, Brandon. Appreciate that. Appreciate people’s civic enthusiasm always. Love it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Thanks, Brandon. Appreciate that. Appreciate people’s civic enthusiasm always. Love it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You know, Emily’s on the Discord writes in to say, you know, this is about the McGuire-Gallagher race. She says, “I’m in that redrawn district and a registered Democrat. I haven’t seen or heard anything from either candidate yet. It’s hard to buy TV since it stretches across three TV markets. But my neighbors who are registered no party preference are getting flooded with Gallagher direct mail pieces, trying to disqualify McGuire on character grounds. Even with the Harris-Tilton 2024, I wonder what proportion of the district is no party preference and getting a very different picture of the candidates than registered Democrats.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You know, Emily’s on the Discord writes in to say, you know, this is about the McGuire-Gallagher race. She says, “I’m in that redrawn district and a registered Democrat. I haven’t seen or heard anything from either candidate yet. It’s hard to buy TV since it stretches across three TV markets. But my neighbors who are registered no party preference are getting flooded with Gallagher direct mail pieces, trying to disqualify McGuire on character grounds. Even with the Harris-Tilton 2024, I wonder what proportion of the district is no party preference and getting a very different picture of the candidates than registered Democrats.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Mm-hmm. That’s interesting. That does seem interesting, isn’t it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Mm-hmm. That’s interesting. That does seem interesting, isn’t it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, you definitely — they do target, like, the mail that you will get, the, you know, stuff that will pop up on, you know, digital and stuff like that is very targeted towards, you know, households based on who’s registered for what.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, you definitely — they do target, like, the mail that you will get, the, you know, stuff that will pop up on, you know, digital and stuff like that is very targeted towards, you know, households based on who’s registered for what.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Scott, you can look up the registration while I’m venting here. But I think, yeah, I mean, I would expect McGuire — I don’t think, like, I agree with the caller in the sense that, like, I wouldn’t expect a huge TV campaign just given all the different areas that it touches. But that’s interesting that that’s Gallagher’s play.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Scott, you can look up the registration while I’m venting here. But I think, yeah, I mean, I would expect McGuire — I don’t think, like, I agree with the caller in the sense that, like, I wouldn’t expect a huge TV campaign just given all the different areas that it touches. But that’s interesting that that’s Gallagher’s play.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Yeah. Let’s bring in Rick into —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Yeah. Let’s bring in Rick into —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Looks like about 20 percent.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Looks like about 20 percent.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Twenty percent?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Twenty percent?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Is no party preference.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Is no party preference.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Hey, Rick, uh, welcome.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Hey, Rick, uh, welcome.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, well, for my member of Congress, I’m voting for Dr. Richard Pan. Pan is your man. And I’m voting — because there were so many different propositions on the ballot, I’m only going to talk about two of them. I care enough for housing, so I’m voting yes on Prop 1 and yes on Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, well, for my member of Congress, I’m voting for Dr. Richard Pan. Pan is your man. And I’m voting — because there were so many different propositions on the ballot, I’m only going to talk about two of them. I care enough for housing, so I’m voting yes on Prop 1 and yes on Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>If Kevin Kiley is elected to my district, I’d probably be back in an institution because I have multiple disabilities. And that is exactly what Trump wants. For people with disabilities to put them away, out of sight, out of mind. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>If Kevin Kiley is elected to my district, I’d probably be back in an institution because I have multiple disabilities. And that is exactly what Trump wants. For people with disabilities to put them away, out of sight, out of mind. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Rick, appreciate that. Why don’t you — we haven’t talked about this race yet.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Rick, appreciate that. Why don’t you — we haven’t talked about this race yet.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> This is another one Democrats have circled to kind of pick up. A little kind of strange backstory. Scott talked a little bit about it in the primary. Kiley, a Republican, switched parties, became an independent, survival tactic, also switched districts.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> This is another one Democrats have circled to kind of pick up. A little kind of strange backstory. Scott talked a little bit about it in the primary. Kiley, a Republican, switched parties, became an independent, survival tactic, also switched districts.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So this is — he’s running in a somewhat new district. His district kind of got fractured by Prop 50. Richard Pan, a former state senator, Ami Bera switched districts. He’s another Sacramento-area Democrat.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So this is — he’s running in a somewhat new district. His district kind of got fractured by Prop 50. Richard Pan, a former state senator, Ami Bera switched districts. He’s another Sacramento-area Democrat.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So the net result is Democrats could still pick up the seat here if they’re able to knock off Kiley. This is one, again, Kiley is going from running in a district that was pretty friendly towards Republicans. Now he’s having to run in the Sacramento suburbs, a place Kamala Harris did very well. Kamala was in town last week campaigning for Richard Pan.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So the net result is Democrats could still pick up the seat here if they’re able to knock off Kiley. This is one, again, Kiley is going from running in a district that was pretty friendly towards Republicans. Now he’s having to run in the Sacramento suburbs, a place Kamala Harris did very well. Kamala was in town last week campaigning for Richard Pan.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So this is one Democrats also feel pretty confident.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So this is one Democrats also feel pretty confident.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I would also imagine this is one where there’s probably still at least a chunk of undecided voters, right? Because people don’t know these people.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I would also imagine this is one where there’s probably still at least a chunk of undecided voters, right? Because people don’t know these people.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think this honestly plays across all of these districts. Like, we talk about the Mike Thompson seat. Yes, he’s the incumbent. Yes, he’s been in Congress for a long time. About 50 percent of those voters were not in his district before Prop 50.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think this honestly plays across all of these districts. Like, we talk about the Mike Thompson seat. Yes, he’s the incumbent. Yes, he’s been in Congress for a long time. About 50 percent of those voters were not in his district before Prop 50.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So even for these longtime incumbents, there is a little bit of a reintroduction that has to take place that honestly could scramble some of these races.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So even for these longtime incumbents, there is a little bit of a reintroduction that has to take place that honestly could scramble some of these races.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. Is a national party getting involved? You mentioned Kamala Harris coming out to campaign in these cases. How much is the sort of National Democratic Party sort of investing in California?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. Is a national party getting involved? You mentioned Kamala Harris coming out to campaign in these cases. How much is the sort of National Democratic Party sort of investing in California?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re certainly helping out in some of the key tight races, like in the Central Valley with Adam Gray, Democratic incumbent. And then the one where David Valadao, the Republican, they’re trying to flip that seat. He’s been very difficult to beat. It’s a little bit like Lucy in the football. They’ve tried to defeat him and think they can’t — haven’t.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re certainly helping out in some of the key tight races, like in the Central Valley with Adam Gray, Democratic incumbent. And then the one where David Valadao, the Republican, they’re trying to flip that seat. He’s been very difficult to beat. It’s a little bit like Lucy in the football. They’ve tried to defeat him and think they can’t — haven’t.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I think they’re playing in that one. Also in the San Diego-Riverside seat where you’ve got Desmond, the Republican, and Von Wilpert, the Democrat. They’re definitely playing in that one.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I think they’re playing in that one. Also in the San Diego-Riverside seat where you’ve got Desmond, the Republican, and Von Wilpert, the Democrat. They’re definitely playing in that one.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I don’t think they’re going to — they’re not going to play in the ones that are not going to flip. So that’s what I know. Maybe you guys know something.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I don’t think they’re going to — they’re not going to play in the ones that are not going to flip. So that’s what I know. Maybe you guys know something.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I do think the money piece is interesting this year because it’s different. Democrats in these last few midterms have had a financial advantage. That is not the case this year.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I do think the money piece is interesting this year because it’s different. Democrats in these last few midterms have had a financial advantage. That is not the case this year.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So you look at a district like the one in Bakersfield with Valadao, Republicans — the outside spending there is over — they have a huge advantage right now. I think they’ve spent the fourth most on any district in America to try to help David Valadao.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So you look at a district like the one in Bakersfield with Valadao, Republicans — the outside spending there is over — they have a huge advantage right now. I think they’ve spent the fourth most on any district in America to try to help David Valadao.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So when you talk, when people talk about the blue wave this year, I think it needs to be tempered with two things: the money and the map. The money being Republicans have more of a financial advantage than they’ve had in previous years. And the map, the gerrymandering that has occurred across the country, has put a lower ceiling on where Democrats can go.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So when you talk, when people talk about the blue wave this year, I think it needs to be tempered with two things: the money and the map. The money being Republicans have more of a financial advantage than they’ve had in previous years. And the map, the gerrymandering that has occurred across the country, has put a lower ceiling on where Democrats can go.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The idea that, like, yes, they may end up getting a nine-point advantage in kind of the generic polling or the popular vote, that’s not going to translate into 30, 40 seats the way it did in previous elections, just because, A, through natural sorting, Democrats have already kind of picked off areas where people don’t like Trump, and, B, this gerrymandering is just kind of lowered how the reach of how far a blue wave could go.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The idea that, like, yes, they may end up getting a nine-point advantage in kind of the generic polling or the popular vote, that’s not going to translate into 30, 40 seats the way it did in previous elections, just because, A, through natural sorting, Democrats have already kind of picked off areas where people don’t like Trump, and, B, this gerrymandering is just kind of lowered how the reach of how far a blue wave could go.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think the caveat to that is that, like in Texas, you know, in the Rio Grande Valley, you know, they drew those districts assuming that the voters who voted for Trump would vote for the Republican, and, you know, Latino voters have flipped completely. And so some of those that they thought they would pick up, maybe they may not.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think the caveat to that is that, like in Texas, you know, in the Rio Grande Valley, you know, they drew those districts assuming that the voters who voted for Trump would vote for the Republican, and, you know, Latino voters have flipped completely. And so some of those that they thought they would pick up, maybe they may not.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the same is true in California, the reverse. I mean, I think some of these races could be closer than Democrats would like to think.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the same is true in California, the reverse. I mean, I think some of these races could be closer than Democrats would like to think.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve been talking with KQED’s politics team about the hotly contested races for Congress across the Bay Area. I’ve been joined by Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thanks, Guy.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve been talking with KQED’s politics team about the hotly contested races for Congress across the Bay Area. I’ve been joined by Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thanks, Guy.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Thanks.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Thanks.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve had Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve had Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thank you. Thanks, Alexis.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thank you. Thanks, Alexis.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And we’ve had Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thank you so much, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And we’ve had Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thank you so much, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m Alexis Madrigal. Thank you so, so much to all of our callers, listeners. Appreciate you all getting involved in your local politics here. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with guest host Laura Klivans.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m Alexis Madrigal. Thank you so, so much to all of our callers, listeners. Appreciate you all getting involved in your local politics here. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with guest host Laura Klivans.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "KQED’s politics team joins us to break down the races, the candidates and what to watch.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1791398537,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 223,
"wordCount": 10521
},
"headData": {
"title": "The Bay Area’s Hotly Contested Congressional Races | KQED",
"description": "KQED’s politics team joins us to break down the races, the candidates and what to watch.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "The Bay Area’s Hotly Contested Congressional Races",
"datePublished": "2026-10-06T13:26:44-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-10-07T11:42:17-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 1623,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC2458647621.mp3",
"airdate": 1791388800,
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/forum/2010101915579/the-bay-areas-hotly-contested-congressional-races",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Wednesday, October 7, 2026 at 9 AM\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Some of the Bay Area’s biggest political battles this fall are happening between fellow Democrats in hotly contested races for Congress. There’s a fierce fight for retiring former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat in San Francisco. In Napa, where redistricting has shaken up the district, a multimillionaire is courting votes from Republicans and progressives to unseat an establishment fellow Democrat. And in Sacramento, younger progressive challengers are taking on longtime incumbents, raising a bigger question about what Democratic voters value right now: a new generation of leadership, or the experience that comes with years in office? KQED’s politics team joins us to break down the races, the candidates and what to watch heading into Election Day.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati,\u003c/strong> correspondent, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-host of Political Breakdown\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom, \u003c/strong>reporter and producer, KQED California Politics & Government Desk\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. A month out from the midterms, it looks like a Democrat could win for Senate in Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia. Poll after poll shows an unpopular president dragging down the Republican Party across the country. Nobody knows how big the blue wave will be, but it’s looking pretty big.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Locally, many congressional races pit Democrats against Democrats, sometimes in districts that have been transformed by Prop 50 redistricting. Will the blue wave push our congressional delegation to the left? The highest-profile contest is the race to represent San Francisco, almost all of it at least, replacing the legendary Nancy Pelosi. But there are other interesting races in the East Bay, in the North Bay, up towards Sacramento. We’re gonna cover them all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Here to talk with us, we’ve got some folks from KQED’s politics team. Scott Shafer, of course, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course has a new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. I think episode four dropped today, Scott.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s right. Get it wherever you get your podcasts.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, that’s right. Thanks for joining us. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent on KQED’s politics and government desk. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Hey, good morning.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So, Scott, you were one of the moderators of last week’s debate at KQED between Supervisor Connie Chan, Senator Scott Wiener. What can you tell us about the two candidates, core components, what’s kind of the texture, landscape of this campaign?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, I think underlying all of it is Nancy Pelosi. She has a big shadow. And when she endorsed Connie Chan just before the primary, it boosted Connie Chan into second place. And both she and the third-place finisher, Shoykat Chakrabarti, are really stepping on the gas pedal to try to get Chan to win the seat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s a bit of an uphill battle because Scott Wiener has been around for a long time. He was on the Board of Supervisors. He was in the state Senate. He’s been a very prolific lawmaker. He sort of led the charge on housing, issues ranging from taking on Trump over ICE, masking, other things like that, as well as AI regulation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Connie Chan, more progressive, close with labor, has been a representative of her district, the Richmond, in ways that don’t necessarily help her citywide, for example, opposing closure of the Great Highway to make way for Sunset Dunes Park, a very popular inner district, maybe less so citywide in this congressional district.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But these are two very distinctive people and personalities. They both have interesting biographies. Connie Chan came to the U.S. when she was young from China. Scott Wiener, openly gay, came from the East Coast.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think their differences over issues are, I think, in all these races we’re going to talk about, how these folks are going to vote. Whoever wins and goes back to D.C. among the Democrats, they’re going to vote the same way the vast majority of the time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think for me as a voter and as voters evaluate this race, it’s who will be the most effective, who is gonna go back there and get things done, who’s gonna represent our values, who can build coalitions. And I think that’s really something that voters are grappling with.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, in this one, it feels like there is a pretty clear choice, at least around housing stuff, right? I mean, Scott Wiener being known as like kind of the most YIMBY guy in the state of California, perhaps. And Connie Chan, definitely not in the —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. I mean, Scott Wiener has not just championed more housing, but has been relentless. If a bill failed, he went back and talked to the people who voted against it, talked to the governor. He did that with AI as well. And so there is now evidence that there is some evidence that the legislation that he’s gotten through and signed is having an impact. There’s more housing being built.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The thing is, though, there is also — that can be a polarizing issue. People can say, oh, yes, we need to build more housing. But not in my backyard. You know, that’s the whole nitty-gritty. That’s where that phrase comes from, you know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so I think, you know, in a number of ways, Scott Wiener is, while he’s prolific and often seen by colleagues up in Sacramento as one of the most effective lawmakers, he’s also polarizing. And there are people both in the gay community and outside, in labor certainly, that, you know, find him to be not their cup of tea for one reason or another.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think, yes, if you’re pro-housing, Scott Wiener is, you know, pretty clearly the person you’re going to support. But, you know, like I said, there’s nuances to that issue.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, can you talk a little bit about some of the dynamics of this race? Like, have things changed? Have people changed their positions on any key issues, trying to pick up and increase their coalition’s breadth?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Biggest change in dynamic is Nancy Pelosi deciding to be a main character in this election. The question of how she would weigh in and at what point, as Scott said, late in the primary, her endorsement helped boost Chan into the top two, but really that was the start for her. She decided to continue her involvement in the campaign, rallying financial support for Chan, had a key staff member go work on Connie Chan’s campaign.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think you really saw this crystallize most when Scott Wiener made what was perhaps his biggest misstep in the campaign to date, which was when he rolled out this AI chatbot that mocked Connie Chan, basically to show that Chan stands in the way of housing and other things. The chatbot was supposed to give answers like Connie Chan would give and kind of portray an obstructionist.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Nancy Pelosi was able to marshal opposition to this chatbot, labeling it sexist, racist, in a way that, within a matter of days, got Wiener to take down the chatbot and profusely apologize. It was just — it was a master class in kind of the way Pelosi was able to leverage relationships. She had it on official House of Representatives letterhead, opposition from members of the delegation, and so that, to me, stood out as like, okay, this could be the biggest kind of roadblock for Wiener if Pelosi really kind of takes on this role and makes it not so much about Chan versus Wiener, but about her legacy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, because I was listening to you guys on the debate and one of the most fascinating things for me was that Connie Chan didn’t mention her Pelosi endorsement, but then Scott Wiener gave a sort of like sweet thing about —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Nancy Pelosi. That’s so interesting. And, you know, I think that, you know, I asked Ian Kramer, who’s the staffer from Pelosi’s office, like, why didn’t, you know, Connie Chan mention Pelosi at all? Just for the mic. And he was like, well, you know, elections are about the future, you know. And we think most people know that Nancy Pelosi is already for Connie Chan.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m not sure that rings entirely true. I’m sure that if they thought it would benefit her, Chan would have mentioned it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, Wiener has always been deferential publicly toward Pelosi. But what irritated Pelosi, and I think this is what fueled a lot of conspiracy theories about why is she so adamant for Connie Chan, in 2006, Scott Wiener began raising money for a congressional race. He said, “I’m not going to run against Speaker Pelosi, and I hope she doesn’t retire. But if she does or when she does, I am going to be ready.” And then in October of last year, he actually announced he was going to run before she was retiring.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, in the world of Pelosi — you know, and the Burton machine, and I see this election kind of is the last gasp of the Burton machine. Loyalty is everything. And by Wiener stepping out before it was, quote unquote, his turn, you know, they saw that as very disloyal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Interesting, because that’s exactly what Pelosi did when she ran for leadership back after the 2000 election. They were like, no, it’s not your turn. She said, I don’t care. I’m going to run. I am going to win.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So anyway, I do think that, you know, what was poignant, I think, and what humanized Scott Wiener in that debate was his closing statement where he said, you know, back in 1987, the year that Pelosi got elected, she went back to Washington and she fought for AIDS funding. And there was a gay teenager in the closet back in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, I forget where he was, who saw that as permission to come out and be who I am. And I thank Nancy Pelosi. That person is on the stage now tonight.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so he is always publicly, even after Pelosi has done some things, like Guy mentioned, for Connie Chan, always been very deferential. There’s really not much in it for him to go after her. She is an icon, you know, and so he has to be very careful. I mean, he did push back a little bit on some of the characterization of the chatbot, but, you know, it’s careful. It’s tricky for him.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Also, just noting for folks, Phil Burton and then Sala Burton succeeded him, which is going to come up later with another —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> And don’t forget John Burton.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yes, yeah, and John. So we’ve got just a whole bunch of the California politicians who have been running in San Francisco with the last name of Burton.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanted to ask you one other issue on this campaign. Where are these candidates on Prop 40, California’s billionaire wealth tax?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this is an issue where they actually are split. Wiener opposes Prop 40, the billionaire wealth tax; Chan is for it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This came up in the debate, and I think, if anything, it illustrates Wiener on these issues of taxes being, in kind of San Francisco, California Democratic circles, more moderate. He’s expressed his opposition to this, and honestly to an earlier corporate tax on the ballot this year in San Francisco, as perhaps creating a climate that would be too unfriendly to business.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>His concerns with Prop 40 on the ballot are similar to concerns we’ve heard from Gavin Newsom, other Democrats, about this just being a one-time tax, this concentrating too much of the benefits just on health care to the exclusion of education, et cetera.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I can also imagine, because he’s such a kind of technocratic thinker, that he’s like, we should really solve this at the national level. That all kind of checks out with his sort of version of —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, and I think, I mean, to Scott’s point, these folks are going to vote the same 90, 95 percent of the time in Washington. There are a few issues where they have differences. This is one of them on taxation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think another one, and this came up in the debate as well, is how they’d approach the American relationship with Israel. We heard Connie Chan say she wants a full arms embargo against Israel, meaning no American funding even for defensive systems like the Dome. Scott Wiener’s kind of drawn the line there where he says, I don’t want to send offensive military assistance, but I’m okay with funding the Iron Dome and those kind of missile defense projects.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Where is this race, Scott? Like, do we know, you know, is it close? Is it not close?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there has been some polling that shows, you know, Scott — let’s go back to the primary. Wiener got 41% of the vote. Chan got 20-something. I mean, it was maybe it was 30. But Wiener was way ahead.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So it’s a different electorate for the general election. But generally, it seems like Wiener is ahead still. The chatbot was a big unforced error on his part. But there’s been a lot going on. You know, I’m not sure how closely people are paying attention to this. You know, now they begin to focus because they have a ballot on their table.