i believe that together we rise in so doing this together every night, it is a gift. however you plan to celebrate this holiday season, i hope it is filled with love, laughter and connection and know that it is filled with gratitude from me to you, so have a merry christmas, happy new year and buckle up, baby, because we will see you all in 2025 and on that very positive note i wish you a very good night from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news one last time, thanks for staying up late and have a fantastic holiday. good evening from new york. i am chris hayes. as we inch closer to a new year and a new administration there are still lots of questions about how the election turned

out the way it did and everyone has their pet reasons. it was inflation, sure. joe biden's age also. the democrats doing too much of this or too little of that but for me the one piece of data that haunts me is this. just before the election, the think tank, data for progress, surveyed a months worth of pole responses, more than 13,000 voters, to see how closely they paid attention to political news. the sample group of voters basically match the overall results, donald trump favor and kamala harris by about 1%. they also singled out respondents who said they consume a great deal of political news. that group of voters broke for kamala harris by a six point margin and among voters who said they consume zero political news, none at all, donald trump 219 point advantage. the conclusion you could draw from that date it is the less attention americans paid to news, the likelier they were to be big trump supporters. we just entered a new environment in which the news

as a distinct entity is kind of crumbling. it's been replaced by the endless scroll of content, the and vehement -- ambient information environment people breathe and the way you breathe in air and pollution at the same time so now you have people who don't pay attention to the failing this media as it is called by its critics, but are still getting some information from algorithm- driven social networks about what is happening in our democracy. this has produced a situation in which the basic way people relate to their own self- governance and the information they get about it is about as bad integrated as i personally have ever seen. there are a lot of reasons for that. we will be exploring those reasons throughout the special show tonight. one place for this bleak environment is the most obvious

is what used to be called twitter, now x, the social media site that got but by far right billionaire elon musk very clearly intentionally manipulated the platform to become a pro trump right wing propaganda outlet and he succeeded. studies by the wall street journal, washington post and academic organizations have found that the site forced political content on users. that content was almost invariably pro trump, pro- republican and pro-musk. musk is also amplified far right and racist conspiracy series. all the while, musk, called donald trump's copresident by some, falsely claims he is a crusader for free speech. just one obvious example of this new toxic system of content is a vacuum left by a shrinking and distrusted legacy median. -- medium.

it's great to have you both. i am admirers of both of your work. charlie, i have to take a second every once in a while. it feels familiar to me, the trajectory of trump. we have to take a step back and be like is this really happening? i have watched it every step of the way and every step i was like this is ludicrous. is going to buy twitter because his girlfriend wife didn't like a joke that got censored and now it's like the domino meme, you know, with the little one of the big one and here we are now like elon musk is sort of running the country. do you feel the same way, like how did we get here? >> yes. i think there are a couple of maxims i have to try to sort the world and i always think that especially in the last decade, you have to bet on the dumbest outcome. you just can't count out the dumbest possible outcome of the thing about elon musk is he is a master of pseudo-events. he threads out lots of trial

balloons. so did donald trump. a lot of things don't come to fruition but certain things do. he does sometimes follow through or sometimes a court will force him to buy twitter and it will turn out that he uses it to leverage his influence. it is frankly astonishing that we are here, but we are definitely here. >> and you have chronicled this in a really well reported on the great book that i recommend to people. i think i had the thought of like, how could this matter really and i was wrong. i think i undersold what it would mean to have him running this platform and what his influence would be. what do you think? >> yes, i think it is really

easy to underestimate the power of twitter or x, i should say now, because it is used by so few people so we think of it as sort of a peanut compared to facebook or tiktok or these other platforms but it still dominates the political conversation and the things being talked about on x and up playing out will be on that sphere and having consequences in the real world as we saw recently with the budget deal. >> yes, we are coming off of him killing a budget deal physically through posting and we should say, one of the things i am always careful about in this conversation, is not to de-historicized too much. there have been of the people who attempted to use their wealth to manipulate democracy and buy platforms forever. henry ford, notoriously a brilliant car manufacturer and a virulent anti-semite but a bunch of papers and started publishing the protocols of the elders of zion. people have tried to use different platforms forever. must, though, does seem to be

in a rare position of being the richest man having the most influential platform, if not the biggest, and having the ear of the president. >> there is also a quality right now where you can get narratives to travel, and if you can get enough people to get behind them, if you can drum up enough enthusiasm, you can kind of make things happen. there is a real power to that. the internet is definitely the cultural and political force for that and elon musk, to his credit in this realm, has realized that this is a way to really change political culture, to really -- you know, he is not only the richest man in the world but he is them daily main character on his

