Bradley Tusk 

Michael if they gave out an award for podcast honesty, I think we’d win it on that one.

‍

Michael Eisenberg

I am super excited to have my friend Bradley Tusk with us on the Invested podcast. Bradley and I have done a couple of podcasts together in the past. This is his first time on Invested. I hope you're gonna enjoy it. I promise you it will be an interesting conversation. But instead of me introducing you, Bradley, why don't you introduce yourself? 

‍

I’ll of course feel free to fill in. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

Yeah, sure. So I started my career in politics. I was Mike Bloomberg’s campaign manager when he ran for mayor of New York. I worked for him at City Hall, spent four years as the Deputy Governor of the State of Illinois, ran the state's budget operations, legislation, policy communications; a couple of years in the US Senate as the communications director to Chuck Schumer, who's now the Senate Majority Leader. 

‍

I started my first company in 2010, a political consulting firm that runs big campaigns. So imagine you're Walmart, and you're trying to open up stores in four major US cities, and you've got union issues and zoning issues and community issues. We figured all that stuff out, and pivoted to tech kind of by accident. I was sitting in a meeting in early 2011, and a friend of mine called and said, “Hey, there's a guy with a small transportation startup. He's having some regulatory problems. Would you mind talking to him?” I’d become Uber’s first political adviser that day. I get really lucky. And Travis calls back and says, “Listen, I can't afford your fee, would you take equity?” I had no idea what equity meant, but thank God, I said yes. 

‍

That was back during the series A–and then spent the better part of the next few years running campaigns all over the US to legalize ride sharing and Uber. That worked, repeated the process with CLEAR, took some equity to help get them into airports. That worked. And then my partner, Jordan Knopf, who you know, who was running Blackstone's internal venture fund at the time, and the question we started asking ourselves is, if you truly understand regulatory risk, and you can do something about it, how much of a better investor would that make you? And we didn't know the answer, but we believed it was material enough to try, and raised our first fund in 2016. Really small fund, 35 million, but put it to work right away. And some things had worked out. So our first investment ever was FanDuel. And we ran all the campaigns to legalize fantasy sports betting. Our second investment was Lemonade, which we did with you. And then we helped them get their insurance licenses all over the US, and so on. 

‍

We're now investing out of our third fund, raising our fourth, typically invest in seed and series A. Check size is typically one to 7 million. And then separate from all of that. I teach this stuff at Columbia Business School, I host a podcast called Firewall that you've been on a bunch of times about tackling politics; I stupidly own a bookstore and podcast studio on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. So it's a great way to lose a lot of money. Out of my foundation, we fund and run the campaign on mobile voting to make it possible to vote in elections on your phone, and another one on universal school meals to make sure that every kid in America gets breakfast and lunch at school every day. And I write books. So I wrote a memoir a couple years ago called ‘The Fixer’ and a novel that came out, as you know, a couple of weeks ago, called ‘Obvious in Hindsight,’ and then a third book coming out next year on mobile voting. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

So I actually want to dig into how we met, which was on Lemonade, but not dig into Lemonade specifically. But it was, it was kind of the Bible of venture capital never to invest in regulated industries. It's why, for example, healthcare venture investing struggled for a long time. You never want to touch anything that had any regulation. Your strategy obviously is the opposite. And anyone who's read ‘The Fixer,\ which I have read and enjoyed, and even had my name mentioned in the back of it, would understand that you have a very different perspective on regulated industries. So if I'm making a venture investment, why should I venture into anything that is regulated? And has that changed, by the way, from 15 years ago to today? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, I think, I think the norms have changed a little bit, partly because I think of all the tech fights. And importantly, now that we've been around for a while, there's at least one fund that does this kind of stuff. But the vast majority of–let's just use the US as an example here–the vast majority of companies are regulated either directly or indirectly. if you touch a consumer in any way, ultimately, you're going to face regulation in some form. And I think where a lot of startups get caught, unaware and get into trouble is, you can have great engineering and you can have great product, you can have great marketing, you can have great everything. But if the other side can use politics and government to put you out of business and restrict your market share and stop your activities and everything else, it doesn't matter that you went to Stanford or that you were at Y Combinator or that, you know, Benchmark or whoever invested in your Series A. Like you're still not going to survive. And you've got to be able to sort of deal with this. And then the other side would be all of these new industries, like whether it's crypto or AI or autonomous vehicles, where there may not be someone that you're disrupting, like we did with taxi for Uber, or insurance for Lemonade, or casinos for FanDuel. But there's no regulatory framework at all, which is actually a problem, right? 

‍

I know, everyone thinks that they would love to live in a totally, you know, utopian world of no regulation, or all libertarian. But the reality is for any industry to function, there have to be some set of rules that people comply with. Because otherwise, it's the complete Wild West all the time. And so I think the tech companies are starting to realize that, look, if we're not prepared for– if we’re disrupting someone, and we're not prepared to deal with it, we can face real problems. And if we're entering a white space, and we're not at the table to form regulations, they're still gonna get formed, we're just not gonna like them. And so the whole point of our fund is that, you know, we're effectively the political consultants that do that for you, whether it's, you know, fighting off the entrenched interests, if you're disrupting someone, or building in a new regulatory framework if you're in a new sector. And, you know, we're lucky, I guess, in a way that we're the only venture fund that I know that does this. And so we've got a monopoly in our little niche.

‍

But I think that if, if nothing else, overall, I hear less founders telling me when they pitch me that, you know, some stupid regulators can do whatever they want, once they realize how brilliant that founder is. So the perceptions are changing a little. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg 

‍

Yeah but maybe it's like a stupid idea to begin with, to invest in or start a company in a regulated industry, like–

‍

Bradley Tusk 

‍

Healthcare, energy, education, gaming, transportation, I mean, unless you're doing like, pure enterprise SAS products, it basically is going to be regulated one way or another. And there's just if you said, I'm going to avoid all regulated industries, you're basically limiting yourself to a tiny swath of the economy. You know, one reason why I think our funds has worked out pretty well is, there's tons of deal flow, because the vast majority of businesses one way or another get touched by regulation, get touched by politics, get touched by government. And so yeah, if you said, ‘I only want to limit my investment thesis to 10% of the economy and ignore the other 90%,’ there are people who do that, and there are some really successful pure enterprise software funds. But overall, both in terms of opportunity and also interest, right, because part of it we do to make money, but part of it also is to build companies that have, you know, succeed going forward to have an impact on the world, on society and consumers. You know, those are going to be in regulated industries. And so to me, you would be crazy to avoid it. 

