Pod Save America - “America’s grief vs. Trump’s grievances.”

Episode Date: August 8, 2019

The President lashed out at multiple politicians and media figures while visiting mass shooting victims in Dayton and El Paso, Democrats in Congress make a renewed push for gun safety, and a number of House Republicans are heading for the exits before 2020. Then the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer talks to Dan about Fox News.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Later in the pod, Dan's conversation with the New Yorker's Jane Mayer about America's cancer, Fox News. But first, we're going to talk about the president's big day of national healing, the politics of gun reform, and what a recent wave of House retirements tells us about 2020. A few quick housekeeping notes. On a packed episode of Pod Save the World this week, Tommy and Ben talked about right-wing domestic terrorists with former counterterrorism director Nick Rasmussen. They also covered the protests in Hong Kong, what's happening with India and Kashmir,

and why Lindsay Lohan is hanging out with the Saudi crown prince. Lindsay Lohan and the crown prince. Very cool. Very cool. Seems sketchy. Also, I missed that headline. Also a reminder that our Los Angeles Pod Save America live show is taking place at The Greek on August 17th.

Wow, that's next Saturday. With performances from Maggie Rogers, Amanda Seale's best host, and Jim James. Our co-host will be Jamel Hill. Proceeds from the show will be donated to organizations at the forefront of the fight to protect the vote across America. So grab your tickets at crooked.com slash the Greek. All right, let's get to the news. Just a few days after a mass shooting and the worst terrorist attack against the Latino community

in modern American history, Donald Trump spent Wednesday lashing out at the following people between visits with the victims and their families in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas. Beto O'Rourke, Joe Biden, Sherrod Brown, Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Joaquin Castro, Julian Castro, the Democrats, Fox News' Shep Smith, CNN, and the New York Times, which briefly ran a headline on Monday that said, Trump urges unity versus racism. A Times story also reported that when Trump's campaign was asked whether he'd stop referring to Hispanic immigration as an invasion, a description used by the white nationalist terrorists who murdered 22 people in El Paso, a senior advisor for the Trump campaign had a one word answer. No. So Dan, it is by now completely unsurprising

that Donald Trump acts like a narcissistic sociopath during times of national tragedy. And yet somehow it's still always worse than you imagine it will be, at least for me. What was your reaction watching all of this unfold yesterday? I mean, it was really that it's like I know we are not supposed to be surprised or shocked by anything Trump does, that he is the worst person in America, and we all know this. But even still, this week was disgusting. Just absolutely disgusting that he could go to those communities, walk through those hospitals, meet with the people who were shot and injured and the family members of the people who were killed, walk out of there, and the entire time think that the true victim of the day was Donald Trump, that he just is so, he has just no capacity for compassion or empathy or even have an emotional connection with another human. There was this video that came out today of his discussion in El Paso where he applauds the

medical staff, which is very nice and he should do, and immediately pivots to how big his rally crowd was and attacking Better Works rally crowd from their trip to El Paso a few months ago. It is just mind-boggling what a horrible human being he is i mean it's just it really is and i hope it never ceases to shock us when we see it yeah like i i don't just hope to never have a president or any kind of leader in this country like this i hope to never know a human being like this i mean it's just it is on the most human level, it is revolting to watch that. Like, I don't know. You're right.

Like, I don't know how any human being seeing that kind of tragedy, seeing that kind of grief up close in person in two different cities could make the entire day about themselves. I mean, it was about, it was grievance, you know, all the, the country is grieving. And for Trump, it was all about grievance. it was about it was grievance you know all the the country is grieving and for trump it was all about grievance that was it was the whole thing everything he was a victim he wasn't getting enough praise the white house releases this fucking video of him in the hospitals and the music looked like i don't know it sounded like the fucking intro to like an NFL game. It was the music was insane. And all of the images are people taking pictures of Donald Trump and shaking his hand. There are no pictures of anything. It wasn't it wasn't like people get hugging each other and all the kind of things you'd you'd imagine to see in a video like that. It was all just people taking pictures of Trump and smiling at him and shaking his hand. That was the video. I mean, there are legitimate questions about the etiquette

and appropriateness of doing a video about a thing like this, but there is a video that is about the law enforcement officers who saved people's lives and the other heroes who were in the Walmart in El Paso or in Dayton who saved people's lives or a story of a community coming together to heal and recover from something like this. Instead, it is just a video about how popular Trump is, which also makes it fake news because he's not very popular. I mean, it's just, but it's like, this is not just Trump. There are people that we pay, the American taxpayer paid for that fucking video. There are people in the White House who decided that was right then and there. So it's not just that we have this irrational narcissist with a Twitter account. This is the function of the

White House is to serve this massively insecure, empty shell of a human being. Yeah. And look, I mean, it's not just trump in that you know dan scavino fucking you know his social media director that is responsible for half these tweets um was tweeting yesterday he was treated like a rock star in the hospital he's visiting people who are you know were wounded in a mass shooting or victims of a terrorist attack and the white house and Kellyanne Conway was basically saying the same thing, too. He's treated like a rock star. People loved him. And then this unbelievably just awful thing happens where he in Dayton, he's with the mayor

of Dayton. He's with Sherrod Brown. They tore the hospital. Sherrod Brown and Mayor Whaley come out and they hold a press conference. Sherrod actually says, you know, Trump, he did the right thing. He comforted people. Melania comforted people. They both did the right thing. It was good. And then said, you know, I did push him on gun control and said that, you know, we should take these weapons out of people's hands.

And Trump, I guess, sees that part on CNN and then just goes crazy on Twitter and on television saying that, and so does his staff, by the way, saying Sherrod Brown's a liar, failed presidential candidate, blah, blah, blah. And just completely lies about the fact that Sherrod Brown actually said he did a good job in the hospital. I don't know, man. It's bad. It's really bad. It's really, really bad. And it gets worse. Like he is, he is actively becoming a worse president every single day, which is the opposite of the way

they should go. Yeah. And look, and this whole thing was not only predictable, but predicted by many people from across the political spectrum. George Conway, conservative Republican lawyer George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway, a couple days before Trump did these visits, had this Twitter thread where he's like, you know how this is going to go. Donald Trump's going to give a speech on Monday that's some sober speech on a teleprompter

and everyone's going to pat him on the back for it. But he's not going to get enough love for the speech because he won't make any policy changes. He won't talk about gun control. He's still a racist. So because then the coverage won't reflect that everyone loves him, he will get pissed at the coverage. And then he will start lashing out at everyone within a couple of days. And sure enough, that's exactly what happened. And it's not like George Conway is some fucking genius.