platform that is still incredibly influential. it is for a lot of politics and media coalesce and agendas get set so in a way he is still, like trump was in the early parts of the first presidency there, he is kind of the assignment editor for a lot of the media and people in politics. >> i think the commonality there which is distinct from ford, who had a message he wanted to get out, that are evil in that case, what is different here is that he and trump understand better than anyone else that attention is the most important resource in the most powerful one to capture and they have both gone about capturing it. i wonder, kate, how you understand. it seems in some ways he is got pushed into this. it was a joke he was going to buy twitter then he tried to back out in a chancery court tried to force him to go through with the deal.

having reported on his take, how strategic this is? how accidental this is? >> musk really rushed into this deal without a lot of forethought about what he wanted to accomplish with the platform then once he had it, he began to wing it and come up with ideas on the fly of how he wanted to run things, but very early on, one of his goals was to get trump back onto the platform and get him to start posting there again. that is something that was important to him not necessarily because he aligned with the maga movement at that time but because he thought trump would bring eyeballs and attention to x. he really wanted trump back on the platform and posting there, and that was the beginning of the relationship. now, obviously i think he is seeing other strategic partnerships he could have with trump, otherwise he could leverage and harness the attention on the power of the presidency to bolster his own businesses. >> yes, and there are parts of what he has done there and the very direct way in which it has

become a pro-trump propaganda site and the pro elon musk propaganda site, but you have written about this back in november, charlie. there is a slurry of real hateful garbage, for lack of a more precise term, on that site, that he has unleashed. he said x is a white supremacist site. the worthwhile parts of twitter have been drowned out by hateful garbage. it is no longer a social media site with a white supremacy problem but a white supremacist site with a social media problem. what do you mean by that? >> if you look at the output of the system as what it does, i think you can look at -- it is difficult to evaluate a network like x or like twitter holistically. we don't have access to the internals, things like that. there is less transparency now than there was in the previous

ownership, but i think anyone who spends time on there understands that the types of voices that have been elevated since musk has taken over, but also really in the last six months of the election campaign, the types of people and accounts have been reinstated including conspiracy theorists another white supremacists, you see this kind of content that is really attention-getting because it is in reaching to certain people and delightful to others, and a lot of it is very racist. that stuff is more prevalent on the site now, and it is something that i think musk delights in because it triggers the lives, but it fits into his sort of free speech maximalist box which is to say anything that is truly offensive is worthy because it falls into that paradigm. >> it's more than that, too, kate. i'm curious as to what your

perspective is. i've watched people basically self-radicalize online. they just start looking at one kind of content than the kind of keep going with it and pushing it further and further and from an outsider perspective it looks like that is what has happened to elon musk. first it is like there is a bunch of joking memes about really extremist ideas than the next thing you know, maybe you have some extremist ideas. >> yes, i think the platform has really shifted his viewpoints over time. he has become quite radicalized by it and he talks about it himself you know, how much more time he spends on the platform, that he does not get his nose and information from anywhere else at this point. it's just x and you can see that looking at the rate that he posts. he posts all day and all night, sometimes sleeping three or four hours a night and the rest of the time he is online so i

think because he has really stewed himself in that environment, he is living and breathing it and believing what he sees on the platform. >> dude, yes, that is a very well cooked brain. very tender, sort of falling apart at this point. charlie warzel, kate conger. coming up, what happens when social media in real life become the same thing. how can we separate the two? that is next. e two? that is next.

you waiting for?

when social media first popped about 10 years ago there was a saying you would hear a lot, that twitter isn't real life and that scene captured something true and important to remember which is that if you spent time on twitter or any social media platform you are being exposed to certain opinions or views that they could give you a false impression that they were part of the public opinion at large. our social media timelines are self-selected in a lot of different ways. people that post a lot on the site might be representative of people at large and there was quite a bit of evidence that opinions on twitter did not really reflect public opinion at large, that a small section of the population was dominating a large share of political discourse online.

