Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast. I'm your host, jack Hopkins, today's guest, has spent the last three decades deeply involved in democratic politics. Eric Lems got his start as a college volunteer on a campaign swing for Vice President Al Gore, which led to a White House internship during the Clinton administration. After time in corporate leadership with major Fortune 500 companies, he returned to politics, spending most of 2016 on the road with the Clinton campaign. Since then, he's been all in on local organizing. He served on the Maricopa County Democratic Party Board, worked as deputy executive director and now leads the organization as its executive director. Okay so, eric and these questions like this are always tough on the spot to answer I'm asking you to really compress three decades, but to the best of your ability. How have politics, how's it changed in the last 30 years? If you were to step back and just kind of look at the timeline and say, gosh, we start here and now we're here, how's it changed?

Speaker 2: 1:21

Well, the technology that's deployed on campaigns is boy, it's just changed tremendously, right. So when I first got into this space, which would have been during the Clinton years, that's the first, my first presidential election in 92. It was 24-hour news cycle, almost exclusively in CNN. That was pre-Fox, that was pre-MSNBC, obviously pre-digital media, and Bill Clinton and his campaign and his people were trailblazers at that medium right. And you and I are probably of a certain age.

Speaker 2: 2:00

Remember the town hall style. You bet it was kind of a first then. Sure, the town hall style, you bet it was kind of a first. Then he had, you know, a young guy by the name of George Stephanopoulos at the time who's, of course, now been with ABC News forever, and then James Carville and were then unknowns but obviously subsequently became very famous from that campaign and and so that was kind of where we began. And then you get into the 2000s, the internet you know the advent of the internet about, probably you know, and its usage and utilization in campaigns around the early 2000s. And Howard Dean was able to raise an amazing amount of money just from online donations, to raise an amazing amount of money just from online donations. Then you move over into the kind of the Obama era of it and, forgive me, I tend to look at it through the lens of the camera Right.

Speaker 2: 2:55

Who kind of using the internet to organize and he had a big kind of an army of ground on the ground organizing there.

Speaker 2: 3:09

And then now I am going to go to a Republican. Then you go with the Donald Trump bearer and what did he master? He used a technology of targeted digital media and really blew the doors off that and destroyed the Clinton campaign Hillary Clinton campaign in that regard in 2016 and, frankly, has never looked back from that. But now we're kind of, if you look at 2025, where you combine all those things kind of the media rapid response side, the online donations, the targeted digital advertising, communications you know the targeted digital advertising and you know we're kind of at an era now where, frankly, I say the Republicans are ahead of the Democrats on that. But it's where all of those technologies have kind of come to, you know, come to the fore now, and one big thing is kind of gives us what we see today. So kind of from where we began and where we are, it's really just been an incredible trajectory and it's really been a lot of fun to kind of be a witness to that history.

Speaker 1: 4:10

Oh, I can't imagine. You know, it's interesting to me how quickly we forget some things or don't have them kind of lined up in our mind. When you said you know kind of the advent of the internet. When you said you know kind of the advent of the Internet, and as you said that I bought my first personal computer in 97. It was an old Packard Bell with a monitor the size of a Frigidaire right. And yeah, I don't often when I'm thinking politically I don't often put those two together and so to think about what an exciting but yet uncharted territory and time that must have been. You've got this new technology and yet you know it's new.

Speaker 2: 5:10

So you're having to kind of figure it out as you go along. Was that anything that, from a technological aspect, that ever caused any problems? Well, I think a cause. Well, I think, for presidential campaigns, I think you know you find out there's problems, frankly, after Election Day when you find out whether you want to lose, right, sure, if you look below the presidential level, where stuff frankly is not as sophisticated, right, I mean for the statewide races, governors and US Senate you know some of those if they're well-resourced enough, you know you get kind of technology that's more or less on par with some of what you see at the presidential level. Below that, everything is a lot more of a bootstrap nature, right, right, so you have to be kind of. You don't have access to as many things financially, technologically, you have to be a lot more clever and making fewer resources go the furthest type of a thing. So in that regard, you really realize it as you kind of move down in the level of campaign.

