No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Kamala scores huge silver lining ahead of Election Day

Episode Date: October 27, 2024

The final polls suggest a silver lining for Kamala Harris ahead of Election Day. Brian interviews legendary reporter Bob Woodward about the danger posed by Trump and his new book, War. And DLCC president Heather Williams joins to discuss which state legislatures we’re targeting to flip, the reverse coattails effect from state legislative candidates, and what’s at stake in the states.Support the DLCC: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dlcc-oct24-btcp?refcode=btcpShop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today, we're going to talk about the final polls heading into Election Day and whether worries about Donald Trump winning or warranted. And I interview legendary reporter Bob Woodward about the danger posed by Trump and his new book, War. I'm also joined by DLCC President Heather Williams to discuss which state legislatures were targeting to flip, the reverse coat-dells effect from state legislative candidates, and what's at stake in the states. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie.

I know you're panicking. I know that you're looking at the polls and seeing calm. his advantage, disappear, and that your mind automatically jumps to Trump's going to win. Here are my thoughts a little over a week out. First of all, seeing Trump up half a point in one state doesn't mean that he's going to win by half a point in that state. I wish the polls were that perfect, but they're not. What that tells us is that this race is within the margin of error, and it's within the

margin of error in all seven swing states, meaning for all intents and purposes, it is tied. It is a jump ball. But there's some good news that we can glean here. So this is from the latest New York Times poll. Quote, about 15% of voters describe themselves as not fully decided, and Ms. Harris is leading with that group, 42% to 32%. Two weeks ago, Mr. Trump had a minute edge with undecided or persuadable voters, 36 to 35%.

So let's be clear, these are the voters that both campaigns are going for. These are the undecided voters, this narrow sliver of the population that's going to decide the election. And if they're breaking for Kamala Harris, by 10 points, that is at least some welcome news. Here's another point that should put things in perspective. Think about the margins in 2020. 0.2% in Georgia, 0.6% in Wisconsin, 1% in Pennsylvania.

If you saw a poll showing Kamala Harris leading by only two-tenths of a point, you'd probably feel terrible, right? You'd have a pit in your stomach, the kind that we felt over the last couple of weeks. But we have won races by those exact margins. We won Georgia by two-tenths of a point. So the point I'm trying to make is that tight polls may make you feel nauseous, But there have been razor-thin margins in these races before, and what matters is that we've won. So even if the polls are exactly bang-on-correct showing a race that is way too close for comfort,

that's not necessarily caused for panic or despair, because tight poles don't mean all is lost. It may very well just mean that we win a close race, and we have plenty of experience winning close races. But what's also become clear is that these close races are ours to lose in the same way that they're ours to win. and it's going to take us getting off a Twitter, stopping doom scrolling, and just doing something about it. No one is going to save us in this election. The Washington Post and the LA Times are a testament to exactly that. When you've got the Democracy Dies in Darkness newspaper

refusing to endorse in an election where one candidate incited an insurrection and vowed to terminate the Constitution because their billionaire owners are too far up Trump's ass or are worried about him retaliating against them in the event that he wins and wants to flex his autocratic muscles, that puts on full display the extent

to which, first off, the moral collapse of our institutions is effectively asking for the end of democracy and that these people cannot be trusted to protect our democracy, and B, that it's going to be on us to save ourselves. The media isn't swooping in to save us. Just like the courts aren't swooping in to save us. The Supreme Court exists to prey at the altar of Trump. Prosecutors aren't swooping in to save us. Merrick Garland is more focused on the optics of politicization than actually combating crime. So it's on us, which frankly is fine, because I promise you that on an individual basis, we've got a hell of a lot more persuasion power over our group of people than the Washington Post does. So use it. I've said this all year. Find one or two or three

people in your circles and make them your responsibility. Find someone who hasn't voted, who isn't interested in politics, who just turned 18 or 19 or 20, who maybe voted for Trump before, but has soured on him. Doesn't matter what it is, but make them your responsibility. There is no way that a flyer or a mailer or a campaign ad or a commercial, or a newspaper or me will ever, ever be more persuasive in that person's life than you will. So use it because this election isn't going to be decided by millions or hundreds of thousands of votes. It's going to be decided by a few thousand votes. That's it. Our House races will be decided by a few thousand votes. Our Senate will be decided by a few thousand votes. So don't

