Pod Save America - “1/6 Truth and 1/6 Truthers.”

Episode Date: July 29, 2021

Day 1 of the House’s January 6th investigation goes poorly for Republicans, Dan Pfeiffer talks to White House Covid Equity Task Force Chair Marcella Nunez-Smith about President Biden’s speech on vaccines, and a closer look at special elections in Texas, Ohio, and California.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, please visit crooked.com/podsaveamerica. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, the first day of the House's January 6th investigation goes pretty poorly for Republicans. Dan talks to White House COVID Equity Task Force Chair Marcella Nunez-Smith about Biden's big vaccination speech today. And we take a look at some of the special elections happening in Texas, Ohio, and California. But first, check out our sports podcast, Take Line, with Jason Concepcion and Renee Montgomery to hear smart, funny analysis of all the latest sports news with amazing guests like NBA Hall of Famer Chris Bosh and the Kid Miro. And don't miss the latest episode of With Friends Like These to hear Anna Marie Cox and ESPN journalist Alyssa Roenick talk about how

Simone Biles has changed the way society views female gymnasts. You can listen to Take Line and With Friends Like These wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's get to the news. the way society views female gymnasts. You can listen to Take Line and with friends like these wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's get to the news. The bipartisan committee investigating the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol held its first hearing on Tuesday, where two D.C. police officers and two Capitol police officers delivered incredibly moving and sometimes horrifying testimony about the domestic terrorists who violently assaulted them while attempting to stop Congress from certifying the election. Here's some of that testimony as well as a reaction from one of the two Republicans on the committee, Adam Kinzinger.

And just so you all know, there is some incredibly upsetting language in these clips, but we thought it was very important to play them. So just wanted to give everyone that warning before we start. I too was being crushed by the rioters. I could feel myself losing oxygen and recall thinking to myself, this is how I'm going to die defending this entrance. I was grabbed, beaten, tased, all while being called a traitor to my country. I was at risk of being stripped of and killed with my own firearm as I heard chants of kill him with his own gun.

I could still hear those words in my head today. What makes the struggle harder and more painful is to know so many of my fellow citizens, including so many of the people I put my life at risk to defend, are downplaying or outright denying what happened. I feel like I went to hell and back to protect them and the people in this room, but too many are now telling me that hell doesn't exist or that hell actually wasn't that bad. The indifference shown to my colleagues is disgraceful.

I told them to just leave the Capitol and in response they yelled, no man, this is our house. President Trump invited us here. We're here to stop the steal. That prompted a torrent of racial epithets. One woman in a pink MAGA shirt yelled, you hear that, guys? This nigger voted for Joe Biden.

Then the crowd, perhaps around 20 people, joined in screaming, boo, fucking nigger. No one had ever, ever called me a nigger while wearing the uniform of a Capitol Police officer. In the days following the attempted insurrection, other black officers shared with me their own stories of racial abuse on January 6th.

One officer told me he had never, and in his entire 40 years of life been called a nigger to his face and that streak ended on January 6th. Like most Americans I'm frustrated that six months after a deadly insurrection breached the United States Capitol for several hours on live television. We still don't know exactly what happened. Why? Because many in my party have treated this as just another partisan fight. Dan, I was telling Lovett and Tommy yesterday that I feel like the news of the last several years has drained my reservoir of outrage. So it's harder to become outraged by political news. But listening to the testimony from Tuesday, that got me there. That got me there. What was

your reaction? It was exactly the same. I mean, it's so infuriating that this happened and the very people whose lives were at risk, who were being protected by these police officers, are downplaying it, dismissing it, in some cases mocking these police officers, pretending like it didn't happen, treating the people who did this, people who said those horrible things, who did those horrible things, who threatened to hang the vice president, treating them as heroes, revolutionary heroes, political prisoners, all of it is. I think any American who sees this should be rightfully

outraged. Any person with a human capacity for empathy would be rightfully outraged for this. But I think for people who have actually worked on Capitol Hill, it is even more mind-boggling because every day you walk in that building, you and I both work there after 9-11, these people, the Capitol Police officers are keeping us safe. They keep these members of Congress safe every single day. You know, we're talking about Kevin McCarthy, but every single day, the Capitol Police shows up at Kevin McCarthy's house and picks him up and takes him to work. They stick a few feet behind him all day long to keep him safe. They drive him home. They stay outside his house. And the people who keep him safe, who he spends 24 hours a day with, he is dismissing this. These Capitol Hill officers are a part of the fabric on Capitol Hill. And to take this and just dismiss it and be able to walk

in that building every day, look these people in the eye and act like this is just so fucking infuriating that it's truly hard to stand stand i also think that we got to see these police officers puncture the absurd conspiracy that this was just a bunch of fucking tourists or this was a few bad apples or most people were there peacefully uh officer ganel said um was responding to the uh trump saying oh it's just it was hugs and kisses the the. The protesters were giving hugs and kisses to the police officers. And he said, if that was hugs and kisses, then we should all go to his house and do the same to him. Instead of sending the military, instead of sending the support

or telling his supporters to stop this nonsense, he egged them on to continue fighting. All of them were telling us Trump sent us. And I do think that's an important part of this as well. And I think we'll probably see this throughout these hearings. But even having these police officers directly connect the mob, the riots to Trump himself, not just him inciting the mob, but him refusing to tell the mob to go home until well into the attack. To what extent do you think this testimony breaks through the noise of all the news that's

out there right now and potentially changes any mind, shapes any opinions? And that's really hard to say. It definitely was a moment, right? If you spend any time online or you're watching TV, you saw this, you saw clips of this. But this is ultimately the paradox of political communication, which is the people who we need to see this content or to see these hearings the most are the people least likely to see them, right? People who are not going to consume this. We're not watching live cable news in the middle of the day on a weekday, who are not watching the evening news, who are not following political pages on Facebook that will put this content in front of them. That is the huge problem is like, yes,

I think if people saw this information, people who have legitimate, they either are sort of living in a fog of disinformation or are legitimately unsure of what happened or who was really responsible. If they saw this, I think they would be persuaded immediately by this. But the question is, will those people see it?