Speaker 2: 6:11

Another major difference I will say in campaigns is and I would say this probably started to happen about 10 to 15 years ago range the data that's in these campaigns. Now, it's kind of ironic that at the time where data has become a very much bigger thing inside of campaigns. Polling has gotten worse and worse and worse. I think there's a lot of reasons for that. You know landlines to sell lines and age stuff, pickup rates and all that kind of thing I think is kind of some of the cause for that, and it's just harder to do polling for a variety of systemic reasons. But by data I specifically mean I mean you now have people with master's degrees and some type of or PhDs in some cases in a STEM-type science inside of presidential campaigns running your numbers yeah, inside of presidential campaigns running your numbers and looking and slicing the numbers several different ways to try to identify and isolate the people you need to target, and that has really there's been a huge uptick in that, probably about the past decade or so.

Speaker 1: 7:18

Trevor Burrus. So when you look back to your earliest beginnings in politics, does it seem like a fairly antiquated time compared to what they're able to do now with technology, or is it just kind of all blended together for you?

Speaker 2: 7:38

No, it was an antiquated time. I can go back pre-'90s before I kind of got into it. And we've seen this kind of got into it. You know, you'd be kind of, and we've seen this kind of portrayed in movies, where you know a campaign office, you have a bunch of cubicles and people at phones and like all that stuff we do virtually now. Right so, I mean it's, you know, which frankly cuts down on things like real estate costs too, right so, and phone line costs and those kinds. So look, I mean, I think the other kind of perspective I bring to it is I was in the corporate business world for a number of years before I got into this full time. Yes, and it just so happens my chosen industry was software and technology. Oh, interesting. So I spent a decade at places like Microsoft and SAP, so I also am able to kind of see connect technology to politics probably more fluently than a lot of other folks are yeah, and that's also why the other stuff looks more antiquated too.

Speaker 2: 8:40

To be honest, Right.

Speaker 1: 8:43

Well, let me ask you this, because, especially over the last decade, Arizona has been a big deal in politics, right in elections. What is it that makes Maricopa County so important politically? So, first of all, we're very big.

Speaker 2: 9:07

And we are the fourth largest county in the United States and, frankly, you and your listeners probably know can guess the other three, right? Sure? So New York, new York, including Manhattan, cook County, which is Chicago, la County, and then we have Harris County Actually, we actually were bigger than Manhattan, but Harris County, which is Houston, and then Maricopa County. We're close to 5 million people. In terms of voting jurisdiction, we're the second largest behind LA County, so we're larger than 26 states. Probably most importantly, we're actually considered battleground. All the other counties I mentioned are deep blue. Yeah, we're the only battleground county, so you pretty much have to win Maricopa County to win Arizona.

Speaker 1: 10:00

Yeah, yeah, that's a significant deal, yeah, okay, yeah, yeah, that's a significant deal, yeah, okay, yeah. I'm trying to think as we were discussing a little bit before we went live, I was out in Arizona, in the Phoenix area, in 1990, and when you said 5 million, I have no idea what the numbers were back then, but they were considerably smaller, I know that Since then it's doubled.

Speaker 2: 10:29

probably about doubled. Yeah, yeah, Wow.

Speaker 1: 10:33

Okay, that's a pretty big piece of the pie in terms of importance, right, just sheer numbers.

Speaker 2: 10:43

Yeah, importance, right, just sheer numbers, yeah, and you know, I mean we look at just the sheer numbers and then you also add in we're not dense like some of these other, or as dense as some of those other communities as well, right, so we think of Cook County. That pretty much is predominantly Chicago, which is pretty dense, and even LA is dense in its own way. I mean it doesn't like go upward like Manhattan or New York does, of course, but it's. There's no kind of like empty parcels of land in LA.

Speaker 1: 11:13

Right.

Speaker 2: 11:14

Right, right, so, and so what? So the reason why I raise that is because, you know, maricopa County is not just talking to people virtually or digitally, what have you, but even on my job, day to day, I physically travel all over the county and so, getting to one corner of it versus another, that just adds complexities. Just with our volunteer work and when people are door-to-door canvassing, that's a lot, frankly, a lot of zip codes that you have to cover, even if you're, you know, paying for media and so not to mention the driving that you're doing as a candidate, right? And so last year we actually ran a pretty much a full slate of county candidates for various offices, ranging from county attorney down to county supervisor, and I can tell you our county-wide candidates, I mean, they're kind of feeling like they're driving across a state, yeah.

Speaker 1: 12:16

I was going to say. I mean just thinking, comparing it to Manhattan or LA County. I kind of use as a reference, as you were talking about that, the number of saguaro cactuses. You know you go by cacti. Yeah, you think about the density of Manhattan and then you look at Maricopa County and gosh, it's different in so many ways just in terms of how you work.

Speaker 2: 12:50

And we have the various parts of the county are different in terms of socioeconomics, right.