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think, you know, based on all the things that Pelosi is doing, the things Wiener is doing, you know, what people are saying, the dynamic, you know, reputational — I think Wiener’s positive ratings have come down a bit, you know, since before this campaign started because, you know, there’s been a lot of attacks on him.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I still think it’s, like I said, his to lose. But, you know, we try to stay out of the prediction business, but I wish — from everything I have heard, it seems like Wiener has the edge right now. Ha, ha.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Guy, do you have anything that we should be looking out for just the last month, either of them closing on anything different or special?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, let’s go back to this Pelosi thing. There was a pro-Wiener super PAC that did some polling in this race that they released last week. And the data point that stood out to me, fewer than half of voters were aware that Pelosi had endorsed Chan. Which is interesting because she didn’t bring it up. That’s why we go back to this debate and say, was that a missed opportunity for her to just remind folks, hey, I’m running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat and Nancy Pelosi’s endorsing me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with people from KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer and Guy Marzorati. We’re of course gonna talk about Napa County. We’re gonna talk Alameda County when we get back from the break. And we wanna hear from you. What issues matter most to you in these congressional races? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy. Let us know, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786, \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. We’ve got KQED’s politics team in the house here. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, and of course, got a new podcast series out about Nancy Pelosi called \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em> that’s coming out now. Episode four just dropped. We’ve also got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s politics and government desk. And we want to bring in Izzy Bloom, a reporter and producer on KQED’s politics desk. Thanks so much for joining us, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s talk about Napa. This is congressional district four, although they always confuse me, and now with redistricting it’s even more confusing. But anyway, it’s Napa, long-time Democratic congressman Mike Thompson, now facing a challenge from Eric Jones, right? 35-year-old, former venture capitalist. Give us a lay of the land here on this race.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so intra-party fight. The incumbent, Mike Thompson, has been in Congress since 1999. He served in the state legislature for eight years before that. He was born in St. Helena, raised his family here, still lives there. And he’s a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. He’s a Blue Dog Democrat with establishment support from the likes of Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Adam Schiff and Governor Gavin Newsom.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And he’s facing a challenge, as you said, 35-year-old Eric Jones, former venture capitalist. He moved to Napa in 2021 with his young family. And he is really running on some progressive policies, fighting for working families. He sort of points to his upbringing in Maine as the son of a disabled veteran, said his family was low income and, you know, relied on Medicaid and food stamps and disability checks at certain times.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so he is running on some of these progressive policies like universal child care, a $10,000 tax credit for working-class households. And he’s also part of this wave of generational-change candidates that we’ve seen across the state, with sort of younger, often progressive Democrats challenging their party’s aging incumbents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> How has that been going for people, though?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I would say, you know, there was like five races in the primary with these younger Democrats challenging incumbents, and Eric Jones made it through the primary, and Mai Vang in District 7 out in Sacramento was the other candidate. The other three didn’t make it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think that at least shows that it wasn’t a mandate from voters that they necessarily want generational change. There has been polling from NPR that shows eight in 10 Americans are in favor of setting age caps and term limits on Congress members, but that’s not really going anywhere.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right, right.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> And I think also people might be generally in favor of an age cap, but when it comes to their own representative, they tend to like them.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> I’ll say, I mean, there has been, like, the New York Times did an analysis of this nationwide, and it was like nine in 10 of these older incumbents won their primary challenge.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What’s different here is we have a top-two primary. I think so much of the challenge in these generational contests is you run in a primary, it’s a lower turnout, it’s very hard to establish your name and also then draw a contrast all in the course of a primary.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What we have here with Eric Jones is like, and Mai Vang as well, just get out of the primary. Get to that general election where you can have a one-on-one runoff against the older incumbent. I think that creates a very different dynamic than what you see across the country.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think those two races, though, the one in Sacramento with Doris Matsui, who’s 82, versus Mai Vang, who’s 41, and the Thompson-Jones issue is, first of all, Thompson’s not quite as old. He’s 75, I think. But he’s also — he’s from the district, as he said. He’s in the district a lot.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And you mentioned Napa. This district goes from Petaluma all the way to like Yuba City now with the — after Prop 50. It’s a huge district. And, you know, Eric Jones… Not as well known in the district, and he’s trying to thread this interesting needle where he’s progressive and promoting progressive causes and issues, but he’s also trying to get Republican votes because the district has a lot of Republicans and they may not like Thompson because he’s a Democrat and well-known Democrat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But on the other hand, you know, so the one top Republican in the primary, he didn’t make it into the top two, but Ray Relyea has endorsed Jones. And so, you know, you’ve got this kind of odd Republican, but also progressive. And that, to me, raises the question for voters of authenticity. Who is this person?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> There’s so much 2014 Ro Khanna in this Eric Jones campaign to me, which is — he, like, to Izzy’s point, very hard to pin down on exactly where on the policy spectrum is he. He’s kind of taking positions that appeal very broadly. And also, yes, running a campaign that’s really centered on this, my opponent’s been in office for a long time, I want to do something different.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And kind of, you know, kind of got, you know, blown out the first time he ran in the primary against Mike Honda, got a little closer in the general election, came back and ran the next time. It would not shock me at all if Eric Jones lost this race, he pulls a Forrest Gump and just keeps running. I mean, it just keeps going. And he’s, you know, back on the ballot in two years.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Those kind of parallels where it’s like, where does it work? You know, where is he actually standing? He has support from Our Revolution, but then also the Bernie PAC, but then also the top Republican opponent. Yeah, it’s — it’s a —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Well, also, the person who ran Ro Khanna’s campaign, Brian Parveshavi, is now the campaign manager for Eric Jones. And they really say, I mean, in 2014, Ro Khanna did lose, but he made up 17 points between the primary and the general election. And Brian Parveshavi says, you know, that runway time between the primary and general really gives Eric Jones the opportunity to build name ID.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>They also say that the general electorate tends to be younger and more diverse and working class, which they say is all sort of the types of voters that Eric Jones’s campaign appeals to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. I mean, is there a lane that I want to — I guess, populist lane that’s different from moderate-progressive, or just like somehow opens up some other political space?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think, you know, there are a lot of voters, and we see this, like, in Michigan, where Al-Sayed is actually attracting a fair number of Trump voters, you know, from 2024. People, you know, if you’re anti-establishment, sort of anti-corruption, you know, accountability, those kinds of issues that are, you know, could be progressive, but also appeal to some of the more, you know, conservative voters as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think that, you know, that is a possibility. I think, though, you can also kind of overreach and be a little too cute.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I think Jones did a video where Obama is talking about the need for generational change. Not talking about this race, not talking about Eric Jones, hasn’t endorsed Eric Jones or Mike Thompson. And then you’ve got pictures of Eric Jones kind of, you know, woven in with Obama and then like a really grainy, old-looking picture of Thompson.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And, you know, I think that did not go over well in Obama world, you know, and so it’s one of those things where it’s like, okay, that’s clever, but, you know, maybe not a little bit misleading.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Also, Thompson’s campaign sort of pushed back on that this week, saying that it’s part of Jones’ being deceptive to voters, because earlier this year there was sort of a similar thing with ads. I mean, the Obama one, if you weren’t paying attention, maybe implied that Obama was endorsing him, but in the caption it said it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, Jones put out a video of him talking to Representative Latifah and Dolores Huerta, and then it didn’t say that it wasn’t an endorsement, sort of implied that it was. They didn’t know he was recording. They said that it wasn’t an endorsement. He had to take it down and then reposted it saying it’s not an endorsement.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Ethics, ethical issues.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Interesting. We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, Izzy Bloom here in the studio with us. We want to hear from you. If you’re looking at one of these congressional races here in Northern California, what issues matter most to you? Housing, affordability, immigration, AI, foreign policy, I don’t know, data centers. That’s probably it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Give us a call. 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. You can email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord. You know, let’s go to Patricia in San Rafael. Welcome, Patricia.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, can you hear me?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, sure can. Go ahead.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, great. I just wanted to bring up something about Wiener’s legislation for housing and the way it’s affecting San Rafael is that the developers are going way out of scale with 17-story, 24-story buildings and others that aren’t quite that outrageous. And the city people are not allowed, because of the way the legislation favors the developers, to question whether or not we have the infrastructure, the parking, and all kinds of things like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>It’s just, those are being thrown out the window, and I’m all for housing, but I think it’s just gone over the edge for that kind of building.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Patricia, thanks for that perspective. I’m curious, Scott, you mentioned in our first segment that Scott Wiener has gotten lots of stuff done. You also mentioned that housing can cut both ways. That seemed like such a perfect example that when you get something done, you change the law and the law enables new things like big towers in San Rafael. Now there’s some opposition.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> He’s not running in San Rafael. He’s probably happy about having heard that call. Yeah, no, there was the Marina Safeway as well, which caused a lot of consternation among people in that neighborhood, but also support as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, some of these things that get ascribed to Wiener legislation aren’t really because of that. There’s other issues. Some of these zoning and permitting issues are a little bit complicated, but there’s no question that he has authored legislation that will allow for more density, higher buildings, especially near transit corridors.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Now, I’m not sure where that building is, proposed building in San Rafael. But here in San Francisco, if you’re on a Muni line, a BART line, and I think a lot of public policy people would say that is where you want higher density, because so that people don’t need to rely on cars, they can use the public transit.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But it is controversial, and it’s like, well, I like more housing, but not here. Do it over there. And that was the point, kind of, Connie Chan sort of made as well. Her district has had the least amount of housing of any of the Supervisors since she got there in 2021, 2022. And she said, yeah, but, you know, there’s all this new housing in South of Market in the Mission, you know. It’s like, well, that’s kind of the point.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> But I mean, we talk about housing as an issue that could potentially kind of scramble coalition and alliances in the map in this race, because Connie Chan in the primary won the Sunset neighborhood. That’s traditionally a neighborhood that goes for more moderate candidates. Daniel Lurie won the Sunset when he ran for mayor.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Like, who are the Chan-Lurie voters in this race? And is the issue of housing one of those kind of parochial issues where people feel like, look, maybe Connie Chan is too far left for me on issues like public safety. She, you know, said, I want to dismantle the police department a few years ago. She said that was kind of a misquote, but like, that’s something that stuck with her.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Um, is that an issue where voters on the West Side feel like, oh, I have some hesitation about Scott Wiener, even though he’s more of a moderate politician, because of housing? Chan will, if she’s going to win this race, she will need those kinds of realignments, uh, to kind of change —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Connie Chan speaks for me, but only on housing.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think Wiener did win her district, right? In the Richmond. He did win the Richmond in the primary, for what it’s worth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Caroline in San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Yeah, that’s perfect because I am from the Richmond district and in Connie Chan’s, and I am voting for Wiener because, for me, as a die-hard progressive, we have to send somebody to Washington who can get things done. And so I have voted for Chan in the past, but I will be voting for Wiener as I — I just really, truly believe we have — we have to see more, um, we had to get some of that Pelosi energy back, which we haven’t had for a long time representing us. And I’m really excited to see him to be there and to drive that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And on the other note, especially on the housing note, he’s just the technocratic side of him. One of the first things he worked on was SB 35, which was the bill for affordable housing, and everybody in San Francisco, progressives, moderates, want to see affordable housing. And so that’s just demonstrative of how effective he will be. And I’ve gotten very passionate, more passionate about this than I thought I would, but I just wanted to give my two cents.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, appreciate the passion. People getting into this race, clearly, this is a hot one here in the city for sure.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Guy, I wanna turn things briefly to another race. Congressional District 1 reaches into Sonoma County. This is one that pits incumbent Republican James Gallagher and Democrat Mike McGuire.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> About this. So James Gallagher took office this year. He won a special election following the death of Representative Doug LaMalfa. He ran in that election under the old lines, under our old congressional district lines, in which the first district was really a safe Republican seat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This district was completely reshaped and transformed by Proposition 50, and the way that happened was the lines were dragged down into Sonoma County. Suddenly you have all these blue Democratic voters in Sonoma County that will make up the base of this district now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Gallagher now faces an uphill climb to win reelection under the new line. So he’s facing Mike McGuire, who is a state senator, previously the pro tem of the state Senate, who under these new lines gets to run with all these North Bay Democrats.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This is one of the seats when Democrats kind of drew up that Proposition 50 map. They felt like, okay, we know we’re gonna get — flip this seat as part of their effort to take back the House of Representatives.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So just to put some numbers to it, I think these are your numbers, Guy. Under the previous map, Donald Trump carried the district by roughly 25 points in 2024. Under the new boundaries, Kamala Harris would have carried it by about 12. And that’s just basically Santa Rosa is the end.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Right. And when you’re talking about, you know, breaking down any House district in America, the single best predictor, how do they vote for president?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah. Yeah. And is this just essentially a down-the-line, like, partisan battle? Like, are you voting R? Are you voting D in this one?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I would guess that’s how it breaks out. I would imagine Gallagher, you know, retain strength in more of the more northern rural parts of this district. And those numbers are simply just outweighed by the number of voters in Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I’m sure for folks in the North Bay, like, this is an exciting organizing opportunity. They get to be in one of the seats that will potentially flip and help Democrats potentially retake the House of Representatives. So I’m sure you’re going to see a strong turnout there.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, curious. I mean, how important is California to this, you know, effort to retake the House? I mean, how’s it looking?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, it’s very important just because we have so many seats. I mean, with Prop 50, I think the hope among Democrats was that they could flip five of those seats. They had a near-death experience with one of those seats where Kevin Kiley up in the Sacramento foothills area, very, very — he switched to independent. And he and a very kind of fringy Republican almost made it into the top two before all the votes were counted.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So some of these things are a little hard to tell ahead of time. But, you know, many of these races, I mean, as Guy said, it went from a whatever-plus for Trump to 12 for Harris, you know, the new district. That’s, you know, that looks good for Democrats, but some of these, they’re not slam dunks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, if you look at the one, the seat down in San Diego, Riverside, where you’ve got Issa not running and you’ve got a Republican and a Democrat, that’s a competitive seat. Same with Adam Gray, the incumbent Democrat. I mean, so, you know, these are not slam dunks. You know, easy layups for the Democrats. They’re gonna have to earn some of these wins.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But to your point, your question, you know, they need to pick up three or four in California, I think, you know, or at least they would like to. I mean, we’re talking, how big is the margin gonna be? You know, I think certainly the conventional wisdom is Democrats are gonna win back the House. Question is how big the majority is gonna be. And California could be a big part. Yeah, absolutely.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, absolutely. But less of a big — I mean, the fact is Prop 50 reduced the playing field of what’s competitive. That’s the point, right? It’s like, make it more Democratic. In previous years, we had four, five, six, seven, eight competitive districts. Now we’re down to three.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Although one of the more interesting ones has two Republicans running, you know, Young Kim versus Ken Calvert, who are both currently in Congress. And they are going at it, you know, hammer and tong at each other. That one’s going to be very interesting.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Wow.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re talking with KQED’s politics team. We’ve got Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent, co-host of Political Breakdown, new podcast series about Nancy Pelosi, \u003cem>The Speaker\u003c/em>. Great baseline for thinking about this Scott Wiener, Connie Chan race.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’ve got Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics Desk. We’ve got Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer on the desk as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We wanna hear from you. I mean, do you have newly drawn congressional district lines? Has it changed where you’re voting? Do you feel like it’s gonna have an impact? What about, how much do you value experience and seniority in Congress, or are you more drawn to candidates who are promising kind of generational change or newness just in general?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can give us a call. The number is 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>. You can find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram, Discord, or KQED Forum for all those things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Before we go to the break, real quick, Guy, do you wanna give the pitch for our KQED voter guide?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yes, let’s do it. KQED.org/voter-guide, state elections, Bay Area elections, and this year, for the first time, a school board voter guide. I know that’s one that often goes overlooked, hard to find information. You’re probably like texting, oh, who’s my friend who might know something about school? No, we sent out a questionnaire to every school board candidate in the Bay Area on a variety of relevant issues and hope you’ll check it out.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Am I going to figure out Props 40, 41, 42, whatever, all that whole set of props? I had Marissa Lagos on that. You will understand it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’ll be back with more on our local congressional races right after the break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. Alexis Madrigal here with Scott Shafer, Guy Marzorati, and Izzy Bloom from KQED’s politics team. We’re talking about our local congressional races. We’re gonna get to Alameda County in a second, but first let’s bring in Chris in Sonoma County. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Hi, you know, I was calling because I’m a younger voter. I have a young family. I’m progressive that supports a lot of the new wave like El-Sayed and Mamdani and AOC, but I’m very, very much pro-Mike Thompson here from Sonoma County.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I just feel like the Eric Jones race has been really disingenuous. He’s backed by Reform California, which is a right-wing conservative PAC. And I just wanna put in there that people think Mike Thompson’s a Blue Dog, but in my experience, not only has he stood up for us for fire survivors, the nine-year anniversary of the Tubbs fire, but he’s got a 97% environmental voting record, 95% labor, he was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, like… Seem to know —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Big fans!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Chris, I know. I appreciate your taking a look at this race and providing your perspective as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Let’s bring in Bob in Santa Rosa and we’ll take these together. Hey, Bob, I’m Santa Rosa, welcome!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Oh, hi!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Well, thank you very much. Listen, I’ve heard everything everybody’s saying, but what I haven’t heard is anyone talking about the immigration issues, particularly in Sonoma County, probably Napa also, and the collaboration with ICE in the sheriff’s department up here, the amount of deportation centers and camps that people are sent to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I think it’s a shadow issue, actually, for sure, in Sonoma. It’s easy to be what seems to be a liberal and not deal at all with the fact that our sheriff here in Sonoma County turns people, the names of people who are being released from jail, over to ICE and they get picked up outside the county jail.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And you haven’t heard it from any of the congressional candidates.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Not that I can tell. No. They all say, I’m against that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Bob in Santa Rosa, thanks so much. How much do you think, you know, obviously nationally immigration for Donald Trump still remains one of his better issues and still under water, but relative to, say, the economy, it’s doing relatively better there. How much has this played into any of the races that we know about up here around here?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> That’s — yeah, go ahead. That’s interesting. I mean, that point specifically, I have not heard the candidates talk about local sheriff cooperation. So that was fascinating to hear.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It does depend. I mean, the law in California does allow if there’s a violent criminal who is going to be released, I think the sheriff can let them know. They don’t turn them over, right. But, you know, certainly — yeah. So I’ll just leave it at that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think with most of the races that we’ve been talking about in the Bay Area, there’s not a lot of daylight between the candidates. You know, maybe Gallagher and McGuire up there. That’s a different question. But here in the Bay Area, I think maybe it hasn’t come up because there’s not much difference between the two candidates.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> I do think that’s — in District 4, they’re pretty much on the same page. Eric Jones has said that he would want to move ICE out of the Department of Homeland Security, to eliminate additional funding he received in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year. But I don’t think he’s taking quite as strong a position as Mai Vang in District 7 over in Sacramento, where she’s calling for abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Uh-huh. Yeah, it’s — my thing, and we’re going to turn to the Alameda County race again in a second. But is Mai Vang kind of our most progressive-wave kind of a candidate out there?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I think she’s taking on that mantle a lot more. You know, she’s taken on like Medicare for All and, like I said, abolishing ICE.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> These are like Bernie cred out here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Yeah, definitely. And I think, you know, the not accepting corporate PAC money is something that we see from also Eric Jones, but Mai Vang as well.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> All right, let’s bring in Sunil in Livermore. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you. I want to talk about the district here in Livermore, Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, that is Eric Swalwell’s former district. I’m waiting for — I’m definitely voting for Aisha Wahab.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What I wanted to talk is the lack of enthusiasm among the South Asian. And I see a hint of Islamophobia with Ayesha Wahhab. And I would like to hear from your guest who is leading right now between these two candidates and any thoughts on, because there is a large population of Indian Americans, unfortunately, I have not seen that kind of enthusiasm for Ayesha Wahab. Any comment?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, Sunil, really, really appreciate it. That is, of course, Aisha Wahab, Melissa Hernandez, seat formerly held by Eric Swalwell. Guy, do you wanna take this one on?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so this was an election, you know, Hernandez, Wahab both on the ballot in the June primary because Swalwell had decided to run for governor, not for reelection. Then scandal broke, sexual misconduct allegations, he resigns from his seat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There was also a concurrent special election between these two. Wahab won the initial primary there. Things got really interesting in the special election in August because we started to see millions of dollars come from AIPAC supporting Melissa Hernandez.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There had not really been any public discussion about America’s relationship with Israel besides Wahab making a comment in a candidate forum that she considered Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. Nevertheless, we saw this money pour in. All of a sudden, the special election got pretty close. Hernandez was down 20 points in the primary. The special election, Wahab ended up winning by only six points.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So there was this thinking, okay, this is now potentially a collision course. In the November election, where we’re gonna see this national discussion about Israel play out here, that hasn’t happened. Instead, AIPAC has completely stopped spending money after the special election. Hernandez has not had that outside backing that she had. Wahab is now running as an incumbent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so a very different race than where we thought it might just be even just a few weeks ago.