And I'm somewhat skeptical of that, given the way our completely fucked up media ecosystem works. Yeah, it's the fucked up media ecosystem. And even as I was preparing for the episode today, like I read headlines about this on Tuesday, but it was hard to break through with all the COVID news that's out there, right? Like there's just only so much bandwidth in the media ecosystem to cover something. And this did make a lot of news, but it's not going to get the kind

of coverage that impeachment hearings got. And we know that impeachment hearings didn't matter politically that much in the long run anyway. That said, it's incredibly important to do just as all the committee members have said, to get to the truth and to present that truth to the American people. We deserve that. Whether or not it breaks through, whether or not it changes any minds, it's still incredibly important to do this. And I think it's not just like, it's easy for us to get wrapped up around, is this going to affect the midterms? Is this going to affect how people think about Trump? Is this going to affect Trump standing in the Republican party? But you're right. There's a historical record here, much like the 9-11 Commission. This is a huge deal in American

history that armed protesters took over one of our three branches of government and put people's lives at risk. That is a moment that needs to be understood and analyzed and put in the historical record. But there's also a forward-looking thing here. This could happen again. The same people who pushed the big lie that put these people in the Capitol are still pushing that same big lie. The same Republicans who do not push back against that big lie are still not pushing back. We are on a freight train to a very similar thing happening in 2022, 2024, at any point in our near future. So we have to understand how it happened, what happened, and how we make sure it doesn't happen again. There is an immediate urgency here that you would think even if these shameless Republicans were dismissing this,

had nothing other than self-interest, they would be focused on trying to ensure that their lives are not at risk again in the near future. But alas, that is less important than somehow angering Trump or getting a poorly written worded statement sent out about them at some point. Well, speaking of that, we heard the reaction from the two very conservative, but pro-democracy Republicans on the committee. Now let's hear from some of the lunatics who actually run the party.

The American people deserve to know the truth that Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility as speaker of the House for the tragedy that occurred on January 6th. And it was only after Republicans started asking these important questions that she refused January 6th. And it was only after Republicans started asking these important questions that she refused to seat them. The people of this country, the answers to the questions. We need a break. The left is interrupting the press conference. We need to end it. And if you tuned in, we did, hoping for an answer to some of the many outstanding mysteries that remain from that day, you probably came away disappointed because there weren't any answers provided.

For example, we still don't know who shot an unarmed Air Force veteran called Ashley Babbitt or why she was killed. But it's not about politics at all. And for best performance in an action role, the winner is Michael Fanone. Did you watch any of the hearings today? No, I didn't. Why not? I was busy doing work. Kevin McCarthy also said that he didn't watch the hearings because he was stuck in, quote, back to back meetings, which is weird because political playbook told us that Pelosi kicking the pro insurrectionist Republicans off the committee would be a gift to McCarthy and other

Republicans. Do those reactions from Republicans seem like they consider this panel a gift Tuesday? It's hard even to respond to that. Real gift. Real fucking gift to Republicans, this committee. Yeah, no, it seemed like from all those reactions, they were pretty excited politically about the committee. Well, no, it seemed like from all those reactions, they were pretty excited politically about the committee. Well, it's important to recognize that the primary tenet of American political journalism is it is Democrats' job to fix Republicans' problems for them. So Kevin McCarthy is free to be a disinformation-wielding insurrectionist, but it is Nancy Pelosi's job to ensure that Republican voters believe these results, right? It's thing is so stupid. Like, they're obviously, like, we know that this is a tactic.

Reporters haven't super figured out how to deal with this yet, where they just pretend that something that everyone knows is happening isn't happening. But the fact that they're doing that is a sign that they are not particularly comfortable, politically at least, with the position they're currently in, because there are no good answers to why you don't want to participate in a bipartisan investigation into your own attempted murder. I will say that having watched the testimony, I think it only proved the wisdom of Pelosi making the move that she did, because what we actually saw was a committee that was

doing its job that way that didn't devolve into a fucking partisan circus because Jim Jordan was on it and Jim Banks was on it. And they telegraphed ahead of time that they were going to turn it into a partisan circus. And this happened during both impeachments, right? There would be incredibly moving and compelling testimony from the Democratic witnesses. And then the Republicans would get up and they would fire off some dumb fucking conspiracy theory and the whole thing would turn into a circus and everyone would yell at each other. And we didn't have that. We actually had a normal, serious, substantive, bipartisan hearing, bipartisan investigation for the first time in years. Didn't have it with Benghazi, didn't have

it with the first couple of impeachment hearings, had it here because there weren't a bunch of Trumpy conspiracy theorists on the panel. So like good for Pelosi. I think it's a lesson in using the power you have and not worrying about what the fucking politico playbooks of the world tell you is going to somehow

be a gift to Republicans. Like, not to pick on politico playbook, but this was the... And others said it, too. I mean, it's... Yeah, yeah, what I was going to say

is that that take was... There's a whole bunch of people in Washington. That was the conventional wisdom was this was an error on Pelosi's part. All of those people are wrong. I don't know if any of them admitted they were wrong.

I haven't seen that. Of course not. If you said it and you now think you were wrong and you admitted it, please let us know. Let us know. Yeah, write us. Please send us a tweet. Yes. DMs are open for your apologies.

I do think it's worth like breaking out the different Republican reactions to this. You have the, oh, just like the Trump, oh, I didn't read his tweets reaction. You know, I was in meetings. I was busy from more of the Republican leaders, except for John Thune, who was like, you should listen to those police officers. They have something to say. He was like one of the only ones that broke from the party. But the rest of them did that. You know, McCarthy and McConnell did the cowardly.

I didn't see it. did the, you know, McCarthy and McConnell did the cowardly. Oh, I didn't see it. Then you've got the fucking pathetic, pathetic people like Elise Stefanik, who was out there saying that it's Nancy Pelosi's fault, even though she doesn't control capital security. And even if she did control capital security,

that's like fucking investigating the engineer who built the Twin Towers. You know? Like, are you kidding? Oh, sorry, you know, you should have had the capital fortified for an attack from the president's supporters. Everyone knows that, that when you're trying to certify the results of the presidential election, you should be prepared for a violent assault on the Capitol. Shame on you, Capitol Police.

And, of course, they're asking questions about security anyway. That's part of what the panel's job is. And then, of course, there's, like, the really scary people like Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, who did that press conference outside. And we're referring to the people who were arrested for assaulting the Capitol as political prisoners, political prisoners, which is like deeply scary stuff. I mean, we're so far past the Rubicon here. I know. I mean, we're so far past the Rubicon here. I know, I know. It is a party that is so broken and dangerous and on the cusp of regaining power.

Well, yeah, that's what looms in the background of all of this is that, you know, in 2022 at this time or 2023, this kind of panel could cease to exist and we'd have House Republicans conducting all kinds of crazy investigations into fake controversies in the Biden administration. That's the preview. What do you think the committee should be focused on in terms of questions and witnesses in future hearings? Now we've had the police officers, there's obviously going to be a whole bunch of other people called. What are you looking for at this point? I think Liz Cheney might have said this in her discussion of what she was looking for is we need to know what happened every minute of the

day in the White House. Who was talking to the Pentagon? Who was Trump talking to? What was Trump saying? Who was in communication either before, during, or after from the White House with the Oath Keepers or any other organizers of this event? We know nothing about that. There have been a gazillion Trump books written. There have been some very credulous reporting about Ivanka's very brave statements about what she didn't like. We don't really know what happened, and they need to use the subpoena power they have to ensure that we hear that.