Anyone could have seen this coming, because this is who the man is, and he will never change. It's so fucking gross. So most of Trump's anger yesterday was, you know, per usual about Trump not getting enough praise. But I do want to talk about how one of Trump's tweets yesterday quoted reports that the Dayton shooter had a history of supporting political figures like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Antifa, which, you know, even that report from a right wing outlet is fairly exaggerated.

You know, Trump later repeated this to reporters and then answered a question about whether the growing threat of white nationalism concerns him like this. then answered a question about whether the growing threat of white nationalism concerns him like this quote i am concerned about the rise of any group of hate whether it's white supremacy whether it's any other kind of supremacy whether it's antifa whether it's any group of hate i am concerned about it dan what does that remind you of john there are very fine people on both sides i mean so and you know the broader question here, what is Trump and the White House and Republican pundits and the conservative media all trying to accomplish by talking about who the Dayton shooter may have voted for? Muddy the waters. This is the most classic Trump political technique. Trump knows he's incapable of convincing people that he is not

shitty, but he also knows he's very capable of convincing people that he is not shitty, but he also knows he's very capable of convincing people that everyone else is also shitty. And so this is exactly what 2016 was about. Yeah, I'm corrupt, but check out the Clinton Foundation. Yeah, I'm a liar, but check out this thing Hillary Clinton claimed. And just over and over again, you just make everyone feel so cynical and terrible that they tune out and stop caring. And that's exactly what we're doing here. And it's based on his really intuitive understanding of how the media works, which is he knows that their default position is both sides. So if he can give an argument for the other side, that it will be reported either as fact or as Trump said X. So it becomes Trump said, she said, or Trump said, he said, or whatever else. And he's trying to draw a false

equivalency here because these are fundamentally different things. What the El Paso shooter did, and we know what the El Paso shooter was thinking because the El Paso shooter posted a manifesto that echoes the message of the Trump campaign, that echoes the message of Fox News. And who knows about these reports, but the Dayton shooter was not inspired by the rhetoric of Elizabeth Warren. Let me check my notes on what Elizabeth Warren's rhetoric is, oh, yes, serious, wonky policy based conversation about fixing the American economy, which does not seem to be at the at the heart of what led to the tragedy in Dayton. Yeah, also, there's plenty of evidence so far that the Dayton shooter was a misogynist. He had a

kill list and a rape list in high school. I mean, he was like a very troubled young man. And that's what the evidence is. There's so far, and you know, this may change, but there's so far zero evidence that he was radicalized by a political ideology at all. But you know, you're right. I mean, I think the most important point here is that there is a larger media narrative about polarization in America and how both sides are extremely polarized. That does not recognize that there's asymmetric polarization in this country, that Republicans are far more extreme and polarized than Democrats are. And the Republican Party as a whole is far more extreme and polarized than the Democratic Party is or the left. is far more extreme and polarized than the Democratic Party is or the left.

And so but because there's this narrative that exists in the media, it is easy for Trump and Republican pundits and people on Fox to feed. I mean, if you watch Fox over the last couple of days, you know, what are they talking about? They'll talk about Antifa. They'll talk about this Dayton shooter thing. They'll talk about protesters outside of Mitch McConnell's house. They'll basically Fox over the last couple of days has been about how Fox and conservatives and Donald Trump are victims. Right. They are the real victims here because for some weird reason, they're all being accused of racism. They're all being accused of causing this.

Gee, I wonder why. Look at the fucking manifesto that the el paso uh terrorist wrote it is language directly pulled from donald trump from tucker carlson from laura ingram from fox news directly um something that flew under the radar this week um caesar sayoc the pipe bomber from october of 2018 who tried to assassinate barack obama hill and Bill Clinton, other Democratic leaders by attempting to mail them pipe bombs, was sentenced. And his defense, his defense in his case, was that Donald Trump inspired him to do this. What are we doing here?

There is no fucking equivalence. Donald Trump has an enemies list. He is public about it. He talks about it all the time. This is the second time in recent memory where someone has taken it upon themselves to act on that enemies list. And it is – and I just want to address the Fox News part of this, and I talk about this with Jane in our conversation. It'll be at the end of this pod. But white nationalism is the message of Fox News. It's not just the message of Tucker Carlson and

Laura Ingraham. It is the message of Fox and Friends. It's the message of The Five and all the other shitty shows on that shitty network. The entire point, and this has been the point since Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, is that white people are under assault from non-white people. That is immigrants taking your jobs. That is African-Americans living in cities who are taking your taxpayer dollars. It is Muslims who are coming here to kill you. It is MS-13 coming here to kill you. It's armies of migrants invading America. That is their message. They've created a climate of hate in this country that is amplified by Trump news, and it is a toxic stew. there has been zero fucking introspection from anyone on the right, other than a random state senator

in Nebraska, who was asked to leave the party for that reason, about how their rhetoric has contributed to a climate of hate in a country where you can buy a fucking assault weapon in a store. And that, like would you would just hope that someone would look at what they are saying, look at what they are doing and wondering if they should stop. But they aren't. They are incapable of that. It is deeply dangerous and deeply disturbing. And it is a problem that will persist long after we get Trump out of the White House. Right. Well, I mean, look, if you want to completely just take the politics out of this the fbi uh chris ray the fbi director says that domestic terrorism is our number one threat right

now and um that most of the cases of domestic terrorism uh over the last couple years have been uh you know have involved white supremacistsists. CNN reported last night that the White House rejected efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to make combating domestic terrorism like the threat from white supremacists a greater priority. Instead, the White House proposed that their national counterterrorism strategy focus on radical Islamists and foreign drug dealers, because that would please the president. That's what they said back to the Department of Homeland Security and the career officials at the Department of Homeland Security. And by the way, some of the political appointees, Trump political appointees, that we had the

national security and law enforcement apparatus of this country saying that this is a threat to the security of this country. Domestic terrorists, white supremacists is a growing threat in this country. And the Trump White House said no. Trump likes to have a rhetoric to be about. Because Donald Trump is a racist. And it would upset Trump to read that. He would think you were targeting him in this space.