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>To the caller’s point, though, I have not done any reporting on what he raised about — are there concerns, Islamophobia, concerns about Wahab. I will note, though, the areas where we saw some of the biggest falloff in support for Wahab, Mission San Jose neighborhood in Fremont, a lot of Indian American neighborhoods where we heard her vote totals drop between the primary election and the special election.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>There were a lot of negative ads run against her on a variety of issues. And I wondered… Some of that, issues that caller brought up, I have not done any more in-depth reporting into that, but I do wonder if some of those kind of negative attacks took a hit on Wahab ahead of the August election.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, and there was a piece of legislation that she authored that basically would have beefed up civil rights protections against caste discrimination. And that really divided the Asian community in that district. I think Newsom ultimately vetoed that bill, but she took a lot of heat for that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t know if that’s what reflects what the caller is talking about, but that did happen.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, yeah, I remember we did a show on some of the reporting around these caste issues, and it was very, very heated on the phone lines.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And just to set the table, let’s see, Wahab defeated Hernandez in the August runoff 53-47, right? So it was like fairly close. And so the presumption here is maybe things are not as close, but we just don’t know.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think we might look at that as the high-water mark, at least of, like, outside support for Hernandez, because that’s really what propelled her.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, I think AIPAC, these outside groups made a bet that we have this really short window in a special election where if we just flood the zone with money — I mean, they were running broadcast TV ads that were running across the Bay Area. Most of the people watching those ads didn’t even vote in the district, but it was just pouring money into this. Let’s try to get a quick win in an election.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You saw members of California’s congressional delegation add on support Hernandez. It’s a very different thing once Wahab is the incumbent. Now, are those same members of the delegation, folks like Zoe Lofgren who is critical of Wahab, is she going to be spending her time going after a member of the delegation when, like, Democrats are trying to take back the House nationally? A little bit of a different calculation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, there was also kind of a brushback from organized labor. Lorena Gonzalez, you know, when Zoe Lofgren released a video just before the election attacking Wahab for — I don’t know if we want to go into it, but, you know, she declined — she declined to step aside so they could have a caretaker when Swalwell resigned, and they had a kind of, you know, they wanted to avoid an expensive, messy primary, in which they ended up having.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, you know, but I think to Guy’s point, she’s now the incumbent. And they’re all about loyalty. Also, does the worm turn on AIPAC —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> PAC spending, right. It was effective because there was a few weeks stretch there where it was just — they were blanketing the district with ads, and it’s like, where’s this — what’s happening? Where’s this coming from?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Then once the story kind of takes shape that, oh, this is spending from this group that Democrats nationwide have kind of started to be critical of, takes on a little bit different picture.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You know, and they — I think they just saw they tried a whole bunch of different attacks. Aisha Wahab, it didn’t work, and they’re probably trying to spend their money on other races. They’ve been kind of like kryptonite for a lot of the candidates they’ve supported in this election cycle.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Let’s bring in Colin in San Francisco, kind of a callback to the top of the show and Scott Wiener, but also on the topic of Israel. Welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Good morning. Today the third anniversary of the October 7 attack on Israel. At the time, Scott Wiener posted on that, that what’s happening in Israel is not a both-side situation. Scott also referenced Israel’s right to defend itself without any mention of Palestinian civilian casualties, even though by then the Israeli government had signaled that it would respond harshly to the Hamas assault.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>As a state legislator, Wiener also criticized the nonviolent BDS movement and was instrumental in passing AB 715 as a law that would potentially subject students and teachers to disciplinary actions for criticism of Israel.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I’d have to question whether Wiener’s calling Israel’s actions in Gaza to be genocide is all that genuine. Is he just saying what he thinks he needs to say to win in the district, where Israel’s actions over the past three years and AIPAC spending on our elections have proven to be deeply unpopular?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Come on, let’s take that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Our panel here.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, the issue of whether or not what Israel has done in Gaza is genocide came up in one of the debates during the primary, where Wiener declined to say yes or no, and then had to — you know, he got some blowback and said yes, it’s genocide.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>He’s, you know, to be fair, Wiener, who’s Jewish, has been very critical of Israel, Netanyahu for sure, and I think the differences between Chan and Wiener on this issue have narrowed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I mean, Guy mentioned earlier that Chan is now supporting a full arms embargo, even for defensive weapons. Though that is a difference. I think if you had to say who is more, I don’t know, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, however you wanna say it, Chan is certainly more to the left, I guess you would say, from Wiener.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>But I think really, there’s not a lot of daylight between the two of them. I mean, there are some nuances, but the reality is, I mean, if this is your top issue, that’s how you’re going to vote. And there are some voters for whom this is the top issue, and they’ll decide one way or the other on both sides of that question.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, yeah, for sure.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um, let’s bring in Brandon in Foster City. Welcome, Brandon.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Thank you, guys. Good morning. I just want to say I had attended the rally with Bernie and Jane Kim in Rilcon last Saturday at the Curran Theater. It was originally scheduled to be at the Warfield, but they had to change it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I just wanna say that Bernie was born in 1941 and he’s 85 years old, and I can’t believe how sharp that guy is. And I just want to say he inspires everybody to be, you know, for progressives. And I’m about to vote yes on Prop 40 and no on 41 and 42, and I just want to give a little plug for that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And thank you, KQED. I hope my business does well and I can become a sponsor. And bless you guys. You guys are having such good times.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Thanks, Brandon. Appreciate that. Appreciate people’s civic enthusiasm always. Love it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You know, Emily’s on the Discord writes in to say, you know, this is about the McGuire-Gallagher race. She says, “I’m in that redrawn district and a registered Democrat. I haven’t seen or heard anything from either candidate yet. It’s hard to buy TV since it stretches across three TV markets. But my neighbors who are registered no party preference are getting flooded with Gallagher direct mail pieces, trying to disqualify McGuire on character grounds. Even with the Harris-Tilton 2024, I wonder what proportion of the district is no party preference and getting a very different picture of the candidates than registered Democrats.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Mm-hmm. That’s interesting. That does seem interesting, isn’t it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah, I mean, you definitely — they do target, like, the mail that you will get, the, you know, stuff that will pop up on, you know, digital and stuff like that is very targeted towards, you know, households based on who’s registered for what.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Scott, you can look up the registration while I’m venting here. But I think, yeah, I mean, I would expect McGuire — I don’t think, like, I agree with the caller in the sense that, like, I wouldn’t expect a huge TV campaign just given all the different areas that it touches. But that’s interesting that that’s Gallagher’s play.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Yeah. Let’s bring in Rick into —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Looks like about 20 percent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Twenty percent?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Is no party preference.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Hey, Rick, uh, welcome.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Caller:\u003c/strong> Okay, well, for my member of Congress, I’m voting for Dr. Richard Pan. Pan is your man. And I’m voting — because there were so many different propositions on the ballot, I’m only going to talk about two of them. I care enough for housing, so I’m voting yes on Prop 1 and yes on Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>If Kevin Kiley is elected to my district, I’d probably be back in an institution because I have multiple disabilities. And that is exactly what Trump wants. For people with disabilities to put them away, out of sight, out of mind. Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Rick, appreciate that. Why don’t you — we haven’t talked about this race yet.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> This is another one Democrats have circled to kind of pick up. A little kind of strange backstory. Scott talked a little bit about it in the primary. Kiley, a Republican, switched parties, became an independent, survival tactic, also switched districts.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So this is — he’s running in a somewhat new district. His district kind of got fractured by Prop 50. Richard Pan, a former state senator, Ami Bera switched districts. He’s another Sacramento-area Democrat.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So the net result is Democrats could still pick up the seat here if they’re able to knock off Kiley. This is one, again, Kiley is going from running in a district that was pretty friendly towards Republicans. Now he’s having to run in the Sacramento suburbs, a place Kamala Harris did very well. Kamala was in town last week campaigning for Richard Pan.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So this is one Democrats also feel pretty confident.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I would also imagine this is one where there’s probably still at least a chunk of undecided voters, right? Because people don’t know these people.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I think this honestly plays across all of these districts. Like, we talk about the Mike Thompson seat. Yes, he’s the incumbent. Yes, he’s been in Congress for a long time. About 50 percent of those voters were not in his district before Prop 50.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So even for these longtime incumbents, there is a little bit of a reintroduction that has to take place that honestly could scramble some of these races.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> So interesting. Is a national party getting involved? You mentioned Kamala Harris coming out to campaign in these cases. How much is the sort of National Democratic Party sort of investing in California?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, they’re certainly helping out in some of the key tight races, like in the Central Valley with Adam Gray, Democratic incumbent. And then the one where David Valadao, the Republican, they’re trying to flip that seat. He’s been very difficult to beat. It’s a little bit like Lucy in the football. They’ve tried to defeat him and think they can’t — haven’t.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I think they’re playing in that one. Also in the San Diego-Riverside seat where you’ve got Desmond, the Republican, and Von Wilpert, the Democrat. They’re definitely playing in that one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t think they’re going to — they’re not going to play in the ones that are not going to flip. So that’s what I know. Maybe you guys know something.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I mean, I do think the money piece is interesting this year because it’s different. Democrats in these last few midterms have had a financial advantage. That is not the case this year.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So you look at a district like the one in Bakersfield with Valadao, Republicans — the outside spending there is over — they have a huge advantage right now. I think they’ve spent the fourth most on any district in America to try to help David Valadao.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So when you talk, when people talk about the blue wave this year, I think it needs to be tempered with two things: the money and the map. The money being Republicans have more of a financial advantage than they’ve had in previous years. And the map, the gerrymandering that has occurred across the country, has put a lower ceiling on where Democrats can go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The idea that, like, yes, they may end up getting a nine-point advantage in kind of the generic polling or the popular vote, that’s not going to translate into 30, 40 seats the way it did in previous elections, just because, A, through natural sorting, Democrats have already kind of picked off areas where people don’t like Trump, and, B, this gerrymandering is just kind of lowered how the reach of how far a blue wave could go.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> I think the caveat to that is that, like in Texas, you know, in the Rio Grande Valley, you know, they drew those districts assuming that the voters who voted for Trump would vote for the Republican, and, you know, Latino voters have flipped completely. And so some of those that they thought they would pick up, maybe they may not.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the same is true in California, the reverse. I mean, I think some of these races could be closer than Democrats would like to think.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve been talking with KQED’s politics team about the hotly contested races for Congress across the Bay Area. I’ve been joined by Guy Marzorati, correspondent with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thanks, Guy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guy Marzorati:\u003c/strong> Thanks.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’ve had Scott Shafer, KQED’s senior politics correspondent.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Thank you. Thanks, Alexis.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And we’ve had Izzy Bloom, reporter and producer with KQED’s Politics and Government Desk. Thank you so much, Izzy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Izzy Bloom:\u003c/strong> Thank you!\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m Alexis Madrigal. Thank you so, so much to all of our callers, listeners. Appreciate you all getting involved in your local politics here. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for another hour of \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> ahead with guest host Laura Klivans.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/forum/2010101915579/the-bay-areas-hotly-contested-congressional-races",
"authors": [
"11757",
"12020"
],
"programs": [
"forum_3"
],
"categories": [
"forum_1623"
],
"featImg": "forum_2010101915580",
"label": "forum_3"
},
"forum_2010101915264": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "forum_2010101915264",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915264",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1789397795000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "economists-make-the-case-for-and-against-californias-billionaire-tax",
"title": "Economists Make the Case For and Against California’s Billionaire Tax",
"publishDate": 1789397795,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Economists Make the Case For and Against California’s Billionaire Tax | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 3,
"site": "forum"
},
"content": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Monday, September 14, 2026\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>California voters will decide this fall whether the state should impose a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires, with much of the revenue going toward health care amid federal funding cuts. Supporters say Proposition 40 could raise tens of billions of dollars while also helping to address the growing wealth inequality in the state. Opponents argue the tax could drive billionaires out of California, shrinking the state’s income tax base and ultimately costing more than it raises. We talk to two leading economists: Gabriel Zucman, who helped develop the measure, and Joshua Rauh, one of its most vocal critics, about whether the billionaire tax would help California’s economy – or hurt it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman,\u003c/strong> professor of economics, UC Berkeley; Paris School of Economics – author of “We Need to Tax Billionaires”; helped develop Prop 40\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh,\u003c/strong> economist and professor, Stanford Graduate School of Business – senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; opposes CA Prop 40\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, I’m Alexis Madrigal. Proposition 40 is one of the most contentious and intriguing propositions of recent years. It’s a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. It would raise a substantial amount of money, though there are questions about how much net revenue it could pour into state coffers, and those dollars would mostly be used to fund health care.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Our first guest is Gabriel Zucman. He is a UC Berkeley economist and author of the admirably straightforwardly named book, \u003cem>We Need to Tax Billionaires\u003c/em>. He helped to develop the proposition. Welcome, Gabriel.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Our second guest is Joshua Rauh, an economist and professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business. He authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax and has emerged as perhaps the leading economist voice opposing Prop 40. Welcome, Josh.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Good to be on the show.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, you guys ready? Ready to fight? Gabriel, let’s start with you. You did help develop this proposition. So let’s just start with the basics. What’s the measure do? Who’s subject to the tax, where does the money go?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So this would be a one-time tax on billionaires. Only people who have more than $1 billion of net wealth would be affected. We’re talking about roughly 250 people in California, mostly Silicon Valley tech billionaires who would have to pay a one-time tax equal to 5% of their wealth. For context, their wealth has grown by 170% since 2023, and they would have to pay just 5%.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We can expect about $100 billion in tax revenue for the state with this tax. Ninety percent of the money would go to health care. And California needs this money because the big budget bill that was passed last year by Congress has defunded Medicaid. And if nothing is done, two million people in California are going to lose their health insurance. The fraction of uninsured individuals will increase from 6% to 10%.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The California governor, Gavin Newsom, or the California legislature haven’t proposed any solution. So voters can solve this problem by themselves with Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m curious, just like, is this for you primarily a fiscal measure about the state’s budget, or is it more of a moral one about the way that you think the state should be approaching billionaire wealth?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Well, it is a budget fiscal issue. There’s a major shortfall of revenue for Medicaid. And the question is, where do we find the money? Now you have essentially two big levers. There is the California income tax, and there is this potential wealth tax on billionaires.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What’s really important to understand is this. And when I first realized that, it blew my mind. If you look at the total wealth of California’s 250 billionaires, we’re talking about $2.3 trillion today. This is as big as the total income of all Californian families. Their total taxable income, AGI, is also $2.3 trillion.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So essentially, if you want to get $100 billion in revenue for the state, you can do it in two ways. Either with a 5% tax on the wealth of 250 billionaires or with an increase in the income tax of five percentage points for all Californian taxpayers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And so, in answer to the question of why target wealth specifically rather than income, that’s where the money is. It represents this massive sum. But is it also that billionaires don’t have traditional income as their core component of how they make money?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> True. The current tax system fails at taxing billionaires. This is true in California. This is true in the U.S. more broadly. This is all over the world. And the reason is that when you’re extremely rich, it’s very easy to organize your wealth such that this wealth will generate no or very little taxable income.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s how, in 2019, in 2022, in 2023, the two worthiest billionaires in California, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, essentially paid no income tax. They didn’t pay themselves any wage from Google. Google didn’t distribute any dividend. They didn’t sell shares in the company, so they didn’t realize any capital gains.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So their taxable income, what is subject to the income tax, was zero or close to zero, extremely low, so that no matter the rate that you apply to that income, you are not going to be able to make billionaires pay more tax just by changing the income tax. This is why the proper way to tax the super rich is with a tax directly on their wealth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Josh, let’s bring you in here to a two-part question here. Do you agree that wealth concentration in billionaires is a problem generally? And then more specifically, do you agree that billionaire taxation is also a problem?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Well, I’d like to begin with just the premise that you have to support anyone who votes for Prop 40, for the Billionaire Tax Act, has got to support — first, you have to believe that it will raise revenue, not lose revenue for the state. And I think this is one of the key points of difference between myself and Gabriel Zucman, which is that they say it will raise $100 billion for the state. We say it will lose $25 to $38 billion for this state.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And why the difference? It’s because of the losses to the state coffers that will be caused by these high-net-worth individuals who are leaving in response to the tax. The state won’t collect the wealth tax from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax, and it won’t collect any more income taxes from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so Dr. Zucman and his colleagues have assumed 10% losses when they arrived at their $100 billion estimate, but going through person by person, we find that public announcements have shown that already 30% of the wealth tax base has left. Half a trillion dollars of wealth has left California. So this is gonna lose money for the state government. Those people, their wealth isn’t gonna be collected by the Billionaire Tax Act, and their income taxes will no longer be collected.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Secondly, you have to believe, if you support this proposition, that on balance the tax will be good for the people of California. And that’s a different question from whether the tax is going to raise revenue or not. I mean, even if the tax were gonna raise revenue — and to be clear, our models say that this one will not — but that revenue has to be balanced against the damage to the economy that the tax will do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So to take an example, a policy that brings in an extra dollar of revenue for the state but destroys 100,000 jobs, that would be a bad policy because you have to believe that the well-being the state can create with an extra dollar of revenue is so great as to offset the pain from losing the job.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So the billionaires who are leaving have created tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs in California, and while those jobs won’t go away overnight, if the founders are gone, the billionaire tax will accelerate the shift of jobs to other states that we’re already seeing. And it’s not just companies already here. If the wealth tax passes, then founders will increasingly choose one of the other emerging ecosystems around the U.S., Austin, Miami, Nashville. And already we have investors saying they won’t invest in startup companies in California if the founders are in California. Notably, Mark Cuban has said that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So whether or not billionaire wealth concentration is a problem or not, whether you think that or not, that’s actually not relevant for what we should do on Prop 40. The question is, do you think it’s going to bring in money for the state? I do not think it will. And second, do you believe that on balance it will be good for the people of California? And I think given all the losses in economic activity we’re seeing here already as a result of this and what we will see if the billionaire tax passes, it will not be for the people of California.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s Josh Rauh, an economist and professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. We’re also joined by Gabriel Zucman, an economist and professor at Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics, helped to develop Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’d love to get your opinions on what you think about the tax. 866-733-6786, \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> at kqed.org. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Josh, I want to stay with you here. What you’re saying is that even just the threat of this tax is causing people to leave and maybe hurting the dynamism of Silicon Valley. And at the same time, we’re experiencing this massive boom in San Francisco of AI company wealth creation and new jobs and businesses that are being created at the time. So it’s one factor, right, in the way where companies decide to locate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> That’s correct. It’s one factor, and investors have been clear about what’s going to happen if the tax passes. You have to realize California companies, the amount of money they receive from venture capitalists from across the state, country and world is a staggering amount of money itself. It is $360 billion. That’s very comparable in a year to the amount of money that the government of California spends.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This ecosystem is fragile. We have people leaving. We have investors saying they’re not going to invest in California if this passes. And it’s interesting to consider the reason why people are saying they won’t invest in that if this passes. You know, Dr. Zucman and you in your intro were clear that this was gonna be a one-time tax. That’s how it’s pitched, but Dr. Zucman has admitted that it’s probably not going to be one time. In fact, I’ll quote from an interview he did on the Capital & Main website. He said, quote, “California could absolutely implement an annual wealth tax,” said Zucman. “This one-time tax is just the starting point of what it could be.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so now that he is admitting that, and people are starting to think, what happens if this wealth tax passes? Investors are beginning to think, wow, this could be really bad, and it could be very harmful to the economy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The discussion has changed since the ballot proposition was made. “One time, one time, one time” kept being repeated, and now the tone of the architects has changed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Gabriel, what do you think? On the one-time issue specifically.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So, a few things. So first of all, this line of reasoning on how the tax is going to hurt the economy is, of course, a very classic argument, which makes sense in the abstract, but you have to look at the numbers. And if you look, for instance, at the flow of venture capital funding —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I might actually cut you off here only because we’re gonna have to go to a break in a second, and I really want you to be able to get to the full set of numbers. You guys can go back and forth a little bit on this. So let me let me throw to a break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Of course, we’re talking about Prop 40, California’s billionaire tax, with, you know, on the pro side, Gabriel Zucman, who helped design it, and Josh Rauh, who has authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax. Way back, more right after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Airdate: Monday, September 14, 2026",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Monday, September 14, 2026\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Monday, September 14, 2026\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>California voters will decide this fall whether the state should impose a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires, with much of the revenue going toward health care amid federal funding cuts. Supporters say Proposition 40 could raise tens of billions of dollars while also helping to address the growing wealth inequality in the state. Opponents argue the tax could drive billionaires out of California, shrinking the state’s income tax base and ultimately costing more than it raises. We talk to two leading economists: Gabriel Zucman, who helped develop the measure, and Joshua Rauh, one of its most vocal critics, about whether the billionaire tax would help California’s economy – or hurt it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>California voters will decide this fall whether the state should impose a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires, with much of the revenue going toward health care amid federal funding cuts. Supporters say Proposition 40 could raise tens of billions of dollars while also helping to address the growing wealth inequality in the state. Opponents argue the tax could drive billionaires out of California, shrinking the state’s income tax base and ultimately costing more than it raises. We talk to two leading economists: Gabriel Zucman, who helped develop the measure, and Joshua Rauh, one of its most vocal critics, about whether the billionaire tax would help California’s economy – or hurt it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Gabriel Zucman, professor of economics, UC Berkeley; Paris School of Economics – author of “We Need to Tax Billionaires”; helped develop Prop 40",