to some extent it is still true today. the data we have suggest that but it really feels like the line between online or off-line is blurred in a way that was not true even a decade ago. there is no real life and there is no online. there is only the reality of the fused world of our phones and what we consume on them and what we see. i think you see this in reaction to the shooting of the united healthcare ceo brian thompson. there has been a much-remarked upon phenomenon all over social media, people not only remotely acknowledging the fundamental the properties of the social healthcare system but also straight up celebrating and cheering a cold-blooded murder and while i don't think murder has the majority support in this country, it is also the case that this kind of gory news has become part of the way we form opinions now. writing on this phenomenon in the new yorker noted the fifth of air is salsa, and precedented and noting it is just a matter of where you locate the decay -- in the killing, the response to it or what s here.

a recent piece was entitled a man was murdered in cold blood in your laughing? it's good to have you here. i look what you write about this as he purse through this phenomenon. what is your reaction to seeing the reaction online at first? >> i was not one of the people who was shocked and appalled at the reaction. i'm definitely in the camp of the fundamental depravity of the american healthcare system is the fundamental cause of all of this, the murder and the reaction and -- but, i do think that a lot of what was underneath it was not necessarily as you said, murder is good. we celebrate it, we love it. we are maiming it to death although us a while to see how it became that way. i think something that was fundamentally under it was people were saying like, brian

thompson's life was precious. he is a human. it should not have been taken. it should not have been taken in cold-blooded 6:30 a.m. in midtown but thousands of people who have died at the hands of the system you know, their lives matter as much. exactly as much. >> but, that is -- okay. i'm going to say i'm a little older than you may be and start your maybe and i was a little shocked and appalled actually a little bit about the celebration and part of it had to do with the fact that there is a kind of irony, glibness, casualness to the way we think about all of this online. we are constantly seeing horrible things online and i guess my fear is that it doesn't stay online, that the glibness starts to infect how we think of it so if the goal here is to be like, let's reclaim how precious human life

is, it felt to me like they was pushing me in the opposite direction because it felt like part of the vortex of glibness of topics that is the internet. >> yes, i think the thing that surveillance capitalism and attention economy does, you walk on the social media and it asks you to see other people fundamentally as instruments or impediments to getting you what you want which is approval, attention, whatever it is. there is something about the entire ecosystem, the infrastructure of the internet where everything that is human about us, our desire to connect with other people, or desire to learn about the world, or desire to be loved, our desire to express itself, this is not taken as an end in itself as a historically has been but as a means to an end in the end is profit for these companies.

i do think the effect that this point of decades of this, two decades since facebook, it has added up to we have been infected with this interment totalization, the idea that people exist -- >> condition. >> yes. >> the other part of it, too is that you can also look at it as two different modes of speaking. formal and informal settings. informal and other settings. you might make jokes different than her off-color that you would not make it a family dinner and i think that you can also say that this is just the argot of the sphere of social media discourse. it does not mean that people think life is cheap. it is just the way people talk in that spirit stays there. it's not reaching some people -- deeper moral conclusions people are making. >> i also think there is a way the internet has consumed so much of our attention and our life while being part and

parcel of the same systems that have decreased our avenues toward civic action and direct action even and even just ways to act upon our world and structures that people are upset about. you know, it has given the sort of playpen -- >> where we act out and we do this like a little kid in a playpen. >> i think there is a way that we've been taught that when anything happens, what you do is transfuse it into a meme and react over and over. i do think something real, something truly interesting, this anarchic populist truly bipartisan anger at healthcare companies as emergent but a lot of the expression is it is simply young people doing what they do on the internet. on the same time, you're right, united healthcare on linkedin,

they had to shut down comments. and this is linkedin. this is for your post with your headshot and your full employment history linked to your employer and they had to shut down comments on the post about brian thompson's murder because people were cry laughing on it and again that does indicate a real political sentiment and also the way that we think of other people through the internet, but it is also people planning. >> right, and i think that line between what is clowning and what is real is one of the lines that is gotten harder to figure out. >> right. january 6. that to me is my. emetic when the internet -- >> becomes real. that's a great point. you had another piece of it sort of your body my choice right-winger -- who posted after the election and that went viral and then counter to

it went viral and one of the things i've also been thinking about is seeing this gender polarization and ideology in politics. women are becoming more liberal. men are becoming either more conservative or liberal to the same degree and how much of that again is like healthcare. there is a real thing underneath it then the vortex of how the internet deals with a real conflict. >> this is one of the things, the sort of immediate data at the polls was the shocking, especially in the swing states, shocking diversions. young jen z women swing in 20, 30 points to the left, young men swinging 20 or 30 points to the right. this is one of the cleanest examples of the internet jumping into real life. i think there is something to the fact that -- if you are 11 and you have a smart phone and you do not have any experience really with the opposite gender outside of childhood where you