We should hear from Trump. Bush and Cheney testified at the 9-11 Commission hearings. They were deposed by the 9-11 Commission. Trump should do the same. Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, the acting defense secretary, everyone involved, we need to know what happened, what they were doing, and how we got here. Because it's two things. It's like, how did they get organized? What intent do those people have? What contact did they have with people? And then what delayed the response, right? Which is a really very serious

question about the National Guard. And we have to know that. I thought that Officer Dunn put it best when he said, you know, if a hitman is hired and he kills somebody, the hitman goes to jail. There was an attack on January 6th and someone sent them.

I want you to get to the bottom of that. I do think the connections between the rioters, domestic terrorists, and Trump or whoever else funded the Stop the Steal rally, coordinated, all of that kind of stuff needs to come out. And I think in terms of what we were talking about earlier, these committee hearings breaking through, at this point, it's all about, do these witnesses make news, right? Do they tell us something that we didn't know before? Because

we know how the media is, and the media is only going to cover so much incredibly gripping and moving and compelling testimony. They're now going to look for news in the hearings to cover. And so I do think that I'm sure as Democrats and Republicans on the committee are figuring out future witnesses, they're trying to figure out, okay, who's going to make news? Who's going to tell us something that we didn't know before? And that's sort of an interesting communication strategy piece of it too, because one of the things that happened in impeachment was we often knew everything that was going to be said beforehand, which diminished some of the coverage over it. I mean certainly like full-on political junkies will watch it live and the networks will – the cable networks will cover it. But you're reaching – if you're talking midday CNN, MSNBC, you're talking a very small number of people relatively.

So like holding something for drama, I think is pretty important. So before we leave what's going on on Capitol Hill, there's an alternate universe on Capitol Hill where late on Wednesday night, the Senate voted 67-32 to advance the bipartisan infrastructure framework, which is, to paraphrase Joe Biden, Dan, a biffucking deal. Are you paraphrasing Joe Biden or are you paraphrasing Politico playbook? I tweeted this yesterday which was a bad thing to do.

I'm not proud of it. I hate myself for it. And then Blake Hounshell from Politico responded to it and he said, congrats on your new job at Politico and sure enough it was a Politico headline and that made me feel even worse about myself. So what did I do? I decided I'm going to say it on the podcast.

And here it is. I will note that Brian Boitler pointed out that now that it's passed, it's going to go from being a framework to a bill, which means it's going from being the BIF to the BIP. So this is it being the BIF to the bib. So that's, this is it. This is it for the BIF. This is the last time we'll ever say that word, which is, I think, a small victory. I actually think the actual term now is the bid. The bid? Yeah. Oh, because it's a deal? It's a deal. Yeah. We don't have bill text yet. So I don't know if it ever becomes a bib, but the White House very specifically, as I understand it, changed their language yesterday from BIF to bid. If you all want to unsubscribe from the podcast at this point, as I understand it, changed their language yesterday from biff to bid. If you all want to unsubscribe from the podcast at this point, we'll understand.

Are you kidding? We haven't even gotten to the I-J-I-A, right? Real quickly, it's $550 billion. The big debate was over the pay-fors, how we're going to pay for this. Of course, the Republicans didn't want tax increases. Well, congratulations, you're going to get them in the reconciliation package, so fine. They're going to use funding.

The funding's going to be unused COVID funds, unused unemployment benefits, $56 billion in expected economic growth, which is the kind of bullshit math that Republicans hate, but I don't fucking care. No, we hate that math. It's dynamic scoring. Oh, that's dynamic scoring.

That's the kind of bullshit math that Republicans always try to shove down our throats. And now that they've embraced it is what I was trying to say. Yes. And they're delaying some Medicare rebate drug rolls. So it seems like whatever they found to pay for is, again, if there was no reconciliation bill coming up, I think there would be a lot of huge problems because there is. I think that's one reason why Schumer got all 50 Democrats on board to vote for passage, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, the progressives in the caucus. So, you know, there's things people didn't like about the deal, but I think everyone knows because this other, the big economic plan, the reconciliation bill is waiting in the wings, then great, you get your bipartisan victory, good times for everyone. What do you think about the fact that this actually might pass?

I mean, it's really interesting. And I do think it upends some conventional wisdom or some of my own priors about how the Republicans, at least in the Senate, think about their politics. And it's not just sort of, you know, the Mitt Romneys and Lisa Murkowskis of the world. Like, Mitch McConnell blessed this deal and voted for it himself, even though none of his immediate deputies like John Cornyn or Thune or anyone else did. But McConnell did. Some of the original reporting and thinking on this when Schumer and Biden were undertaking the two-track strategy was that the reason McConnell was OK with this was he thought

that passing the bipartisan deal would mean there would not be an appetite for a large reconciliation deal. And that he was given – something was going to pass, and he could either pass a bipartisan, smaller deal that was less exciting to the Democratic base or this bigger thing that would excite the base. And given those two realities, politically, he liked the former. But it seems like – I mean, we've got a lot of miles to travel here, a lot of Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema interviews to try to interpret, but it seems like at least Biden and Schumer are on track to getting both. And I can't fully understand why the Republicans are doing this, but I think it's notable. Here's my guess, and it's not giving Republicans credit for

anything, but if you're just doing a pure political calculus, there are some of them who are up in districts and states where they might think to themselves, they want a message where they can say, yeah, I'm not a complete obstructionist. I worked with the Democrats on this bipartisan infrastructure bill. But then when they tried to pass their $3.5 trillion boondoggle, I said no. So I, you. So I joined them when it made sense, and I fought them the other times when it didn't. Like that's just a – in some states and districts, that's probably a message that is more compelling. Did Rubio vote yes? Rubio did vote against the deal. Flavia just texted me, so we –

Excellent. There you go. Rubio's not a bib fan. What's interesting about that is there are only two Republican incumbents up in swing ish states. Right. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and Marco Rubio in Florida. Ron Johnson certainly didn't vote for people who still have to navigate a Republican primary or just straight up lunatics like Ron Johnson voted the other way. I do think there is an element of your message that does work, is they are making a case that they should be in charge of government, right? Or at least a portion of government. And therefore, you have to look, the Senate wants to look different than

Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Kevin McCarthy, a bunch of these other people who are just like shaming themselves on a daily basis, slobbering over Trump. And so that it like, yes, we can give us part of government because we are serious enough to actually do a deal with Joe Biden. We're not insurrectionist Trumpists is maybe to the extent that there's any calculus there

that could be it. I also think they might want to take economic issues where they're not as popular off the table so they can go back to fighting their culture wars. That's another possibility. You mentioned Cinnamon Mansion in Decoding Interview interviews. We should just talk about this really quickly before we move on. Kirsten Sinema told the Arizona Republic on Tuesday that she supports beginning the process of reconciliation, so she will vote to move forward on the big

reconciliation bill, but she does not support the $3.5 trillion top line number. She thinks that's too expensive. House progressives like AOC hit back, even threatening to tank the bipartisan deal over it. What happens here? Is this just normal negotiating that we're going to have to deal with? I mean, like personally, I never thought that Manchin or Sinema would be all in for everything that Democrats and progressives want in the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill because they're Manchin and Sinema. And we have known from the beginning that the only reconciliation bill that's going to pass is one that is supported by AOC and Joe Manchin.

And that's still the case to me. So at some point, they're all going to have to get together and decide, we either have a reconciliation bill that we all agree on, progressives and moderates, or we have nothing. A similar dynamic happened in the American Rescue Plan, right? Where Manchin insisted on some changes in the emergency UI and some other things that were mostly just, I think, cruel for the purposes of centrist symbolism. But that is definitely going to happen here. Like, it's just not, they are going to negotiate and they're going to have to have both of them. Manchin actually has a political imperative to do this.

I can't really understand what Sinema's doing, but her record in recent history suggests that she will want to find some places to stick her finger in the eye of the party so she can say she did that. Yeah, it's a purely political play. She wants to just be able, just like I said, Republicans wanted to take that message to voters. She wants to say, I worked on the bipartisan

infrastructure deal. I was the lead negotiator. And then when Senate Democrats tried to pass a reconciliation bill that was too much spending, I cut back on some of that spending to focus on the priorities that Arizona voters want. That's what she wants to say. Yeah, I mean, I would say that Joe Manchin is going to, if he runs for re-election in 2024, is going to need three in 10 Trump voters to support him, if not more. And Kyrsten Sinema just needs all the Biden voters to support her. But I'm not here to tell her politics, or maybe I am, I guess, but she's not going to listen. And look, and I think that, you know, she's causing all these problems. I do think that it's good that the House progressives are speaking up as well because they have leverage here too, right?

Like Nancy Pelosi does not have a huge vote margin in the House. She needs all the Democrats in the House or at least just about all the Democrats in the House. Schumer needs all the Democrats in the Senate. So again, progressives have some leverage here just as much as Manchin and Sinema does if everyone is agreed on the fact that they want to get something done. Because anyone can blow up the deal at this point and then nothing gets done. Okay. When we come back, Dan's interview with White House COVID Equity Task Force Chair, Marcella Nunez-Smith. Here to talk about the Delta variant and all the latest on COVID is Marcela Nunez-Smith, White House COVID-19 Equity Task Force Chair and Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Yale.

Dr. Nunez-Smith, great to have you here today. Thank you. It's good to be with you. Well, let's start with President Biden's speech today on vaccines. What is he announcing and what is he trying to accomplish? Yeah, you know, we're at a really important moment right now. I think it's so important and key that the president is talking directly to the American people saying, this is where we are. Let's talk straight about this pandemic.

We have Delta here now, and that makes things more urgent than ever before, right? If you're unvaccinated, your risk is so tremendously high. And so the key still is vaccination. That is the path out of the pandemic. And so the president is making sure people understand those basic tenets of the science, but also pushing on the important policies to help get us there. Talking about the key need for incentives, making sure barriers are addressed for people, like access to paid time off to get vaccinated,

get their families vaccinated. And of course, really importantly, saying the federal government is a large employer, and we're going to kind of model that safe workplace behavior. And so can you just shed a little light on what the new federal government policy is? Now, earlier in the week, the Department of Veteran Affairs came out and said, look, in VA hospitals for those patient-facing employees and workers, vaccination is going to be a must. And that is something that's happening in health care systems across the country, certainly something happening where I work. And today, really very strong, clear statement from the federal administration that if you can't attest

to being vaccinated as a federal employee, as a contractor, then it's going to be just important, mandatory for you to be part of a rigorous testing protocol. We have to make sure that our workplaces are safe. Why not go a step further, right? A lot of companies now are insisting on proof of vaccination to return to employment or as part of employment, because under the policy, as I understand it, if you are not vaccinated, you will have to go through testing and mitigation, but that still puts the vaccinated employees at some measure of risk. Why not go one step further and have an actual mandate on federal employees?

Yeah. Let me be real clear. It's not in anybody's advantage to try to game this system, right? I mean, if you're unvaccinated and you're around others, you are at extremely, extremely high risk. So everything we're talking about is really a bridge to vaccination. There are going to be a few people, of course, there are medical reasons why vaccines are not advised. That's a very, very small number of people. So I think what we're seeing is making sure people understand the urgency and have this window of time to be able to say, let me go get vaccinated. And everything we're talking about in terms of mitigation is that bridge? Testing strategies, masking strategies, those are not destinations in this public health crisis. The destination is vaccination. And so whether we see municipalities or employers, it's important to give people that window of time to get vaccinated.

So is there a point at which, like understanding that as I see the numbers, the number of daily first doses is going up pretty quickly here, which is a very good sign, But is there a point at which you will, you know, the federal government or others should say to unvaccinated people, like you have to do this, you know, as a part of your federal employment, you know, school students have to attest to vaccination for polio, measles, etc. Is there a need for more sticks in the process of getting people vaccinated? Yeah, you know, vaccination is obviously, this is a personal decision. It's a choice. I do think when you look across the country, what you see is a combination of different

strategies and approaches, you know, directly to your question about the federal administration, these guidance and policies are going to continue to be revisited. I think this is the right policy, the right direction, the right conversation for where we are right now. You know, I certainly, and I've said this before, I'm a practicing internal medicine physician. I have needed to attach my entire career for my employment, for example, with flu, influenza. And that's key. That's about keeping me safe. It's about keeping my colleagues safe. It's about keeping my patients safe. So certainly, you know, we talk a

lot, but you bring up a really great point, which is, you know, we have a history in the country about vaccination and a shared understanding about the critical importance of vaccination for our public health. The revised mask guidance from the CDC, I think, was a wake-up call to a lot of people, particularly a lot of vaccinated people, about the risk that still exists and that the pandemic is continuing to go. Can you help explain to our listeners what the new guidance is and why the CDC took this step to revise guidance? Yeah, absolutely. This is so important.