"Joshua Rauh, economist and professor, Stanford Graduate School of Business – senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; opposes CA Prop 40"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman,\u003c/strong> professor of economics, UC Berkeley; Paris School of Economics – author of “We Need to Tax Billionaires”; helped develop Prop 40\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman,\u003c/strong> professor of economics, UC Berkeley; Paris School of Economics – author of “We Need to Tax Billionaires”; helped develop Prop 40\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh,\u003c/strong> economist and professor, Stanford Graduate School of Business – senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; opposes CA Prop 40\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh,\u003c/strong> economist and professor, Stanford Graduate School of Business – senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; opposes CA Prop 40\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, I’m Alexis Madrigal. Proposition 40 is one of the most contentious and intriguing propositions of recent years. It’s a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. It would raise a substantial amount of money, though there are questions about how much net revenue it could pour into state coffers, and those dollars would mostly be used to fund health care.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, I’m Alexis Madrigal. Proposition 40 is one of the most contentious and intriguing propositions of recent years. It’s a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. It would raise a substantial amount of money, though there are questions about how much net revenue it could pour into state coffers, and those dollars would mostly be used to fund health care.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Our first guest is Gabriel Zucman. He is a UC Berkeley economist and author of the admirably straightforwardly named book, \u003cem>We Need to Tax Billionaires\u003c/em>. He helped to develop the proposition. Welcome, Gabriel.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Our first guest is Gabriel Zucman. He is a UC Berkeley economist and author of the admirably straightforwardly named book, \u003cem>We Need to Tax Billionaires\u003c/em>. He helped to develop the proposition. Welcome, Gabriel.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Our second guest is Joshua Rauh, an economist and professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business. He authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax and has emerged as perhaps the leading economist voice opposing Prop 40. Welcome, Josh.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Our second guest is Joshua Rauh, an economist and professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business. He authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax and has emerged as perhaps the leading economist voice opposing Prop 40. Welcome, Josh.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Good to be on the show.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Good to be on the show.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, you guys ready? Ready to fight? Gabriel, let’s start with you. You did help develop this proposition. So let’s just start with the basics. What’s the measure do? Who’s subject to the tax, where does the money go?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, you guys ready? Ready to fight? Gabriel, let’s start with you. You did help develop this proposition. So let’s just start with the basics. What’s the measure do? Who’s subject to the tax, where does the money go?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So this would be a one-time tax on billionaires. Only people who have more than $1 billion of net wealth would be affected. We’re talking about roughly 250 people in California, mostly Silicon Valley tech billionaires who would have to pay a one-time tax equal to 5% of their wealth. For context, their wealth has grown by 170% since 2023, and they would have to pay just 5%.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So this would be a one-time tax on billionaires. Only people who have more than $1 billion of net wealth would be affected. We’re talking about roughly 250 people in California, mostly Silicon Valley tech billionaires who would have to pay a one-time tax equal to 5% of their wealth. For context, their wealth has grown by 170% since 2023, and they would have to pay just 5%.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We can expect about $100 billion in tax revenue for the state with this tax. Ninety percent of the money would go to health care. And California needs this money because the big budget bill that was passed last year by Congress has defunded Medicaid. And if nothing is done, two million people in California are going to lose their health insurance. The fraction of uninsured individuals will increase from 6% to 10%.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We can expect about $100 billion in tax revenue for the state with this tax. Ninety percent of the money would go to health care. And California needs this money because the big budget bill that was passed last year by Congress has defunded Medicaid. And if nothing is done, two million people in California are going to lose their health insurance. The fraction of uninsured individuals will increase from 6% to 10%.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The California governor, Gavin Newsom, or the California legislature haven’t proposed any solution. So voters can solve this problem by themselves with Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The California governor, Gavin Newsom, or the California legislature haven’t proposed any solution. So voters can solve this problem by themselves with Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m curious, just like, is this for you primarily a fiscal measure about the state’s budget, or is it more of a moral one about the way that you think the state should be approaching billionaire wealth?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m curious, just like, is this for you primarily a fiscal measure about the state’s budget, or is it more of a moral one about the way that you think the state should be approaching billionaire wealth?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Well, it is a budget fiscal issue. There’s a major shortfall of revenue for Medicaid. And the question is, where do we find the money? Now you have essentially two big levers. There is the California income tax, and there is this potential wealth tax on billionaires.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Well, it is a budget fiscal issue. There’s a major shortfall of revenue for Medicaid. And the question is, where do we find the money? Now you have essentially two big levers. There is the California income tax, and there is this potential wealth tax on billionaires.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>What’s really important to understand is this. And when I first realized that, it blew my mind. If you look at the total wealth of California’s 250 billionaires, we’re talking about $2.3 trillion today. This is as big as the total income of all Californian families. Their total taxable income, AGI, is also $2.3 trillion.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>What’s really important to understand is this. And when I first realized that, it blew my mind. If you look at the total wealth of California’s 250 billionaires, we’re talking about $2.3 trillion today. This is as big as the total income of all Californian families. Their total taxable income, AGI, is also $2.3 trillion.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So essentially, if you want to get $100 billion in revenue for the state, you can do it in two ways. Either with a 5% tax on the wealth of 250 billionaires or with an increase in the income tax of five percentage points for all Californian taxpayers.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So essentially, if you want to get $100 billion in revenue for the state, you can do it in two ways. Either with a 5% tax on the wealth of 250 billionaires or with an increase in the income tax of five percentage points for all Californian taxpayers.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And so, in answer to the question of why target wealth specifically rather than income, that’s where the money is. It represents this massive sum. But is it also that billionaires don’t have traditional income as their core component of how they make money?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And so, in answer to the question of why target wealth specifically rather than income, that’s where the money is. It represents this massive sum. But is it also that billionaires don’t have traditional income as their core component of how they make money?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> True. The current tax system fails at taxing billionaires. This is true in California. This is true in the U.S. more broadly. This is all over the world. And the reason is that when you’re extremely rich, it’s very easy to organize your wealth such that this wealth will generate no or very little taxable income.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> True. The current tax system fails at taxing billionaires. This is true in California. This is true in the U.S. more broadly. This is all over the world. And the reason is that when you’re extremely rich, it’s very easy to organize your wealth such that this wealth will generate no or very little taxable income.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>That’s how, in 2019, in 2022, in 2023, the two worthiest billionaires in California, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, essentially paid no income tax. They didn’t pay themselves any wage from Google. Google didn’t distribute any dividend. They didn’t sell shares in the company, so they didn’t realize any capital gains.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>That’s how, in 2019, in 2022, in 2023, the two worthiest billionaires in California, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, essentially paid no income tax. They didn’t pay themselves any wage from Google. Google didn’t distribute any dividend. They didn’t sell shares in the company, so they didn’t realize any capital gains.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So their taxable income, what is subject to the income tax, was zero or close to zero, extremely low, so that no matter the rate that you apply to that income, you are not going to be able to make billionaires pay more tax just by changing the income tax. This is why the proper way to tax the super rich is with a tax directly on their wealth.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So their taxable income, what is subject to the income tax, was zero or close to zero, extremely low, so that no matter the rate that you apply to that income, you are not going to be able to make billionaires pay more tax just by changing the income tax. This is why the proper way to tax the super rich is with a tax directly on their wealth.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Josh, let’s bring you in here to a two-part question here. Do you agree that wealth concentration in billionaires is a problem generally? And then more specifically, do you agree that billionaire taxation is also a problem?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Josh, let’s bring you in here to a two-part question here. Do you agree that wealth concentration in billionaires is a problem generally? And then more specifically, do you agree that billionaire taxation is also a problem?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Well, I’d like to begin with just the premise that you have to support anyone who votes for Prop 40, for the Billionaire Tax Act, has got to support — first, you have to believe that it will raise revenue, not lose revenue for the state. And I think this is one of the key points of difference between myself and Gabriel Zucman, which is that they say it will raise $100 billion for the state. We say it will lose $25 to $38 billion for this state.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Well, I’d like to begin with just the premise that you have to support anyone who votes for Prop 40, for the Billionaire Tax Act, has got to support — first, you have to believe that it will raise revenue, not lose revenue for the state. And I think this is one of the key points of difference between myself and Gabriel Zucman, which is that they say it will raise $100 billion for the state. We say it will lose $25 to $38 billion for this state.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And why the difference? It’s because of the losses to the state coffers that will be caused by these high-net-worth individuals who are leaving in response to the tax. The state won’t collect the wealth tax from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax, and it won’t collect any more income taxes from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And why the difference? It’s because of the losses to the state coffers that will be caused by these high-net-worth individuals who are leaving in response to the tax. The state won’t collect the wealth tax from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax, and it won’t collect any more income taxes from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so Dr. Zucman and his colleagues have assumed 10% losses when they arrived at their $100 billion estimate, but going through person by person, we find that public announcements have shown that already 30% of the wealth tax base has left. Half a trillion dollars of wealth has left California. So this is gonna lose money for the state government. Those people, their wealth isn’t gonna be collected by the Billionaire Tax Act, and their income taxes will no longer be collected.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so Dr. Zucman and his colleagues have assumed 10% losses when they arrived at their $100 billion estimate, but going through person by person, we find that public announcements have shown that already 30% of the wealth tax base has left. Half a trillion dollars of wealth has left California. So this is gonna lose money for the state government. Those people, their wealth isn’t gonna be collected by the Billionaire Tax Act, and their income taxes will no longer be collected.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Secondly, you have to believe, if you support this proposition, that on balance the tax will be good for the people of California. And that’s a different question from whether the tax is going to raise revenue or not. I mean, even if the tax were gonna raise revenue — and to be clear, our models say that this one will not — but that revenue has to be balanced against the damage to the economy that the tax will do.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Secondly, you have to believe, if you support this proposition, that on balance the tax will be good for the people of California. And that’s a different question from whether the tax is going to raise revenue or not. I mean, even if the tax were gonna raise revenue — and to be clear, our models say that this one will not — but that revenue has to be balanced against the damage to the economy that the tax will do.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So to take an example, a policy that brings in an extra dollar of revenue for the state but destroys 100,000 jobs, that would be a bad policy because you have to believe that the well-being the state can create with an extra dollar of revenue is so great as to offset the pain from losing the job.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So to take an example, a policy that brings in an extra dollar of revenue for the state but destroys 100,000 jobs, that would be a bad policy because you have to believe that the well-being the state can create with an extra dollar of revenue is so great as to offset the pain from losing the job.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So the billionaires who are leaving have created tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs in California, and while those jobs won’t go away overnight, if the founders are gone, the billionaire tax will accelerate the shift of jobs to other states that we’re already seeing. And it’s not just companies already here. If the wealth tax passes, then founders will increasingly choose one of the other emerging ecosystems around the U.S., Austin, Miami, Nashville. And already we have investors saying they won’t invest in startup companies in California if the founders are in California. Notably, Mark Cuban has said that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So the billionaires who are leaving have created tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs in California, and while those jobs won’t go away overnight, if the founders are gone, the billionaire tax will accelerate the shift of jobs to other states that we’re already seeing. And it’s not just companies already here. If the wealth tax passes, then founders will increasingly choose one of the other emerging ecosystems around the U.S., Austin, Miami, Nashville. And already we have investors saying they won’t invest in startup companies in California if the founders are in California. Notably, Mark Cuban has said that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So whether or not billionaire wealth concentration is a problem or not, whether you think that or not, that’s actually not relevant for what we should do on Prop 40. The question is, do you think it’s going to bring in money for the state? I do not think it will. And second, do you believe that on balance it will be good for the people of California? And I think given all the losses in economic activity we’re seeing here already as a result of this and what we will see if the billionaire tax passes, it will not be for the people of California.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So whether or not billionaire wealth concentration is a problem or not, whether you think that or not, that’s actually not relevant for what we should do on Prop 40. The question is, do you think it’s going to bring in money for the state? I do not think it will. And second, do you believe that on balance it will be good for the people of California? And I think given all the losses in economic activity we’re seeing here already as a result of this and what we will see if the billionaire tax passes, it will not be for the people of California.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s Josh Rauh, an economist and professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. We’re also joined by Gabriel Zucman, an economist and professor at Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics, helped to develop Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s Josh Rauh, an economist and professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. We’re also joined by Gabriel Zucman, an economist and professor at Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics, helped to develop Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’d love to get your opinions on what you think about the tax. 866-733-6786, \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> at kqed.org. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’d love to get your opinions on what you think about the tax. 866-733-6786, \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> at kqed.org. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Josh, I want to stay with you here. What you’re saying is that even just the threat of this tax is causing people to leave and maybe hurting the dynamism of Silicon Valley. And at the same time, we’re experiencing this massive boom in San Francisco of AI company wealth creation and new jobs and businesses that are being created at the time. So it’s one factor, right, in the way where companies decide to locate.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Josh, I want to stay with you here. What you’re saying is that even just the threat of this tax is causing people to leave and maybe hurting the dynamism of Silicon Valley. And at the same time, we’re experiencing this massive boom in San Francisco of AI company wealth creation and new jobs and businesses that are being created at the time. So it’s one factor, right, in the way where companies decide to locate.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> That’s correct. It’s one factor, and investors have been clear about what’s going to happen if the tax passes. You have to realize California companies, the amount of money they receive from venture capitalists from across the state, country and world is a staggering amount of money itself. It is $360 billion. That’s very comparable in a year to the amount of money that the government of California spends.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> That’s correct. It’s one factor, and investors have been clear about what’s going to happen if the tax passes. You have to realize California companies, the amount of money they receive from venture capitalists from across the state, country and world is a staggering amount of money itself. It is $360 billion. That’s very comparable in a year to the amount of money that the government of California spends.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This ecosystem is fragile. We have people leaving. We have investors saying they’re not going to invest in California if this passes. And it’s interesting to consider the reason why people are saying they won’t invest in that if this passes. You know, Dr. Zucman and you in your intro were clear that this was gonna be a one-time tax. That’s how it’s pitched, but Dr. Zucman has admitted that it’s probably not going to be one time. In fact, I’ll quote from an interview he did on the Capital & Main website. He said, quote, “California could absolutely implement an annual wealth tax,” said Zucman. “This one-time tax is just the starting point of what it could be.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This ecosystem is fragile. We have people leaving. We have investors saying they’re not going to invest in California if this passes. And it’s interesting to consider the reason why people are saying they won’t invest in that if this passes. You know, Dr. Zucman and you in your intro were clear that this was gonna be a one-time tax. That’s how it’s pitched, but Dr. Zucman has admitted that it’s probably not going to be one time. In fact, I’ll quote from an interview he did on the Capital & Main website. He said, quote, “California could absolutely implement an annual wealth tax,” said Zucman. “This one-time tax is just the starting point of what it could be.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And so now that he is admitting that, and people are starting to think, what happens if this wealth tax passes? Investors are beginning to think, wow, this could be really bad, and it could be very harmful to the economy.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And so now that he is admitting that, and people are starting to think, what happens if this wealth tax passes? Investors are beginning to think, wow, this could be really bad, and it could be very harmful to the economy.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The discussion has changed since the ballot proposition was made. “One time, one time, one time” kept being repeated, and now the tone of the architects has changed.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The discussion has changed since the ballot proposition was made. “One time, one time, one time” kept being repeated, and now the tone of the architects has changed.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Gabriel, what do you think? On the one-time issue specifically.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Gabriel, what do you think? On the one-time issue specifically.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So, a few things. So first of all, this line of reasoning on how the tax is going to hurt the economy is, of course, a very classic argument, which makes sense in the abstract, but you have to look at the numbers. And if you look, for instance, at the flow of venture capital funding —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So, a few things. So first of all, this line of reasoning on how the tax is going to hurt the economy is, of course, a very classic argument, which makes sense in the abstract, but you have to look at the numbers. And if you look, for instance, at the flow of venture capital funding —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I might actually cut you off here only because we’re gonna have to go to a break in a second, and I really want you to be able to get to the full set of numbers. You guys can go back and forth a little bit on this. So let me let me throw to a break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I might actually cut you off here only because we’re gonna have to go to a break in a second, and I really want you to be able to get to the full set of numbers. You guys can go back and forth a little bit on this. So let me let me throw to a break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Of course, we’re talking about Prop 40, California’s billionaire tax, with, you know, on the pro side, Gabriel Zucman, who helped design it, and Josh Rauh, who has authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax. Way back, more right after the break.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Of course, we’re talking about Prop 40, California’s billionaire tax, with, you know, on the pro side, Gabriel Zucman, who helped design it, and Josh Rauh, who has authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax. Way back, more right after the break.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "We talk to two leading economists about whether the billionaire tax would help California’s economy.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1789413839,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 39,
"wordCount": 2310
},
"headData": {
"title": "Economists Make the Case For and Against California’s Billionaire Tax | KQED",
"description": "We talk to two leading economists about whether the billionaire tax would help California’s economy.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Economists Make the Case For and Against California’s Billionaire Tax",
"datePublished": "2026-09-14T07:56:35-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-09-14T12:23:59-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 1623,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC4915128671.mp3",
"airdate": 1789401600,