Right, because he's a racist. And we talked about this a few months ago, but it's the same thing when the Department of Homeland Security was trying to have a high-level White House meeting about stopping Russian interference in the election. And the White House said no, because it would upset Trump. So the national security strategy in this country to protect Americans from domestic terrorism and foreign interference in our elections is being hampered out of fear of a temper tantrum from the commander-in-chief. We treat my one-year-old daughter more like an adult than the U.S. government treats the president of the United States. Her responsibilities are less, so the consequences

are smaller. Yeah. And I mean, I just think it's an important point because, you know, we focus so much day to day on Trump's rhetoric and the tweets and we can label them racist or not racist or narcissistic or not or whatever. But it's not just his words that are a problem here, though they are. It is the policies that flow from both his words and his deeply broken personality because he is at the top of the federal government. And so there are policy consequences from this that are happening every single day that often fly under the radar because we're just focused on how crazy he is from day to day. And it's really dangerous. It's like, I think people like to comfort themselves with this idea that there are a

bunch of like Jim Mattis types in the government who just ignore Trump's tweets and do the right thing anyway. And that's not right. When the president says something where he says it in a executive order or a tweet, that becomes policy United States. And so these Twitter rants from the president are driving the policy in the United States with great consequences for people's lives and safety. Yeah. And so obviously, I would say that the policy consequences are the most important thing to focus on here. But just going back to know, I wasn't just angry watching this. Like, I was pretty sad. And, you know, because, like, I think in times of national tragedy, you just you want a president to act like a president, even if you didn't vote for that president. And, you know, you and I watched Obama do this way too many times in the White House.

White House. But I also think, you know, that's maybe one part of the job, maybe the only part of the job that even a president like George W. Bush did pretty well after a national tragedy. Do you think this ability for a president to console and empathize is important? Or is this just more optics bullshit that we're comforting ourselves or not comforting ourselves with? I think it is important. I think there are times, or there were times, I would say, when people would put politics aside, where you really would, you want the president to have what our friend David Axelrod would call the pastoral role of the presidency, to empathize with what has happened and let you know when your community is hurting, whether it's from a shooting or a hurricane or some other disaster, that the president and your government has your back and that the president would take the time out of their busy

day to go to your community and grieve with you and console you and support you. And, you know, we went with President Obama to, you know, particularly after natural disasters and tornadoes and things like that, to some of the reddest parts of the country. And we went with President Obama to, particularly after natural disasters and tornadoes and things like that, to some of the reddest parts of the country. And there are people, most of the people he saw did not vote for him in 2008, did not vote for him in 2012, would never vote for him. But they were appreciative that he was there. His presence meant something. And I really worry that Trump, in the many ways in which he has ripped at the moral fabric of this country, has made it so that that will never be the same again. That because he is so toxic and so terrible, the other side will feel obligated to respond to a normal president who's

a Democrat in the abnormal ways in which we've been forced to respond to Trump. And I think it is sad that it will never be the same. And I would say you are correct that George Bush did that well, but he also contributed to this problem by taking the moment of national unity after 9-11, and then using it to jam the country into a war of choice in the country that did not invade us and that started us down this path and trump is finishing the job yeah no he uh it is not to say that george w bush wasn't uh in the running for the worst president we've ever had yeah i'm not trying to make you i'm not trying to make you a bush supporter but i just like you were right i realized what's coming after i said that believe me um but look no i

think george w bush going to a mosque after 9 11 you know like there are these moments where you're like this fucking guy and this was of course before iraq once iraq happens you're like no fuck him he's done um but there are moments before iraq where you're like i did not vote for this guy i don't like this guy i hate most of the things he stands for but good for him at least in this moment um not making it worse and not making it divisive and i think you're right that what's happening what happened this week what happens every time there's a national tragedy now i think will revert the way that trump has acted and you you know, not just Trump, but Fox News, because they speak for the or they influence the Trump's base, will reverberate for a long time now. And I think the future presidents, Democratic presidents especially, are going to have to sort of go out of the way to be to, you know, try to find that decency and compassion during times of tragedy.

And look, and I remember, you know, working with Obama on some of these speeches after a tragedy or shooting. And, you know, there were times, especially towards the end when he would, you know, push for gun control. And, you know republicans would criticize him for fucking politicizing the moment but i remember like we took extra care that even when we were pushing for gun control he'd never think of attacking the republican party attacking republican politicians by name lashing out at people calling them fucking failed presidential candidates and all the other bullshit, you know, as he was meeting with grieving families or speaking at memorial services.

I mean, that's insane to even think about. And the reason is, you know, and there were times after some of those massacres where we were all very, very pissed at the Republican Party. And we said, this is ridiculous that gun control has been held up, even though it's a 90% issue for background checks or whatever but we did we we all controlled ourselves the president controlled himself because this is a moment that calls for a politician to sort of

rise above yes fight hard for the policy push hard for the policy point out who's blocking it but just yelling about politicians, attacking them personally. What the fuck? But at least if you're going to yell, yell about a policy issue. Be mad that they're opposing gun control. Don't be mad because they said something that you thought was mean. Right? And this isn't – it's not even just like – it's just – I want to – you've made this point.

We've made it a thousand times. It has to be – it should be made over and over again. This is not unacceptable conduct for a president. This is unacceptable conduct for a human being. If you saw your dentist act like this, you would not let him put his hands in your mouth. And so the idea, like it's just so,

it is so fucking gross and so infuriating and so sad. It is fucking sad that this is what we are living in. We should spend a few minutes on how the media has handled their coverage of Trump since the attacks. You know, there was a 48 hour Twitter debate about whether people should cancel their New York Times subscriptions over that shockingly terrible headline, Trump urges unity versus racism. But it wasn't just that Times headline that pissed people off. You know, Politico had a story this week that you were quoted in about how liberal frustration with the way the media covers Trump has boiled over a sentiment that was expressed most eloquently

by Beto O'Rourke when he said, members of the press, what the fuck? Dan, what did you think of the Times headline fiasco? And why do you think in general, the media keeps doing this shit? I mean, I was very mad about the Times headline as everyone else was. But the anger ultimately was not really about the headline of the first edition. It was the boiling over of a larger frustration with the media writ large, and the Times more specifically. And some of that frustration is unfair and puts on the Times unfair expectations of how accountability should be delivered to Trump in this era. Some of it is very fair. And I read basically the Times did something that's very unusual for the Times, which is they were transparent about their decision-making process this time.

Dean McKay, the editor of the Times, who is a very smart and accomplished guy, did a number of interviews. He did one with the Atlantic's Lizzie O'Leary that I thought was really fascinating. He walked through how they ended up with that headline. It sounds pretty clearly that it was human error.