are beginning to become an adolescent, a young adult, but you don't have what we had, which was in person interaction where you learn -- first-rate people learn to fumble toward the other in this private, messy space, the place first- rate people learn to see their potential dramatic partners as friends and equals. >> middle school dances, hanging out at people's houses, all that stuff. >> you're confronted with the unconfined ability of another person. if you are a middle schooler and instead have this trademark and there is also a media divider, like young women are much more likely to get their news from tiktok and young men are more likely to get it from streamers in youtube and there is that divide there and if you learn these -- the most profitable way for people to put forward a theory of gender relations is again this instrumentalization, like this is how girls or boys are going

to be impediments or useful to you. how they can serve you or how they're going to be your obstacles and this is the framework that is been profitable and every other sort of structure but when it is about simply relating to the other half of the population we are beginning to see -- this is the beginning i think of what happens when you learn these things on the device you have in your hand and all your waking hours before you get -- >> you even have developed the real world -- >> that contradicts that. and if you are learning that first that might become your real life. that might become the way you relate. >> jia tolentino, author of "trick mirror, reflections on self-delusion," great writer who am i have admired for a very long time. thank you. still ahead, there is one man who knows how to hold our

attention. what does that mean for the next four years of donald trump. next. years of donald trump. next.

in some ways the defining feature of the last decade of political discourse has been donald trump is the center of attention. he has dominated the headlines daily since he first came down the golden escalator at trump tower 10 years ago. that is often because trump has a kind of weird, feral genius

for getting attention and also, he understands our attention economy. he is, more than any other politician i have covered, willing to embrace negative attention just to keep himself at the center of the conversation. there is a real question of what that does to the national discourse. also a real question of whether he can keep that up in a second term at the ripe old age of 78 when his shtick is getting worn pretty thin. a staff writer for the new yorker who has covered the weight trump dominates attention and author of "online extremists, techno-utopians and the hijacking of the american conversation" joins me now. that book is about a lot of the mill you out of which trump support converges on line in 2016. help me think of trump as the troll presidency in many ways.

the idea of a troll online is someone who lives off negative attention is in many ways he does. >> the basic mechanics -- as you know, writing about internet stuff even in a magazine article that comes out a few days later, proper nouns can become obsolete but the basic mechanics have not changed. the rules and mechanics that came to me as i was writing that book, conflict is attention and attention is influence. connecting that up with how donald trump was able to just hijack the whole political attention economy basically by just using the rules we already knew about our country works. it was not a mystery to anyone that if you do a schoolyard bully taunt or a fight that it is really exciting to watch. no one had ever really tried it in a presidential debate. >> i think the reason they had

it and i think this is the key difference, politicians generally don't seek out negative attention. they seek out positive attention. they want to be liked and if they have a choice between negative attention and no attention, they tend to choose no attention. that is very much how they are trained. you don't want to quote unquote, make news because if you make news about something then someone somewhere might not like you. >> but, if you first of all are coming from totally outside the system and second of all are fighting against institutions one thing that happens sometimes with the attention stuff and i don't think we are in danger of doing this but i just want to point out sometimes the attention stuff is used as a kind of excuse for oh, that must be the only thing going on in trump is a must just be about you know, kind of fooling people and turning them into zombies and making them think whatever they want. i think it is the combination of that with the ideas actually having some genuine popularity, so what he ferreted out was

these institutions are over ripe for attack, and it kind of doesn't matter how you attack them. if you just say the media is bad, congress is bad, there was a huge audience for that and he doesn't have to win all the fights. he just has to pick a lot of fights. >> you are at the [ inaudible ] really and that is a perfect example of where it was a circus. there was a negative attention because one of the comedians stood up and said they the stuff about certain groups including groups in the room. >> the joke that traveled was the puerto rico joke. there were worse ones than even that and i was there for many many hours. there were many, many things people said that were worse than that but that was the one that traveled. >> but, in the end, this is the perfect example of how the ledger works because the old thinking is that if you hold a big rally right before election day where a mediocre, makes