think for a second that what you do this week won't matter. So look, I'll close with this. Don't look back two weeks from today and wish that you done more. We're not asking for the world here, we're asking for you to make the next week and a half count. We have a rare opportunity here to change the course of history for this country, for the world, and for the planet. Those don't come around often, but it's going to come down to the effort we put in right now. Next up are my interviews with Bob Woodward and Heather Williams. Now we've got legendary reporter and author of the new book War. Bob Woodward, thank you so much for taking the time. Thank you. So you opened the book by recounting an interview that you held with Trump 35 years,

during which one of his defining characteristics was on full display, and that was to never fold. In your initial example that you gave in the book, Trump didn't fold when he was faced with inspectors as a real estate mogul. And of course, more recently, he didn't fold when he lost the 2020 election going so far as to incite an insurrection. Knowing what we know about him, how certain is it that if he loses in November, it's simply an inevitability that he again refuses to fold. Well, I mean, President Biden has said in an interview that he does not believe. He, Biden does not believe there will be a peaceful transfer of power. It's the sitting president saying we don't have a system that will ensure that peaceful transfer. Well, he's right because

of Trump. Trump knows he's lying with regard to the stolen election. election claims, but again, it's his nature to never admit defeat, to never fold. But you recount something in the book that struck me as delusional, even by his standards. He called Alabama lawmaker Mo Brooks in the middle of Biden's presidency to publicly call for a special election to reinstate him, Donald Trump, as president. So is that Trump taking everybody for fools because he's just that confident that they'll do his bidding no matter how ridiculous that bidding is? Or is that Trump high on his own supply and thinking that he will actually be.

reinstated in, I believe it was August 2021, in accordance with the then-believed Q&N conspiracy theories? Well, his good friend, Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina supporter, but Lindsey Graham is someone, like I quote him in this book saying that Trump is increasingly erratic. And there's a point when Lindsey Graham talks to Trump and said, now look, you've got the people who think we didn't go to the moon, people who think the earth is flat. And he's focusing in on Trump's claim that, I mean, this year saying he won in 2020, but there's no evidence to support that. And there were a couple of scenes in the book where Trump calls Lindsey Graham and said, see, I only brought up.

about 2020 twice now. So he knows, seems to know that this is a bit of a charade. And we have evidence of that that we know from the January 6th committee where, you know, we had this parade of Trump officials, including his own daughter and his own attorney general, Bill Barr, who came forward and said that these claims of fraud were bullshit. And still he didn't care. And he was revealed as telling his acting deputy attorney general, just say there was fraud and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressman.

So to your exact point, the extent to which... this was a charade, and he knew it was put on full display. It was. Now, Trump often fearmongers about World War III, and my political biases aside, what I truly believe is that he's just doing demagoguery and painting a picture of a dystopian agenda in order to scare people into voting for him. Like, even if the whole world woke up tomorrow and join hands and saying, we are the world, Donald Trump would still be frothing at the mouth and fearmongering about the imminent

prospect of World War III. But from your vantage, is this an instance where he's like a broken clock and inadvertently correct that we may be teetering perilously close to World War III? Or do you think that this period of conflict is not too dissimilar from any other period of conflict that we found ourselves in over the last several decades? No, no. This is very serious. And I quote the CIA director, Bill Burns, saying that all the warnings are blinking, read, take this much, much seriously, more seriously even, because what's going on in the war where Russia has invaded Ukraine is a, started in 2020, and so it seems it's off the screen now, but it's a major war in which hundreds of thousands of people have been wounded. or kill. It is an effort by Putin to engage in what Hitler did in the 1930s territorial assault,

taking over another country. I do want to dig into Russia, but first just a quick question on Benjamin Netanyahu. So you quote Biden in the book as calling Netanyahu a son of a bitch, one of the biggest fucking assholes in the world, a bad fucking guy, and a fucking liar. So not exactly subtle there. And yet, as we all know, Biden's effectively refused to use any leverage against Netanyahu as Netanyahu continues to escalate the war. So how do you square that circle where clearly Biden has resentment for Netanyahu, I mean,

based on those quotes themselves, and yet he further empowers him through his unwillingness to step up to him? Well, the policy that Biden has is we support Israel, but not necessarily Netanyahu. If I may quote some of those, what Biden says in private about Netanyahu. And it even goes to the point not only where Biden will say to a close associate in the White House, that SOB, maybe not Netanyahu, he's a bad guy, even goes to saying, why isn't there an internal revolt in Israel, a strong, internal revolt about just voting BB out. How come they don't want to get him out there?