Speaker 2: 12:57

So we have kind of the northeast part of the county is not only affluent but it's kind of nestled in a lot of mountains, too, right, and those communities are gated.

Speaker 2: 13:14

So just the things that I think about as a political hack kind of person is you can't knock doors in communities like that just because of the terrain, because they're gated, so you have to pay to reach those voters, right, right. Whereas then you also have the far southwest, even though kind of our farmland is going away and that's another major difference between now and 1990 is, when you're flying into Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, you'd see lots of fields and farmland and so forth, and most of that's been replaced by, you know, factories, assembly lines, you know Amazon fulfillment facilities and the like. You know there's a $60 billion yes, $60 billion development in the north part of town from a Taiwan semiconductor. They're building kind of like their US headquarters here, and so that looks a lot different. But in the far southwest, where there is kind of still some of those fields, that is more rural. So you're kind of mixing in rural, ex-urban, suburban and urban, so that variety also makes it just a very fun, unique and fun place to do politics.

Speaker 1: 14:23

Yeah, sounds like the landscape has changed considerably. I remember when I came in from the north the first time I was in Arizona and hit Sun City and I called a buddy of mine that lived in Mesa and he gave me directions and there were wide open spaces between, I mean wide open spaces between, sun City and Mesa. I'm guessing those have dwindled down.

Speaker 2: 14:51

Those are long gone, jack. Yeah, and I would say so, your surrounding cities in Mesa, chandler, you know, queen Creek are kind of the big ones out there. Yeah, that's all kind of filled in. It's just truly incredible. You know the, and also because of what you're seeing, because of the growth, you know housing prices also just kind of. You know we don't have hurricanes, we don't have earthquakes. It's hot as heck, but you know people kind of discover, you know the quality of life here is just a lot of fun, and so, consequently, the demand for housing has just gone up as well.

Speaker 1: 15:35

Yeah, what has that done to?

Speaker 2: 15:41

the political landscape, that growth. So it's been fascinating because you know you really see a lot of interesting thing with the migration patterns here, right. So you know we've had a very healthy mix of people coming from really all over the country, ranging from the Midwest to the Northeast, ranging from the Midwest to the Northeast. Very curiously, frankly, sports and I know you and I are both kind of in the sports science as well in our own ways has had something of an impact on that, because we've hosted a number of major events. We've hosted several Super Bowls and then, of course, the Fiesta Bowl has gotten very large. We hosted the college basketball tournament last. So what happens is people travel out here for one reason or another. They discover they love it and then they migrate out here. And we've hosted a lot of teams from the east and so that's kind of led to people from that part of the country migrating out here. So when you get people coming from those, and then I also suspect we have a fair number of California refugees who the housing price over there is just such that, hey, it's just we got to get out of here, kind of a thing, right.

Speaker 2: 16:54

So I think the net of that, the impact on politics is the state, frankly, has become closer right, polit, yes, you know. Politically, you know, probably more divided. I'd say it was probably in the eras of, say, 1990 to maybe 2010, 2015,. Pretty solidly red, I would say. Yeah, you know, we did have a couple of Democrats who did well statewide in that era who, I would say, for their own set of reasons, were kind of just special talents Janet Napolitano comes to mind. But by and large I mean pretty solidly read. But really in the past decade or so, I think the migrations patterns have kind of made it closer and so that's what we're seeing, gotcha.

Speaker 1: 17:45

You spent some time in the Fortune 500 world, the corporate world, right. I'm curious about how that experience shaped your political leadership skills. And you mentioned that you were involved in kind of the software sector. So what did you carry over into politics and maybe what did you not so much?

Speaker 2: 18:13

So let me preface Even though I name-dropped Microsoft before, that does not mean I'm a software developer or engineer. I was more again on the. I have an MBA, so I was kind of more on the strategy corporate side. But I used a lot of analytical skills when I was in the business world and that was something I was immediately able to connect to politics. And every day I'm always kind of I have to manage. I have to manage, you know, a budget, for example. I have to build a budget and manage to it. You know, that's something that I was very it was easy for me to just kind of transfer over that I still use on a daily basis and I use that not just in my current role, my American County Democratic Party but also even when I've been a campaign manager. I have to do that. So that's something that you know I was able just to kind of easily just kind of bring that skill set you know and merge that with the political world.

Speaker 2: 19:14

You know, I would say you know, one thing that I've tried to kind of I don't want to say leave behind, that I let's say I haven haven't, I've tried to not replicate is um, you know there's certainly a.