So the CDC came out and updated their guidance, and very appropriately so. I think I am certainly reassured as someone living in our country that the science, the evidence, the data are really leading the way that everybody's paying really close attention. When the science changes, then the recommendations change. So this week, CDC came out and said, first point is we are now living in the time of Delta. And so Delta is a variant, unlike the variants we've had previously, it is extremely, extremely contagious. And so with the new dynamics of this virus, the new dynamics of transmission, got to think again about what's necessary. I think of the

guidance sort of in these two ways, right? CDC came out and made recommendations directed at communities and then recommendations directed at individuals. On the community level, CDC really recommended and of local leaders encourage vaccination. Number one, vaccination, particularly in areas where there is high degree of transmission. Ninety nine percent of people hospitalized and dying in our country now from COVID-19 unvaccinated. This is a preventable, preventable tragedy. Every death we see virtually now is a preventable one. So CDC came out to communities and said, substantial high levels of transmission, please, please, please,

everything we can do to get people connected with vaccination. Also, really think about the mitigation strategies. How can we best keep everyone safe and can consider indoor, this is public indoor masking if you're unvaccinated, you got to keep the mask on as you bridge over to getting vaccinated. This is the time to do that. And I think a lot of people who are fully vaccinated have been trying to think about what are these recommendations? How do they land with me specifically? I'm a fully vaccinated person. You know, in my home, though, I have young children who are not yet eligible. I have in my family people who are really high risk for severe disease if they contract COVID-19. So I think the CDC importantly was talking to fully vaccinated people everywhere and saying this is something we need to better understand. As you move in the world, you know, you are really protected as somebody fully vaccinated from severe illness and from hospitalization, which has always been the case. And that remains the case. But now with Delta, as a fully vaccinated person, very small risk.

But people should be aware, right, that the risk is not zero, that you might be able to get infected with Delta and transmit it. get infected with Delta and transmit it, right? And transmit it in your home, in your household, a close contact to somebody who might not yet be vaccinated, like a young child, to somebody who might be immunocompromised or otherwise at risk for severe illness. And so for those people, you know, we might want to think about wearing a mask when in public indoor settings. And so I think that's really what I've heard a lot of people ask more questions about is like, what does this mean for me as a fully vaccinated person? And that's what the CDC was underscoring this week. I think one of the things that's hard in the assessment of risk here, because everyone's making their own assessment, everyone's situation

is different. I'm in this situation where all of the highly vulnerable older people in my life, my in-laws, my parents are vaccinated, but I have two children who are under the age of 12 and therefore not vaccinated. Obviously, I do not want to give them COVID. And one of the challenges with the way the CDC did this from the perspective, I think, of a lot of sort of analysts and experts is there's no data to explain how big the risk is, how likely is it that I could get it. You know, and obviously there's breakthrough infections in every vaccine, right? And a lot of people just don't, I think, myself included prior to this, paid a ton of attention to that. But I think what

is, what really scared a lot of people, or at least caused people to perk up was the idea that vaccinated asymptomatic people could transmit the disease. And so that was sort of like half referenced in some of the coverage of this and some of the CDC. What more can you tell me about how big that risk is? How seriously should people take that, even those who live in communities with decent vaccination risks, but have young children at home? Are we back to a point where we should be incredibly cautious in indoor, even indoor private settings outside of our household with other vaccinated people, right? With other vaccinated people.

Yeah, no, I got you. And I don't think we're back to anything. I think it's so important to kind of first anchor in where we are right now. And so six months in, looking at, you know, well over 160 million people in the country vaccinated. So we have a different set of realities. I think we are certainly pushing, there is more work to do. We want everybody who's eligible for vaccine and vaccination to get vaccinated, but there has been substantial progress that President Biden has led since taking office, so that really things are

different. And so that's why I continue to be very hopeful, very optimistic, particularly as we think about hospitalization and death. We have over 80% of some of the most medically vulnerable, that is, you know, kind of our older neighbors who are vaccinated. So I always like, we want to first start and say things are really different than they were before. That's the reality. Now we know that there are still localized areas of particular concern. We've been talking about that areas where we need to see vaccination go higher, but you know, for, for those parents and others who are, who are sitting here and saying like, what exactly is the risk? Let's talk about a couple of things. So one, and it continues

to be the case that thankfully for children, the risk of severe COVID remains still very small. The risk of hospitalization remains very minimal death, even for the complication people might know as MIS-C. But again, you know, you're a parent and so am I. Every sort of case that can be prevented, we want to prevent, right? So, you know, I want to start by not scaring parents that something has changed so drastically in terms of risk of COVID infection to their children. There are always those caveats. I mean, there are children, of course, who are immunocompromised, who have underlying medical conditions, other things. People should be in conversation with their healthcare providers on that front. You know, but really, the CDC guidance spoke to public indoor settings. And so, you know, when we think about going out

into the world where we really are quite unsure about the vaccination status of those people we might be around for any substantial length of time, it really is now up to the individual to say, do I want to wear a mask? So that might be the grocery store, right? As one example where people may have shed that mask before and now may think about that decision in light of who is in their home and in their household contacts. So it really is about when you're in public indoor spaces and you just don't know the vaccination status of others. I know I, many other people too, we have our little pods, right? Where we do play dates with other families. We know the vaccination status of others. I know I, many other people too, we have our little pods,

right, where we do playdates with other families, we know their vaccination status, and other things. And we're really not looking to a lot changing in that from the CDC updated guidance. That's very, very helpful. For me, personally, at least, if not our listeners. You know, there was sort of a collective groan earlier this week when there was an announcement that the study on pediatric vaccines was expanded and that was interpreted as delaying when we would actually be able to get vaccines to kids under the age of 12. You know, I think parents, a lot of parents had some real high hopes that that would happen around the start of school or earlier this year. It seems like that's going to be later. Can you help level set expectations or explain that process a little bit so people can understand what's coming? Yeah, of course. So I mean, people, I think, at this point, understand that this process really begins with the FDA, in terms of reviewing data

submitted by the vaccine manufacturers, independent scientists involved in that process, recommendations made to the FDA leadership in that space. Then of course, the partnership with CDC and independent advisors there as well, ACIP in terms of recommendations. So those processes remain the expectation when we're talking about the pediatric vaccines. I think everybody hopefully is aware that everyone 12 and older is already eligible, has gone through that process. The vaccine supply is there. So really are encouraging people, particularly ahead of back to school, to go out and get your children vaccinated. So the question becomes that next age group and the clinical trials are very much well underway

and expect that process to go through. You know, I'm sure people have heard Dr. Fauci and others say, look towards the middle of fall to perhaps have that. You know, it's not inevitable that expanding the number of participants is going to substantially lengthen that process. So I want to reassure people on that front as well. And I think as we have really seen, I think at every step in these past six months, the science, the evidence, the data, but also really making sure that we are efficient and timely. But these processes do involve, again, independent bodies as well. And so the administration, certainly the White House, isn't setting the timeline on that.