It was people making a decision too fast without enough supervision, and they made a mistake and they fixed it. And I don't think there was some meeting where the Times decided how to kiss up to Trump, and this is what they came up with. And you and I know from working in government that when you were debating between the reasons for a problem being either incompetence or conspiracy, it's almost always incompetence. And I think that's what happened here. But there was something in that interview that was really interesting and I think spoke to what Beto talked about,

which is Dean went well out of his way in there to say that this is not an extraordinary time, that we in America have been here before. We have had leaders like Trump before. We've had tough times before. And that quote explains everything about the Times editorial decision-making process of the last several years, which is not to say they haven't done great journalism. They have great journalists. They are the gold standard of journalism in America. And I'm a subscriber. I will remain a subscriber. I think it is great. But that, I think, is where they are wrong. Because you act one way if you think this is one interlude in American history. You act a different way if you think we are at a crossroads between what we

were and something else that is much worse. And that is where the misalignment between the Times and the readers is, because people are scared shitless. They think that the country is headed in a very bad direction and that Trump is dangerous. If you think Trump is just going to go away either in 2021 or sometime after that, and then life will go back to normal, then you react the way the Times is reacting. And I think that is, I disagree with their assessment, and therefore, I disagree with their approach from that moment, from that point. Well, and I think that also connects with something else Dean McKay said that I thought you were going to mention, which is, he's like, you know, we're not going to he said something like we're not going to be the opposition party to Trump.

We're not going to play the opposition Trump. We don't see that as our role. And it's sort of this this thought among and you hear this a lot from members of the media where they're like, you know, we're not on. We're not Democrats. Right. Like we're we're not members of your party. We can't win this election for you. And they think, they sort of sometimes dismiss criticism about their coverage of Trump as partisan. Well, I don't have to really listen to this criticism because it's coming from Democrats. And obviously, they have a political interest in Trump losing and Trump looking bad. So therefore, I must not be making a mistake because the criticism I'm getting is just motivated by partisanship. And I think that belief also flows from the belief that you were talking about, which is this isn't an extraordinary time. Because if this was an extraordinary time and Trump's presidency does represent something much different and worse than we've seen in the past, then, you know, it's not about just pure

partisanship. And by the way, there's plenty of evidence that it isn't, you know, like how many more Republican strategists, Republican pundits, Republican publications on the fringe, you know, you've got the never Trump Republicans, all the other people, you've got all of these people who voted for Republican, voted Republicans all their lives. You know, there've got the never-Trump Republicans, all the other people. You've got all of these people who voted for Republicans, voted Republicans all their lives. You know, there's a story this week that Orange County, California, for the first time in history, has more Democrats than registered Republicans. All of these people are speaking out against Trump, leaving the party, changing the way they vote. You're not seeing the same kind of thing on the Democratic side at all. Clearly, there is something going on. There is a rejection to Trump that cuts across ideologies, that cuts across parties, that cuts

across institutions. And it does seem like the media itself, or at least some legacy media, has had trouble recognizing this. Or at least they recognize it, but they still feel like they have to prize balance over everything else, even over the reality of what's going on. And striking balance is so important to them that even as Trump represents something more extreme and dangerous than ever, they still have to give both sides the same weight. Yeah, there is a, I mean, there is just this fundamental problem in journalism where too often balance is valued over accuracy. And so that's one problem.

The second problem, I think, to your point, is that there is this – I think almost in some ways they have become uncomfortably numb to what is happening. And it's just whether it's just like there's this pull to try to treat Trump as normal as possible, right? Just because it must be exhausting to cover this extraordinary event on a daily basis, to be as scared as most Americans are. And then the third element of this is, and this goes to sort of the quote I highlighted from Dean McKay, is I remember in the first Obama term, we had a cabinet secretary who was sort of an old Washington hand. And he had done a handful of things that seemed not entirely in Barack Obama's interest. And I remember someone on our staff who had also been around Washington a while saying to me, so-and-so is here before Obama, and they're going to be here after Obama. And that's how they make their decisions. And I sometimes think

a lot of the press, not all of the press, and we should be very clear, there are some great journals and mapping, a lot of it at the Times and other places, but there is a sort of view that they are not as affected by the policies of Trump other than his anti-press rhetoric. And therefore, they just got to get through this moment without changing who they are or changing what they have been or adjusting their strategies to reflect the new moment we are in. 40% of the country, at least 40% of the country is with this guy. And so to the extent that we, you know, honestly represent just how awful and extreme he is, we are doing so knowing that like half of our, half of the country, or at least almost half the country is with this guy. And if so, half the country is with this guy, then he is normalized by a lot of American citizens. And so I think it's like not just this fear of Trump

and what like Republican pundits will say about you, but voters or the American people. So the Times, I saw this Peter Baker from the Times tweets out the other day, that Trump, that I think there's like 20, I might have the number wrong, but something like 21 million uh digital subscribers the New York Times now I would love to know what percentage of those subscribers are Trump voters yeah it ain't 40 I'll tell you that no no I do not think think so. I would I would bet it's up 20.

Yeah. And look, I mean, look, your job as a journalist is also not to play to the audience that subscribes to your media publication. Right. Like we want journalists to just be accurate and tell the truth regardless of who's reading them. But I also think, look, I don't I don't expect journalists to be, you know, members of the Democratic Party to try to help us achieve, you know, purely partisan ends. Of course not. I don't I don't think that they are on our team. But there is a way to write about Trump and analyze Trump just using facts, not putting any partisan spin whatsoever, that more accurately represents what an awful human being and president he is than we currently see often. That's all I'm saying. You can do it without any partisan spin whatsoever, just the facts in front of your face. Do you have any views on the

subscription canceling debate? Yeah, I don't. I mean, I don't think you should cancel your subscription. I don't. I mean, I think, like, The Times does incredible journalism, even if you only like it for the opinion. And, you know, fucking Bret Stephens or whoever else everyone's yelling about makes you tear your hair out. There's fantastic opinion columnists at The Times. There's people who write for The Times that write some of the best journalism in the country and the world. And so I think that, you know, I'm never going to unsubscribe. My job is to read the news. And they produce really great news most of the time. They also drive me crazy. And I also, like, I have a broader point, which is when people piss you off,

I'd rather confront them and yell at them about it and try to get and persuade them to change things, which, by the way, the Times did change the headline after there was the outcry uh they didn't change it to something that was much better um but they changed it and so i i tend to think that that's the way to get people to change their behavior and i don't think you know a bunch of people on twitter canceling their subscriptions is going to make a dent at all in um sort of what the you know, it's not going to change the Times behavior in any way. Yeah, I agree with that. I'm a subscriber. I'm a proud subscriber. I have not and would not encourage people to cancel. I do understand why some people would do so. The part I hated about the debate was people raising a legitimate issue and then reporters,

not from the Times in this case, but from other places yelling at you and calling you stupid for wanting to change, to cancel your subscription, right? Like just yelling at the consumer is a terrible business strategy. And like I thought that was what made the debate terrible was the reaction from a lot of journalists. The reaction I did like were the people who said, if you cancel your Time subscription, subscribe to something else because we should support

journalists on whether it's your local paper or it's a progressive media outlet like The Nation or Mother Jones or their ones who are reader-supported in their entirety. That made sense. But the whole thing is like, per usual, we are having an angry heated debate about one of the least important parts of the problem. Yeah. I mean, just to sort of zoom out from this, do you think that this sort of frustration with the media in general is why sort of Beto's moment about the press sort of resonated online? I saw you in the Politico piece saying that for the first time in your career, it's good politics for Democrats to rail against the media, which I thought was a very interesting point. Yes, I think there is a growing frustration and anger within Democratic activists and Democratic voters about the role the media has played in the Trump era. And like we've said before, some of it is fair, some of it is unfair, but it is real. And it is like we are sitting here screaming about what is happening in this country.