Speaker 2: 19:28

You know, politics is cutthroat when it's like democrat versus republican, yes, like you're kind of opponents in the corporate world. There's an element of that, even inside your own division, right, sure and uh, you know, when I was with um Microsoft at that era it was about 20 years ago now it kind of had a if you remember the old CEO, jack Welch at General Electric, yes, it kind of had that culture to it and that created a lot of moments in certain times of the year angst within the team, you know. So one thing I've always tried to foster is kind of a family atmosphere in the teams that I lead and I foster a relationship of trust. Trust, I think, is paramount within a political team, I think, because you know this is an environment where, especially for candidates, they have to be more vulnerable than they've ever been in their lives, and sometimes it's not just the candidate himself or herself, it's their family as well, and those principals have to trust you and the team around them without hesitation.

Speaker 2: 20:43

And so just kind of fostering that, you know, that sense of team and family and trust, is something that I've tried to foster in this life that, unfortunately, I wasn't really empowered to do, maybe in a previous life.

Speaker 1: 20:59

Sure, Would it be fair to say that the higher the level of trust? Would it be fair to say that the higher the level of trust, the quicker things rebound? When people do disagree with each other, when there is a flare-up, that if the level of trust is deep it tends not to be that big a deal. But if the level of trust is kind of low or just barely there, then those disagreements can become deal breakers.

Speaker 2: 21:29

So here's the thing. You know you don't have to even I'm talking within the team itself right? You don't have to agree with your principal, your candidate, on every single thing, right? Sure, you both just have to have a shared goal that you want to win. Right, and as long as you guys are on the same page there, um, you know disagreements you don't take personally. You just have a different approach for a different reason. You know you come to it with a certain sense of well, okay, you and I are going to agree to disagree, but let's roll forward and let's do it, and then you move on. You know you don't hold on to that emotion.

Speaker 2: 22:09

You know one thing that I think candidates confront that maybe kind of their political operatives might have a different perspective on. You know I'm fortunate enough now that I happen to have a lot of personal vested interest in it, because this is my hometown and my home state, and so so any candidates that run, I'm as emotionally invested in it as they are, Right, Right, and what you see a lot in this profession is you get road warrior kind of campaign manager types who will manage a congressional campaign, when sometimes you know those campaign managers want you to go hyper negative and go negative against your opponent and all that kind of thing, yeah, and you know the candidate's like, look, I got to live here afterward, you know, Right, Right. And so that's sometimes where things can get a little. But again, if you have a shared mission and you trust each other on that level, you don't really take anything personally.

Speaker 1: 23:10

Over the years, we've seen candidates that didn't even remotely live close to the area or the state even that they were running who come in, and I always thought of that in terms of attempting to establish trust there. You know, I can only imagine it's a lot more difficult to do. Imagine it's a lot more difficult to do and you've got to have some really big treat. You're dangling in front of your potential constituents when you do that because of the lack of trust. Let's talk about a name again that's been mentioned, but one that maybe a few people listening will know, and that's Clinton. What lessons from the 2016 Clinton campaign can we pull forward to now? As we look forward and I hate to say this, but I would be, I just wouldn't be authentic if I didn't say this when we look at the midterms and we look at 2028, in the forefront of everybody's mind now is will we have a free and fair election right, election right. You know that is.

Speaker 1: 24:41

There are still things hanging out there about this last election in terms of we know that wasn't even a question mark. We know that there was Russian interference again, just as there had been in 2020. Now that he's in the White House again based on how he has portrayed himself since he's been in office public statements that he has made things he intends to do. I mean, when somebody comes out and tells you they're maybe looking at a third term, you have to take them seriously. In this situation, what can we? Knowing those things, fearing those things because, let's be honest, voters are fearful right now. Right, you know there's an element of fear that we've had over the last eight years, but now, with some of the things that we've seen happen, I think that that level of fear has elevated. What can we bring forward? Let me back up. What have you brought forward? Right, that people like me will be glad that you brought forward from those lessons that can be applied now and in the future, yeah, no.

Speaker 2: 26:07

So I think the number one thing is, you know, and let me preface by saying, I think, one, if I look back to kind of what happened in 2016, one thing that I think is oft overlooked is and that's not to say that I, I think Secretary Clinton lost for a variety of reasons, but I think we can ignore the fact that it's really hard to get three in a row. Ok, right, so that going into the campaign for her, in particular, that was a headwind that already she was facing to try to get three in a row. And the American people, they like to kind of do a change after eight years. Right, so there's that. But I think for me, you know, I think that I've kind of learned is and I want to be careful in saying this I don't for a moment think that the inside the Clinton campaign itself, that we took things for granted.