You know, a large part of your work and your task force is convincing vaccine-hesitant people to get the vaccine. Would your job be easier if the FDA moved forward with permanent approval of the vaccine? Anecdotally, you hear a lot of people use that as the reason why they are not yet willing to do it because it's experimental, it's a test, they've sort of fallen. That's a bit of real opportunity for some of the misinformation peddlers is the fact that it's still under emergency authorization. Should the FDA move forward with permanent approval as soon as possible? Yeah, you know, I think you're so right. This sort of the question of people who are still vaccine deliberating and what might help them and give them that degree of confidence. And we've heard,

as you said, anecdotally, but also now we have many, many polls that have shown there are people who are waiting for that full approval, that full licensure to have a higher degree of confidence. You know, the reality is we have so much more data at this point than we typically do, even when other vaccines or therapeutics come through the approval process. But yet, you know, you can understand how some folks have really said that they're waiting for the full approval to help make up their mind. And, you know, we've heard some employers say that as well. So we know a lot of people are paying attention to that approval process. I think we want to be sure, you know, a lot of folks have questions about the vaccine, also questions about political interference and processes. And so I think we have to be really, really clear that there isn't

political interference. There really hasn't been to this point. Nobody's trying to introduce that now. I would say that folks at the FDA, career political, I think everybody understands the importance of the work and the importance of getting it right. So I think the job of those of us who are out there talking, you know, one-on-one to people and in communities is to continue to share the data that we do have and we do know around just how effective the vaccines are and how many millions of doses have been given safely. You know, I say to people all the time, where we are in this country right now, the choice is

between the virus or the vaccine. My recommendation is to go with the vaccine. The virus is terribly unpredictable and has stolen already too much from us in terms of lives and livelihood. Dr. Nunez-Smith, thank you so much for joining us. And we hope to talk to you again soon. My pleasure. Thank you. Okay, we got three special elections to talk about Texas, Ohio and California.

Let's start in the Texas sixth, where Donald Trump's candidate Susan Wright lost a race on Tuesday night to fill the seat of her late husband, Ron Wright, who died of covid earlier this year. Trump didn't just endorse right. His PAC spent one hundred thousand dollars on a last minute ad campaign. His PAC spent $100,000 on a last-minute ad campaign, he starred in a robocall, and he headlined an election week telephone rally. But it wasn't enough. The winner was state representative and former Navy fighter pilot Jake Elsey, who raised more money, had endorsements from Dan Crenshaw and Rick Perry,

and said that his victory shows that Texas Republicans want more traditional conservatives with a, quote, Reagan Republican outlook for the future of the country. For his part, Trump told Axios' Jonathan Swan, quote, This is not a loss. This was a win. We had two very good people running that were both Republicans. He's such a glass half full guy, you know. It's good that he had that optimistic outlook. It's that sunny Reagan optimism that Jake Elsey likes.

It was, you know, very good candidates on both sides was Trump's response. So only 8% of registered voters turned out here. Can this race tell us anything about anything? I mean, it's obviously very easy and very typical to overread the political significance of low turnout special elections. You know, we use them, you know, I mean, we spent a lot of time talking about the one in New Mexico, the Democrats won. But I think they tell us something, right? Like in a world in which we believe no polls anymore, special elections remain one of the real pieces of data

you can actually look at. Yeah, actual votes being counted, right. Yes. The only poll that counts is the one on election day or something, is that if there was going to be a place where Donald Trump's endorsement mattered the most, it would be in a low turnout special election between two Republicans. And so it is notable. And it wasn't like he picked, in some cases, he picks the wrong person. Like it's the long shot Trumpist person. Like I think in the Madison

Cawthorn race, he picked the person that Mark Meadows told him to pick who lost. But in this case, this is the widow of the member of Congress who passed away, like that is normally a recipe for success. And so he had everything going in his direction and still lost. I think that's just something that is worth noting, because it does fit within a pattern of a couple of other things we're seeing that I think are worth noting. Like Ben Jacobs pointed out on Twitter that there was a special election in Staten Island recently where Trump's candidate won, but barely. And that is the capital of MAGA nation right there in Staten Island. And so I think there is this presumption that Trump rules the Republican Party, and certainly most of the Republicans act like he does.

But there are some maybe cracks in the firmament here. I think you can hold two different ideas in your head at the same time, which is one, does Trump's endorsement have as much power as conventional wisdom suggests this election and perhaps others says maybe not? On the other, is is a republican party still controlled by donald trump and the answer to that can be yes because you know at one point in this race uh right attacked lz for not being sufficiently supportive of donald trump actually called him a never trump candidate dan crenshaw who uh endure you know who endorsed lz went out there and said he has always supported President Trump. He voted for him twice. He long supported him.

So the guy that won, that wasn't the Trump-endorsed candidate, is still a big Trump fan. And it would have been very hard for him to win this race, I think, if he said he was a never-Trumper, if he didn't like Donald Trump. So I still think if you want to succeed in the Republican Party, you must bend the knee

to Donald Trump. That doesn't necessarily mean that if Donald Trump endorses you, you're going to win your primary. That's exactly right. Jake Elsey did not run as Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney redux. We've never seen a primary where a Republican ran against Trump and succeeded. And I don't think we're going to. And we've already been fooled on this once. Remember when Madison Cawthorn first run and like, you know, Morning Joe had Madison Cawthorn on and they're like, you beat the Trump endorsed candidate. Maybe you're

going to be a new kind of Republican. And now Madison Cawthorn is like the fucking Trumpiest Republican of all, you know, even though he didn't get his endorsement. I think in Nancy Mason, South Carolina, very similar situation, right? Who started out was going to be a never Trumper and is now fully on board with all sorts of Trumpism and big lying, et cetera. It's where the power still is. And there was a great story in the New York Times by Shane Goldmacher about how the Republicans, how they raise money is just using Trump over and over again. Like Mitch McConnell, who has convinced every credulous Capitol Hill scribe that he is anti-Trump. And I believe he legitimately does not like Trump in the sense that he likes nothing. He has no human emotion. But the NRSC, which he controls, sells a bunch of tchotchkes with Donald Trump's face on it wearing that Uncle Sam garb,