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/forum/2010101915264/economists-make-the-case-for-and-against-californias-billionaire-tax",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Monday, September 14, 2026\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>California voters will decide this fall whether the state should impose a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires, with much of the revenue going toward health care amid federal funding cuts. Supporters say Proposition 40 could raise tens of billions of dollars while also helping to address the growing wealth inequality in the state. Opponents argue the tax could drive billionaires out of California, shrinking the state’s income tax base and ultimately costing more than it raises. We talk to two leading economists: Gabriel Zucman, who helped develop the measure, and Joshua Rauh, one of its most vocal critics, about whether the billionaire tax would help California’s economy – or hurt it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman,\u003c/strong> professor of economics, UC Berkeley; Paris School of Economics – author of “We Need to Tax Billionaires”; helped develop Prop 40\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh,\u003c/strong> economist and professor, Stanford Graduate School of Business – senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research; opposes CA Prop 40\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, I’m Alexis Madrigal. Proposition 40 is one of the most contentious and intriguing propositions of recent years. It’s a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires. It would raise a substantial amount of money, though there are questions about how much net revenue it could pour into state coffers, and those dollars would mostly be used to fund health care.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Our first guest is Gabriel Zucman. He is a UC Berkeley economist and author of the admirably straightforwardly named book, \u003cem>We Need to Tax Billionaires\u003c/em>. He helped to develop the proposition. Welcome, Gabriel.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Our second guest is Joshua Rauh, an economist and professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business. He authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax and has emerged as perhaps the leading economist voice opposing Prop 40. Welcome, Josh.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Good to be on the show.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Okay, you guys ready? Ready to fight? Gabriel, let’s start with you. You did help develop this proposition. So let’s just start with the basics. What’s the measure do? Who’s subject to the tax, where does the money go?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So this would be a one-time tax on billionaires. Only people who have more than $1 billion of net wealth would be affected. We’re talking about roughly 250 people in California, mostly Silicon Valley tech billionaires who would have to pay a one-time tax equal to 5% of their wealth. For context, their wealth has grown by 170% since 2023, and they would have to pay just 5%.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We can expect about $100 billion in tax revenue for the state with this tax. Ninety percent of the money would go to health care. And California needs this money because the big budget bill that was passed last year by Congress has defunded Medicaid. And if nothing is done, two million people in California are going to lose their health insurance. The fraction of uninsured individuals will increase from 6% to 10%.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The California governor, Gavin Newsom, or the California legislature haven’t proposed any solution. So voters can solve this problem by themselves with Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I’m curious, just like, is this for you primarily a fiscal measure about the state’s budget, or is it more of a moral one about the way that you think the state should be approaching billionaire wealth?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> Well, it is a budget fiscal issue. There’s a major shortfall of revenue for Medicaid. And the question is, where do we find the money? Now you have essentially two big levers. There is the California income tax, and there is this potential wealth tax on billionaires.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>What’s really important to understand is this. And when I first realized that, it blew my mind. If you look at the total wealth of California’s 250 billionaires, we’re talking about $2.3 trillion today. This is as big as the total income of all Californian families. Their total taxable income, AGI, is also $2.3 trillion.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So essentially, if you want to get $100 billion in revenue for the state, you can do it in two ways. Either with a 5% tax on the wealth of 250 billionaires or with an increase in the income tax of five percentage points for all Californian taxpayers.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> And so, in answer to the question of why target wealth specifically rather than income, that’s where the money is. It represents this massive sum. But is it also that billionaires don’t have traditional income as their core component of how they make money?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> True. The current tax system fails at taxing billionaires. This is true in California. This is true in the U.S. more broadly. This is all over the world. And the reason is that when you’re extremely rich, it’s very easy to organize your wealth such that this wealth will generate no or very little taxable income.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>That’s how, in 2019, in 2022, in 2023, the two worthiest billionaires in California, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, essentially paid no income tax. They didn’t pay themselves any wage from Google. Google didn’t distribute any dividend. They didn’t sell shares in the company, so they didn’t realize any capital gains.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So their taxable income, what is subject to the income tax, was zero or close to zero, extremely low, so that no matter the rate that you apply to that income, you are not going to be able to make billionaires pay more tax just by changing the income tax. This is why the proper way to tax the super rich is with a tax directly on their wealth.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Josh, let’s bring you in here to a two-part question here. Do you agree that wealth concentration in billionaires is a problem generally? And then more specifically, do you agree that billionaire taxation is also a problem?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> Well, I’d like to begin with just the premise that you have to support anyone who votes for Prop 40, for the Billionaire Tax Act, has got to support — first, you have to believe that it will raise revenue, not lose revenue for the state. And I think this is one of the key points of difference between myself and Gabriel Zucman, which is that they say it will raise $100 billion for the state. We say it will lose $25 to $38 billion for this state.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And why the difference? It’s because of the losses to the state coffers that will be caused by these high-net-worth individuals who are leaving in response to the tax. The state won’t collect the wealth tax from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax, and it won’t collect any more income taxes from the billionaires who have left in response to the tax.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so Dr. Zucman and his colleagues have assumed 10% losses when they arrived at their $100 billion estimate, but going through person by person, we find that public announcements have shown that already 30% of the wealth tax base has left. Half a trillion dollars of wealth has left California. So this is gonna lose money for the state government. Those people, their wealth isn’t gonna be collected by the Billionaire Tax Act, and their income taxes will no longer be collected.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Secondly, you have to believe, if you support this proposition, that on balance the tax will be good for the people of California. And that’s a different question from whether the tax is going to raise revenue or not. I mean, even if the tax were gonna raise revenue — and to be clear, our models say that this one will not — but that revenue has to be balanced against the damage to the economy that the tax will do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So to take an example, a policy that brings in an extra dollar of revenue for the state but destroys 100,000 jobs, that would be a bad policy because you have to believe that the well-being the state can create with an extra dollar of revenue is so great as to offset the pain from losing the job.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So the billionaires who are leaving have created tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs in California, and while those jobs won’t go away overnight, if the founders are gone, the billionaire tax will accelerate the shift of jobs to other states that we’re already seeing. And it’s not just companies already here. If the wealth tax passes, then founders will increasingly choose one of the other emerging ecosystems around the U.S., Austin, Miami, Nashville. And already we have investors saying they won’t invest in startup companies in California if the founders are in California. Notably, Mark Cuban has said that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So whether or not billionaire wealth concentration is a problem or not, whether you think that or not, that’s actually not relevant for what we should do on Prop 40. The question is, do you think it’s going to bring in money for the state? I do not think it will. And second, do you believe that on balance it will be good for the people of California? And I think given all the losses in economic activity we’re seeing here already as a result of this and what we will see if the billionaire tax passes, it will not be for the people of California.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> That’s Josh Rauh, an economist and professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. We’re also joined by Gabriel Zucman, an economist and professor at Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics, helped to develop Prop 40.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’d love to get your opinions on what you think about the tax. 866-733-6786, \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> at kqed.org. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Josh, I want to stay with you here. What you’re saying is that even just the threat of this tax is causing people to leave and maybe hurting the dynamism of Silicon Valley. And at the same time, we’re experiencing this massive boom in San Francisco of AI company wealth creation and new jobs and businesses that are being created at the time. So it’s one factor, right, in the way where companies decide to locate.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Joshua Rauh:\u003c/strong> That’s correct. It’s one factor, and investors have been clear about what’s going to happen if the tax passes. You have to realize California companies, the amount of money they receive from venture capitalists from across the state, country and world is a staggering amount of money itself. It is $360 billion. That’s very comparable in a year to the amount of money that the government of California spends.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This ecosystem is fragile. We have people leaving. We have investors saying they’re not going to invest in California if this passes. And it’s interesting to consider the reason why people are saying they won’t invest in that if this passes. You know, Dr. Zucman and you in your intro were clear that this was gonna be a one-time tax. That’s how it’s pitched, but Dr. Zucman has admitted that it’s probably not going to be one time. In fact, I’ll quote from an interview he did on the Capital & Main website. He said, quote, “California could absolutely implement an annual wealth tax,” said Zucman. “This one-time tax is just the starting point of what it could be.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And so now that he is admitting that, and people are starting to think, what happens if this wealth tax passes? Investors are beginning to think, wow, this could be really bad, and it could be very harmful to the economy.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The discussion has changed since the ballot proposition was made. “One time, one time, one time” kept being repeated, and now the tone of the architects has changed.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Gabriel, what do you think? On the one-time issue specifically.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gabriel Zucman:\u003c/strong> So, a few things. So first of all, this line of reasoning on how the tax is going to hurt the economy is, of course, a very classic argument, which makes sense in the abstract, but you have to look at the numbers. And if you look, for instance, at the flow of venture capital funding —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I might actually cut you off here only because we’re gonna have to go to a break in a second, and I really want you to be able to get to the full set of numbers. You guys can go back and forth a little bit on this. So let me let me throw to a break.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Of course, we’re talking about Prop 40, California’s billionaire tax, with, you know, on the pro side, Gabriel Zucman, who helped design it, and Josh Rauh, who has authored a study about the potential effects of the wealth tax. Way back, more right after the break.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/forum/2010101915264/economists-make-the-case-for-and-against-californias-billionaire-tax",
"authors": [
"11757",
"12020"
],
"programs": [
"forum_3"
],
"categories": [
"forum_1623"
],
"featImg": "forum_2010101915266",
"label": "forum_3"
},
"forum_2010101915217": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "forum_2010101915217",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915217",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1788991814000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "claudia-rankine-on-the-friendships-that-unsettle-and-sustain-us",
"title": "Claudia Rankine on the Friendships That Unsettle and Sustain Us",
"publishDate": 1788991814,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Claudia Rankine on the Friendships That Unsettle and Sustain Us | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 3,
"site": "forum"
},
"content": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Acclaimed poet and essayist Claudia Rankine’s new book, “Triage,” follows the turbulent, decades long friendship between a Black woman and a nonbinary Palestinian who meet in college and invent a ritual of collapsing to the ground whenever they see each other. Over time, that act of collapse comes to hold new meaning as they reckon with wounded histories, political violence and the strain of loving someone who can also unsettle you. Blending memoir, criticism, essay and visual art, “Triage” is Rankine’s first book after her celebrated American trilogy and some of her most personal writing yet. Rankine joins us to talk about friendship, grieving, and what it means to keep acting – and relating – in a time of relentless personal and global loss.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine,\u003c/strong> poet, playwright and author, her new book is “Triage”, professor of Creative Writing at NYU; a MacArthur “Genius” grant recipient\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Alexis Madrigal here. As you probably know, this is the first day of our membership drive, our pledge drive during this time of the year. We’re not gonna be doing One Good Things, these little things that I read, these little odes to different parts of the Bay Area every single day. However, today we are, in fact, going to do one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This actually came from my newsletter, which is also called One Good Thing, which you can subscribe to at kqed.org/onegoodthing. And it’s about a tree in my neighborhood.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This tree is monumental. I’m standing at its base, redwood bark seeming to flow down, down until it finally gets to ground, where I can’t help but see something elephantine in the way it bulges where it touches earth. I don’t have to imagine the roots. The infrastructure of this place has had to accommodate itself to this tree. The sidewalk is covered in a spongy material to prevent the inevitable cracking of concrete by root.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Strange to think that concrete, which, if you’ve ever hit a slab of it with a sledgehammer, feels adamantine and everlasting, will always yield to the redwood root. The asphalt of the road beyond the sidewalk knows, too. It’s cracked along a line that suggests the tree below.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This tree has no name that I know of, though stay tuned because I found out the tree’s name. It stands on a small side street in Berkeley near the Claremont neighborhood. Lovely area, trees abound, including a smattering of other redwoods. But none of the other redwoods are like this one, which feels out of scale for a neighborhood of single-family homes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m filled with wonder and envy that someone lives with this tree in their front yard. Every day they go about their business in the understory of this remarkable living creature, forgetting their keys in the glory of creation, telling a kid to hurry if they’ll be late under the majestic branches.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t know much about the tree. Must be old, but how old? Was it here in 1926, 1776? Before, could Indigenous residents have known this tree when it was a small sapling? No. In the presence of a giant like this, the brain can get scrambled. I know better.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The Uplands neighborhood nearby was created in the early 20th century out of ranch land. And it seems unlikely that there were huge numbers of redwoods on or near that ranch. The house that shares the redwood’s property was built in 1906, which probably means it was planted around then. Just guessing here. Could it be just 120 years old? Guess that’s not so young.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>On the outside, maybe it settled into ranch land in the decades before the subdivision. But regardless of the precise history, this redwood, as grand and majestic as it is, is a planting. It’s a co-creation of the people who have lived on that street and its own magnificent possibilities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Somehow it feels weirder to think that someone’s lovingly tended this tree. They could not have known they’d picked the very perfect spot for a redwood. And yet they did.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This magnificent tree is not a remnant or an area of preservation, but an attempt at repair. People have worked to keep it here, despite the complexities it must introduce into life in an American house.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This tree is grown up in this neighborhood. Same as my kids.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This week, I’m gonna send out a follow-up with the tree’s name.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. One thing I love about Claudia Rankine’s books, and this new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>, in particular, is that each one seems to create its own genre.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> reads kind of like an experimental novel or long poem or an essay or a memoir. What is this thing between the two covers of the book? Without a doubt, it does what a book should do, refine and press a generous span of thinking. But it isn’t quite like anything I’ve read before.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> is a book for confronting the self in a time of global cruelty and tragedy. In a very rough sense, it’s a novelistic book about friendship and grief and the state of the world. And this work asks, how do our own personal losses grind us into the particular shape that we use to confront the world and its endless variations of loss?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And also, maybe its author, Claudia Rankine, winner of myriad awards, a certified MacArthur genius, also an NYU professor, joins us this morning.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, Claudia.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Thank you, Alexis. It’s so good to have you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As we’re settling in here, I want you to maybe confront the sort of basics of this book, which has a quite complicated form. It’s quite very interesting. But our book opens with our narrator watching their old friend, referred to in the book as the theorist, deliver a lecture. And it’s the narrator’s 60th birthday. It’s a friend from college who they haven’t seen in a long time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And during a Q&A, someone asked the theorist how they feel, given all that’s going on in the world today. You can even see them, like, doing that thing with their hands we all do. And the theorist pauses and says, “Sometimes I want to throw myself in front of a speeding car.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So this book really is responding to that feeling in the world right now. How do you see it showing up for you, that sense of too much?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, yeah, I think it is a moment when everything is happening and nothing is happening. And we’re caught in this sort of liminal space where we see what should be done, but we cannot do it. And it’s a strange dynamic, I think, to understand that things are happening and we have no control to stop them, things that are impossible, that you have lived your life thinking, “This is not possible,” and yet it is possible, and it is now happening, and it’s now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> There’s a repeated line in the book which I found quite chilling: “The choices are not choices.” This sense that the political and even personal possibility for things has shrunk to the point where the choices are not choices.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> You know, I don’t know about you, but we all grew up with Anne Frank and thinking, if this ever happened, if we were ever in this place, we are very clear about what we would do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, man.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And suddenly we are just watching disaster after disaster. There are wars, there is genocide, there’s climate change. And we’re just continuing on as if we stay quiet, it will reverse things. And I don’t think that has ever been the way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> One of the sort of wonders and the mechanism of this book for me is that in this book, the narrator comes across as a version of you. Maybe not exactly, maybe not fully, but like in the multiverse, some Rankine out there. And yet it’s really that character who’s sort of paralyzed, who is not doing the things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So you’ve kind of taken the person that we want to identify with as, you know, oh, this is whose consciousness we’re with, and given her the difficult task of not doing the things that we wish we would do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> I know. I think some people are disappointed. They think I’ve tricked them somehow. They’re like, “Gotcha!” But it is the dynamic I personally found myself in, where I have one idea about what is right and what my moral stance is and who I am, and then the reality is there in front of us, that there is little we can do, or at least so we think.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then you see what’s happening in Minnesota, and you’re like, oh, okay, there are other ways.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there was a line, I think the review in \u003cem>The Atlantic\u003c/em> pulled it out, too. It struck me as well, that people find themselves in a state where, quote, “nothing else functions but one’s grief.” And it does feel like part of this book is trying to somehow maybe get to the end of that grief, get to, what does it mean to feel it all the way, to somehow move past it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And move through it. And also, you know, there’s a sense that you can’t get past it. We’re in a dynamic now —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> — where there is no end. And so, you know, let’s take climate change. We, I guess, we are now, the U.S. is now reclassified as a tropical climate, which, you know, September in the 80s, you kind of believe it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So whatever the trajectory is, it’s happening. So the new question is, the new way of being is, how do you live within it? What are your responsibilities to the moment when you know that there is no end to it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> So, and that’s, you know, that’s hard to hold in terms of not having a plan that has a solution. You need a plan, but it might not be a solution.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, the theorist in this book has an answer, which is essentially sort of action first, right? That’s kind of the theorist’s answer is, well, we gotta do something. What’s the sort of narrator’s position on that position?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, Daenerys’ position on that position, I believe, is maybe you’re right, but am I the one to do it? And that’s the other thing. Is it our job to police the actions of others rather than to do what each of us can do to the point that we can do it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> The phrase that kept occurring to me — there’s regular listeners of this program who will wonder why I’ve brought up many times Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish philosopher, who has this amazing line about our times, that anything can happen, but nothing can be done. And that’s sort of the state of power in the world, what he calls liquid modernity.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And that line really resonated throughout this book for me, this sense of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re talking with poet, playwright, and essayist Claudia Rankine about her new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>. She is, of course, also the author of the American Trilogy, including \u003cem>Citizen\u003c/em> and \u003cem>Just Us\u003c/em>, professor of creative writing at NYU and a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I want to hear from you. Can you relate to the feeling of too-muchness in the world today, or the kind of only mechanism that’s working in being your grief? How are you responding to those feelings or trying to move through them?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can give us a call, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is forum@kqed.org. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Airdate: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 9am",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Acclaimed poet and essayist Claudia Rankine’s new book, “Triage,” follows the turbulent, decades long friendship between a Black woman and a nonbinary Palestinian who meet in college and invent a ritual of collapsing to the ground whenever they see each other. Over time, that act of collapse comes to hold new meaning as they reckon with wounded histories, political violence and the strain of loving someone who can also unsettle you. Blending memoir, criticism, essay and visual art, “Triage” is Rankine’s first book after her celebrated American trilogy and some of her most personal writing yet. Rankine joins us to talk about friendship, grieving, and what it means to keep acting – and relating – in a time of relentless personal and global loss.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Acclaimed poet and essayist Claudia Rankine’s new book, “Triage,” follows the turbulent, decades long friendship between a Black woman and a nonbinary Palestinian who meet in college and invent a ritual of collapsing to the ground whenever they see each other. Over time, that act of collapse comes to hold new meaning as they reckon with wounded histories, political violence and the strain of loving someone who can also unsettle you. Blending memoir, criticism, essay and visual art, “Triage” is Rankine’s first book after her celebrated American trilogy and some of her most personal writing yet. Rankine joins us to talk about friendship, grieving, and what it means to keep acting – and relating – in a time of relentless personal and global loss.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Claudia Rankine, poet, playwright and author, her new book is “Triage”, professor of Creative Writing at NYU; a MacArthur “Genius” grant recipient"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine,\u003c/strong> poet, playwright and author, her new book is “Triage”, professor of Creative Writing at NYU; a MacArthur “Genius” grant recipient\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine,\u003c/strong> poet, playwright and author, her new book is “Triage”, professor of Creative Writing at NYU; a MacArthur “Genius” grant recipient\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Alexis Madrigal here. As you probably know, this is the first day of our membership drive, our pledge drive during this time of the year. We’re not gonna be doing One Good Things, these little things that I read, these little odes to different parts of the Bay Area every single day. However, today we are, in fact, going to do one.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Alexis Madrigal here. As you probably know, this is the first day of our membership drive, our pledge drive during this time of the year. We’re not gonna be doing One Good Things, these little things that I read, these little odes to different parts of the Bay Area every single day. However, today we are, in fact, going to do one.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This actually came from my newsletter, which is also called One Good Thing, which you can subscribe to at kqed.org/onegoodthing. And it’s about a tree in my neighborhood.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This actually came from my newsletter, which is also called One Good Thing, which you can subscribe to at kqed.org/onegoodthing. And it’s about a tree in my neighborhood.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This tree is monumental. I’m standing at its base, redwood bark seeming to flow down, down until it finally gets to ground, where I can’t help but see something elephantine in the way it bulges where it touches earth. I don’t have to imagine the roots. The infrastructure of this place has had to accommodate itself to this tree. The sidewalk is covered in a spongy material to prevent the inevitable cracking of concrete by root.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This tree is monumental. I’m standing at its base, redwood bark seeming to flow down, down until it finally gets to ground, where I can’t help but see something elephantine in the way it bulges where it touches earth. I don’t have to imagine the roots. The infrastructure of this place has had to accommodate itself to this tree. The sidewalk is covered in a spongy material to prevent the inevitable cracking of concrete by root.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Strange to think that concrete, which, if you’ve ever hit a slab of it with a sledgehammer, feels adamantine and everlasting, will always yield to the redwood root. The asphalt of the road beyond the sidewalk knows, too. It’s cracked along a line that suggests the tree below.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Strange to think that concrete, which, if you’ve ever hit a slab of it with a sledgehammer, feels adamantine and everlasting, will always yield to the redwood root. The asphalt of the road beyond the sidewalk knows, too. It’s cracked along a line that suggests the tree below.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This tree has no name that I know of, though stay tuned because I found out the tree’s name. It stands on a small side street in Berkeley near the Claremont neighborhood. Lovely area, trees abound, including a smattering of other redwoods. But none of the other redwoods are like this one, which feels out of scale for a neighborhood of single-family homes.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This tree has no name that I know of, though stay tuned because I found out the tree’s name. It stands on a small side street in Berkeley near the Claremont neighborhood. Lovely area, trees abound, including a smattering of other redwoods. But none of the other redwoods are like this one, which feels out of scale for a neighborhood of single-family homes.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I’m filled with wonder and envy that someone lives with this tree in their front yard. Every day they go about their business in the understory of this remarkable living creature, forgetting their keys in the glory of creation, telling a kid to hurry if they’ll be late under the majestic branches.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I’m filled with wonder and envy that someone lives with this tree in their front yard. Every day they go about their business in the understory of this remarkable living creature, forgetting their keys in the glory of creation, telling a kid to hurry if they’ll be late under the majestic branches.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I don’t know much about the tree. Must be old, but how old? Was it here in 1926, 1776? Before, could Indigenous residents have known this tree when it was a small sapling? No. In the presence of a giant like this, the brain can get scrambled. I know better.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I don’t know much about the tree. Must be old, but how old? Was it here in 1926, 1776? Before, could Indigenous residents have known this tree when it was a small sapling? No. In the presence of a giant like this, the brain can get scrambled. I know better.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The Uplands neighborhood nearby was created in the early 20th century out of ranch land. And it seems unlikely that there were huge numbers of redwoods on or near that ranch. The house that shares the redwood’s property was built in 1906, which probably means it was planted around then. Just guessing here. Could it be just 120 years old? Guess that’s not so young.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The Uplands neighborhood nearby was created in the early 20th century out of ranch land. And it seems unlikely that there were huge numbers of redwoods on or near that ranch. The house that shares the redwood’s property was built in 1906, which probably means it was planted around then. Just guessing here. Could it be just 120 years old? Guess that’s not so young.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>On the outside, maybe it settled into ranch land in the decades before the subdivision. But regardless of the precise history, this redwood, as grand and majestic as it is, is a planting. It’s a co-creation of the people who have lived on that street and its own magnificent possibilities.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>On the outside, maybe it settled into ranch land in the decades before the subdivision. But regardless of the precise history, this redwood, as grand and majestic as it is, is a planting. It’s a co-creation of the people who have lived on that street and its own magnificent possibilities.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Somehow it feels weirder to think that someone’s lovingly tended this tree. They could not have known they’d picked the very perfect spot for a redwood. And yet they did.