Like we see this racist liar as a president, and then you have media outlets afraid to call the president a racist or a liar. And it has been bubbling. And when you raise your concerns, you get yelled at for them, right? That it is that you were wrong. There was very, it seems to be very little introspection. What was, I thought, useful about what happened with the Times headlines, the Times explained what happened, the Times fired their public editor. We still, they don't answer questions about what they did right or did wrong.

I am, I've been told by many people working at the Times that they spent a lot of time learning lessons from 2016 and have tried to apply those to now. But no one knows that because the Times demands transparency of everyone but themselves. And this is, I think, true of a bunch of other media organizations. But I think there is a real, like, this is a growing problem. And I think media organizations would be remiss if they did not focus on. I'm not saying you have to change your behavior or become liberal or anything else, but your business has become primarily driven by Democratic voters. They're the ones subscribing. They're the ones watching to non-Fox News, non-right-wing propaganda media outlets. And if they're also angry at you, you're going to find yourself with no base, with no group of people. And Beto's comments, and also by Cory Booker and others who've expressed this, reflect that anger.

And that is a sea change from where things used to be. Yeah. And reflect, as you said, you could see it in Beto's frustration that we are in this, and the frustration, I'm sure, was directly related to the fact that the massacre happened in his hometown, that this is a different moment, that this is something unique and different and extreme, and that there is not a broad enough recognition of that, certainly among enough members of the media. The other thing that makes people really angry is that there is a lot of gendered, in racial stereotypes in political writing, right? It's a talk of electability, the focus on

white working class voters in the Midwest, as opposed to non voters of color or voters of color around the country. And like that, like there is there is a an elite white privilege problem with a lot of journals and not all of it, and that also drives it, which is why you see such frustration from the supporters of women candidates like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, who often are – you find these sexist tropes in writing about their candidates. Like are they likable enough? Are they electable enough? Are they too loud? That sort of stuff. That also came as a reaction

to how the 2016 election was covered. And that came through this week. You know, we said at the top of the pod that this was the worst terrorist attack on the Latino community in the United States and modern American history. And yet, the coverage or not enough coverage, I think the LA Times has done a really good job with this, but not enough of the coverage or not enough coverage, I think the LA Times has done a really good job with this, but not enough of the coverage has really reflected that aspect of the story. You know, there's been a lot about Trump. Has Trump behaved well? Has he not behaved well? We just talked about that. It's a lot of talk about guns, but there hasn't been a lot of focus on the fact that this was a terrorist attack against the Latino community.

It was a hate crime. And I think a lot of Latinos in this country are rightly angered by that, that that wasn't a prominent enough angle in the coverage. thing before we move on to guns um speaking of sort of beto's response to this how do you think the democratic candidates as a whole have been handling um this week do you think they've sort of risen to meet the moment and should this change how much should this change the race uh for the presidency i'm not going to get into will it or won't it, but how much should it change how they focus their time and attention? I think the Democratic candidates on the whole have risen to the moment. They have spoken out passionately and eloquently about the role of Trump's rhetoric and white nationalist political philosophy in what happened in El Paso. They have talked about the daily tragedy in this country because of the easy access to guns. And they have not hedged their bets.

They have not pulled their punches. They have been strong. You know, whether it was Elizabeth Warren and Beto O'Rourke calling Trump a white supremacist, whether it's the speech that Cory Booker gave in South Carolina yesterday, the speech that Joe Biden gave in Iowa, people have been strong and bold. And you haven't seen political calculation enter into this moment. Look, there are lots of things to love and lots of things to criticize about people in this field. But I think on the whole, this is a moment where I was very proud of our Democratic candidates.

I felt the same way to a person, every single one of them. And, you know, it's funny because I thought about how we all felt after the last debate among the Democrats and the stories were about sort of like Democratic infighting and are they attacking Barack Obama and all that bullshit. Democrats and the stories were about sort of like Democratic infighting and are they attacking Barack Obama and all that bullshit and you know sometimes I think it takes a moment like this and to and watching them all react to a moment like this that makes you think you know I'd be very proud for any one of them to become president instead of fucking Donald Trump and no matter what our differences are and what we may fight about over the next couple of months. And there will be even more fights as we get closer to the actual voting. Any single one of these Democratic candidates would be infinitely better than Donald Trump.

And the fate of the country, our democracy, and perhaps the world depends on one of them winning. It really does. And it really puts the intraparty fights that we have had in perspective, I think, because they are incredibly important. They will make a difference to millions of people's lives. And yet they are just all so much closer together on all of these issues than we are with the presidency that we're seeing right now. And I do think, and in terms of like whether it should change the race, you know, this is also goes back to sort of that last debate where everything seemed sort of small, like the argument seemed a little small, like everyone was going

back and forth. And, you know, there's been, you know, last time when Donald Trump, you know, tried to or said that those four congresswomen of color should go back where they came from, there were all these pundits getting very nervous about, oh, Donald Trump wants to put race and identity at the center of this race. Democrats shouldn't take the bait. We have to pivot to economic issues and health care and all the like. economic issues and healthcare and all the like. And of course, you and I know that economic issues and healthcare are an incredibly important part of the campaign. But it does seem like there is no choice for the Democratic candidates but to confront Trump's racism head on as a central part of this campaign. Right? I don't know. I mean, what do you think? I think you have to. I think, like, and we've said this before, you have to, we have a moral obligation to call it out because it is at the heart of everything that is happening.

It is why Americans were slaughtered at Walmart on a Saturday because of the color of their skin. Those things are all related, so you have to call it out. But I think you also have to explain how the impact of racism – how it fits into the larger political strategy and that this was revealed in perhaps the most stark way possible by the rich guy who owns SoulCycle who is hosting a fundraiser for Trump who has come under fire. And he said, basically, I'm going to boil down his remarks, but he vehemently opposes Trump's views on race, but likes his tax cuts, and therefore he will support him. And those two things are related. It is racial grievance for the purpose of tax cuts for the rich. And so I think you have to call out the racism and explain why Trump is dividing us, what he is trying to distract from, from his corruption, from his corporatist agenda, from wanting to take your health care away, cut your Medicare, etc. Because it is all of a piece and you can't do just one part of it.