right? So it's like Trump's as powerful as Republicans let him be, and they are certainly letting him be it. Yes. Let's turn to Ohio, where another special election in Ohio's 11th congressional district to fill the House seat held by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marsha Fudge has become a proxy fight between two wings of the Democratic Party. Progressive candidate Nina Turner was Bernie Sanders' national co-chair and has been endorsed by Sanders, AOC, and the rest of the squad,

also the Congressional Progressive Caucus, while her opponent, local Democratic Party chairwoman Chantel Brown, has been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, and Hillary Clinton. Turner's lead in the polls has narrowed following a series of negative ads like this one. Country is more polarized than ever, and Nina Turner is no help. Unified Democrats? polarized than ever and nina turner is no help unified democrats turner said no support clinton over trump not nina turner help biden defeat trump turner refused instead turner said voting for biden was like eating shit the word was shit dan that's what was bleeped out there yeah it's like eating i couldn't figure it out like eating shit. What do you make of this race? Are you feeling 2016 primary vibes,

or is this a sign of things to come in the Democratic primaries? A little bit of both. I mean, it definitely is a 2016 proxy war, much less so than a 2020 proxy war, since Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are working hand-in-hand to pass a hugely progressive economic populist agenda. BFFs on the Biff, yeah. Yeah, they are Biff. They're Biff.

Biff Biffs. Fuck. Oh, my God. This is going to be the worst performing Pots of American American history. Come swim in alphabet soup with us. I don't know that it tells us a ton about the future of the party.

This is an incredibly Democratic district. Nina Turner is incredibly well-known. Chantel Brown is well-known, although not as well-known. Who wins matters somewhat just because of the narrow margins in the House, right? Who wins the primary doesn't matter in terms of who wins the general. A Democrat's going to win the general. We should just put that out there. It's either going to be Nina Turner or Chantel Brown.

Republicans are not going to win this district, so that part's good. But you're right. It matters in Congress a lot, whether you have another member of the squad who could make life difficult for Nancy Pelosi, or whether you have someone who would presumably be a little more favorable to what leadership does. I mean, to date, and it's obviously only been six months or whatever it is, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, the squad, Jamal Bowman, Mondaire Jones, sort of this new ascendant wing of young progressives, you know, have used leverage they have, you know, both publicly and privately, but have worked constructively. They are not the Freedom Caucus, right? They are not sinking bills to make a point. That, I mean, that can obviously change. And I think one of the

reasons why that hasn't happened is, part is what's the stuff that's coming from the Senate with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren working with the Biden administration. They're not being forced to swallow these incredibly centrist bills. They're not being put in a position of no deal, no climate yet, right? But when you, every person, you know, given Chantel Brown's record and Congressman Clyburn's support of her, the assumption would be that if she were to come to Congress, she would be someone who would be more part of the leadership establishment than, you know, Turner would be. And so that's where I think it matters some. Is this ultimate consequence? Does it tell us anything about the direction of the Democratic Party? That I'm not so sure about. But it could matter in a closely divided Congress,

which is why I think Congressman Clyburn has, you know, he has no reason to get involved here. Or for the CBC to endorse in a race between two black candidates in a Democratic primary. It's, you know, that is, that's what speaks to the consequence of the significance of this. I do find it interesting that both candidates seem to be downplaying their ideology and talking more about their stance on issues, which of course is, you know, it says something about your ideology, but they're not necessarily talking about I'm a progressive, I'm a moderate. It's more, you know, Nina Turner saying I'm from outside the establishment. She's not. Chantel Brown is saying I'm not a bomb thrower. I don't care about headlines as much. I care about getting stuff done. So they are trying to and they're and they're also leaning on their relationships in the district and who they know and how they've been there for voters, even more

so than making it. They're trying not to make it as much of a proxy battle over ideology. The two candidates, which I think does say something about what it's like to actually run a race as opposed to analyze a race, you know, sitting in the cheap seats. I mean, we've seen this throughout the Democratic primaries in the Trump era. Outside of the presidential primaries, a lot of sort of the questions around moderation or progressivism is not necessarily ideological. It's attitudinal. Yes. Right? Where you are, you know, like take Governor Northam in his 2017 race.

He very moderate attitudinally, like he talks about bipartisan. I mean, Joe Biden is the perfect example of that. Right. You know, certainly from a policy perspective, more moderate than a lot of other people running, but quite progressive. But his moderation is as much in his language and sort of his structural reform stuff than it is in particular in policies. Yeah. And it's interesting with Nina Turner, too, because I've seen her at a Bernie Sanders rally in the primary and she is an electrifying speaker. But attitudinally in the way that she's talking in this race is a little different than when she was at a Bernie Sanders rally, because she knows she wants to win the race. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, voters here in California will soon decide whether or not to recall Gavin Newsom as governor and replace him with one of the many extremely Trumpy Republicans who've made it on the ballot, like right-wing radio host and current GOP frontrunner Larry Elder,

or reality TV star Caitlyn Jenner. But that's impossible, you say. How can a Democrat lose California? Well, here's how. The recall ballot will have only two questions on it. One, should Gavin Newsom be recalled? And two, which candidate should replace him? If a simple majority says yes to the first question, the Republican with the most votes becomes governor. That's how a recall works. It is incredibly fucked up. And here is Wednesday's poll from UC Berkeley in the LA Times. Support for recalling Newsom stands at 47 percent, with 50 percent opposed, just shy of the margin of error. Even though Democratic voters have a 22 point registration advantage over Republicans in

California, in this poll, 90 percent of Republicans expressed a high level of interest in the recall, while just 58% of Democrats and 53% of independents were interested in the race. Dan, how real is the threat that California may soon be governed by a Trump Republican? Are you ready to move? Are we getting ready to move back east? What's going on? I've been doing some Zillow searches of Minneapolis. That's probably a mistake. I don't even know where we should move to. We east? What's going on? I've been doing some Zillow searches of Minneapolis. That's probably a mistake. I don't even know where we should move to. We're kind of scurred.

Maybe Georgia. I don't know. I don't know. Hawaii. We're going west. Definitely you want to move to an island during a period of rapidly accelerating climate change. That's smart. There are reasons to be skeptical of this poll,

and I say that because it's a poll. Right. Of course. As we just said, we don't believe polls anymore, so that's fine. But it's something. There's been a couple now. You look at averages.