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Somehow it feels weirder to think that someone’s lovingly tended this tree. They could not have known they’d picked the very perfect spot for a redwood. And yet they did.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This magnificent tree is not a remnant or an area of preservation, but an attempt at repair. People have worked to keep it here, despite the complexities it must introduce into life in an American house.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This magnificent tree is not a remnant or an area of preservation, but an attempt at repair. People have worked to keep it here, despite the complexities it must introduce into life in an American house.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This tree is grown up in this neighborhood. Same as my kids.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This tree is grown up in this neighborhood. Same as my kids.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>This week, I’m gonna send out a follow-up with the tree’s name.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>This week, I’m gonna send out a follow-up with the tree’s name.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. One thing I love about Claudia Rankine’s books, and this new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>, in particular, is that each one seems to create its own genre.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. One thing I love about Claudia Rankine’s books, and this new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>, in particular, is that each one seems to create its own genre.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> reads kind of like an experimental novel or long poem or an essay or a memoir. What is this thing between the two covers of the book? Without a doubt, it does what a book should do, refine and press a generous span of thinking. But it isn’t quite like anything I’ve read before.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> reads kind of like an experimental novel or long poem or an essay or a memoir. What is this thing between the two covers of the book? Without a doubt, it does what a book should do, refine and press a generous span of thinking. But it isn’t quite like anything I’ve read before.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> is a book for confronting the self in a time of global cruelty and tragedy. In a very rough sense, it’s a novelistic book about friendship and grief and the state of the world. And this work asks, how do our own personal losses grind us into the particular shape that we use to confront the world and its endless variations of loss?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> is a book for confronting the self in a time of global cruelty and tragedy. In a very rough sense, it’s a novelistic book about friendship and grief and the state of the world. And this work asks, how do our own personal losses grind us into the particular shape that we use to confront the world and its endless variations of loss?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And also, maybe its author, Claudia Rankine, winner of myriad awards, a certified MacArthur genius, also an NYU professor, joins us this morning.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And also, maybe its author, Claudia Rankine, winner of myriad awards, a certified MacArthur genius, also an NYU professor, joins us this morning.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, Claudia.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, Claudia.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Thank you, Alexis. It’s so good to have you.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Thank you, Alexis. It’s so good to have you.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As we’re settling in here, I want you to maybe confront the sort of basics of this book, which has a quite complicated form. It’s quite very interesting. But our book opens with our narrator watching their old friend, referred to in the book as the theorist, deliver a lecture. And it’s the narrator’s 60th birthday. It’s a friend from college who they haven’t seen in a long time.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As we’re settling in here, I want you to maybe confront the sort of basics of this book, which has a quite complicated form. It’s quite very interesting. But our book opens with our narrator watching their old friend, referred to in the book as the theorist, deliver a lecture. And it’s the narrator’s 60th birthday. It’s a friend from college who they haven’t seen in a long time.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And during a Q&A, someone asked the theorist how they feel, given all that’s going on in the world today. You can even see them, like, doing that thing with their hands we all do. And the theorist pauses and says, “Sometimes I want to throw myself in front of a speeding car.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And during a Q&A, someone asked the theorist how they feel, given all that’s going on in the world today. You can even see them, like, doing that thing with their hands we all do. And the theorist pauses and says, “Sometimes I want to throw myself in front of a speeding car.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So this book really is responding to that feeling in the world right now. How do you see it showing up for you, that sense of too much?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So this book really is responding to that feeling in the world right now. How do you see it showing up for you, that sense of too much?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, yeah, I think it is a moment when everything is happening and nothing is happening. And we’re caught in this sort of liminal space where we see what should be done, but we cannot do it. And it’s a strange dynamic, I think, to understand that things are happening and we have no control to stop them, things that are impossible, that you have lived your life thinking, “This is not possible,” and yet it is possible, and it is now happening, and it’s now.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, yeah, I think it is a moment when everything is happening and nothing is happening. And we’re caught in this sort of liminal space where we see what should be done, but we cannot do it. And it’s a strange dynamic, I think, to understand that things are happening and we have no control to stop them, things that are impossible, that you have lived your life thinking, “This is not possible,” and yet it is possible, and it is now happening, and it’s now.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> There’s a repeated line in the book which I found quite chilling: “The choices are not choices.” This sense that the political and even personal possibility for things has shrunk to the point where the choices are not choices.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> There’s a repeated line in the book which I found quite chilling: “The choices are not choices.” This sense that the political and even personal possibility for things has shrunk to the point where the choices are not choices.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> You know, I don’t know about you, but we all grew up with Anne Frank and thinking, if this ever happened, if we were ever in this place, we are very clear about what we would do.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> You know, I don’t know about you, but we all grew up with Anne Frank and thinking, if this ever happened, if we were ever in this place, we are very clear about what we would do.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, man.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, man.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And suddenly we are just watching disaster after disaster. There are wars, there is genocide, there’s climate change. And we’re just continuing on as if we stay quiet, it will reverse things. And I don’t think that has ever been the way.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And suddenly we are just watching disaster after disaster. There are wars, there is genocide, there’s climate change. And we’re just continuing on as if we stay quiet, it will reverse things. And I don’t think that has ever been the way.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> One of the sort of wonders and the mechanism of this book for me is that in this book, the narrator comes across as a version of you. Maybe not exactly, maybe not fully, but like in the multiverse, some Rankine out there. And yet it’s really that character who’s sort of paralyzed, who is not doing the things.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> One of the sort of wonders and the mechanism of this book for me is that in this book, the narrator comes across as a version of you. Maybe not exactly, maybe not fully, but like in the multiverse, some Rankine out there. And yet it’s really that character who’s sort of paralyzed, who is not doing the things.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So you’ve kind of taken the person that we want to identify with as, you know, oh, this is whose consciousness we’re with, and given her the difficult task of not doing the things that we wish we would do.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So you’ve kind of taken the person that we want to identify with as, you know, oh, this is whose consciousness we’re with, and given her the difficult task of not doing the things that we wish we would do.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> I know. I think some people are disappointed. They think I’ve tricked them somehow. They’re like, “Gotcha!” But it is the dynamic I personally found myself in, where I have one idea about what is right and what my moral stance is and who I am, and then the reality is there in front of us, that there is little we can do, or at least so we think.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> I know. I think some people are disappointed. They think I’ve tricked them somehow. They’re like, “Gotcha!” But it is the dynamic I personally found myself in, where I have one idea about what is right and what my moral stance is and who I am, and then the reality is there in front of us, that there is little we can do, or at least so we think.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then you see what’s happening in Minnesota, and you’re like, oh, okay, there are other ways.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then you see what’s happening in Minnesota, and you’re like, oh, okay, there are other ways.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there was a line, I think the review in \u003cem>The Atlantic\u003c/em> pulled it out, too. It struck me as well, that people find themselves in a state where, quote, “nothing else functions but one’s grief.” And it does feel like part of this book is trying to somehow maybe get to the end of that grief, get to, what does it mean to feel it all the way, to somehow move past it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there was a line, I think the review in \u003cem>The Atlantic\u003c/em> pulled it out, too. It struck me as well, that people find themselves in a state where, quote, “nothing else functions but one’s grief.” And it does feel like part of this book is trying to somehow maybe get to the end of that grief, get to, what does it mean to feel it all the way, to somehow move past it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And move through it. And also, you know, there’s a sense that you can’t get past it. We’re in a dynamic now —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And move through it. And also, you know, there’s a sense that you can’t get past it. We’re in a dynamic now —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re —\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re —\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> — where there is no end. And so, you know, let’s take climate change. We, I guess, we are now, the U.S. is now reclassified as a tropical climate, which, you know, September in the 80s, you kind of believe it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> — where there is no end. And so, you know, let’s take climate change. We, I guess, we are now, the U.S. is now reclassified as a tropical climate, which, you know, September in the 80s, you kind of believe it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So whatever the trajectory is, it’s happening. So the new question is, the new way of being is, how do you live within it? What are your responsibilities to the moment when you know that there is no end to it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So whatever the trajectory is, it’s happening. So the new question is, the new way of being is, how do you live within it? What are your responsibilities to the moment when you know that there is no end to it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> So, and that’s, you know, that’s hard to hold in terms of not having a plan that has a solution. You need a plan, but it might not be a solution.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> So, and that’s, you know, that’s hard to hold in terms of not having a plan that has a solution. You need a plan, but it might not be a solution.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, the theorist in this book has an answer, which is essentially sort of action first, right? That’s kind of the theorist’s answer is, well, we gotta do something. What’s the sort of narrator’s position on that position?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, the theorist in this book has an answer, which is essentially sort of action first, right? That’s kind of the theorist’s answer is, well, we gotta do something. What’s the sort of narrator’s position on that position?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, Daenerys’ position on that position, I believe, is maybe you’re right, but am I the one to do it? And that’s the other thing. Is it our job to police the actions of others rather than to do what each of us can do to the point that we can do it?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, Daenerys’ position on that position, I believe, is maybe you’re right, but am I the one to do it? And that’s the other thing. Is it our job to police the actions of others rather than to do what each of us can do to the point that we can do it?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> The phrase that kept occurring to me — there’s regular listeners of this program who will wonder why I’ve brought up many times Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish philosopher, who has this amazing line about our times, that anything can happen, but nothing can be done. And that’s sort of the state of power in the world, what he calls liquid modernity.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> The phrase that kept occurring to me — there’s regular listeners of this program who will wonder why I’ve brought up many times Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish philosopher, who has this amazing line about our times, that anything can happen, but nothing can be done. And that’s sort of the state of power in the world, what he calls liquid modernity.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And that line really resonated throughout this book for me, this sense of that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And that line really resonated throughout this book for me, this sense of that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’re talking with poet, playwright, and essayist Claudia Rankine about her new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>. She is, of course, also the author of the American Trilogy, including \u003cem>Citizen\u003c/em> and \u003cem>Just Us\u003c/em>, professor of creative writing at NYU and a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’re talking with poet, playwright, and essayist Claudia Rankine about her new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>. She is, of course, also the author of the American Trilogy, including \u003cem>Citizen\u003c/em> and \u003cem>Just Us\u003c/em>, professor of creative writing at NYU and a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I want to hear from you. Can you relate to the feeling of too-muchness in the world today, or the kind of only mechanism that’s working in being your grief? How are you responding to those feelings or trying to move through them?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I want to hear from you. Can you relate to the feeling of too-muchness in the world today, or the kind of only mechanism that’s working in being your grief? How are you responding to those feelings or trying to move through them?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>You can give us a call, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is forum@kqed.org. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>You can give us a call, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is forum@kqed.org. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "Rankine joins us to talk about friendship and grieving in a time of relentless personal and global loss.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1789064627,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 48,
"wordCount": 2170
},
"headData": {
"title": "Claudia Rankine on the Friendships That Unsettle and Sustain Us | KQED",
"description": "Rankine joins us to talk about friendship and grieving in a time of relentless personal and global loss.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Claudia Rankine on the Friendships That Unsettle and Sustain Us",
"datePublished": "2026-09-09T15:10:14-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-09-10T11:23:47-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 1623,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"hideAds": true,
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC7990268900.mp3",
"airdate": 1789056000,
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/forum/2010101915217/claudia-rankine-on-the-friendships-that-unsettle-and-sustain-us",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Acclaimed poet and essayist Claudia Rankine’s new book, “Triage,” follows the turbulent, decades long friendship between a Black woman and a nonbinary Palestinian who meet in college and invent a ritual of collapsing to the ground whenever they see each other. Over time, that act of collapse comes to hold new meaning as they reckon with wounded histories, political violence and the strain of loving someone who can also unsettle you. Blending memoir, criticism, essay and visual art, “Triage” is Rankine’s first book after her celebrated American trilogy and some of her most personal writing yet. Rankine joins us to talk about friendship, grieving, and what it means to keep acting – and relating – in a time of relentless personal and global loss.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine,\u003c/strong> poet, playwright and author, her new book is “Triage”, professor of Creative Writing at NYU; a MacArthur “Genius” grant recipient\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Alexis Madrigal here. As you probably know, this is the first day of our membership drive, our pledge drive during this time of the year. We’re not gonna be doing One Good Things, these little things that I read, these little odes to different parts of the Bay Area every single day. However, today we are, in fact, going to do one.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This actually came from my newsletter, which is also called One Good Thing, which you can subscribe to at kqed.org/onegoodthing. And it’s about a tree in my neighborhood.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This tree is monumental. I’m standing at its base, redwood bark seeming to flow down, down until it finally gets to ground, where I can’t help but see something elephantine in the way it bulges where it touches earth. I don’t have to imagine the roots. The infrastructure of this place has had to accommodate itself to this tree. The sidewalk is covered in a spongy material to prevent the inevitable cracking of concrete by root.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Strange to think that concrete, which, if you’ve ever hit a slab of it with a sledgehammer, feels adamantine and everlasting, will always yield to the redwood root. The asphalt of the road beyond the sidewalk knows, too. It’s cracked along a line that suggests the tree below.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This tree has no name that I know of, though stay tuned because I found out the tree’s name. It stands on a small side street in Berkeley near the Claremont neighborhood. Lovely area, trees abound, including a smattering of other redwoods. But none of the other redwoods are like this one, which feels out of scale for a neighborhood of single-family homes.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I’m filled with wonder and envy that someone lives with this tree in their front yard. Every day they go about their business in the understory of this remarkable living creature, forgetting their keys in the glory of creation, telling a kid to hurry if they’ll be late under the majestic branches.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I don’t know much about the tree. Must be old, but how old? Was it here in 1926, 1776? Before, could Indigenous residents have known this tree when it was a small sapling? No. In the presence of a giant like this, the brain can get scrambled. I know better.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The Uplands neighborhood nearby was created in the early 20th century out of ranch land. And it seems unlikely that there were huge numbers of redwoods on or near that ranch. The house that shares the redwood’s property was built in 1906, which probably means it was planted around then. Just guessing here. Could it be just 120 years old? Guess that’s not so young.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>On the outside, maybe it settled into ranch land in the decades before the subdivision. But regardless of the precise history, this redwood, as grand and majestic as it is, is a planting. It’s a co-creation of the people who have lived on that street and its own magnificent possibilities.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Somehow it feels weirder to think that someone’s lovingly tended this tree. They could not have known they’d picked the very perfect spot for a redwood. And yet they did.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This magnificent tree is not a remnant or an area of preservation, but an attempt at repair. People have worked to keep it here, despite the complexities it must introduce into life in an American house.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This tree is grown up in this neighborhood. Same as my kids.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>This week, I’m gonna send out a follow-up with the tree’s name.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Alexis Madrigal. One thing I love about Claudia Rankine’s books, and this new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>, in particular, is that each one seems to create its own genre.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> reads kind of like an experimental novel or long poem or an essay or a memoir. What is this thing between the two covers of the book? Without a doubt, it does what a book should do, refine and press a generous span of thinking. But it isn’t quite like anything I’ve read before.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>Triage\u003c/em> is a book for confronting the self in a time of global cruelty and tragedy. In a very rough sense, it’s a novelistic book about friendship and grief and the state of the world. And this work asks, how do our own personal losses grind us into the particular shape that we use to confront the world and its endless variations of loss?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And also, maybe its author, Claudia Rankine, winner of myriad awards, a certified MacArthur genius, also an NYU professor, joins us this morning.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Welcome back to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>, Claudia.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Thank you, Alexis. It’s so good to have you.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> As we’re settling in here, I want you to maybe confront the sort of basics of this book, which has a quite complicated form. It’s quite very interesting. But our book opens with our narrator watching their old friend, referred to in the book as the theorist, deliver a lecture. And it’s the narrator’s 60th birthday. It’s a friend from college who they haven’t seen in a long time.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And during a Q&A, someone asked the theorist how they feel, given all that’s going on in the world today. You can even see them, like, doing that thing with their hands we all do. And the theorist pauses and says, “Sometimes I want to throw myself in front of a speeding car.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So this book really is responding to that feeling in the world right now. How do you see it showing up for you, that sense of too much?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, yeah, I think it is a moment when everything is happening and nothing is happening. And we’re caught in this sort of liminal space where we see what should be done, but we cannot do it. And it’s a strange dynamic, I think, to understand that things are happening and we have no control to stop them, things that are impossible, that you have lived your life thinking, “This is not possible,” and yet it is possible, and it is now happening, and it’s now.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> There’s a repeated line in the book which I found quite chilling: “The choices are not choices.” This sense that the political and even personal possibility for things has shrunk to the point where the choices are not choices.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> You know, I don’t know about you, but we all grew up with Anne Frank and thinking, if this ever happened, if we were ever in this place, we are very clear about what we would do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Oh, man.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And suddenly we are just watching disaster after disaster. There are wars, there is genocide, there’s climate change. And we’re just continuing on as if we stay quiet, it will reverse things. And I don’t think that has ever been the way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> One of the sort of wonders and the mechanism of this book for me is that in this book, the narrator comes across as a version of you. Maybe not exactly, maybe not fully, but like in the multiverse, some Rankine out there. And yet it’s really that character who’s sort of paralyzed, who is not doing the things.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So you’ve kind of taken the person that we want to identify with as, you know, oh, this is whose consciousness we’re with, and given her the difficult task of not doing the things that we wish we would do.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> I know. I think some people are disappointed. They think I’ve tricked them somehow. They’re like, “Gotcha!” But it is the dynamic I personally found myself in, where I have one idea about what is right and what my moral stance is and who I am, and then the reality is there in front of us, that there is little we can do, or at least so we think.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then you see what’s happening in Minnesota, and you’re like, oh, okay, there are other ways.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there was a line, I think the review in \u003cem>The Atlantic\u003c/em> pulled it out, too. It struck me as well, that people find themselves in a state where, quote, “nothing else functions but one’s grief.” And it does feel like part of this book is trying to somehow maybe get to the end of that grief, get to, what does it mean to feel it all the way, to somehow move past it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> And move through it. And also, you know, there’s a sense that you can’t get past it. We’re in a dynamic now —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> We’re —\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> — where there is no end. And so, you know, let’s take climate change. We, I guess, we are now, the U.S. is now reclassified as a tropical climate, which, you know, September in the 80s, you kind of believe it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So whatever the trajectory is, it’s happening. So the new question is, the new way of being is, how do you live within it? What are your responsibilities to the moment when you know that there is no end to it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> Um.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> So, and that’s, you know, that’s hard to hold in terms of not having a plan that has a solution. You need a plan, but it might not be a solution.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> I mean, the theorist in this book has an answer, which is essentially sort of action first, right? That’s kind of the theorist’s answer is, well, we gotta do something. What’s the sort of narrator’s position on that position?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Claudia Rankine:\u003c/strong> Well, Daenerys’ position on that position, I believe, is maybe you’re right, but am I the one to do it? And that’s the other thing. Is it our job to police the actions of others rather than to do what each of us can do to the point that we can do it?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Alexis Madrigal:\u003c/strong> The phrase that kept occurring to me — there’s regular listeners of this program who will wonder why I’ve brought up many times Zygmunt Bauman, a Polish philosopher, who has this amazing line about our times, that anything can happen, but nothing can be done. And that’s sort of the state of power in the world, what he calls liquid modernity.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And that line really resonated throughout this book for me, this sense of that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’re talking with poet, playwright, and essayist Claudia Rankine about her new book, \u003cem>Triage\u003c/em>. She is, of course, also the author of the American Trilogy, including \u003cem>Citizen\u003c/em> and \u003cem>Just Us\u003c/em>, professor of creative writing at NYU and a MacArthur Genius Grant recipient.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I want to hear from you. Can you relate to the feeling of too-muchness in the world today, or the kind of only mechanism that’s working in being your grief? How are you responding to those feelings or trying to move through them?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>You can give us a call, 866-733-6786. That’s 866-733-6786. The email is forum@kqed.org. I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/forum/2010101915217/claudia-rankine-on-the-friendships-that-unsettle-and-sustain-us",
"authors": [
"11757",
"12020"
],
"programs": [
"forum_3"
],
"categories": [
"forum_1623"
],
"featImg": "forum_2010101915225",
"label": "forum_3"
},
"forum_2010101915164": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "forum_2010101915164",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915164",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1788474753000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "concerts-art-and-festivals-not-to-miss-in-the-bay-this-fall",
"title": "Concerts, Art, and Festivals Not to Miss in the Bay This Fall",
"publishDate": 1788474753,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Concerts, Art, and Festivals Not to Miss in the Bay This Fall | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 3,