‍

By the way, I'd frame your point a little differently, which is if we want to actually help out 90% of the population, we need innovation in regulated industries, and so you might unlock the ability to bring advanced technology and great user experiences to these industries that have been left behind in the Pony Express era. And so, I think it's super important. You know, Lemonade is a case in point. 

‍

Why–instead of me telling the story, why don’t you tell the story? I mean, no one had gotten an insurance license in New York for forever before Lemonade. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, so it was–and this is how we met, obviously–so my partner Jordan met Daniel Schreiber. Daniel was, still is the founder and CEO of Lemonade. And Daniel has said to Jordan, like, “We've been trying to get our insurance license from the New York Department of Financial Services, and our law firm is having a lot of trouble.” And then Jordan came back to the office, and we talked about it. I said, “That's because they're going about this all wrong. This is a political process. And because they're lawyers, they're approaching it from a totally bureaucratic way, and they're missing the point.” And so my thesis was, DFS will grant the license if Andrew Cuomo, who at the time was the governor of New York, tells them to grant the license. And if he doesn't, they're not going to because your average mid-level regulator inside the agency didn't like Lemonade for two reasons. One, it's a whole new model they had to wrap their heads around, and that means a bit more work, more time or effort, and generally, they don't like that. 

‍

And the second thing is, you know, there's thing called ‘regulatory capture’ where it's like Stockholm Syndrome for regulated industries, where the regulators become friends with the people they’re regulating, and they start looking out for the interests of those that they're regulating ahead of the interest of the consumers and constituents of the jurisdiction that they work for. And so one, they were trying to protect the incumbents from new competition like Lemonade, and two, they didn't want to have to sort of deal with a whole new model. And eventually what ended up happening was, you know, us calling Governor Cuomo’s office and saying, “Listen, front page of the Wall Street Journal tomorrow is gonna have one of two stories, you know, ‘New, low-cost insurance startup launches in New York offers, you know, cheap insurance for New Yorkers,’ or ‘Because of Andrew Cuomo’s corruption and bureaucracy, hot insurance startup moves to London.’ You guys pick, we're okay with either one. And we had our license 24 hours later. And I will say, when I look back at my career, one of the things that to me is a shining moment was successfully bullying Andrew Cuomo. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

By the way, Mark Suster told me to ask, you said you're invested, you did work together on Bird. It's like, what makes you unafraid, as a venture capitalist of, for lack of a better term, you know, that rough and tumble world of politics and all these regulated industries that you think most VCs shy away from? 

‍

Bradley Tusk 

‍

Yeah, I think two things. One is keep in mind, you know, we, just like every VC, we don't do 99% of the deals that we see, right. And most of the time, it's because just the company's not going to be successful. But there are times where we like the TAM and the founder and the thesis. And then me and my team will conclude on the platform side, like, you know what, this just isn't gonna work politically. And we're not going to put our money or reputation behind something if we don't think we can get it done. 

‍

But overall, I think the difference is, you know, I grew up, like I said, in politics, that was the first half of my career, you know, in campaigns. Like when I was Deputy Governor of Illinois, that’s Chicago politics, like, there's nothing rougher than that, right. I got death threats, I used to have to have my apartment swept by State Police for bugs, you know, I testified in multiple corruption trials. 

‍

So once you do–

Michael Eisenberg

‍

Let's just be clear for everyone, not your own corruption charges. 

‍

Bradley Tusk 

‍

I was a witness thank God, but nonetheless. So I think you just sort of get used to it. And one reason why I think we have this monopoly in our space is, you know, in theory, any venture fund could say, “Okay, I'm gonna hire five people like Bradley and build my own, you know, platform on dealing with regulation.” The problem is this. And Andreessen tried this, and they had really talented people working on it. But ultimately, the person making the investment has to truly understand the regulatory situation and be comfortable taking the risk and taking on the fight. If it's just another data point from some other outside person that they're telling you that it's just like I have people giving me data points, like, yes, I factor them in, I take them into account, sometimes I might take them very seriously. But that's not the DNA of how you're investing. For me the DNA of how I’m investing in every single situation is, you know, can we change the regulatory structure here to allow this company to succeed? And so I think to do what I do well, you probably have to come out of politics, and then pivot into venture to do it. And look, I just got very lucky that because of Uber, I both had, sort of, the credential and just the financial freedom to go ahead and start this thing. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg 

‍

You know, when you read ‘The Fixer,’ you come away with the feeling that every one of these fights is like a bloody battle with incredibly entrenched interests. And where the campaign and the strategy is is not obvious. It's certainly not cookie cutter to say the least. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

Right.

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

So how do you decide which of these work for you or you think are going to work versus the one that…? 