Speaker 2: 27:08

I mean, I know that I can speak, that I was very focused. I happened to be working on the campaign in Michigan. Well, I did two things. I was very focused. I happened to be working on the campaign in Michigan. Well, I did two things. One, I worked on the National Convention staff in 2016, and the show itself was incredible and great and successful and all of that. We were very focused on making that a great experience for her and for the country.

Speaker 2: 27:31

And even when I worked in Michigan in the final weeks of the campaign, all my teammates were very focused and I suspect they were very focused in Brooklyn where the headquarters was, sure, but I think, one degree out from the actual paid campaign itself. Amongst the activists and certainly amongst the media, I think people just took for granted she was going to win. Amongst the media, I think people just took for granted she was going to win. You know, I certainly think I mean I hate to bring this name up I certainly think James Kobe assumed that she was going to win and a lot of his behavior was impacted by that.

Speaker 2: 28:03

So I think that you know, not letting one's foot up off the gas ever until you cross that finish line is a lesson that all of us need to learn, All of us. Line is a lesson that all of us need to learn, All of us, you know, don't take, you know, anything you're doing. You know inside the campaign for granted. You know, always stay focused on mission and just don't let your foot up off the gas until you get to the finish line is a lesson that we just need to learn and stick to. I think the good news now is, I think the urgency is such that people are locked in and, frankly, if anything, I think we have kind of the reverse problem now is based on what I'm seeing and hearing when I travel of the county. It's like what can we do now, now, now, now, now, now, now, right, Because people just can't wait until November of 26. So the lesson you just got to keep your foot on the gas and run through the tape.

Speaker 1: 29:04

I want to ask you a question to see how much this kind of philosophy I have pairs up with what you just said and it may not pair up at all, but I suspect there may be a little overlap and I'd like to get your feedback on it. I wrote an article a few weeks ago that was essentially talking about the inherent danger of making a political candidate a celebrity superstar, that it can be a double-edged sword, right that their celebrity status can become so big that then there is just an assumption well, of course they're going to win. They're so big, they're the Oprah right of politics who else would win? Who could beat them? And so obviously it's a balancing act, because on the one hand you have to make sure everybody knows who the candidate is and they have to be big. But is there a fine line you have to pay attention to there with getting them so big in a celebrity type way that it starts working against the campaign?

Speaker 2: 30:37

Well, you know, what's interesting about that is when you look over the years at kind of who the nominees have been in the United States, going back at least again. Simon has 30 years, right, right, but going back at least again. So I've been in this 30 years, right, people, it tends to. The winners tend to be people with the shortest paper trim, interesting Even George W Bush. He'd been governor. What Now? He had the family name, obviously Right, he'd been governor, I believe, only six years. Barack Obama, us senator four years.

Speaker 2: 31:13

Trump, of course, had never served in any type of elective or public office before. So, you know, in the United States unlike, say, a Germany, for example, where I mean Merkel was, you know, a PM for Chancellor for 20 years and then, I think, in the Parliament for several decades before that, right, by comparison, the United States might be something 20 years and then, I think, in the parliament for several decades before that, right, right, right. By comparison, the United States might be something to be said for people like fresh faces, right, right. It's also kind of harder to caricature somebody who's more of a fresher face.

Speaker 1: 31:54

Yes, caricature somebody who's more of a fresher face. Yes, and I'm guessing, if I can interrupt you for a second, that caricature effect can cut both ways as well. Would that be it can?

Speaker 2: 32:04

It can. But what I would say is the person maybe, perhaps with a shorter paper trail, might have a little more. I guess latitude, ok, right, we could use as well, right.

Speaker 1: 32:19

You bet.

Speaker 2: 32:21

You know, they probably don't necessarily operate by a rule book that's been used for 10 or 20 years. So you know it can cut both ways, you know, you know. To your question is you know, you know, can celebrity be too much? I mean, I don't know. I mean I think that at the presidential level, particularly once you're the nominee, you're always going to get a lot of free kind of paid Right, free earned media right, because there's only two candidates and the media is always fascinated by who the nominees are. And all of that, I would say, bring us back down to local. Frankly, I loved having an astronaut run for US Senate.

Speaker 1: 33:10

I'm not going to lie about that.