offensive, bad jokes. they're not even funny jokes, that's going to hurt you but -- >> a couple things on that. you are saying before about the dilemma of the troll. the first thing you know on the internet is don't feed the trolls. you can't really do that when it is a former president running for president, so that's off the table so then you go okay. well, how do you pay attention to this stuff? then you are put in this other dilemma which is comedian gets up and tells distasteful joke. then do you take the schooled position and say don't tell that joke? that puts you into a corner were of course if you are just some person who is just tuning in and haven't really paid attention you're like well, give the guy a break. he is a comedian. and then also, this gets to the folk theory of elections, that each election has its dominant

new medium. 1960 famously was television. 2016 was obviously the social media election. the argument has been made reasonably that this was the longform podcast election so this comedian guy is not just a random comedian. he comes out of that world and us someone who listens to all those podcast, i know that when you have a para social relationship with people in that world and suddenly these figures and the media who googled this comedians name two seconds i were telling you this guy is some racist, you've listened to him for 18 hours. >> i didn't even feel negatively towards him. i was like that sort of disappointing. >> that if you can go back to this whole para social world for no, he didn't mean it that way, who are you going to believe? >> the big question for me, because the point you made earlier on is that the dynamics and platform change quickly. the question now of what this looks like 2.0 -- he seems to me kind of a little bit of a spent force, trunk, and the bag

of tricks is road and it seems to me like musk is actually -- like all this talk about how vance was the next trump. i feel like we are watching musk do it way better in front of our eyes. >> yes, although musk may shine bright and blaze out in a blaze of glory. this is how the show stays interesting, because season two of the show has a whole bunch of new characters. you never know what the ark is going to be. it seems totally unstable that these two guys could stay friends for very long so there is that, but also, it is not an accident that trump surrounds themselves -- himself with fighters almost literally. you think dana white, joe rogan. these are people who professionally fight or comment on fights for a living, and that is not an accident because watching people fight is primordial he entertaining.

>> that is a great insight. andrew manantz, thank you so much. still to come, concerns about the information environment are as old as the republic, even older, but is this something new happening? feels like there is. next. feels like there is. next. shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet. like the just one-tapping, ridiculously fast-acting, sky-high sales stacking champion of checkouts. that's the good stuff right there. so if your business is in it to win it, win with shopify.

we look back at different areas of democracy and find people were worried about how voters got their information basically every step of the way. they also worried about how new technologies might change that at different points from early questions about how the universal franchise would work among populations that were not particularly literate to the role that radio and tv plate informing public opinion. we have a new set of worries now and it really does feel to me there is something pretty distinct, toxic and insidious about how we are all relating to each other and relating to the world through the media of our phones and social media. is that the universe of kids these days or is there something distinct there and are there ways of navigating our online culture in ways earlier generations of had conversations about? few people know this world as well as doug rushkoff, the first man to describe viral media back in 1996. he has written multiple books about the impact of technology on humanity. he joins me now. i read this book, "present shock

," when it came out 15 years ago i think. he wrote a book about jen x years ago. you've been thinking about and watching this for a long time. let's start with how you think about -- everyone always thinks anything is bad versus there is something new happening here that is bad. >> well, i guess we are asking is it a question of degree or fundamental difference. so yes, people have been worried about this. the public education movement in england back in the 1800s was that so people could be informed enough to vote, you know, and i was just thinking as i was watching this show today, walter lipman, early 1900s, was a progressive, as progressive as any of us and

he got hired by woodrow wilson to run a campaign to get america to support the war after woodrow wilson had run on a piece platform. it works so well, he was like -- >> shocked and appalled. >> at himself. >> he writes this book called "public opinion" he was saying -- >> i think americans are too dumb to do democracy. >> he too gullible or easily swayed. there's a great line where he says my simple these are with the citizen who has to try to have opinions -- it's like it's my full time job to have opinions on a range of issues that citizens have and i can't do it so how is anyone supposed to do it. >> exactly right in john dewey who is at columbia teachers college was writing all these articles against whitman's point of view saying no, we just need a good education

system and good journalism and it will all work out but both of these institutions are crumbling right now and again and again, we see the same thing. it was neil postman really came after that and remember, neil postman, i got to know him pretty well. >> he wrote a very famous book called amusing ourselves to death which was about public discourse in the tv age. >> in that book he asked the question, why, when the news comes on, is the music? >> guilty as charged. we start every show -- >> why would there be? and he realized it is because the news is entertainment. it used to be a public service. in order to get an fcc license the television station had to do this. >> so the postman could take cuts deep because here we are on tv news and we start with music and i project a loud voice and all of that stuff is basically saying look, news should not be in her -- entertainment and entertainment and is are fusing. i need to keep people's