You have to tell the broader story. Yeah, I agree I find myself drifting further to the camp where, you know, confronting his racism head on isn't just about doing it because you have to. And it's the morally right thing to do. And then you pivot and say he's distracting from all these other issues. that our coalition in this party is increasingly made up of younger people of color who are looking to this president and to them, his racism is a material issue. It is a life or death issue. And that if we want to, if we expect these people to come out and work hard and vote in this election, the Democratic candidates have to make sure that they are not only on the right side of this issue, but talking about it rather frequently and showing that they're passionate about it and showing that they care and showing that they

think it's actually an existential issue right now for this country. I think that's part and it's not it's not even like looking at polls to do this and like slicing and dicing the electorate. It's just it's stepping back from all this and almost just thinking to yourself is like in the most common sense way. Like, of course, this is what this election is about. You know that we have the most racist president we've ever had in the White House. And that racism is sort of flowing through all of his policies. Of course, that's what we're deciding on when we go to the polls in November of 2020.

It is the referendum on that. And I just don't like we can pretend we can run on when we go to the polls in November of 2020. It is the referendum on that. And I just don't, I'm like, we can pretend, we can run ads, and we can pivot, we can do all this other stuff, but I don't know how you avoid that that is the central issue in this election. Barack Obama would always make the point that it is never a good political strategy to avoid addressing the elephant in the room. Totally. And Trump's racism is the giant white elephant in the room in this 2020

election that's right that's exactly right all right so in the wake of these two mass shootings democrats are once again trying to pass gun safety measures and republicans are once again trying to stop them despite the fact that a clear majority of americans support gun safety measures, and Republicans are once again trying to stop them, despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans support gun safety measures. Actually, it was published a piece on Wednesday about focus groups conducted in Minnesota, where Romney Clinton voters and Obama Trump voters all expressed that they were ready for both a ban on assault weapons and a requirement for federal background checks on all gun purchases. According to a poll released this week by Politico and Morning Consult, a majority of all voters and a majority of Republican voters would support an assault

weapons ban. So it goes beyond a focus group. Dan, how have the politics around guns changed since Newtown or even Parkland? The popular sentiment behind these obvious common sense gun control proposals have not really changed. They remain incredibly popular. The one thing that has changed is it has taken a while for the gun safety movement to catch up to the NRA in terms of funding an organization. But I think they have done that with the work that the Giffords organization has done, Everytown, the incredible work that Moms Demand has done. We've always had, or at least since Newtown, popular sentiment on our side, but the organizational and activist energy was on the

side of the people who are on the side of the NRA. I think that has changed. And I'm not sure that all of the Democratic Party leadership has recognized that shift and that this is the moment to strike. Yeah, I mean, there's some interesting stats on the last election. Voters in 2018 favored stricter gun control by a margin of 22 percentage points, and those who did back Democrats by a margin of 76 to 22, according to exit polls. Gun policy ranked as the number four concern of voters and voters who cited it as their top issue voted for Democrats by a margin of 70 to 29 percent. So as sort of the coalition of both parties is changing, as Democrats sort of have more suburban voters, formerly Republican voters

who were in the suburbs who were slightly wealthier, formerly independent voters. Those voters, I think, care a lot more about gun control and are more favorable towards gun control and gun safety than has ever happened before. Does that seem right? Yeah, that seems right. And we have to campaign and act like it. Yeah. So why can't popular gun measures become law? Right.

Yeah. So why can't popular gun measures become law? Right. You have a vast majority of the American people, something like 90 percent want background checks, a clear majority want an assault weapons ban. And you have you know, there's some bipartisan support in Congress for this. Obviously not enough. But there's a probably a majority of House members. I think there's a majority of House members and a majority of Senate members, members of the Senate, who want some kind of gun control. Why ain't it happening, Dan? Because America is a democracy governed by anti-democratic institutions. Yeah. I think there is no better example of the sickness at the heart of our democracy than gun control. We literally can't stop people from buying weapons of war and shooting up Walmarts because even though that's what the public wants

because our democratic institutions are broken and they were broken by the Republican Party. Yeah. I mean, I'm obviously a broken record on this, but it comes back to the filibuster.

Yes. There is no world where we pass legislation on gun control significant gun control right like we may see in the coming weeks you know um these red flag laws you know which they passed in florida which are which are good which you know make sure that people who are um may commit violence that seem like they're a threat to commit violence make sure they don't have a gun which seems like fucking common sense, but you know, still doesn't happen everywhere. So you may see it like a red flag law. But when you're talking background checks, when you're talking assault weapons ban,

we will never see those never, as long as the filibuster is in place. We just won't. It's just we're not Democrats are not going to get 60 votes in the Senate in the foreseeable future. There are not enough races. There are not enough vulnerable senators. There are not enough states you can flip. Just look at the fucking map. Look at it in 20. Look at it in 22.

Look at it in 24. Look at it in 26. You can look at it every single one of those years. You cannot add up. You cannot count up these Democratic senators in states that we could win and add up to 60. You cannot do it. single one. And this is why we harp on this all the time. But if a candidate tells you they are for Medicare for all, they are for a Green New Deal, they are for gun control legislation, they are for naming a fucking post office, and they are also for keeping the filibuster, then they are selling you a bill of goods. They just are. You're not going to accomplish

anything of significance to right this country, to save the fucking planet without getting rid of the filibuster. I will support whoever our Democratic nominee is, for sure. I will give to them, campaign for them, vote for them, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But I am not supporting anyone in the primary who supports the filibuster. That is tying one hand behind your back before you even get to the White House. And it was interesting when I talked to Beto on Monday, you know, he had previously been open to getting rid of the filibuster. I think he said, yeah, that's something I really want to consider. And, you know, he did have some qualification.

I remember, you know, this was months ago in his answer. And when I talked to him Monday about assault weapons ban and gun control legislation, I said, would you push the Democrats in the Senate to eliminate the filibuster if you're president? He said, yes. It was not qualified. It was nothing else, just yes. And the only people that have been a clear yes on this are Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Rourke, Jay Inslee. And Pete Buttigieg is close. Is he close-ish?