Speaker 2: 33:12

Sure sure, especially when our candidate for your listeners I'm being very specific about US Senator Mark Kelly, when he was running against Martha McSally, who also, as you know, had an extremely impressive military background Right. And so certainly I think, once you get below the presidential level, I think you might even prefer a celebrity in some respects. So it probably also depends on the race and the level of race you're looking at too.

Speaker 1: 33:43

I can only imagine that if I or anyone else were to, in the middle of a campaign, right come to a campaign manager and say, you know, I think your candidate's name is getting too big, I probably wouldn't meet with somebody that would agree with me. If what I hear you saying and I certainly understand that dichotomy you know that. Hey, I suppose, having listened to what you had to say, listen to what you had to say, what I wrote about might be true, but in general, you probably still would want to lean towards bigger name.

Speaker 2: 34:27

I'm actually going to punt here. I'd say it's case by case, and here's why I say that Some celebrities have certain skills that we like to see in politics um better skills and say others um, yeah I I'll just be very specific on some names here. Um, I personally think that donald trump has better raw skills than, say, a George Clooney Sure.

Speaker 1: 34:56

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 34:58

So look, I'm right there with George Clooney on his political ideology, but I would agree with you, by the way. But in terms of his raw skills to do this kind of thing, I just don't think he would be as good as Trump. So I think it depends on the race, the candidate, the moment Right. You know, I think it really depends on the race, the candidate, the moment Right.

Speaker 1: 35:15

You know, I think it really depends and I'm glad to hear you say that because I have found on social media, for example, if I post something along those lines, kind of making that type of comparison, you've got to be prepared for the pushback because those comments will be perceived as support of some kind for Donald Trump when it's simply just an analysis of a skill set. But obviously, off the cuff, as raw as it is, there's something there that you don't see just everywhere.

Speaker 2: 35:54

Oh, absolutely yeah you don't see, oh, absolutely. And to go a step further, I think it also depends on you play to your. You have a certain set of skills and then you play to your strengths right. So Donald Trump's strength is building excitement at an event, within his flock, within his crowd. It's not necessarily doing a debate, and so what does he do? He does fewer debates and more rallies, right, and you can play to your strengths that way.

Speaker 2: 36:24

You know George Herbert Walker Bush if you allow me to get kind of nerd out on you you know for a second here on some history, george Herbert Walker Bush. His strengths were just an absolutely honorable and decent and fine public servant, dating back to his days as a 19-year-old combat pilot in World War II. And of course, again, I disagreed with a lot of his policies. But I mean you can't question the man's patriotism and sense of service. And and when he's debating, you know somebody like a Bill Clinton, particularly in a town hall type of a setting. That was not his strength, right, right, what you do is, I think the key is you know, you understand kind of what your skills are as a candidate and you kind of work within those to kind of you know, see if you can excel Right to kind of you know, see if you can excel Right.

Speaker 1: 37:17

Let me ask you what strategies, what approach MCDP has for reaching the voters who are just kind of like you know they're just kind of reaching their threshold for politics, as so many people are, just because it's been a pretty rough and tense and stress-filled eight or nine years now. How are you strategizing for that, to reach and connect with those people and give them a sense of, hey, we're still in the game?

Speaker 2: 38:02

So, look, I mean, just like a lot of Democrats, we were unhappy with the, you know, obviously very unhappy and disappointed and to a certain extent, even surprised by the results of last November. So we wanted to learn from that and we wanted to do differently, you know. And, of course, going. You know, as I think I said referenced earlier. You know you feel like you have a good plan going into the election, but the quality of the plan is always determined by the outcome, frankly. So the question for us is and, frankly, for the people that we're serving, our precinct committee people and activists, sure, voters, doing a better job of listening, you know, to our, you know, to Democrats and our activists. And we're doing that in the form of listening tours. We've done several of them already and literally what we're doing is we're traveling into all parts of the county, we're, you know, sitting in a you know room or community center for you know a couple of hours and we just say up front hey, we're going to be vulnerable, we want to hear what you guys have to say, what keeps you up at night, what's on your mind. You know, we're going to take this information and hope that it informs, better, informs how we do our strategy and our messaging, and that's why we're here and we take all that incoming for a couple of hours. So that's one thing we're doing as well.

Speaker 2: 39:42

We're trying to bill out, you know, our digital media platforms. We launched a new webpage, maricopademsorg for those who want to check that out, and we're trying to do a better job of visiting platforms that heretofore we've not visited. You know, like yours and others, jack, and so we're, you know. I think one takeaway, at least for me, from last year's election is, you know, the president did a superior job of meeting voters where they were, and sometimes that wasn't necessarily, you know. I mean, democrats tend to myself included tend to think, well, let's look to that debate where so many millions of people are watching, but you know, the other side tends to think of it as well no, let's do this and that podcast, let's do this and that on digital social media, and we're really trying to do a lot better in that area because I think, as I said, as I think I've said earlier, we're trying to play catch up in some of those ways. So those are the three or four things that we're doing differently to try to reach people.