"site": "forum"
},
"content": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Fall is one of the most exciting times of year for arts and culture. To celebrate the start of the season, we’ve invited KQED’s Arts & Culture team to share their picks for the Bay Area’s best concerts, theater, exhibitions and local festivals. From major headliners and Broadway hits to neighborhood gatherings, local artists and up-and-coming gems, we’ll talk about what stands out on this fall’s calendar. We’ll also take the temperature of the Bay Area arts scene – what’s changing, what’s challenging and what’s giving our critics plenty to look forward to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabe Meline,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Sarah Hotchkiss,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Nastia Voynovskaya,\u003c/strong> editor and reporter, KQED Arts\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>David John Chávez,\u003c/strong> theatre critic, KQED\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Airdate: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 9am",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Fall is one of the most exciting times of year for arts and culture. To celebrate the start of the season, we’ve invited KQED’s Arts & Culture team to share their picks for the Bay Area’s best concerts, theater, exhibitions and local festivals. From major headliners and Broadway hits to neighborhood gatherings, local artists and up-and-coming gems, we’ll talk about what stands out on this fall’s calendar. We’ll also take the temperature of the Bay Area arts scene – what’s changing, what’s challenging and what’s giving our critics plenty to look forward to.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Fall is one of the most exciting times of year for arts and culture. To celebrate the start of the season, we’ve invited KQED’s Arts & Culture team to share their picks for the Bay Area’s best concerts, theater, exhibitions and local festivals. From major headliners and Broadway hits to neighborhood gatherings, local artists and up-and-coming gems, we’ll talk about what stands out on this fall’s calendar. We’ll also take the temperature of the Bay Area arts scene – what’s changing, what’s challenging and what’s giving our critics plenty to look forward to.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Gabe Meline, senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture",
"Sarah Hotchkiss, senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture",
"Nastia Voynovskaya, editor and reporter, KQED Arts",
"David John Chávez, theatre critic, KQED"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\n\n",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabe Meline,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabe Meline,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Sarah Hotchkiss,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Sarah Hotchkiss,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Nastia Voynovskaya,\u003c/strong> editor and reporter, KQED Arts\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Nastia Voynovskaya,\u003c/strong> editor and reporter, KQED Arts\u003c/li>\n"
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>David John Chávez,\u003c/strong> theatre critic, KQED\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>David John Chávez,\u003c/strong> theatre critic, KQED\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
}
],
"excerpt": "We’ll talk about what stands out on the calendar and take the temperature of the Bay Area arts scene.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1788546917,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 2,
"wordCount": 141
},
"headData": {
"title": "Concerts, Art, and Festivals Not to Miss in the Bay This Fall | KQED",
"description": "We’ll talk about what stands out on the calendar and take the temperature of the Bay Area arts scene.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Concerts, Art, and Festivals Not to Miss in the Bay This Fall",
"datePublished": "2026-09-03T15:32:33-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-09-04T11:35:17-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 1623,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC4919556892.mp3",
"airdate": 1788537600,
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/forum/2010101915164/concerts-art-and-festivals-not-to-miss-in-the-bay-this-fall",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Friday, September 4, 2026 at 9am\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Fall is one of the most exciting times of year for arts and culture. To celebrate the start of the season, we’ve invited KQED’s Arts & Culture team to share their picks for the Bay Area’s best concerts, theater, exhibitions and local festivals. From major headliners and Broadway hits to neighborhood gatherings, local artists and up-and-coming gems, we’ll talk about what stands out on this fall’s calendar. We’ll also take the temperature of the Bay Area arts scene – what’s changing, what’s challenging and what’s giving our critics plenty to look forward to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guests:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Gabe Meline,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Sarah Hotchkiss,\u003c/strong> senior editor, KQED Arts & Culture\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Nastia Voynovskaya,\u003c/strong> editor and reporter, KQED Arts\u003c/li>\n\n\n\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>David John Chávez,\u003c/strong> theatre critic, KQED\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/forum/2010101915164/concerts-art-and-festivals-not-to-miss-in-the-bay-this-fall",
"authors": [
"11757",
"12020"
],
"programs": [
"forum_3"
],
"categories": [
"forum_1623"
],
"featImg": "forum_2010101915167",
"label": "forum_3"
},
"forum_2010101915007": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "forum_2010101915007",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "2010101915007",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1787607906000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-hidden-psychology-behind-procrastination",
"title": "The Hidden Psychology Behind Procrastination",
"publishDate": 1787607906,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "The Hidden Psychology Behind Procrastination | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 3,
"site": "forum"
},
"content": "\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 10 am\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’ve all done it: put off that email, project… or even something we genuinely want to do. But why do we procrastinate? Researcher Itamar Schatz says it’s not that we’re just lazy, distracted or bad at managing our time, but that often procrastinators care more rather than less about what they’re doing and fear the possibility of failure. We’ll look at new research that explores the hidden psychology behind why we delay — and tools to finally get moving.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz,\u003c/strong> affiliated lecturer, Cambridge University; author, \u003cem>Solving Procrastination The Science of Why We Put Things Off and How to (Finally!) Stop\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Mina Kim. Itamar Shatz says the reason solving procrastination is so hard is because what we’ve often been told about it is wrong — like the common misconception that it’s simply a matter of willpower. This leads us to tackle procrastination with approaches that don’t work, causing frustration, stress and guilt that can even make us defer our dreams. But Shatz says ending the cycle of procrastination is entirely possible. And this hour, we’ll hear what he’s learned from his research into this complex phenomenon.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Are you or someone you know a procrastinator, listeners? How does it affect you? You can post your comments on Discord, Bluesky, Facebook or Instagram. We’re @KQEDForum. You can email forum@kqed.org or call 866-733-6786.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dr. Itamar Shatz is a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, where he teaches quantitative and computational research. I want to ask you, actually, because as I was reading your title, I was struck by the fact that if you teach quantitative research methods at Cambridge, how did you end up wanting to study procrastination?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Well, as all great stories begin, by procrastinating to myself. So, in school, when I was in high school, I was a huge procrastinator. And I mean the typical stay-up — you know, you have a semester-long project and then you keep saying, okay, I’ll do it tomorrow, I’ll do it next week, I’ll do it next week, and suddenly it’s the end of the semester tomorrow and the project is due and I haven’t started yet. Then I would stay up all night. I would get away with doing that, but it was never a good experience, and I think it never ended well in terms of performance either.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I could get away with good grades, but not as much as I could if I’d actually done the work well. So I was really familiar with how frustrating procrastination is and how kind of insane it is, in the sense that you know you shouldn’t be doing it, but you still find yourself doing it again and again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then, when I was a bit older and was doing my master’s, I started wanting to do things better. I wanted to be productive, make better decisions, communicate better. And I figured, okay, let’s go to science to figure out how to do that. And I started reading about things like cognitive biases and communication techniques and things like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I figured, okay, if doing this is useful for me, it will probably also be useful for other people. And I started writing these notes up and publishing them as articles. And at a certain point I said, you know what I haven’t covered so far? Procrastination. And I decided to write an article about procrastination. And then, as I was going into it, I realized this is way too big of a problem. It’s too common, it’s too painful, it’s too frustrating. I can’t cover everything I need to say about it in a single article.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I said, let’s do two articles. Let’s do a series. Let’s go a whole website. And from there, I just realized there’s so much that needs to be said about it and so much I could help people that it just grew and grew and eventually became the book that I’m publishing today.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it is really common. You write that one in five adults procrastinate. So when you’re talking about procrastination, what do you mean exactly?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> So, what if I was procrastinating chronically, which means they do it very often and for very long, but pretty much all of us procrastinate. And when this happens, basically we put off something that we know we should do, even though we know it would be better for us to do it, and usually despite our best intentions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So when we tell ourselves, I’m gonna study for this test, or I’m going to write this email, I’m going to make this phone call, I’m going to start writing my book, I’m going to change my habits and start exercising. I’m going to talk to this person I’m interested in, and then we keep finding reasons to do it tomorrow instead, or to do it soon, or in five minutes, or just after this one more video. And when this happens again and again, we’re basically procrastinating.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Well, one of the myths you debunk right away is that procrastinators, you know, don’t care. In fact, you say that we care so much that it becomes paralyzing. Tell us about this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. So there is this misconception where people think about procrastination as sort of equivalent to laziness. And under this conceptualization of procrastination, it’s basically, okay, people procrastinate because they don’t care enough. But what actually happens usually is that people care too much. And by that I mean, maybe they want to write a book, for example, and it’s something they’re really excited about. They’re very, very enthusiastic. Inside their brain is shouting, just do it already. But the problem is they’re too afraid that it’ll go wrong, they’ll be criticized, that their writing won’t be good enough, that they won’t be good enough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the more you care about these things, and the more these mental obstacles like anxiety and perfectionism get in the way, the harder it is to take action when you need to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the other thing that you bring up is the misconception that addressing procrastination is just a matter of willpower. What effect does this misconception have?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so there’s something I call the self-control fallacy. And that’s basically the idea that if we just try harder, we’ll be able to do what we need to when we need to. And the problem with this, it’s very tempting because it offers a sort of silver bullet where, okay, I just need to turn up the dial for willpower and then I’ll be able to do it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it makes sense when you think about it because, again, procrastination is irrational. There’s no reason we should do it. So when we’re sitting there and thinking about something that we’ll do later, it’s easy and very comforting to tell ourselves, okay, we’ll be able to do it because we’ll try harder and I’m not going to be irrational again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The problem with this is that it fails. And it fails again and again. And every time we keep believing that it’s going to be different next time because there are lots of cognitive biases that kind of trick our minds into thinking that’s going to be the case.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, for example, there is the bias blind spot, which makes us really good at noticing when other people are irrational and really bad at noticing when we’re doing it. And there’s also something called the empathy gap, when we’re sitting there and we’re in a cool emotional state, so we’re rational. We’re not facing something scary at the moment. We’re not facing any temptation at the moment. It’s very easy to think of ourselves as rational beings, but that’s very different from what happens when we’re actually facing, okay, now we need to sit down and write this thing that I’m scared of writing, or make this call that I am afraid of making, or maybe I’m sitting in front of social media and that’s actually drawing my attention, and now my brain is trying to, on the one hand, focus and, on the other hand, deal with this temptation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And what all this means is that when we think that our willpower will be enough, that our self-control will be, we end up not preparing for the actual obstacles we’ll face. And that causes us to keep getting trapped in the procrastination cycle, where we procrastinate again and again, and we’re not actually trying to solve it the right way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> And these misconceptions, you know, laziness, a lack of willpower, they sound like, you know, procrastination has essentially been treated as a character flaw, which I imagine can make us judge ourselves negatively for procrastinating, which, I’m sure, doesn’t help at all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s not only wrong, it is also unproductive and it’s unconstructive. And the problem is that when people are told, okay, if you procrastinate, that means that you’re not trying hard enough, or that means you’re just lazy, again, it basically means that they’re not actually trying to solve the problem using solutions that address the issues they’re facing. So they’re actually not trying to solve their anxiety or their perfectionism or the distraction or whatever it is because they think, okay, I’ll just exert more willpower and that will get me to do the things that I need to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And beyond that, it also causes a lot of pain. It causes shame, it causes guilt, it increases the frustration when people are already frustrated because they know they should be doing things and they’re not. And usually what that does is it shuts us down because then whatever it is we need to do becomes even more painful. It becomes more aversive.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So let’s say we have a task that we’ve been putting off. Like maybe, let’s say, we want to change our habits. You want to start exercising. And then somebody tells us, okay, if you haven’t started doing it yet, you’re lazy. And now in our mind, whenever we think about exercising, we have this light bulb going up that says, wait, I’m lazy. I’m a lazy person. I should be ashamed of myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then even though engaging in exercising, engaging in the behavior we’re trying to do, would make us feel better, we associate even more negative emotions with it now because of all the criticism and the judgment. That makes us even less likely to actually do it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the most painful thing here is that this can cause a sort of vicious cycle where we want to do something, we get negative feedback whenever we think about it, whenever we want to engage with it, so we put it off, then we feel worse, we put off more, and that basically feeds on itself. It makes it harder and harder for us to do what we need to unless we find ways to break the cycle.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with Itamar Shatz, a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, about the psychology behind why we procrastinate. And you, our listeners, are sharing your thoughts, questions and your own experiences around this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Eloise in Oakland writes, “I find that I procrastinate on things that are important but not urgent until I take care of things that are urgent. And then I run out of time to do the important thing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And Jenny writes, “Oh my God, this episode is a story of my life. I have a PhD in procrastinating. And I know that my biggest related culprit is perfectionism.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ll dig into that after the break. Stay with us. I’m Mina Kim. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Airdate: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 10 am",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 10 am\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 10 am\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’ve all done it: put off that email, project… or even something we genuinely want to do. But why do we procrastinate? Researcher Itamar Schatz says it’s not that we’re just lazy, distracted or bad at managing our time, but that often procrastinators care more rather than less about what they’re doing and fear the possibility of failure. We’ll look at new research that explores the hidden psychology behind why we delay — and tools to finally get moving.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’ve all done it: put off that email, project… or even something we genuinely want to do. But why do we procrastinate? Researcher Itamar Schatz says it’s not that we’re just lazy, distracted or bad at managing our time, but that often procrastinators care more rather than less about what they’re doing and fear the possibility of failure. We’ll look at new research that explores the hidden psychology behind why we delay — and tools to finally get moving.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/list",
"attrs": {
"items": [
"Itamar Shatz, affiliated lecturer, Cambridge University; author, Solving Procrastination The Science of Why We Put Things Off and How to (Finally!) Stop"
],
"ordered": false,
"values": ""
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\u003c/ul>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">",
null,
"\u003c/ul>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": [
{
"blockName": "core/list-item",
"attrs": [],
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz,\u003c/strong> affiliated lecturer, Cambridge University; author, \u003cem>Solving Procrastination The Science of Why We Put Things Off and How to (Finally!) Stop\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz,\u003c/strong> affiliated lecturer, Cambridge University; author, \u003cem>Solving Procrastination The Science of Why We Put Things Off and How to (Finally!) Stop\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n"
]
}
]
},
{
"blockName": "core/heading",
"attrs": {
"text": "Episode Transcript",
"level": 2
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Mina Kim. Itamar Shatz says the reason solving procrastination is so hard is because what we’ve often been told about it is wrong — like the common misconception that it’s simply a matter of willpower. This leads us to tackle procrastination with approaches that don’t work, causing frustration, stress and guilt that can even make us defer our dreams. But Shatz says ending the cycle of procrastination is entirely possible. And this hour, we’ll hear what he’s learned from his research into this complex phenomenon.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Mina Kim. Itamar Shatz says the reason solving procrastination is so hard is because what we’ve often been told about it is wrong — like the common misconception that it’s simply a matter of willpower. This leads us to tackle procrastination with approaches that don’t work, causing frustration, stress and guilt that can even make us defer our dreams. But Shatz says ending the cycle of procrastination is entirely possible. And this hour, we’ll hear what he’s learned from his research into this complex phenomenon.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Are you or someone you know a procrastinator, listeners? How does it affect you? You can post your comments on Discord, Bluesky, Facebook or Instagram. We’re @KQEDForum. You can email forum@kqed.org or call 866-733-6786.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Are you or someone you know a procrastinator, listeners? How does it affect you? You can post your comments on Discord, Bluesky, Facebook or Instagram. We’re @KQEDForum. You can email forum@kqed.org or call 866-733-6786.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "fullwidth"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Dr. Itamar Shatz is a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, where he teaches quantitative and computational research. I want to ask you, actually, because as I was reading your title, I was struck by the fact that if you teach quantitative research methods at Cambridge, how did you end up wanting to study procrastination?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Dr. Itamar Shatz is a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, where he teaches quantitative and computational research. I want to ask you, actually, because as I was reading your title, I was struck by the fact that if you teach quantitative research methods at Cambridge, how did you end up wanting to study procrastination?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Well, as all great stories begin, by procrastinating to myself. So, in school, when I was in high school, I was a huge procrastinator. And I mean the typical stay-up — you know, you have a semester-long project and then you keep saying, okay, I’ll do it tomorrow, I’ll do it next week, I’ll do it next week, and suddenly it’s the end of the semester tomorrow and the project is due and I haven’t started yet. Then I would stay up all night. I would get away with doing that, but it was never a good experience, and I think it never ended well in terms of performance either.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Well, as all great stories begin, by procrastinating to myself. So, in school, when I was in high school, I was a huge procrastinator. And I mean the typical stay-up — you know, you have a semester-long project and then you keep saying, okay, I’ll do it tomorrow, I’ll do it next week, I’ll do it next week, and suddenly it’s the end of the semester tomorrow and the project is due and I haven’t started yet. Then I would stay up all night. I would get away with doing that, but it was never a good experience, and I think it never ended well in terms of performance either.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>I could get away with good grades, but not as much as I could if I’d actually done the work well. So I was really familiar with how frustrating procrastination is and how kind of insane it is, in the sense that you know you shouldn’t be doing it, but you still find yourself doing it again and again.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>I could get away with good grades, but not as much as I could if I’d actually done the work well. So I was really familiar with how frustrating procrastination is and how kind of insane it is, in the sense that you know you shouldn’t be doing it, but you still find yourself doing it again and again.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then, when I was a bit older and was doing my master’s, I started wanting to do things better. I wanted to be productive, make better decisions, communicate better. And I figured, okay, let’s go to science to figure out how to do that. And I started reading about things like cognitive biases and communication techniques and things like that.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then, when I was a bit older and was doing my master’s, I started wanting to do things better. I wanted to be productive, make better decisions, communicate better. And I figured, okay, let’s go to science to figure out how to do that. And I started reading about things like cognitive biases and communication techniques and things like that.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And I figured, okay, if doing this is useful for me, it will probably also be useful for other people. And I started writing these notes up and publishing them as articles. And at a certain point I said, you know what I haven’t covered so far? Procrastination. And I decided to write an article about procrastination. And then, as I was going into it, I realized this is way too big of a problem. It’s too common, it’s too painful, it’s too frustrating. I can’t cover everything I need to say about it in a single article.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And I figured, okay, if doing this is useful for me, it will probably also be useful for other people. And I started writing these notes up and publishing them as articles. And at a certain point I said, you know what I haven’t covered so far? Procrastination. And I decided to write an article about procrastination. And then, as I was going into it, I realized this is way too big of a problem. It’s too common, it’s too painful, it’s too frustrating. I can’t cover everything I need to say about it in a single article.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So I said, let’s do two articles. Let’s do a series. Let’s go a whole website. And from there, I just realized there’s so much that needs to be said about it and so much I could help people that it just grew and grew and eventually became the book that I’m publishing today.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So I said, let’s do two articles. Let’s do a series. Let’s go a whole website. And from there, I just realized there’s so much that needs to be said about it and so much I could help people that it just grew and grew and eventually became the book that I’m publishing today.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it is really common. You write that one in five adults procrastinate. So when you’re talking about procrastination, what do you mean exactly?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it is really common. You write that one in five adults procrastinate. So when you’re talking about procrastination, what do you mean exactly?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> So, what if I was procrastinating chronically, which means they do it very often and for very long, but pretty much all of us procrastinate. And when this happens, basically we put off something that we know we should do, even though we know it would be better for us to do it, and usually despite our best intentions.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> So, what if I was procrastinating chronically, which means they do it very often and for very long, but pretty much all of us procrastinate. And when this happens, basically we put off something that we know we should do, even though we know it would be better for us to do it, and usually despite our best intentions.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So when we tell ourselves, I’m gonna study for this test, or I’m going to write this email, I’m going to make this phone call, I’m going to start writing my book, I’m going to change my habits and start exercising. I’m going to talk to this person I’m interested in, and then we keep finding reasons to do it tomorrow instead, or to do it soon, or in five minutes, or just after this one more video. And when this happens again and again, we’re basically procrastinating.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So when we tell ourselves, I’m gonna study for this test, or I’m going to write this email, I’m going to make this phone call, I’m going to start writing my book, I’m going to change my habits and start exercising. I’m going to talk to this person I’m interested in, and then we keep finding reasons to do it tomorrow instead, or to do it soon, or in five minutes, or just after this one more video. And when this happens again and again, we’re basically procrastinating.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Well, one of the myths you debunk right away is that procrastinators, you know, don’t care. In fact, you say that we care so much that it becomes paralyzing. Tell us about this.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Well, one of the myths you debunk right away is that procrastinators, you know, don’t care. In fact, you say that we care so much that it becomes paralyzing. Tell us about this.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. So there is this misconception where people think about procrastination as sort of equivalent to laziness. And under this conceptualization of procrastination, it’s basically, okay, people procrastinate because they don’t care enough. But what actually happens usually is that people care too much. And by that I mean, maybe they want to write a book, for example, and it’s something they’re really excited about. They’re very, very enthusiastic. Inside their brain is shouting, just do it already. But the problem is they’re too afraid that it’ll go wrong, they’ll be criticized, that their writing won’t be good enough, that they won’t be good enough.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. So there is this misconception where people think about procrastination as sort of equivalent to laziness. And under this conceptualization of procrastination, it’s basically, okay, people procrastinate because they don’t care enough. But what actually happens usually is that people care too much. And by that I mean, maybe they want to write a book, for example, and it’s something they’re really excited about. They’re very, very enthusiastic. Inside their brain is shouting, just do it already. But the problem is they’re too afraid that it’ll go wrong, they’ll be criticized, that their writing won’t be good enough, that they won’t be good enough.