attention to make this thing keep working and i'm fine with that, actually. what has happened now is that people are watching this who know they are watching a news show but even news is a separate category with some different kind of ethos, civic value, et cetera relevant to democracy. that is now being obliterated by an algorithm in which you just get content and you go through and it's undifferentiated so like here's someone dancing. here's a football highlight. here's an old sitcom. something about maga donald trump and so at least in this case, the thing postman did not like sure, but [ inaudible ] >> i think that is the shift as we move to the digital age we moved away from stories, from narrative-based media, from what we called fiction to this kind of factoid-based media. all digital content is basically like reality tv it is if it's true. it's not true. it is nonfiction style so it's all nonfiction data coming at us and each piece of nonfiction data is crafted usually by an

algorithm, sometimes by a person. >> that is the genius. it is still human ingenuity coming up with this stuff but the algorithm is figuring out what works. >> exactly. at least in the old days it was nielsen would find out the next day or the third day, how well did this do and we can change the new show to get more audience. now an algorithm is doing it not just instantaneously but individually so each person is getting their own nonfiction style news feed from an algorithm designed to create engagement and sensation. >> and yet despite the fact you're a critic of all of this, you have a kind of optimism about you. i want to read this because i thought it was interesting. my optimism frame is with the violence and turmoil of the twitter fascism and tiktok totalitarianism putting our collective consciousness [

inaudible ] but boy, resistance to this future may kill us all if we're not careful. what i sense increasingly as a breaking point in the exhaustion where people do sense there is something amiss and are finding ways to rebel against it. >> i think so. i mean, people are engaging live. kids are rediscovering eye contact or touching or anything. i do think there is like a nausea. i got it in the late 90s where i felt overwhelmed once the internet went from the beautiful, slow, asynchronous internet it was like chess by mail how slow the internet was. if you remember those days, the internet was a place for you kind of worried because you sounded so much smarter on the internet than you did in real life that you are afraid to meet the people. can you imagine an internet in which people acted better than they did in the real world and now it is like the internet is

such a cesspool and we have seen, as you just said, we have seen the stars of the internet are mean people. the stars of the internet are trolls. that is what works, so if donald trump or elon musk are as good as it gets, then a lot of us are going to have to look somewhere else for the kind of attention we need and deserve. >> what do you think that looks like? >> a lot of it is going to be local, i think, and thank god because we need local. we need local papers. we need local economies. we need people buying local, educating local, doing favors for their neighbors. >> and the onion recently started printing again and mailing it out and again there something slightly precious about that, something like i don't even own a tv, the upper west side parents of my youth would say but there's also something i like about it you know. there is something about getting this physical paper and reading it. people feel that way about letters. i do think there's going to be a movement toward rejection.

it will start small, little green shoots, but rejection of the oppressive nature. >> right, and that is on both sides. steve bannon was inviting on his podcast to talk about the technocracy, the way that these big institutions are ruling us through technology and the left feels that way. we want to go back to the earth and permit culture and local communities and cooperatives in the fact that both sides are feeling that, i think, is in some ways a reaction against the abstraction of digital. the abstraction of digital, the obstruction of capitalism. everything is a derivative and it has so much leverage them the real world so in some ways it is that kind of red state back to the land we are doing the labor, and the blue state sort of i just want to go up to my commune, you know, and have an experience with people. >> yeah, that '60s back to the

land movement which gave birth to a lot of things i think we are going to see that. we will be right back. be right back.

. for the past few years i've been thinking a lot about the themes we've been grappling with today. i've been working on a new book about it all called the siren's call, how attention became the world's most dangerous resource. it looks at our attention is being extracted and comodified often against our will and how

that works in the intimate parts of private life and political discourse. that book will be out in january. i'm really excited to have it out in the world. i think it's useful for people. i'll also be hitting the road going to different venues across the country to talk about it from san francisco to boston to philadelphia to seattle to washington, d.c. to hasan to pittsburgh to chicago, and that's not all, even more dates and locations are in the works. you can either scan the qr code on your screen or go to msnbc.com/sirens call to get one of the tickets to those events. that is "all in" for tonight. have a great day. first and foremost, happy holidays to all of you. and congratulations for almost making it to the end of 2024. it feels like many, many lifetimes ago, but believe it or not at the start of this year in the early days