Speaker 1: 40:47

Nice and once again for anybody watching or listening, correct me if I'm wrong, but maricopademsorg.

Speaker 2: 40:56

Is that correct? Maricopademsorg, is that correct?

Speaker 1: 41:00

Maricopademsorg Gotcha, gotcha. Listen, as we kind of wind down here, let me ask you this before we get into the last question what advice would you give your younger self? So, if we go back to your foray into politics, with the experience that you've garnered and the thinking and the wisdom you've developed, if you could go back to that young man and say, let's have coffee. I've got some pointers here for you. What are some of the things that you would tell that Eric?

Speaker 2: 41:38

Well, I think about that, uh, from time to time. Um, one thing I would absolutely do differently Um, I would have charted, frankly, a different path for my um, professional life. I think, um, I, um, you know so, I know. So I kind of got an MBA, went into the business world and, kind of, you know, I started out as a White House intern in the mid-90s and for Vice President Gore specifically which, of course, just so people understand that there's about at that time there was about 250 interns and we were also unpaid in that era, so that's another story altogether. They'd only reached more than getting paid. It's incredible. But of the 250, about 20 to 25 were vice presidential. And so the reason why that's important for me is because I developed a pretty close relationship with Al Gore's team, his official team at the time. And the number one thing I do differently is I probably would not have left that network behind for such a long time, cause I was in the business world and did kind of have some separation from that and then about a decade ago, I had to kind of start fresh again. Yeah, so I, you know, I definitely would have just charted a different path for myself professionally when I have the opportunity and not have blown that opportunity For those you know who and I, on occasion I do have the chance to mentor folks, kind of, you know, in their early 20s, when I was at that age.

Speaker 2: 43:15

To mentor folks kind of you know, in their early 20s, when I was at that age, sure, hey, if you have any inkling of wanting to do something in the political or public service space, just go for it. Just, you know, dive right in. You know, all of us kind of have different experiences with my, you know, with our parents and with our fathers. And I was like, hey, go out there and make money and get rich and all that kind of have different experiences with my, you know, with, with our, with our parents and with our fathers. And I was like, hey, go out there and make money and get rich and all that kind of right. And so I kind of fell into that for a number of years like I gotta get rich, I gotta get rich again. It just wasn't satisfying for me and really, um, you know, public service was kind of you know, politics was always my calling and I, you know, whenever I can, I advise people, you young people, to do that, and that's one thing I would do differently, just kind of follow my heart.

Speaker 1: 43:59

Right. So, to close out, I want to ask you to contribute this and tell me your approach. One message that I am really sending out to everybody that I talk to in terms of future voters right, people who are going to be voting in upcoming elections or who should be voting in upcoming elections I make sure to that concern, that fear that election integrity could be a question mark because of the kinds of threats that we've heard be made. Right, but I follow up with we have to vote, like election integrity will be straight up and down and as tight as it has ever been. Because I think if you don't blend those two stories, if you don't match their fears with a fact, which is If we don't vote, that's when we have problems. Right, we have to vote.

Speaker 1: 45:22

But I think, at the same time, one way to kind of lose trust or risk losing trust is to act like, oh, there's nothing to being concerned about election integrity. Put that, that's not even a deal. I think people have experienced too much to just wipe it away. So I acknowledge it. But then boom, we have no matter what we are afraid of, no matter what we think could happen. We have to vote anyway. So what is the Eric message to that idea.

Speaker 2: 46:10

So I'm actually going to blow the Republicans' cover here on something to kind of give folks some confidence in the system. And I'm speaking again narrowly in Maricopa County, our elections officials so I'm talking specifically, not necessarily the elected county recorder here, who is someone who I oppose, and we had another candidate who I supported, but I'm speaking his civil service team, the people who actually do the day-to-day work. They are incredible people and these are people who they're not political, they just do the work. And then one of the things that we do is both the Democratic, the county Democratic Party and the county Republican Party actually goesrove the system prior to every single election, even the most mundane, like bond elections, all the way up, obviously, to presidential. Both county political parties do that and that's the dirty little secret to this. So people understand that after the election, when they hear, oh, my goodness, and it was, you know, from the MAGA side, that was fit. Hey, the county Republican Party was there proving stuff beforehand. So that's one thing I'll say.