‍

Bradley Tusk 

‍

Yeah. I mean, politics is very much an art, not a science. But like, I think the Uber New York City fight is a good example. That's where Bill DeBlasio, at the time Mayor de Blasio, was super left wing, fancied himself a socialist, hated business, hated tech, refused to do like, go on the High Line, or anything that he thought in any way was sort of, you know, capitalistic, and want to–he was very corrupt too–and one of his biggest donors was a taxi industry. And they wanted to stop competition from Uber. And so he proposed a ban on any new Uber licenses at all, which meant that the company would eventually sort of stagnate and go away in the New York market. And I remember, I was sitting in the, in the Dallas airport coming back from some meeting. And Travis calls me and says, “Did you see what happened?” And I had not. And I took a look at it and called him back. And he said, “What do we do?” And I said, “You know, the problem is, you got the Mayor and the City Council Speaker both on the same side of this thing. That's the whole system. It's really tough to stop that once both of them want to achieve the same thing.” And he's like, “Well, you got to figure it out.” And then I'm on the plane coming back from Dallas, and finally hits me somewhere like over the Ozarks, or whatever that like, you know what, the trick isn't the normal campaign about how like, de Blasio is going to kill jobs and innovation and all the shit that people tech like to say, is to come out and from the left. You, de Blasio, by stopping Uber, are racist, because black people in the city have a long history of having their hand up when the cab goes by, and it just passes them right away. Or our drivers are immigrants from all over the world, who you purport to care about and support. But yet, this is how they're feeding their families and you're trying to take it away from them. And we came at him completely from the left. And that just, they totally didn't know what to do, because it was so outside of the normal playbook. And we did that to the entire city government and put so much pressure on politicians. And one of the things that we did, which then led to the mobile voting work that I do now, that you know about, is, we mobilize our customers politically through the app. So we did this all throughout Ubers’ history. But specifically in this case, we created “Modes” by Uber X Uber Black, de Blasio, and if you clicked on de Blasio, 25 minute wait time, you know, click here to tell your city council member to stop this bill. And like 100,000 people did it in the span of like a week or two. And that was so overwhelming to the politicians who normally just don't ever hear from constituents about much, that the political math went from like, “oh yeah, I'll do it, the taxi guys want it, because they give me a campaign contribution every year,” to like “Shit. I'm not pissing off like 6,000 of my constituents.” And so as a result, you know, they told the speaker, “We're not going to, we don't want this bill,” and they ended up pulling the bill and we won. And that's actually what led to the mobile voting project. 

‍

So let me digress for a second here. But in US politics and people assuming Israel sort of, if you wonder, why is it so fucked up in the US this is why. Which is that the only election that typically matters here is the primary, because we have this thing called gerrymandering, which every district is drawn to benefit one party or the other. So typically, the general election is already a fait accompli, whoever won whether they’re Republican, primarily a red state, or the Democratic primary blue state, they're going to win the general election. And so therefore, the whole contest is in the primary. Primary turnout in the US is typically 10 to 15%. Who are they? They're typically the furthest left wing voters or the furthest right wing voters. And so what they're effectively saying to the politicians is, these are people who want moral purity, right? They think that the other party is the devil, they don't want to compromise. They don't want to get things done. They just want to feel righteous about themselves at all times. And so the incentive to politicians is, don't do anything to piss off the base. Because if you do, you'll lose your next election. Like so, for example, there was a Congressman from upstate New York, Republican named Chris Jacobs. Real Trumper, no one's definition of a liberal. But there was a mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, which was right next to his district. 10 people died. And he was very emotional at a press conference, and said, “You know, we ought to think about maybe changing some of the laws to make it harder for people to get assault weapons.” His career ended that day, they literally stripped–this was September, the next election was November– they stripped the line from him, he couldn't even run for reelection, because he dared to say something that challenged the party orthodoxy. 

‍

But imagine that if instead of Jacob's primary being 12%, turnout was just 36%, still barely better than a third–if you just look at the polling among Republicans on assault weapons, he would have to be for some sort of assault weapon ban or regulation, because that's where the voters are. So the good news about politicians, at least in the US believing in nothing, is they'll adapt to whatever they need to adapt to, but they're only going to adapt to whatever helps them win the next election. And to be clear, both parties are equally bad. I'm an independent at this point. I hate them both.

‍

But I think the only way you're going to change this constant climate of dysfunction and polarization in US politics, is to radically increase primary turnout. And it doesn't matter, sort of, what the right thing is, most people are not going to not take their kids to school on a Tuesday so they could vote in the State Senate primary. But if they could vote on their phone, all of them wouldn't do it, but more would, and how do I know this, because that's what we did with Uber and with Bird, as you mentioned, and with Eats and with FanDuel, and all these other portfolio companies that we've invested in. And if you change underlying inputs, you'll change the underlying outputs. So we created the mobile voting project in 2017 out of my foundation, thanks to Uber, I've got a foundation–and we funded elections in seven states, 21 jurisdictions, where people either deployed military or people with disabilities, voted in real elections on their phones. It worked, still got a lot of shit from the cybersecurity community. So I decided, you know what, I'm gonna build my own mobile voting technology. So here we are, $10,000,000 and 3 years later, we're going to release it publicly in Q1 of next year. It will be free and open-source, it's owned by my foundation. So it's not a for-profit business in any way.

‍

And I just want to make it possible for more people to vote, because that's the only way that you fix the underlying problems. And by the way, I think absent doing that, I don’t think the US is one country in 25 years. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

Yeah, by the way, I'm on record with a prediction that by 2050, some state will try to secede from the Union. I don't know what you think about that.

Bradley Tusk

‍

I think that's, I think you're being too generous. I think it’ll come much sooner than that. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

Interesting. So, you know, you probably saw Bill Girly’s speech on regulatory capture, and how that was innovation and creates worse outcomes for health. And another thing, you know, Jordan Knopf, your partner, said I should ask you whether or not there's any way actually to minimize or eliminate regulatory capture altogether? Or is it just like a cost of doing business at this point? You got to fight it? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

No, I mean, the first thing is if we can change the underlying political structure a little bit–so you know, I mentioned sort of the far left and the far right having disproportionate power because we're the only ones who show up to vote in primaries, but the other group have special interests, right. And the special interests typically are not us. They're the taxi industry, the casino industry, the hotel industry, whatever industry you're trying to disrupt. They give out campaign contributions. They hire tons of lobbyists, and they are able to, especially in low turnout primaries, influence the election in ways that terrifies politicians. And as a result, politicians try to do what they're told to do by the special interests. So the first thing is if you had significantly higher primary turnout, the power of special interests would be diluted significantly. And their ability to create regulatory capture and to screw over innovation would be significantly weakened. So that's number one. 