And then he says more things about how he personally discourages Netanyahu. And at one point, Biden says to Netanyahu, you know, the perception of Israel around the world increasingly is that you are a road. a rogue actor. You write extensively about how Putin's rationale for the invasion into Ukraine was a return of what he calls the cradle of Russia, that's what he called Ukraine, and about how the

brightest of red lines for him was Ukrainian admission into NATO, that's what he was trying to prevent. To what extent do you think that Putin's embrace of Donald Trump is in service of his ability to manipulate Trump, specifically in order to undermine NATO? First of all, Ukraine did not get admitted to NATO. You know, there is a big debate about that. And what Ukraine has done under President Zelensky very bravely resisted this invasion by Russia. And it's the biggest war going on in the world.

and the consequences could be immense if there is some success on this. I mean, just look at the geography of the world. If Russia takes Ukraine, Ukraine has a 315-mile border with Poland. I talked to President Duda, Poland, and he's horrified at the prospect. we will be next. I just wanted to make this point that the CIA director Burns has said this is an intelligence assessment based on information they gather inside Russia that Putin manipulates. He's professionally trained to do that.

In fact, Putin has a plan. to play Trump still, not, you know, not just when he was in office, but now. When you hear something like that, and then you look at the debate with Kamala, where she came in with a clear plan to bait him, and of course he fell for it, hook line and sinker, so seeing how easy it was for Kamala Harris to successfully bait Trump, despite Trump knowing how high the stakes were, and also how many people were watching, I think we had 60 to 70 million people watching, and yet still he fell for it. What does that say about how successful Vladimir Putin would be, knowing what you know about that guy, when it's just a one-on-one scenario and they're

behind closed doors? Okay, first of all, Trump's ego. I have done three books on him. I spent a whole year, last year of his presidency, talking to him. Trump's ego is dangerous. And the problem is He does not have a plan on what to do is president. He doesn't have a team that works with it. He's a one-man operation. Quite frankly, he'll have a hanger on, and then those people will be discarded or fall into disfavor. So it's a perilous time for the world to say the least.

You wrote a book focused largely on Trump, on Putin, on Netanyahu, and all these guys share similar qualities. They're ambitious, they're egotistical, they're insecure, and they view themselves as above the law. What was your takeaway about the danger of figures like this in positions of power leading the world? Well, which one particularly are you in? I think the fact that we have figures like this

leading at the same time, all in a position of power, being able to work together, basically. Well, there's no working together. I mean, the problem is you have heads of, so many of these countries looking at only their own interest. Now, that's their job, but you have to have some sort of international system. Vice President Harris has talked about this axis of upheaval, these group of countries that all they're interested in is trouble and aggression.

You wrote about how Donald Trump had secretly sent, COVID testing machines to Putin, and that was a point that was previously unreported. Of course, there's something to be said for the fact that this book was released before the election, and so therefore we all know about it. But in any case, this is still pertinent information that was held until the book was published, that at a bare minimum should be necessary for Americans to know about ahead of an election where the perpetrator of that action is right now on the ballot. To what extent do you feel that reporters have an obligation not to sit on pertinent information

versus the opposite view, that you're the one who gathered that info and that no one else is necessarily entitled to it. Yes, but I say it on nothing. You don't get these things. You get them incrementally where you can confirm them and actually establish that. You know, it's just a simple reality that reporting doesn't happen in real time. I learned this year things that happened in 2021. So if they're in the book, about occurrences in 2021,

I didn't learn about it then. This is the natural process of reporting. I make it very clear to sources that if there's something I learn that the public needs to know about, immediately. I will go to the Washington Post. I've done that. The business about the COVID machines is important news, but it was old. And by publishing at this time, two things happened. Trump denied it. And it's very fascinating. The Kremlin issued a statement saying that it was accurate. I'm going to have to put the Kremlin. the Kremlin on speed dial, check in them. Anyway, it's out there, and not only is it confirmed by the Kremlin, but the impact that it's the portrait of Trump that emerges,

that Trump has this secret alliance with Putin, where he's more interested in what he can do for Putin rather than people of our own country, and the process of verifying this takes months. You and Carl Bernstein did much of the reporting on Watergate. As you sit here today in the wake of the January 6th insurrection, how does it make you think about what happened in 1972? In what way. Obviously, Watergate was cataclysmic.