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the more you care about these things, and the more these mental obstacles like anxiety and perfectionism get in the way, the harder it is to take action when you need to.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the more you care about these things, and the more these mental obstacles like anxiety and perfectionism get in the way, the harder it is to take action when you need to.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the other thing that you bring up is the misconception that addressing procrastination is just a matter of willpower. What effect does this misconception have?\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the other thing that you bring up is the misconception that addressing procrastination is just a matter of willpower. What effect does this misconception have?\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so there’s something I call the self-control fallacy. And that’s basically the idea that if we just try harder, we’ll be able to do what we need to when we need to. And the problem with this, it’s very tempting because it offers a sort of silver bullet where, okay, I just need to turn up the dial for willpower and then I’ll be able to do it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so there’s something I call the self-control fallacy. And that’s basically the idea that if we just try harder, we’ll be able to do what we need to when we need to. And the problem with this, it’s very tempting because it offers a sort of silver bullet where, okay, I just need to turn up the dial for willpower and then I’ll be able to do it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And it makes sense when you think about it because, again, procrastination is irrational. There’s no reason we should do it. So when we’re sitting there and thinking about something that we’ll do later, it’s easy and very comforting to tell ourselves, okay, we’ll be able to do it because we’ll try harder and I’m not going to be irrational again.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And it makes sense when you think about it because, again, procrastination is irrational. There’s no reason we should do it. So when we’re sitting there and thinking about something that we’ll do later, it’s easy and very comforting to tell ourselves, okay, we’ll be able to do it because we’ll try harder and I’m not going to be irrational again.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>The problem with this is that it fails. And it fails again and again. And every time we keep believing that it’s going to be different next time because there are lots of cognitive biases that kind of trick our minds into thinking that’s going to be the case.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>The problem with this is that it fails. And it fails again and again. And every time we keep believing that it’s going to be different next time because there are lots of cognitive biases that kind of trick our minds into thinking that’s going to be the case.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So, for example, there is the bias blind spot, which makes us really good at noticing when other people are irrational and really bad at noticing when we’re doing it. And there’s also something called the empathy gap, when we’re sitting there and we’re in a cool emotional state, so we’re rational. We’re not facing something scary at the moment. We’re not facing any temptation at the moment. It’s very easy to think of ourselves as rational beings, but that’s very different from what happens when we’re actually facing, okay, now we need to sit down and write this thing that I’m scared of writing, or make this call that I am afraid of making, or maybe I’m sitting in front of social media and that’s actually drawing my attention, and now my brain is trying to, on the one hand, focus and, on the other hand, deal with this temptation.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So, for example, there is the bias blind spot, which makes us really good at noticing when other people are irrational and really bad at noticing when we’re doing it. And there’s also something called the empathy gap, when we’re sitting there and we’re in a cool emotional state, so we’re rational. We’re not facing something scary at the moment. We’re not facing any temptation at the moment. It’s very easy to think of ourselves as rational beings, but that’s very different from what happens when we’re actually facing, okay, now we need to sit down and write this thing that I’m scared of writing, or make this call that I am afraid of making, or maybe I’m sitting in front of social media and that’s actually drawing my attention, and now my brain is trying to, on the one hand, focus and, on the other hand, deal with this temptation.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And what all this means is that when we think that our willpower will be enough, that our self-control will be, we end up not preparing for the actual obstacles we’ll face. And that causes us to keep getting trapped in the procrastination cycle, where we procrastinate again and again, and we’re not actually trying to solve it the right way.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And what all this means is that when we think that our willpower will be enough, that our self-control will be, we end up not preparing for the actual obstacles we’ll face. And that causes us to keep getting trapped in the procrastination cycle, where we procrastinate again and again, and we’re not actually trying to solve it the right way.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> And these misconceptions, you know, laziness, a lack of willpower, they sound like, you know, procrastination has essentially been treated as a character flaw, which I imagine can make us judge ourselves negatively for procrastinating, which, I’m sure, doesn’t help at all.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> And these misconceptions, you know, laziness, a lack of willpower, they sound like, you know, procrastination has essentially been treated as a character flaw, which I imagine can make us judge ourselves negatively for procrastinating, which, I’m sure, doesn’t help at all.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s not only wrong, it is also unproductive and it’s unconstructive. And the problem is that when people are told, okay, if you procrastinate, that means that you’re not trying hard enough, or that means you’re just lazy, again, it basically means that they’re not actually trying to solve the problem using solutions that address the issues they’re facing. So they’re actually not trying to solve their anxiety or their perfectionism or the distraction or whatever it is because they think, okay, I’ll just exert more willpower and that will get me to do the things that I need to.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s not only wrong, it is also unproductive and it’s unconstructive. And the problem is that when people are told, okay, if you procrastinate, that means that you’re not trying hard enough, or that means you’re just lazy, again, it basically means that they’re not actually trying to solve the problem using solutions that address the issues they’re facing. So they’re actually not trying to solve their anxiety or their perfectionism or the distraction or whatever it is because they think, okay, I’ll just exert more willpower and that will get me to do the things that I need to.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And beyond that, it also causes a lot of pain. It causes shame, it causes guilt, it increases the frustration when people are already frustrated because they know they should be doing things and they’re not. And usually what that does is it shuts us down because then whatever it is we need to do becomes even more painful. It becomes more aversive.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And beyond that, it also causes a lot of pain. It causes shame, it causes guilt, it increases the frustration when people are already frustrated because they know they should be doing things and they’re not. And usually what that does is it shuts us down because then whatever it is we need to do becomes even more painful. It becomes more aversive.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>So let’s say we have a task that we’ve been putting off. Like maybe, let’s say, we want to change our habits. You want to start exercising. And then somebody tells us, okay, if you haven’t started doing it yet, you’re lazy. And now in our mind, whenever we think about exercising, we have this light bulb going up that says, wait, I’m lazy. I’m a lazy person. I should be ashamed of myself.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>So let’s say we have a task that we’ve been putting off. Like maybe, let’s say, we want to change our habits. You want to start exercising. And then somebody tells us, okay, if you haven’t started doing it yet, you’re lazy. And now in our mind, whenever we think about exercising, we have this light bulb going up that says, wait, I’m lazy. I’m a lazy person. I should be ashamed of myself.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And then even though engaging in exercising, engaging in the behavior we’re trying to do, would make us feel better, we associate even more negative emotions with it now because of all the criticism and the judgment. That makes us even less likely to actually do it.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And then even though engaging in exercising, engaging in the behavior we’re trying to do, would make us feel better, we associate even more negative emotions with it now because of all the criticism and the judgment. That makes us even less likely to actually do it.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And the most painful thing here is that this can cause a sort of vicious cycle where we want to do something, we get negative feedback whenever we think about it, whenever we want to engage with it, so we put it off, then we feel worse, we put off more, and that basically feeds on itself. It makes it harder and harder for us to do what we need to unless we find ways to break the cycle.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And the most painful thing here is that this can cause a sort of vicious cycle where we want to do something, we get negative feedback whenever we think about it, whenever we want to engage with it, so we put it off, then we feel worse, we put off more, and that basically feeds on itself. It makes it harder and harder for us to do what we need to unless we find ways to break the cycle.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with Itamar Shatz, a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, about the psychology behind why we procrastinate. And you, our listeners, are sharing your thoughts, questions and your own experiences around this.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with Itamar Shatz, a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, about the psychology behind why we procrastinate. And you, our listeners, are sharing your thoughts, questions and your own experiences around this.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>Eloise in Oakland writes, “I find that I procrastinate on things that are important but not urgent until I take care of things that are urgent. And then I run out of time to do the important thing.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>Eloise in Oakland writes, “I find that I procrastinate on things that are important but not urgent until I take care of things that are urgent. And then I run out of time to do the important thing.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>And Jenny writes, “Oh my God, this episode is a story of my life. I have a PhD in procrastinating. And I know that my biggest related culprit is perfectionism.”\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>And Jenny writes, “Oh my God, this episode is a story of my life. I have a PhD in procrastinating. And I know that my biggest related culprit is perfectionism.”\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad",
"attrs": {
"format": "floatright"
},
"innerBlocks": [],
"innerHTML": "",
"innerContent": []
},
{
"blockName": "core/paragraph",
"attrs": {
"dropCap": false
},
"innerHTML": "\n\u003cp>We’ll dig into that after the break. Stay with us. I’m Mina Kim. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n",
"innerContent": [
"\n\u003cp>We’ll dig into that after the break. Stay with us. I’m Mina Kim. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n"
],
"innerBlocks": []
}
],
"excerpt": "We’ll explore the hidden psychology behind why we delay — and tools to finally get moving.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1787693882,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 35,
"wordCount": 2215
},
"headData": {
"title": "The Hidden Psychology Behind Procrastination | KQED",
"description": "We’ll explore the hidden psychology behind why we delay — and tools to finally get moving.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "The Hidden Psychology Behind Procrastination",
"datePublished": "2026-08-24T14:45:06-07:00",
"dateModified": "2026-08-25T14:38:02-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png"
}
},
"primaryCategory": {
"termId": 1623,
"slug": "podcast",
"name": "Podcast"
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC8268804925.mp3",
"airdate": 1787677200,
"sticky": false,
"templateType": "standard",
"featuredImageType": "standard",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/forum/2010101915007/the-hidden-psychology-behind-procrastination",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Airdate: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 at 10 am\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>We’ve all done it: put off that email, project… or even something we genuinely want to do. But why do we procrastinate? Researcher Itamar Schatz says it’s not that we’re just lazy, distracted or bad at managing our time, but that often procrastinators care more rather than less about what they’re doing and fear the possibility of failure. We’ll look at new research that explores the hidden psychology behind why we delay — and tools to finally get moving.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Guest:\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n\u003cli>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz,\u003c/strong> affiliated lecturer, Cambridge University; author, \u003cem>Solving Procrastination The Science of Why We Put Things Off and How to (Finally!) Stop\u003c/em>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\n\n\n\u003ch2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cem>\u003cstrong>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/strong>\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Welcome to \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>. I’m Mina Kim. Itamar Shatz says the reason solving procrastination is so hard is because what we’ve often been told about it is wrong — like the common misconception that it’s simply a matter of willpower. This leads us to tackle procrastination with approaches that don’t work, causing frustration, stress and guilt that can even make us defer our dreams. But Shatz says ending the cycle of procrastination is entirely possible. And this hour, we’ll hear what he’s learned from his research into this complex phenomenon.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Are you or someone you know a procrastinator, listeners? How does it affect you? You can post your comments on Discord, Bluesky, Facebook or Instagram. We’re @KQEDForum. You can email forum@kqed.org or call 866-733-6786.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Dr. Itamar Shatz is a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, where he teaches quantitative and computational research. I want to ask you, actually, because as I was reading your title, I was struck by the fact that if you teach quantitative research methods at Cambridge, how did you end up wanting to study procrastination?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Well, as all great stories begin, by procrastinating to myself. So, in school, when I was in high school, I was a huge procrastinator. And I mean the typical stay-up — you know, you have a semester-long project and then you keep saying, okay, I’ll do it tomorrow, I’ll do it next week, I’ll do it next week, and suddenly it’s the end of the semester tomorrow and the project is due and I haven’t started yet. Then I would stay up all night. I would get away with doing that, but it was never a good experience, and I think it never ended well in terms of performance either.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>I could get away with good grades, but not as much as I could if I’d actually done the work well. So I was really familiar with how frustrating procrastination is and how kind of insane it is, in the sense that you know you shouldn’t be doing it, but you still find yourself doing it again and again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then, when I was a bit older and was doing my master’s, I started wanting to do things better. I wanted to be productive, make better decisions, communicate better. And I figured, okay, let’s go to science to figure out how to do that. And I started reading about things like cognitive biases and communication techniques and things like that.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And I figured, okay, if doing this is useful for me, it will probably also be useful for other people. And I started writing these notes up and publishing them as articles. And at a certain point I said, you know what I haven’t covered so far? Procrastination. And I decided to write an article about procrastination. And then, as I was going into it, I realized this is way too big of a problem. It’s too common, it’s too painful, it’s too frustrating. I can’t cover everything I need to say about it in a single article.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So I said, let’s do two articles. Let’s do a series. Let’s go a whole website. And from there, I just realized there’s so much that needs to be said about it and so much I could help people that it just grew and grew and eventually became the book that I’m publishing today.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it is really common. You write that one in five adults procrastinate. So when you’re talking about procrastination, what do you mean exactly?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> So, what if I was procrastinating chronically, which means they do it very often and for very long, but pretty much all of us procrastinate. And when this happens, basically we put off something that we know we should do, even though we know it would be better for us to do it, and usually despite our best intentions.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So when we tell ourselves, I’m gonna study for this test, or I’m going to write this email, I’m going to make this phone call, I’m going to start writing my book, I’m going to change my habits and start exercising. I’m going to talk to this person I’m interested in, and then we keep finding reasons to do it tomorrow instead, or to do it soon, or in five minutes, or just after this one more video. And when this happens again and again, we’re basically procrastinating.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Well, one of the myths you debunk right away is that procrastinators, you know, don’t care. In fact, you say that we care so much that it becomes paralyzing. Tell us about this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Absolutely. So there is this misconception where people think about procrastination as sort of equivalent to laziness. And under this conceptualization of procrastination, it’s basically, okay, people procrastinate because they don’t care enough. But what actually happens usually is that people care too much. And by that I mean, maybe they want to write a book, for example, and it’s something they’re really excited about. They’re very, very enthusiastic. Inside their brain is shouting, just do it already. But the problem is they’re too afraid that it’ll go wrong, they’ll be criticized, that their writing won’t be good enough, that they won’t be good enough.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the more you care about these things, and the more these mental obstacles like anxiety and perfectionism get in the way, the harder it is to take action when you need to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> Yeah, the other thing that you bring up is the misconception that addressing procrastination is just a matter of willpower. What effect does this misconception have?\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, so there’s something I call the self-control fallacy. And that’s basically the idea that if we just try harder, we’ll be able to do what we need to when we need to. And the problem with this, it’s very tempting because it offers a sort of silver bullet where, okay, I just need to turn up the dial for willpower and then I’ll be able to do it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And it makes sense when you think about it because, again, procrastination is irrational. There’s no reason we should do it. So when we’re sitting there and thinking about something that we’ll do later, it’s easy and very comforting to tell ourselves, okay, we’ll be able to do it because we’ll try harder and I’m not going to be irrational again.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>The problem with this is that it fails. And it fails again and again. And every time we keep believing that it’s going to be different next time because there are lots of cognitive biases that kind of trick our minds into thinking that’s going to be the case.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So, for example, there is the bias blind spot, which makes us really good at noticing when other people are irrational and really bad at noticing when we’re doing it. And there’s also something called the empathy gap, when we’re sitting there and we’re in a cool emotional state, so we’re rational. We’re not facing something scary at the moment. We’re not facing any temptation at the moment. It’s very easy to think of ourselves as rational beings, but that’s very different from what happens when we’re actually facing, okay, now we need to sit down and write this thing that I’m scared of writing, or make this call that I am afraid of making, or maybe I’m sitting in front of social media and that’s actually drawing my attention, and now my brain is trying to, on the one hand, focus and, on the other hand, deal with this temptation.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And what all this means is that when we think that our willpower will be enough, that our self-control will be, we end up not preparing for the actual obstacles we’ll face. And that causes us to keep getting trapped in the procrastination cycle, where we procrastinate again and again, and we’re not actually trying to solve it the right way.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> And these misconceptions, you know, laziness, a lack of willpower, they sound like, you know, procrastination has essentially been treated as a character flaw, which I imagine can make us judge ourselves negatively for procrastinating, which, I’m sure, doesn’t help at all.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Itamar Shatz:\u003c/strong> Yeah, it’s not only wrong, it is also unproductive and it’s unconstructive. And the problem is that when people are told, okay, if you procrastinate, that means that you’re not trying hard enough, or that means you’re just lazy, again, it basically means that they’re not actually trying to solve the problem using solutions that address the issues they’re facing. So they’re actually not trying to solve their anxiety or their perfectionism or the distraction or whatever it is because they think, okay, I’ll just exert more willpower and that will get me to do the things that I need to.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And beyond that, it also causes a lot of pain. It causes shame, it causes guilt, it increases the frustration when people are already frustrated because they know they should be doing things and they’re not. And usually what that does is it shuts us down because then whatever it is we need to do becomes even more painful. It becomes more aversive.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>So let’s say we have a task that we’ve been putting off. Like maybe, let’s say, we want to change our habits. You want to start exercising. And then somebody tells us, okay, if you haven’t started doing it yet, you’re lazy. And now in our mind, whenever we think about exercising, we have this light bulb going up that says, wait, I’m lazy. I’m a lazy person. I should be ashamed of myself.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And then even though engaging in exercising, engaging in the behavior we’re trying to do, would make us feel better, we associate even more negative emotions with it now because of all the criticism and the judgment. That makes us even less likely to actually do it.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And the most painful thing here is that this can cause a sort of vicious cycle where we want to do something, we get negative feedback whenever we think about it, whenever we want to engage with it, so we put it off, then we feel worse, we put off more, and that basically feeds on itself. It makes it harder and harder for us to do what we need to unless we find ways to break the cycle.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mina Kim:\u003c/strong> We’re talking with Itamar Shatz, a researcher and lecturer at Cambridge University, about the psychology behind why we procrastinate. And you, our listeners, are sharing your thoughts, questions and your own experiences around this.\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>Eloise in Oakland writes, “I find that I procrastinate on things that are important but not urgent until I take care of things that are urgent. And then I run out of time to do the important thing.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>And Jenny writes, “Oh my God, this episode is a story of my life. I have a PhD in procrastinating. And I know that my biggest related culprit is perfectionism.”\u003c/p>\n\n\n\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We’ll dig into that after the break. Stay with us. I’m Mina Kim. This is \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em>.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/forum/2010101915007/the-hidden-psychology-behind-procrastination",
"authors": [
"243",
"12020"
],
"programs": [
"forum_3"
],
"categories": [
"forum_1623"
],
"featImg": "forum_2010101915012",
"label": "forum_3"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026PresidentialReducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts?author=12020&authorName=lsims": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 0,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 6,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 6,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"forum_2010101915678",
"forum_2010101915579",
"forum_2010101915264",
"forum_2010101915217",
"forum_2010101915164",
"forum_2010101915007"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum_3": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum_3",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "3",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Forum",
"slug": "forum",
"taxonomy": "program",
"description": "\u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> finds the most interesting stories about where we live and who we are, and charts where our region and world are headed. Hosts Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal invite communities in the Bay Area and California to engage in meaningful conversation in a two-hour live show that informs and challenges listeners with big ideas and different viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt 9 a.m., Alexis gives the mic to the Bay Area, from San Rafael to San Jose, and at 10 a.m. with Mina, the perspective widens to all of California.Want to call/submit your comments during our live \u003cem>Forum\u003c/em> program Mon-Fri, 9am-11am? We'd love to hear from you! Please dial 866.SF.FORUM or \u003cstrong>(866) 733-6786\u003c/strong>, email \u003ca href=\"mailto:forum@kqed.org\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">forum@kqed.org\u003c/a>, \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/search?q=%40kqedforum\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">tweet\u003c/a>, or post on \u003ca href=\"https://www.facebook.com/KQEDForum/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Facebook\u003c/a>.",
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Forum - Forum",
"description": "Forum finds the most interesting stories about where we live and who we are, and charts where our region and world are headed. Hosts Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal invite communities in the Bay Area and California to engage in meaningful conversation in a two-hour live show that informs and challenges listeners with big ideas and different viewpoints. At 9 a.m., Alexis gives the mic to the Bay Area, from San Rafael to San Jose, and at 10 a.m. with Mina, the perspective widens to all of California.Want to call/submit your comments during our live Forum program Mon-Fri, 9am-11am? We'd love to hear from you! Please dial 866.SF.FORUM or (866) 733-6786, email forum@kqed.org, tweet, or post on Facebook.",
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 3,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/forum/program/forum"
},
"forum_1623": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum_1623",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "1623",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Podcast",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Podcast Archives - KQED Forum",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1623,
"slug": "podcast",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/forum/category/podcast"
},
"forum_1646": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum_1646",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "1646",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Health",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Health Archives - Forum",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1646,
"slug": "health",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/forum/interest/health"
},
"forum_1633": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum_1633",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "1633",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Local Politics",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Local Politics Archives - Forum",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1633,
"slug": "local-politics",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/forum/interest/local-politics"
},
"forum_1635": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum_1635",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "forum",
"id": "1635",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Arts and Culture",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Arts and Culture Archives - Forum",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1635,
"slug": "arts-and-culture",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/forum/interest/arts-and-culture"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
},
"requestOutcomesReducer": {
"notFound": []
},
"navPromosReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": true,
"promos": {
"news": {
"name": "2026 Voter Guide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"imageURL": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Nav-News-Nov2026ElectionCoverage@2x-7bd4aad4.png",
"description": "Get informed in minutes with our Voter Guide for California’s November 3 election."
},
"podcasts-radio": {},
"video-tv": {},
"events": {},
"support": {}
}
}
}