Pete's very much like, yeah, it's got to go. We've got to change it. I think there was some small qualification, but he's pretty much in that category, too. But it's just the four of them, really. You know, I mean, I pushed Booker on this. He said he'd consider it. Kamala said she'd consider it. So that's good. But they're still in sort of the consider phase. You know, Biden, I think we're going to have real problems with. Sanders was interesting. Sanders has got a new thing where he's talking about using reconciliation, the budget process, where you only need 51 votes to pass all of his big ticket items. But he's not going to be able to pass gun control through budget reconciliation. So he's going to have to get rid of the filibuster, too. They all do. It's just that that's what you have to do. in all of the conversations about divides in the Democratic Party that the big divide in the party is not between liberals and moderates or the left and the center. I think it's between the people who believe that our democracy is in peril and are willing to take on the bold Democratic reforms

to address that and those who aren't. And Pete Buttigieg is a moderate candidate. Beto is more moderate than some on issues. Elizabeth Warren is a diet and the more progressive, and they believe that. And Bernie Sanders, as progressive as they come, has a different approach. Joe Biden, moderate, has a different approach. That is the dividing line that I am most interested in, because that is, to me, the difference between the people who get what is happening in this country and those who are still at least somewhat blind to the challenge we face. Yeah, or have been in the Senate for a little while. You know, I mean, those are the only one who's really escaped this.

But so Chuck Schumer on Wednesday said the Democrats were not going to settle for half measures. measures so Republicans can feel better and try to push the issue of gun violence off to the side and said that any red flag bill that comes to the floor must be accompanied by a vote in the House passed universal background checks legislation. Good for Chuck Schumer for saying that and making that a stand. Meanwhile, more than 200 House Democrats wrote to McConnell on Wednesday, pushing him to reconvene the Senate for an emergency session on guns. Is this a good strategy? Should Democrats be doing more? What do you think about how the Democrats are handling this in general? Not great. I think what Schumer said was right. I think the caravan that Tim Ryan and others are taking from Ohio to Kentucky is a great idea. I wish the Democrats, you guys really talked about this, I thought, really well on Monday, but is

like, we have to be a vessel for the righteous anger in this country. And that means recognizing it's an extraordinary moment and doing something extraordinary. And I think the Democrats should cancel the August recess, come back to Washington right now, and vote, repass these bills and send them to the Senate. I think Senate Democrats should be in Washington right now pushing McConnell to hold votes. Make a Republican stay in the Senate and knock down Unanima's consent request to take up these bills all August. People should head to Kentucky. And if you don't want to protest outside Mitch McConnell's house, protest out the McConnell Institute at Louisville.

Democratic senators should do that. Democratic members of Congress should do it. We have to draw attention to this. We have to push it. We have to put pressure on the Republicans. And the moment to're not going to accomplish it now, the work we do today to push this issue will make it easier for a Democratic president to do it in 2020. Being a vessel for righteous anger is probably the best advice I think you could give to the Democratic Party, and especially the Democratic Party in Congress. It really sort of sums up what they should be doing on almost every issue. It's, you know, it goes to impeachment, it goes to all this stuff. You're right that the best that they

can do is show that they're fighting, get caught trying, like we always said in the White House, get caught trying. And, you know, recognize that we live in a media age where the most important thing you can do is to grab, figure out ways to grab the spotlight, grab the megaphone away from Donald Trump and capture media attention. Right. Like it's it's not fun that that's what you have to do these days, but that's the world that we live in. And you need to be creative and you need to think of creative ways to capture the country's attention, to capture media attention. to capture the country's attention, to capture media attention. And I think that the Democratic presidential candidates are doing a great job of that,

partly because they live in the world of campaigning and they have a bunch of strategists on their campaign who are trying to think of this stuff all the time. I think that the congressional Democrats have been behind the eight ball to say the least. It's hard. And it's harder. They have tiny little megaphones.

It's like a Democratic president. Trump has this giant megaphone. The Democratic presidential general candidates have little bullhorns. more. And I would hope that in the coming days, they will shift strategies and do so. Because the politics are on their side, they have the moral high ground. Press your advantage now. Forget the Trump media age, the days of Facebook and Twitter. Even in the more traditional news time of the past with a normal president, it is impossible to remind people something they didn't originally know. And they don't know you passed this bill. They do not know you passed the background check bill. So you're going to have to do it again now that they're paying attention for people to know that. One last question on this. Why do you think they haven't, the Democratic House hasn't passed an assault weapons ban yet? That is a great fucking question. I have no idea.

And I really don't want to know the answer because I think it would make me very mad. question i have no idea and i really don't want to know the answer because i think it would make me very mad i don't either again this is like you know 70 recent polls 70 of all voters back in assault weapons ban 55 of republicans 55 of republicans back in assault weapons ban what are you doing i realize there's some tough districts out there for democrats i realize that you know that's going to be the answer. Right. Some of these are in very and it's not the Clinton Romney district. It's not the suburbs that they're talking about. Those I bet Katie Porter and all the rest of them. But the Crooked Seven, who won in California, would be probably fine with an assault weapons ban.

It's the Democrats that are stuck in these Obama Trump districts in the Midwest and more rural areas. And I'm sure they are terrified of an assault weapons ban, but I don't know that they need to be. They don't. Do you? No, this is the danger of having congressional leaders who've been around forever. Because they were all around, whether it is Schumer, to Pelosi, to Hoyer, to Clyburn, all of us were around in the 1994 crime bill, which included the assault weapons ban. And then a large portion of their colleagues lost their seats. Now, they lost their seats for many reasons, but in the history and narrative as was written, they lost it because they were tough on guns. And that fundamentally shifted the Democratic approach on guns for years. And then Columbine happened, and Democrats started talking about guns again. And then Al Gore lost, and he lost states the Democrats used to win,

like West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, and the narrative was guns. And that once again made us more reticent. And then we started talking about it again after Newtown, and then Democrats lost again, including in all of these rural areas, the narrative was guns, when that is not actually the case. There are more complicated reasons why people lose elections. And of all of the gun control bills, the assault weapons ban seems like the easiest sell. And I recognize there are challenges with implementation, and the last one was imperfect. But people don't need a weapon of war to go hunting. They don't need a weapon of war to protect their house. And the Dayton example is the best one for why we shouldn't have weapons like that, which is the police were on the

scene when it happened, and all those people got shot in under a minute because of that weapon. That is a policy choice we make as a country, and unfortunately, we can lay all of this at the feet of the Republicans. But on the question of the assault weapons ban, it is a policy choice the Democratic Party also made, and that is problematic yeah just go go look at that axios story that focus group listen to these obama trump voters these are people who voted for donald trump in minnesota pretty rural area minnesota and they're sitting there saying yeah absolutely no one needs a weapon like that of course we should ban those i mean what else you need to hear?