It led to the end of a presidency, a president resigning, and yet now it feels kind of quaint in comparison. Well, quaint. I mean, it was serious. It was massive, lawbreaking. President Nixon got caught and he resigned and paid the price. In this case, these are, you know, maybe there are legal violations involved in all of this. But what I can do is explain Putin and hopefully explain,

explain the policy of President Biden and what President Biden did, which is very important. He did not send American troops to fight in the war in Ukraine. Billions of dollars of assistance, but Biden said, no, Vietnam. We are not going to send American troops. And that has allowed him, as I've pointed out, which we all know, to make the homeland safe. We have the safe homeland. And if we were involved in some war with hundreds of thousands of our troops or even a few engaged abroad, we would lose that comfort and that feeling of we've defended our,

our interests, but not get got ourselves involved in a foreign war. Nixon wasn't able to survive Watergate, and yet now, despite committing crimes exponentially worse, Trump has not only not been excommunicated from his party, he is again the Republican nominee for president of the United States. What's the most responsible example or rationale you can think of that kind of explains that shift from 1972 to 2024? Boy, that's going to be for the psychiatrist and historians, what I can say is let's look at who Trump is and what the prospect of him as president. Because I knew when he was president in 2020 and the coronavirus crisis, which he totally mishandled. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. If he had just communicated the

warning. In this case, let's look. What does Trump not him? He has no plan. His operation is, oh, I'll say this, I'll do that, this moment. Inconsistent. I mean, just the other day, he was blaming President Zelensky of Ukraine for the invasion. He's not the one that invaded. The other element that's missing in Trump world is a team of people who work together. Look at Biden. Biden has got a CIA director, a national security advisor, Tony Blinken, the Secretary of State, his longtime aid, and they all work together to achieve the purpose. and the purpose here is not getting us involved in a foreign war at the same time protecting

the homeland. It's not a bad record. This is not a political judgment by me. It is a judgment about the substance. You obviously have a long storied career in the press. To what extent do you think that the media landscape today has lent itself to, you know, whereas Nixon had to resign because he didn't have the Fox Newses of the world backing him. Now there's a right-wing media apparatus that exists to act as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Well, I mean, that's a factor in all of this. I don't think it's determined.

And I think in the media, we can do lots of important self-examination. sometimes we're in too much of a hurry and the daily story, the daily grind of there's this little element, that little element, and we're taking more time really digging into explaining. You look at this book, you have the opportunity to see who Donald Trump is. He's all through the book attempting to conduct this shadow presidency and running for office again. You can see who Biden is. And that's the landscape American citizens and voters are dealing. Let's finish off with this.

Your last four books are fear, rage, peril, and now war. So there's obviously a clear progression, a clear trajectory. What do you hope your fifth book will be titled, and what do you think your fifth book will be titled? I have no idea about another book. I'm trying to – it was difficult working on this one, as you recall, last – or this summer, this – I mean, things kept changing, who the candidates were. I was able to – this book goes up to the middle of August so you can – see the changes, the emergence, well, first of all, Biden's decision to drop out and why, and there's important new information on that and the rise of Paris.

And then this Trump candidacy, whatever you might, you see supporters like Lindsay Graham, the senator from South Carolina, saying that Trump, is increasingly erratic, erratic. That's from one of his biggest supporters. Well, that book, again, for those watching, listening right now is War. It was an excellent read. You will devour this book, and I promise you will walk away much smarter than when you first opened it.