Speaker 2: 47:47

The second thing I'll say and again just keeping it kind of focused on Arizona is we have a secretary of state, adrian Fontes, who, yes, happens to be a Democrat state. Adrian Fontes who, yes, happens to be a Democrat, but Adrian Fontes, this man, is a Marine. He is the most hopeless romantic about democracy and this republic that I've ever seen, and pardon my French here. But he will be damned if he even whiffs that there's something that is off or awry or that is not honest or not working with the election. So the folks in Arizona should feel very confident that next year election is going to be a meaningful election. No one should use that as a pretext or an excuse to not vote.

Speaker 2: 48:45

Who was it that said this is a republic if we can keep it? I think that might have been Benjamin Franklin. But we need to just remember that and go to the polls next year when the time comes with that in mind. Just remember that and go to the polls next year when the time comes with that in mind, and let's just not surrender this republic, this nation, to those who would do us harm from within. Let's not do that Well said.

Speaker 1: 49:11

You know, those are two fantastic confidence bolstering points that you laid out there, bolstering points that you laid out there To have someone with that kind of integrity in the position that Adrian is in, and then your dirty little secret, as it were. I can see why Republicans would like to keep that a dirty little secret.

Speaker 2: 49:40

I just need their covers though.

Speaker 1: 49:44

Yeah, yeah, no, and I think and let me kind of backtrack a minute and oftentimes I don't clarify this enough so many times, when I'm talking about election integrity, one of the things that's in my mind and I probably ought to word it differently is voters, voting rights, right, voters, right, yeah, right. I think you know we are watching the attempt and the attack on voting rights to try to decrease the number of people who can vote, to decrease the number of people who can vote and then, where that fails, to try and decrease the number of people who will vote, and so yeah, but that comes right back to the two things that you laid out and the ongoing fights now to defend and protect voting rights.

Speaker 2: 50:40

So yeah, Well, to your point, Jack. I believe there's a bill that's scaring a lot of people. It's called what? The SAVE Act, or something like that, which simply would disenfranchise a lot of women in the country, right, Because it?

Speaker 2: 50:56

has to do with so many women who choose to change their name when they to take their spouse's name and and very dangerous, and people just need to continue to be vigilant against that stuff and oppose it at every turn. You know, and certainly Democrats in Washington need to oppose that kind of stuff at every turn there's efforts afoot to tinker and limit and, frankly, shave voters in one way or another. Here in Arizona as well, you know, governor Katie Hobbs has has been a stalwart in vetoing, frankly, legislation.

Speaker 1: 51:36

Yes, she has.

Speaker 2: 51:53

And dangerous, but but I really urge people to. Yes, she has. And to your point, jack, the integrity side of it really happens at the legislative level, state and federal level, before the election even happens. Right, and what their state legislatures are doing with trying to frankly, shave voters off the rolls and curtail voting rights, because that stuff is very hard to see. But that's why the urgency is for people to pay close attention to it.

Speaker 1: 52:52

Right, well, listen, I have enjoyed this so much.

Speaker 1: 52:57

Listen, I have enjoyed this so much and I think that the people of Mar, I can see how flawlessly and seamlessly you've shaped that into this personal thing specifically for the world of politics, throughout your life, throughout your career.

Speaker 1: 53:18

Not everybody from the corporate world is able to blend, you know they bring that exact strategy and I can only imagine that's not always the best approach, but it sounds like you've made that something. You took some things that you learned and skills that you gained. But you recognize, hey, this is a different world and it's clear that you've got an admiration and an appreciation for so many of the people that you had the opportunity to work with and around and there's just a humbleness about you that comes through. Clearly you're a very smart guy, you've got a ton of experience connected, but there's just that humbleness there that allows you to really connect with someone and that's rare to encounter that in somebody in your unique situation. So I want to say I appreciate you just for being the human being that you are, because I've enjoyed talking to you. Maricopa County you are in good hands with Eric Lenz. So, listen, I'd love to do this again sometime.

Speaker 2: 54:42

Absolutely, jack. It's been a lot of fun. Thank you so much and for the kind words that's kind of me to say Appreciate it you bet, eric, all right.

Speaker 1: 54:48

Well, I will talk to you again soon and keep that heat for a while, will you that Arizona heat? We will, buddy, we will. Okay, all right. Bye-bye, eric Sure.

Speaker 2: 55:01

Bye-bye.