There's been a couple now that have been, showed it a little closer than you would think with a 22-point voter registration. I think that's what we can say confidently. What is notable about this poll is the gap between likely voters and registered voters. Likely voters, it's very close. Registered voters, less so. And usually when you see a gap that large with a likely voter screen, it usually means that something is not right. But it doesn't matter. If I was working on the Newsom recall,

I would think this is the greatest news ever. I would not unskew this poll. I would not try to tell everyone it's fine to worry about. I would fucking run ads with it. I would call everyone about it. Like what he needs is urgency, right? Obviously the people who want to get rid of Gavin Newsom are much more fired up than the people who want to keep them, right? It's changed our status quo. And so what is going to keep people from participating? A sense that it's totally fine. So, and it's not totally fine. Like, yes, he's favored. Yes, it's California. Yes, a lot is very different from when Gray Davis lost in the earlier part of the century. But this is really hard. He could lose. And if there's low turnout, we could end up with Larry Elder as governor. And that is bad. And so, yeah, like, that is not a good thing to happen. And so,

you know, I hope that everyone in Democratic politics and every Democratic voter who's going to have a ballot mailed to your house, we're going to make it so easy for you to do this is becomes concerned enough to actually get involved. Because if not, it is well within the realm of possibility that a Democratic governor could lose a low turnout recall in the state. Yeah, absolutely. And look, I was talking to some Newsom advisors and they're, you know, internally sort of their thought process is in all of their internal polls, like it's showing that almost no one is movable. There are no persuadable voters here. Like everyone is locked in. And this is literally all about turnout. Right. Because as this poll showed, something like, you know, 70 to 80 to 90 percent of Republicans in this state, even though they don't make up a large portion of voters, are going to turn out.

And the question is, look, if Democrats turn out and by turnout, like you just said, it just means mail your fucking ballot that comes to your house, then Newsom wins easily. But if Democrats don't turn out, if you get like, you know, what, 58 percent interested, 57, then or, you know, non-party affiliated voters, which make up a big margin as well in the state or big population as well. Yeah. Newsom could be in real trouble. And what does that mean? Like, you don't have to like Gavin Newsom or not. Like, it doesn't matter what you think about Gavin Newsom. If Larry Elder or any one of these Republicans becomes governor of California, that is repealing the minimum wage. That is, some of them want to microchip undocumented immigrants. Okay? With a vaccine? No, not even with a vaccine.

Different microchip. Restrict access to abortion in California. All right? This is what happens with a Republican governor. One of the reasons they started the recall petition in the first place was over gun rights. They want to put more guns in people's hands. An environmental group was doing an event about the recall the other day, and they said, vote no or there's going to be an oil derrick next to your house, because they've been fucking drilling for oil on the coast of California. Like,

this is a fucking nightmare. And so there's going to be a lot of focus, and I'm sure the media is going to focus on Gavin Newsom as governor and his record and what he's done. And is it this scandal that doesn't fucking matter what you care about, what you think about Gavin Newsom. You have to vote no on the recall. If you don't want fucking California to slide into the ocean, you know, and to be run by a Trumpy Republican, that's the threat here. And I do think one of the groups of voters that, that, that I think they're concerned about are like 25 to 35 year old progressives that live in urban areas, suburban areas who may not pay as much attention

to the news, who may not be as engaged. Like everyone who's listening to this podcast, especially I know we have a lot of listeners in California, like you're probably going to vote, right? Because you're listening to Pod Save America and you're very engaged,

but like go out and you got to tell your friends, your family, you got to remind people to vote. Vote by mail starts on August 16th. So a ballot will be mailed to your fucking house and you can start voting. You can start mailing them in on August 16th. And then, um, for people who somehow don't do that for some reason, in-person voting is September 14th on election day. Um, if you're not sure if you're registered to vote, if you're not sure

you're going to get a ballot in the mail, you can go to votesaveamerica.com, find out if you're registered, request a ballot. But it's incredibly important here, incredibly important. And the message from the Newsom campaign is vote no on the first question and leave the second question blank. Yes. That is what they are saying. Yeah.

And that is important. Because when Gray Davis was up in 2003, I guess that was, there was a slightly different strategy. The lieutenant governor at Cruz Bustamante, a Democrat, was on the ballot as a stalking whore. So if you voted yes, you could vote for Cruz Bustamante. There is no – the only Democrat on the ballot is a YouTube star. I mean, I'm probably too old to know who is. But just vote no. And here's the thing. As you point out, I think Gavin Newsom has done a pretty darn good job as our

governor on a lot of things and had a very difficult situation. But if you are a Democrat, you're a progressive, or some reason you're mad at Gavin Newsom, there is an election next year. Yeah, we forgot about that. It's one year away. He is up for reelection next year. We are just wasting a giant fucking ton of money when people could just have the opportunity to vote him out next year. And if there was a primary and you think there's a better Democrat, then find a candidate in a primary against him next year if that were to happen. But we cannot let this happen. Like, this is incredibly important.

Get your ballot. Go to Voting for America. Vote no. We can move on and have another election next year. Also, this is, you know, this has implications for the 2022 midterms, right? Because we know that one of the threats in the midterms is voter apathy on our side, that Democrats aren't going to turn out. And I think that if we can prove here in California that, yeah, Democrats are going to turn out

and we're still going to have high turnout rates, just like we did in the Trump era, to make sure that Gavin Newsom isn't recalled, then it's going to be a good sign for the midterms. If on the other hand, we couldn't even turn out the democratic base in California for this race, I think it's going to pretend some pretty, uh, pretty bad prospects for the, for the midterm races. One more important thing to, uh, Diane Feinstein center from California, pretty fucking old. Um, do you want, uh, do youinstein, Senator from California, pretty fucking old. Do you want a Republican Governor Larry Elder to potentially replace her in the Senate, and then we also lose the Senate majority as well as the governorship of California?

Probably not, right? I mean, that is a... Didn't think of that nightmare scenario, did you? That was a very Dan Pfeiffer glass half-empty thing to say. Yeah, you know what that is? It's a Dan Pfeiffer inside thought that I would not have shared outside, but kudos to you. I'm sorry. It's the elephant in the room.

Let's just talk about it. All right. Proceed ahead. It's something to think about. She's quite old. That's all I'm saying. We have seen this kind of stuff happen before. I wish her all the best.

I hope she's there for a while. You've got to be careful. You wish her all the best. I hope she's there for, just, you know, you got to be careful. You got to be careful. All right, on that note, again, it's votesaveamerica.com. Find out if you registered. Vote no on the recall.

Tell your friends. Tell your family. Okay, Dan, I think that's all we've got for today. Let's end on a high note. Thanks to Marcel and Nunez Smith for joining us today. Everyone have a great weekend.

VoteTaveAmerica.com. Vote no on the recall. And we'll talk to you next week. Bye, everyone. Hot Tave America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Flavia Casas. Our associate producers are Jazzy Marine and Olivia Martinez.

It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou, Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, Yale Freed, and Narmel Konian, who film and share our episodes as videos every week.