It gives a very clear-eyed and holistic inside the room view of what happened as it relates to Russia and Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, and even Donald Trump and his emergence back onto the scene after January 6th. So, Bob, thank you so much for taking the time. I appreciate it. Of course. Thank you. Good luck. Now we've got the president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the DLCC, which oversees state legislatures. Heather Williams, Heather, thank you so much for taking the time. Thank you. I'm excited to be here with you. So a lot to talk about here. But I guess first off, what is the outlook for state legislatures?

There's three buckets that I want to talk about here. Are we looking to flip any state legislatures? Are we looking to protect any state legislatures? And are we looking to eliminate any Republican supermajorities? Yes, all of those things. Here's the baseline outlook right now, right? We are 12 days out. Everything tells us things are very, very competitive. Our key targets are nested underneath really important presidential battlegrounds. So think holding majorities in Michigan and Pennsylvania, Minnesota, picking up majorities in places like Arizona and New Hampshire, and then looking at the Democratic governors veto, both current and incoming Democratic governors, in North Carolina, Wisconsin, and then Kansas.

Now, what are the implications for Wisconsin here? Because this is the first election cycle where Wisconsin's new legislative maps are going to be intact for the first time that I can remember. Yeah, I mean, listen, voters in Wisconsin for the first time in a really long time actually get a say in their state government. That is such an important thing. There are races all across the state. Again, sort of nicely nested underneath key presidential parts of the state where we need to turn out voters for the whole ballot up and down. Okay, well, that right there is, you know, again, underscoring how important it is to make sure to donate to the DLCC. So for those watching right now, if you want to do that, I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the

post description of this video. Now, what about the reversing? coattails effect here in terms of down-ballot candidates? Like I think normally people look at these races in terms of, okay, all the attention has to be heaped onto the presidential contest and maybe that will filter down. But can you talk about whether there's any reverse coattails effect where state legislative candidates might be able to connect better with people in their communities and that might help Democrats up the ballot? Yeah, this is a great question. You know, I think I'd start by saying, you know, these, these races, these elections for state legislature are really important in their own right. This is where our rights are being decided. This is where reproductive

freedoms and voting rights and, you know, protecting communities like the LGBT community and our neighbors is happening. But, you know, if you look at Michigan as an example, the Michigan House, which is on the ballot this year, they recruit candidates in all of their legislative districts. So what that means is that there are Democrats running for local office across the state. Those candidates are on the doors talking to real voters every day. They've knocked over a million doors in Michigan already. And those real conversations with voters about their hope, streams, fears, concerns, wishes is so meaningful, not just for our state legislative candidates, but for Democrats. They are three-dimensional elected officials or candidates representing the Democratic Party, Democratic values, and the entire ticket.

knowing how important then those down-ballot candidates all the way to state legislative candidates are can you talk about in terms of donations what what donors get in terms of bank for their buck I know that you know we're looking at act blue donations have surpassed a billion dollars when we're talking about the presidential race but what does it really take for some of these state legislative races to have a big impact on on issues by the way that you just brought up You know, these are folks who are the front line for reproductive rights, for climate, for a lot of the issues that really impact Americans. Yeah, if I could put it into context, there were recent reports that the presidential is going to be

somewhere between $15 and $16 billion spent. Our budget, this cycle, is $60 million. And at stake is the rights of nearly 50% of Americans who have had their abortion to access protected, who've had voting rights protected, who have had their environment protected. On our target map this year alone, it is 70 million people that their rights hang in the balance of voters' decisions on Election Day. Can you talk about ballot drop-off disparities between the two parties? Because as far as I have read, Republicans have a 37% drop-off, and that number isn't exactly

the same for Democrats. Democrats have an 80% ballot drop-off. So once they check the ballot for Kamala Harris and maybe the Senate or gubernatorial or House candidates that they, that 80% of Democrats are leaving their ballots blank beyond that for the people, again, who may be the front line of defense for all of the issues that most directly impact them. Is that correct? Yeah. Ballot drop off is a really important sort of note as we head into election day. So many voters in these really important states, they expect and want to be really informed about what they're voting for. And what we see at our ballot level is both the distance that we are from the top of the ticket on the physical ballot. We are just further down,