‍

But then number two, and look, this is why my fund exists, is, you know, you can win these fights, right, we win the vast majority of them, but you got to go into it ready for it, you know, you can't just–I think, where maybe I differ a little bit with sort of Bill Gurley, Marc Andreessen, or whatever it is, you know, they feel very strongly that the world should be libertarian, and we should be techno optimists. And there shouldn't be all this regulatory capture. And that's great. And I don't disagree. But just saying, “Here's how the world should be,” like, is useless, right? Either the reality is, you're in there changing it or you're not. And so on a day-to-day basis, that means when you build startups, building the regulatory and political framework to anticipate these fights, prevent them wherever you can take them on and win them. And then in the big picture, trying to change the underlying system itself, through things like mobile voting that can reduce and dilute the power of special interest to screw you over in the first place. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

People underestimate, by the way, I think how much of this is a ground war. You know, it's not just kind of, you get some article in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and you know, make some statements. There's a ground war to win all these regulatory battles. And, like on that front, I want to ask you one last question before I switch topics, which is, if you're going to start a company today, in a regulated industry, what would it be? And what would you target? 

‍

Bradley Tusk 

‍

Yeah, it's interesting. So you know, one thing I think that we're thinking about a little bit, and I'm gonna pull out a chart here is, you know, we've been thinking like every venture fund is sort of, how do we approach and think about AI. And to us, there are dozens of examples of AI companies that are going to end up being highly regulated. So I'll just read you from my list: healthcare, workflow, agents, drug discovery, diagnosis and imaging, mental health, personalized medicine, clinical trials, public health, FinTech, fraud detection, insurance, HFT, debt collection, management, personal finance, operations, technology, and then we've got multiple other categories, as well. 

‍

And so I think for us, it's really thinking about, okay, as things evolve, and as new technology evolves, we are going to run headlong into regulation. And where is it going to be that if startups are not properly prepared to deal with the regulatory implications of their work, they're not going to succeed? And for us, when we can find those companies at seed or Series A, and the founder sees the world the same way we do, and we can kind of get out ahead of this thing, that's when we can build multibillion dollar companies and deliver really good returns for our LPs. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

And how do you think AI lands in the regular–you know, what does the regulation look like? How does this land? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, I mean, look, so the EU did act on this a couple of weeks ago. And I think that the system they put together was not bad in the sense of, it's so early in AI, that you don't know how to regulate it from a specific like, this symptom, this problem standpoint, because we don't really even know what it is yet, right, other than, like chatGPT and some other tools. So what the EU did that I think makes sense is, they created risk categories. And they said look, for AI companies working in this space, where you can do cognitive behavioral manipulation, or surveillance, or whatever it is, they're gonna be subject to more scrutiny than a company that's doing, you know, menswear, or whatever it is, right. And so we figure out where the risk is. And that's where the regulatory scrutiny applies. And what they're doing is they're doing kind of foundational regulation, so they're really regulating the large language models, moreso than the specific companies that are using the application itself. 

‍

I think that's the right structure, at least at this point in the game. But you know, the EU and the US have been very different when it comes to tech regulation. And I think the US in many ways has been very deficient around it. We have yet to even really deal with the basic regulation of social media, right? So Section 230, which exempts all platforms from any liability, still is alive and well. There's no version of GDPR, or of data privacy protection for consumers, internet users in the US; our antitrust laws are still very weak. And so eventually, there will be AI regulation in the US, but we still haven't regulated internet 2.0 yet. And so while there's a lot of politicians talking about AI, because it gets them attention, I think actual regulation here is awhile away. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

By the way, speaking of social media, what do you think should be done with TikTok? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Ban it. I mean, not even a question. I was for banning TikTok long before October 7th. And there was a poll today in The New York Times that showed Trump beating Biden among young people, and I directly attribute that to TikTok. TikTok has been so blatantly pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian, anti-semitic, anti-Israeli, that it has wildly changed perceptions in a completely misguided way among American youth, and that has changed the political dynamic here meaningfully. And you know, it's funny, a couple years ago when Trump started talking about it, and he was right at the time, but he never follows through on anything. It was, you know, there it was, why would we give the Chinese government the ability to manipulate our kids’ minds by something they all have in their pocket already? And that's exactly what's happening. And we did nothing about it. And we're doing nothing about it. And this again, gets back to sort of the mobile voting thing, which is, we're so polarized that we can't function any longer, right, you know, forget about appropriating more aid to Israel, which Washington's now having to do through executive powers because he can't get Congress to act in any way. Even stuff that's happening here domestically that's destroying our own kids’ minds. And whether that's the, how social media has driven teen suicide up by 200%, or the influence of TikTok right now–we can't do anything about it, because we're too divided. And I think that either one, we come back together. And that happens through technology. And through mobile voting, or to your point, I just think that it's much sooner than 2050 states start seceding, right. And there could be a world where you say, you know what, we can't get anything done in the US, the current system is completely broken. A national divorce makes sense. Let's have something more like the EU. That may be the way to go. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

So since you mentioned, kind of, October 7–and you're a professor at Columbia, how do you kind of experience the current climate of antisemitism on the campus?

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, it's interesting. So I teach at the business school, in fact you've taught my class before. And we're actually on a different campus. So, I mean you're from the Upper West Side. So there's the–have you been to the new campus at Columbia?

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

I don't think I have, no.

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

It's up by like 130th and the West Side Highway. So it's not on the main campus at 116.

It's life sciences. And it's business. So I think the underlying students and philosophy is a little different. So on my campus, I haven't seen anything at all, and keep in mind, business school students are generally going to be older, probably a little more mature, a little wiser, and a little less are taken in by TikTok, or whatever else it is. But look, overall, Columbia or Penn where I went, or Harvard, or MIT or all these schools, I think has handled this atrociously, right. 

‍

And let me make maybe a slightly different argument than what you've been hearing or making on this, which is, is there blatant antisemitism across the US across the world? Absolutely. Has war culture, especially on campus, gone amok? Absolutely. But I would argue, if you just take those three university presidents who embarrassed themselves in front of Congress, they're less the progenitors of the culture, and more the product of it.

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

100%.