sometimes towards the bottom. That is, you know, for some people, prohibitive, they just don't, they just don't vote any further. For other folks, they really want to be informed. We particularly see this with women and communities of color. They really want to know who they're voting for, what they stand for, and they want to go in there with confidence. And we were just talking about the funding gaps between the top of the ticket collectively and where we see, you know, budgets for state legislative races. Part of that reason for being so important is that that's how people find out about who's running for office. Our candidates are on those doors. Like I said, a million doors knocked in Michigan, but they also get lots of communication about who's running

and why. And that's really important. Well, to that point then, can you talk about what Democratic majorities have done versus what Republican majorities have done, at least on the issue of abortion, which seems to be one of the principal drivers of voter participation this cycle. Yeah, well, here's the simplest way to put it. 50% of Americans have their rights protected because of Democrats in the legislature. In North Carolina last year, there was a party switcher. That party switcher gave Republicans supermajority and took away the veto pen from the Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, in North Carolina.

The first thing that Republicans did with that power was ban abortion. That is illustrative of what they do when they have power. and the immediate actions that they take when they get new power. I don't know that I can think of a state where Republicans have control where they didn't pass an abortion ban, or conversely, where Democrats have control and they didn't pass protections for reproductive rights. Does that sound correct? Correct. Well, I think that puts on full display right there, what this election is actually going to be about.

A similar point where state legislatures play a large role in our democracy here is the role that they played in, 2020 in either fomenting or protecting election subversive behavior or activity. Can you speak on that? Yeah, what we saw were, you know, dozens of Republicans in state legislatures willing to call into question electoral results, willing to plant the seed that it was not a free, fair election with actual results, willing to sign petitions, and even to show up at the Capitol and show up as an instructionalist. Like, these are the Republicans that are running in our state houses.

Many of them are still there. Many are still on the ballot. We expect, and I think Republicans, you know, we've seen this, a lot of talk about this recently, Republicans are sowing these seeds again, led, of course, by Donald Trump, who is already starting to cast doubt on the results of this election. What has been most successful or effective in terms of the messaging that you're seeing on the ground? I mean, like, national messaging is one thing, right?

And what you hear Donald Trump and Kamala Harris talk about is, going to kind of be this whole entity unto itself. But what are you hearing is the most effective in terms of what state legislative candidates are talking about? You know, I think that one of the most important messages that they have is showing up for people, right? It's, again, it's getting on the doors, talking to folks, hearing them out, hearing about everything from the pothole in front of their house to access to abortion and health care needs. I think what is special about our ballot level is these candidates and elected still live in their communities. They still very much are a part of that fabric.

And the national issues still play a role, but they become more localized. So in a state with an abortion man, they become conversations about lack of access to health care, lack of access to providers because a local clinic shut down or because doctors are leaving because they are going to be fined or prosecuted. That's the way that these national issues

have local color to them, and those are the kinds of conversations that these candidates are having all across the country. Is that to suggest that Eric Havdi coming from California or Dave McCormick coming from Connecticut might not be able to really relate to his voters as well as somebody who actually lives in the place that they're running to represent might be? Yeah, I think that's a very interesting point. Okay, so people are getting hit with a barrage of requests for donations.

Why is the DLCC, why is it important for folks to consider? the DLCC when determining where they allocate their money? This is a great question. You know, we were just talking about abortion. It is critical that we get federal abortion protections. There is no question about that. But while we wait for that to happen, states are determining these rights right now. The impact of a state and its control in a state capital, whether Democrats have control or Republicans,

means that you have rights that are expanded or secure, or you don't, and your rights are being rolled back. That is happening in real time across this country. Whether you have access to the health care that you need, reproductive health care that you need, determines whether or not you have Democrats in control of your state legislature. That is how critical these races are. Like, I said, 70 million people hang in the balance of our target map. That is incredibly important. All of which underscores, you know, again, to your exact point, the importance of donating to the DLCC and focusing on these state legislatures, even as, if nothing else, as a bulwark in the event that Donald Trump or Republicans were to win the White House, the Senate, or the House.

So I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Heather, thanks for the work you're doing for taking the time today. Thank you so much. Thanks again to Bob and Heather. That's it for this episode. Talk to you next week. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie,

and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five-star rating in a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels, or you can go to Brian Tyler Cohen.com to learn more. Thank you.