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

In that, I think that we have for so long now created this ivory tower. And this is true in academia. But it's also true like in certain professions that are totally kind of enclosed, like law firms, or whatever–I saw this when I was in law school, where there's just an absence of common sense, there's an absence of street smarts, like, we put so much emphasis on sort of academic pedigree and status around sort of test scores and things that ultimately don't really matter at all. And we fail to teach people the basic life skills you need on how to succeed. In fact, at Columbia, I'm trying to get them to let me teach a new class called How to Sell ideas. Because what I've noticed is, my students don't really know either how to sell or when to sell. And I think you would agree that the biggest determinant of nonlinear success in business is the ability to generate revenue. Like that's the number one thing by a lot, right, you know, more than anything else, by far. And so like, I think that our schools from K through 12, and then all the way up through universities have gotten so off track in terms of teaching kids what they need to learn, that these three presidents weren't even so much people who were like trying to sort of move everything to the far left. They didn't know the difference. They didn't know better, they'd have the basic common sense to say the word yes. Or at least emphatic in saying, is genocide okay? You know, or will you condemn that? And like so, I think that the atmosphere on campuses across the country has become a real problem. And yes, we should be doing a lot to crack down on antisemitism on campus and everywhere else. And that's actually, we should start with banning TikTok. But I think even more than that, the entire US educational system has gone so awry, that one, as a country, we’re falling further and further behind other countries, from an economic standpoint, and two, as a society, we have people that really just don't know the basics about how to live and how to be human beings. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

Is it salvageable really? I mean, you've got, you know, the institutional rod is pretty deep. And there's this kind of giant anti-colonialist narrative–the New York Times signed up for it, the famous 1619 project. And, you know, the antisemitism I think, is almost a function of two things right. One is this anti-colonialism narrative which paints Israel in some colonialist way, but even separate to that, DEI, and kind of the institutional rot, has made being excellent and being able to sell yourself or be successful, a bad word and you know, favors the oppressed no matter what happened, or the downtrodden–is that solvable even? 

‍

Bradley Tusk 

‍

Yeah, I mean, I think so. But it's, it's a couple of things right? So the first thing is, ultimately, the reason why this narrative has succeeded so much is because it has political power, not just resonance within academia. And the reason it has political power, again, is because when the vast majority Democratic primary votes are only cast by people who self-identify as socialist or radical left-wingers, they're the ones who ultimately control the narrative policy, and everything else. And so when every Democratic politician is ready to, at the drop of the hat, to accuse anyone on any campus of racism or anything else, then that's what produces this entire sentiment. So that's number one. Number two–we can fix that, I think through mobile voting and technology. Number two, I think that AI is, potentially at least at the K through 12 level, a solution to a lot of this in that right now, you know, a teacher has to and this is true anywhere, you know, basically figure out of the 225 kids I'm teaching, what's the connectivity between them? And what's the lowest common denominator in which I can teach this subject, this concept? And the reality is, everyone learns differently, right? Some people are visual learners, some people are, learn through reading, some through writing, whatever it is. And I think the real potential that AI has in education is to figure out, Michael learns differently than Bradley learns, and develop tutorials and systems and everything that really works best for us individually. And then by doing that, you probably start to weaken the influence of teachers a little bit, and I'd say, at least here in New York City, that would be a good thing, because the radicalism of a lot of our teachers, both at public schools, and even sometimes the private schools that my kids go to, right, is really a problem. 

‍

And I think the other thing is, we really overrate at the sort of elite level of society here, the value of education. And yes, I understand that, like a true premise of Judaism and the Jewish culture and people for 5700 years has been education, but education in terms of understanding the world around you. And having a brain is different than whether you went to Yale or Princeton, or you got a 1580 on a test instead of a 1460, or whatever it is. And we so wildly overvalue this, in that we're hiring for the wrong reasons, and we're rewarding, incentivizing the wrong things. Like I have actually fired my last two HBS grads at the fund. They're very smart. But you know what, I'm not curing cancer. We're not doing quantum physics, like every extra IQ point in my fund doesn't really matter. You got to be smart enough. But there's all the other skills that come in, it's hustle, it's street smarts, its integrity, its work ethic, its communication skills, its character. And the truth is, what I found is oftentimes students from really elite schools are backwards on a lot of this, because they're so coddled, and they're told how special they are all the time, that a lot of the shit work that you have to do in any industry to be successful, they don't want to do. And the truth is like, yeah, maybe they're like a few IQ points ahead of someone else. But like, so what? I'm not using those extra IQ points anyway. And so I think we also need a reevaluation in society, the value of a pedigreed education. And I would argue that look, I've got a kid who's a senior in high school right now. So we are literally in the middle of the college process. But I really think whether she goes to a state school somewhere, or to a more prestigious liberal arts school, or wherever else, it really doesn't make a difference. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg 

‍

And so what are you doing differently though? Your father, your kids are in private schools in New York–what are you doing differently? When you look, kind of, look around and see all this? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, I mean, a few things. One is my hiring. And this is true of my fund, but this is true with my consulting firm, bookstore, all the different businesses and entities that I run, we don't look at where you went to college. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg 

‍

Yeah but what are you doing about your kids? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Oh, you know, I'm talking to them a lot. I have to say I was because they go to a you know, liberal, private school in Manhattan. That first conversation we had after they'd been back in school for a few days was sort of, I was terrified going into it, like, oh my God, what are they going to hear? What are they going to tell me? And they were actually great. Now look, my son was Bar Mitzvah only two years ago, my daughter four years ago, so they're not that far off of this yet, either. But I was really happy to see that they weren't just parroting the party line. My kids tell me they don't use TikTok–at the end of the day, you know, they're 17 and 14, I really can't control what they download or not on their phones, right? They can delete it, hand me the phone and then reload it again as soon as I hand it back. So, but it seems to be the case. But it's really being aware. One thing that I did with my son up until now–now he's in high school, and he gotta be too cool for this. But we read the New York Post together every day for five or six years. Every morning. The Post is, you know, the Post has its flaws, but lack of support for Israel is not one of them. And so I think he internalized a lot of that. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

So that's, do you read it from the back to the front or the front to the back? As a kid, I always read it from the back to the front. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

Yeah. Well, it depends. If the Mets were–on the rare times where they were winning, we'd go back to front, but the teams that you were rooting for– you're a front runner, you just root for the winners, you know. I root for teams that require real character and sacrifice, like the Mets, and the Knicks–well, you’re a Knicks fan too. And so as a result, typically speaking, the teams that I root for are playing poorly. So yeah, if the Mets are playing well, we'll go back to front. But usually, otherwise, we'll go front to back. 

‍

But I think generally just trying to make sure that my kids are really aware of what's happening in the world. And by the way, they should hear different points of view, they don't only have to listen to the point of view that I agree with. I want them to be able to hear lots of different points of view and think through it intelligently, and reach conclusions that make sense to them as individuals, not what they think they're supposed to say to their friends or their school, or on social media or anything else. And so a lot of it is just talking to them about it and trying to expose them to the broader world. And also look, I mean, I spend the vast majority of my time and money–or vast amounts my money and some of my time, you know, investing in the things that I really care about, whether it's mobile voting, or, you know, school meals, or even things like running a super-money-losing bookstore on the Lower East Side, because I care about books. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

Why are you running that bookstore? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Purely because it's fun. It is a terrible business. But just for the listeners, I think your listeners will appreciate this. So it's called P&T Knitwear, where it is a bookstore, podcast, studio, event, space and cafe, on Orchard Street in Manhattan. So for those of you who can think of, like, Katz's Deli, we're right around the corner from that. And the reason it has this funny name is, when my family came here from DP camps in the early 1950s, the one job that an uneducated Jew could get was in the shmata business. And my grandfather and a guy that he knew from the refugee camps came over around the same time, and they opened up a 300 square foot sweater store on Holland Street called P&T Knitwear. And my dad told me, they had like, literally empty boxes on the shelf to look like they had inventory. And they did okay, you know, they didn't, it's not like all of a sudden they became, you know, barons of industry. But you know, they made it out and I was able to sort of, you know, grow up nicely and get a good education and everything else. 

‍

And when I signed the lease for this place, I texted my dad and said, “hey, where was that original store?” Because I knew it was around here somewhere, but I didn't know the exact address. He told me, and I was like, holy shit, that's the next block over, remind me of the name. And he wrote back “P&T Knitwear, but you can't name a bookstore, P&T Knitwear.” So the minute he told me I couldn't do it, that was absolutely happening. So. But what's cool about it is, we found a photo of the original P&T Knitwear from the early 1950s. And one of the interior walls of our store is the big blown up photo of the original. And so you know–

Michael Eisenberg

‍

What are you trying to get from it? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

I turned 50 a couple months ago, and I wrote this essay about turning 50 that sort of caused me to do a lot of thinking, a lot of reflection. I've spent a lot of time the last few years really studying happiness science. And what I've learned is, happiness basically comes from two things: relationships, and fulfillment. If there are people in your life, who you care about, and they care about you, and you know they're going to be there for you, and you're there for them, and there are things that you do that bring you fulfillment, you are far more likely to be happy than if you're just checking boxes on buying stuff and achieving various status symbols. And look, you do the same things that I do. Like, I think neither–look, both of us live really well. But neither of us live nearly as lavishly as we could, because we take most of the money that we make, and we reinvest it into causes and issues that we care about. 

‍

But you know it’s, selfishly, it's not because we're better people. It's because we just get more out of it. Right? Like the reality is, okay, so let's say I didn't have this bookstore. So maybe I'd fly private instead of flying commercial, right? Okay, so how much satisfaction would I get out of that? Is going through TSA annoying? Yeah, a little bit. So I guess I would avoid the aggravation a little bit. But at the end of the day, you know, like, you get used to it pretty fast. And then that's it, right? 

‍

Whereas here, I got a dozen people who are making a living because of me, they get the same healthcare people in my fund get. I have a space for the publishing industry and for the community that we let them use all time for free. Our podcast studio is the only free podcast studio in New York anybody can just sign up and use. And so I feel really good about, you know, what we have here, and what we're giving the community in New York City, you know, honoring my family's legacy. And so I just think purely selfishly, I get more out of this than I would buying some extra thing. Right? And you know, it's purely, if you look at everything from an ROI standpoint, the ROI for me of a bookstore is a lot higher than the ROI of a private plane. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

And so what does success look like for the bookstore? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Oh, success would be to lose less money. So look, I think we've built a really good store. There's some–I hadn't heard of it. I'm sure you haven't–shopkeepers.com, which is apparently a prestigious website in that world that ranked us when we opened one of the top new top 10 store openings in the world.

‍

We get great reviews, helped create something called the Gotham Book Prize, we run it out of here, and people really like that. So, you know, in terms of a place that people come to, and enjoy, and come to events almost every night and everything else, I think we've achieved that. I would like to lose a little less money, I knew I was going to lose money. So we're still working on that part. And we'll see if we ever get there. But, you know, I think success would be what we have now, combined with slightly less losses. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

I want to ask you a question. You said that the primaries, you know, lead to this very polarizing effect. And so I want to ask you kind of a two part question on that, which is, is the primaries a good system? That's the first part of the question–it’s a terrible system. You want to go back to the cigar-chomping guys who put the list together? 

‍

Bradley Tusk 

‍

No, I would just go back to pure open election. So California does this now, where, it’s called top two, where everyone runs in one primary, and then the top two vote-getters–and that could be two Republicans, two Democrats, one of each, whatever it is–are then competing in the general election. It's a much better system, because it produces more moderation. And so I would do something like that. 

‍

There's a version called “Final Five” that Alaska is doing that has worked pretty well. Nevada is about to adopt it. So no, I mean, I would and again, you know, sort of the mobile voting is literally the opposite of the cigar-chomping guys from Tammany Hall in the back rooms, it's throwing us open to everyone and saying, “Look, you know, we've all got a phone in our pocket at this point, you know, adult smartphone penetration in the US is above 90%. Let's use it.” And I think that if you have that, by definition, the will of the majority wins out, because if the majority people are voting, then the politicians have to figure out what the majority of people want and what do most people want? They want to get shit done, right. They want schools that work. They want a healthcare system that makes sense. They want to have some protection against climate change. They want jobs, they want to be safe from crime. You know, the vast majority of people in this country want the same things. 

‍

So I take immigration as an example. 70%, this country would tell you, we should neither deport everyone here, who's here illegally, nor should we have open borders. The problem is that 70% doesn't vote in primaries. So the 15% of the left who want open borders all the time, they have a lot of influence. The 50% on the right, who say no immigrants ever, they have a lot of influence, even though 70% of the country actually agrees on the issue. Even abortion, two thirds of the country agrees on it. 

‍

So the problem isn't finding consensus among the voters. The problem is getting those voters to participate in the electoral process so that politicians actually care what they think. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

So you just recently published a new book, a satiric novel called ‘Obvious in Hindsight.’ Tell us about it. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah. So the book is about a campaign to legalize flying cars in New York, LA and Austin. On one side is the flying car startup, and their vicious political consultants. And the other side is Uber, the Audubon Society, the socialists, the transit unions and the Russian mob. And it's satirical, and it's ridiculous. But I think, you know, now that you've been behind the scenes of enough of these sort of tech-regulatory fights, it's less ridiculous than you think. So what I'm trying to show in the book to the readers is, here's why people in politics in tech, in VC, in media make the decisions they make. Here's how they think about it, here's what matters to them. Because if you can understand that, then you could arguably do something about it. And so yeah, the book’s a little silly, although I will say the EV industry–I don't know if you guys have any investments in that space or not, but we don't either–but it has really made a lot of progress from when I started writing it, which was this fantastical notion of flying cars like the Jetsons or whatever to like, now like they're really you know, they're, it's moving forward. So it's actually pretty, pretty amazing. It's, it's a fun book, and it started off as a TV show. Do you know who Steven Soderbergh is? He’s a movie director?

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

Only because you told me who he was once.  

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Right, Traffic, and Ocean's 11, and Erin Brockovich, and all that stuff. He had read ‘The Fixer,’ and said to me, “Let's make a scripted TV show based on this.” And that's what led to the whole story about the campaign to legalize flying cars. And then he and I worked on it. And our big pitch was to Apple TV and March 10th 2020. Obviously, COVID got in the way, that never happened. He moved on to other stuff. And I still really liked the characters that I created, and the concept. And so it turned into a novel, which came out in November. And the cool thing is now Steve, and I are back at it, and hopefully it’ll turn into a TV show. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

Oh, that'd be fun. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, I think the odds of a concept going all the way through to a show that we're watching on Netflix, it's about the same as a seed stage company pitching your fund and then actually IPOing. So pretty, pretty low. But you know, I've got one of the you know, best directors in the world, you know, involved in the project. So that may help a little bit. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

So I want to go to a rapid-fire set of questions. And I want to start with what you said about TikTok before. and one of the questions I've been asking myself, and I'd like to ask you is, if there was a war that the United States was involved in today, and there were draft notices issued, like my great-grandfather, my grandfather, sorry, got in 1941. Do you think people would turn up? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

I think people would, but I think there will be a lot of pressure online to not do so. And there'd be a lot of resistance, and a lot of violence around it. And here's the thing, you know, a draft is neither inherently moral nor immoral, right? A draft for World War Two, like your grandfather was necessary to literally save the world, right? You know, the world would have been an exponentially worse place had the US not gotten involved in World War Two. Vietnam, you could argue, was a really stupid war, and therefore the draft was immoral. My fear would be that TikTok and social media would just sort of equate draft and war with bad, and the reality is like, no one wants to be at war. But if you're at the point where you're at war and World War Two, we were at war because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, and we saw the way that Hitler was succeeding, and we had to get involved and Roosevelt knew that, then, you know, it's, it should be based on the the situation, the context that you're in, not the sort of naive, totally, you know, baseless narratives that you see online. 

‍

And so, look, one of the failures, we talked earlier, that the US has had in regulating social media is not just things like, you know, leading to huge instances of teenage depression and girls cutting themselves and eating disorders and things like that. But we've lost control of basic society, right. And when you allow the platforms to publish whatever they want, with no ramifications, when you allow TikTok to operate and have the Chinese government play the algorithms, and therefore the minds of our kids, this is exactly what happens. So you know, you're putting in a doomsday scenario, but it's not that crazy, to be honest. And given that we have failed so fundamentally to regulate social media, we have that risk.

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

When you see Gen Z protesters–which I started calling Gen H, Generation Hamas–protesters in New York, tearing down American flags and putting up other flags and defacing US historical monuments. What do you feel about that? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

It’ll be terrible. And I'll give you two close-to-home examples. One is, you know, there's posters all over New York City, about the people who are kidnapped in Israel, the hostages that Hamas are holding, and people tearing them down, right. And on my block in Soho, I came home on a Friday, and there's a bunch of posters, great. And then about 24 hours later, my son and I were walking down the street, and he had noticed them separately, and most of them were gone. And his reaction, which I thought wasn’t a terrible idea was like, they ought to put razor blades in those, in those posters so that people don't tear them down, which I was kind of proud of him for suggesting. Or my partner, Jordan, who we mentioned, Jordan lives on Astor Place, and he sent me a video that he took out his window of a pro-Palestinian rally. And here's the thing that blew my mind. I guess I was just being naive. But there were people flying around Iranian flags, right? So not even the Palestinian flag. But literally a country that oppresses everyone, you–the same people who are so woke, and so liberal, and so progressive; Iran doesn't allow people to be gay, they don't give women any rights. Like, other than the Mullahs, no one has any rights in Iran, you know, it’s a terrorist dictatorship that tortures people. And here they are flying their fucking flags, because they're so clueless and so manipulated. And so you know, it is hurtful to me, obviously. But to more, it just speaks of, we are facing this breakdown in society where if we can't get our ability to govern back together, this is what we get. And that's why eventually we're not going to be one country. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg 

‍

How do we restore patriotism, this era of social media? Because that ties the two questions together. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah. I mean, the first thing is, I think you have to significantly limit social media, right? And so right now, take where, you know, Trump, I would argue damaged the fabric of our democracy when he lost the election in 2020, and kept arguing that he won anyway. And one of the things that he and his minions said, was that Dominion, which is a voting machine company, fixed the elections in favor of Biden. And Fox News really peddled this argument. And because of basic rules that we have, Dominion successfully sued Fox and recovered $800 million. And as a result, you know, it's much less likely that any media outlet sort of makes baseless claims that that again. But Twitter and Instagram and Facebook and all these other platforms that repeated the same as that claims were, completely got away scot-free, because they are immune to any liability from any content posted by their users. And so the first thing you’ve got to do is revoke that liability. And say that hey, you know, Meta, if you are posting content, that is, you know, unquestionably untrue or defamatory, or is directed–

‍

Michael Eisenberg

Or anti-American? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

You know, anti-Americans is sort of a debatable concept, right? But I think at least if it is, you know, AI-generated content that is clearly false, or, you know, terrorist propaganda, then yeah. I think that, you know, there was a family that sued, I think it was Google and Twitter, because their child did join ISIS based on being recruited online, and American. And they lost in the Supreme Court because of this law, Section 230, which the Court said protected the platforms. But even then it managed to get up to the Supreme Court. So clearly, in a case where you saw terrorist recruiting happening on social media, which happens all the time. If section 230 hadn't been in effect, that wouldn't have been allowed. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

Tell me something, what makes you human?

Bradley Tusk

‍

I am so exceptionally flawed in so many ways, man. You know, the older I get, the more I realize that, you know, being human is not about achieving as much as possible. It's not about having some image of perfection. It's not about checking boxes. It's about trying to find peace and contentment with who you are, right. And part of that means acknowledging and accepting that there are all kinds of things wrong with every single one of us, right? Human beings are incredibly complicated creatures that are still evolving, right, you know, we're still relatively early in the span of humanity compared to other species in lifespan on this planet, or even other planets. And so, you know, we're flawed in so many fundamental ways. 

‍

And I think for me, you know, a really radical moment that came–this is a couple of years ago– was sort of just accepting that, right? I made a list one day of all my good qualities, all my bad qualities. And the radical thing that it did for me was that I looked at the bad list, bad qualities list, and I said, “Okay, I'm not going to work out how to mitigate these, I'm not going to worry, I'm not going to hate myself for these things. You know what, they're all fine, because they're human. And none of these are hurting other people. And I'm hurting myself vastly more for hating myself for being insecure, needing affirmation, or validation or conflict or whatever it is, then the actual thing itself.” And so I think by acknowledging that, that frailty and all those flaws, has made me much better able to accept myself, and that has brought a lot more peace and contentment.

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

When they write your biography in 100 years, it won't be called ‘The Fixer,’ because that title is taken. What should it be called? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

I mean, right now, I kind of think that the work that I do is disrupting stuff, right. You know, whether it's my portfolio companies, disrupting entrenched interest, or I'm trying to disrupt democracy through, sort of, mobile voting, or you know, everything else that I do. And so, at the moment, I would say that if you took the majority of stuff, whether it's in politics, in tech and in venture, philanthropy, ideas, everything else, you know, the goal is to sort of question and disrupt the system and build a better one in its place. And so maybe ‘The Disrupter’ would be the title. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

You know, that causes me to ask you one last question, which is, if you were to look at October 7th, question one would be–do you think it's actually a turning point in the Western world, generally or just for Israel? Or do you think nothing's going to change? And if you had to paint a different vision of the future based on what seems to be going on globally, right, you have the global radical Jihad rearing its ugly head; you have a rise of antisemitism going on globally; you have the college campus fiascos going on and the lack of leadership there; what would, what would be–if you think that there's a big difference, a disruption in the force, so to speak–what would be your vision for the next decade or a better future? 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

So I'm gonna give you the opposite of the answer that you want I think, because my answer would be totally depressing, which is, yes, all that is true. And yes, this has existed for 5700 years in one form or another, I do believe that antisemitism lurks right below the surface, all the time, everywhere. In fact, when my family came to this country, I grew up, you know, with the view from my father and my grandfather that like, Jews have not been able to stay in anyone else's country safely, forever, right? It doesn't matter how good seen things seem, eventually it goes bad. And one of the reasons why Israel has always mattered to me so much, is it's not just a theory or a concept, like–I think that I or my kids or my grandkids will probably need to live there to be safe at some point. And therefore, like, it has to exist, it has to be sovereign, and it has to be safe in order for that to happen, right. And when you look at how easy it's been for antisemitism to bubble to the surface, both from the far left, far right and everywhere else, you know, it's a combination of people kind of doing things like manipulating TikTok algorithms, but I think also and I'm sure this is not gonna get me in trouble for saying this, but like, Jews have really succeeded throughout society and throughout history and in this country especially. 

‍

And I know that you know, there are people on the far left on the far right that have these conspiracies that Jews control the media, or Hollywood or Wall Street, or Washington or whatever it is. But I think fundamentally, what we know about human nature is that people really don't like feeling inadequate compared to others. And when they do, there's one of two options; you can either improve yourself and compete and win, or you can cast aspersions on the others and just blame it on unfairness and whatever else you want instead, and most people pick the lazy route, which is a latter route. And because Jews have disproportionately succeeded in this country and other, obviously, in Israel and other countries around the world, there's a tremendous amount of jealousy and resentment, and it bubbles to the surface, the minute the opportunity is there to do so. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

Bradley, thank you for doing this. Thank you for your candor as always. Thank you for the hard work you're doing to disrupt democracy and make it less polarized. And you can learn more about Bradley Tusk on LinkedIn, @Bradley Tusk, BRADLEY TUSK. And his book, ‘Obvious in Hindsight,’ is available on Amazon, I highly recommend that you read it. And I also highly recommend that you read ‘The Fixer.’ It was an incredible read for me. And I even knew a fair amount about it beforehand. And I really enjoyed it. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, you were involved in some of it.

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

So yeah, it was an incredible read. Bradley, thank you so much. And I have a suggestion for you–if you think about something for the kids for this year that's a little different, you want to give them a rough and tumble of life, and, you know, let them–send them to Israel for a gap year. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Yeah, yeah, you're right. We’ve suggested to my daughter the gap year, and she has been pretty opposed so far, but we'll find–she finds out about one of her schools tonight. So I think we'll have a better sense of where things are going in about 12 hours. 

‍

Michael Eisenberg

‍

Awesome. Good luck. 

‍

Bradley Tusk

‍

Thank you. See you Michael. 

‍