All right, let's talk about 2020. Over the last few weeks, there's been a rush of House Republicans heading for the exits. About a dozen GOP lawmakers have announced that they won't be running for re-election next year, including a cluster of Republicans from Texas. Will Hurd, the only African-American Republican in the House, is among them. Democrats flipped several congressional seats in Texas in 2018 and came the closest to winning a statewide race for Senate that they've been in decades. There are 38 electoral votes at stake in Texas in next year's presidential race. Dan, why are so many House Republicans retiring? And what does that mean for the House map in 2020? Because as a Republican, you only have two choices, actively enable Trump's racism, and incompetence or quit the party yeah bend the knee or head for the exits that's it that is the only that is the only option you have yeah i mean like

some of these it seems like some of these members were critical of trump um have been critical of trump in the past a couple of them had you know um voted against him and then some just faced tough free election in uh some of these uh faced tough re-election in some of these tough, moderate suburban districts. And then for some of them, it was both, right? Yeah, I think that's right. And some of these districts will just be replaced by another Republican that won't be competitive. A lot of the ones in Texas represent the rapid shift of the politics in Texas, where districts that had been solidly red became less red, and now are moving to purple, if not light blue. And that's very worrisome to people,

and they'd rather quit than lose. I do think, and we should just note, that most of these people who are quitting think Trump is a dangerously unfit racist. And instead of doing anything about that, of using the power granted to them by the constitution to hold him accountable or use the platform they have as a member of congress they would rather quit and become lobbyists and that is fucking gross very telling um just so just so everyone gets an idea what the house map looks like the republicans need to flip 19 or 20 seats uh in 2020 i say 19 or 20 because it depends on the results of the special election that will be held in the North Carolina's 9th district in September, which you can hear more about

on Crooked Minis. We have a series about how the NC9 was rigged and what's going on there, narrated by Shaniqua McClendon, our political director. Check it out. It's excellent. NC9 sounds like a TV show on the CBS network. I know. I feel like we should take it out. So but so Republicans are going to mainly target 31 Democrats who currently represent districts that Trump carried in 2016. Of course, the problem for the Republicans is some of those districts are suburbs that are trending towards the Democrats. But that's sort of their target list. You talked about Texas. So three of the retirements came in Texas, Will Hurd, Kenny Marchant, and Pete Olson. And there are six incumbent Texas Republicans in the House

who kept their seats by less than five points in 2018. Dan, what's going on with Texas? Why is the state getting bluer? Well, it is dealing with a fundamental shift in two ways. One, you have more college-educated voters moving into the suburbs. Texas, I think 70, I saw this really interesting set of stats from Dave Wasserman at the Cook Report, who you can follow on Twitter at Redistrict, talking about why Arizona and Texas are targets

for Democrats. Because Democrats do better in major metro areas, the cities and the surrounding suburbs. And 72% of the vote in Texas comes from those urban areas, those metro areas. And so Democrats are, Texas is becoming more diverse, but it's also, the white vote is also dramatically shifting in Texas. And so it's, you know, it was the state that moved the furthest in the Democratic column in 2016. Obviously, Beto came very close to winning it in 2018. And there is a sense of panic, both among these individual members in the Republican Party writ large about where the crown jewel of their electoral college strategy is headed. I found that stat about what percentage of the vote comes from the cities in each state to be

fascinating because it also, you know, they had Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania up there. And then they had Minnesota and something like 60% of the vote in Minnesota comes from the cities, which tells you why, even though it's another Midwestern state like the other ones, it didn't flip to Donald Trump because there's less of the vote comes from the cities, which tells you why, even though it's another Midwestern state like the other ones, it didn't flip to Donald Trump because there's less of the vote comes from cities in Wisconsin, especially where he won. And when you look at the high, high percentage of the vote that comes from cities in Texas and Arizona, you really do see that those states are trending Democratic in a big way, because if you live in an urban area, you are not only likely to vote Democratic, but by a very wide margin, Republicans are becoming largely

extinct in some of these urban areas. Now, the flip side of that is places where the vote is coming in, in mostly small towns and rural areas, Democrats are having an even harder time winning. And so you're sort of seeing this polarization. Yeah, we're undergoing a fundamental realignment of the electorate right now. It started in 2008. It moved to 2012. We saw the impacts in a negative way in 2016. But things are changing. Where Democratic votes come from is shifting, where Republican votes come from is shifting, and that is going to, over time, affect electoral college strategies. And the real question is whether Texas and Arizona become blue before the Midwest becomes solidly red. That's the demographic race that's happening

within American politics. And just to underscore how important that is, if Democrats win Texas and Arizona in a presidential race, you could hit 270, you'd hit 271. If you then lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and Minnesota, you could lose all five of those states, win Texas and Arizona, and still win the Electoral College if all the other states in 2016 remain the same. That is why people focus so much on Texas as this big prize.

The question is, Dan, do you think Democrats could win in Texas in 2020? Yes. I think it is a long shot for them to do so. And there's going to be a fundamental resources question because Texas is so big and so expensive. It'll be a real question for the Democratic nominee, the Democratic Party, and affiliated super PACs whether they're willing to spend the money to do so. And I would be very interested to see polling. Like, will we compete in Florida? Or is Florida moving in the wrong direction? Will those resources go to Texas? Arizona is a safer bet, because it is smaller. There are fewer media markets. It's simply cheaper to do and easier

to organize. And Kyrsten Sinema won there in 2018. We have a Democrat who won there now. That's right. I mean, but... And against Texas is even though Hillary Clinton did much better than Barack Obama, she still lost by nine. And nine points would be a long way for the state to go in a short period of time. But that has happened in the past. I mean, those Midwestern states like Iowa and Ohio shifted more than nine points in the Republican direction in 2016. So it is possible, and it's going to be a question of resources and whether the Democratic candidate can put together this sort of coalition that can win Texas, which is one that is similar to the one that Beto was putting together in 2018, which is really excite the Democratic base and turn out new voters and be able to win a majority of, a significant

majority of independents. And we'll have to see if our nominee can do that. I think that is sort of the big question with Texas is everyone sort of digs into the numbers is how much of 2018 was Beto responsible for as a candidate? And how much was larger demographic forces in Texas that are moving towards the Democrat, because I think that matters a lot when you think about, A, can a Democrat win the Senate race in 2020 against John Cornyn? And B, can whoever the Democratic nominee is carry Texas in the general? And, you know, there's, I think the short answer is both, right? It was, some of it had to do with Beto as a candidate in his campaign and some of it had to do with demographic changes. But, you know, Nate Cohn dug into this a couple of months ago and he thinks that Beto would have won the race with 2020 turnout. And that were better really overperformed was among white voters, college educated white voters college educated white voters and they basically got him super close and also with

crossover voters he got about 500 000 votes that the republican governor greg abbott got so 500 000 people voted for greg abbott that fucking guy and voted for better o'rourke and um but beto didn't get this surge of hispanic turnout that usually happens in a presidential year, but not in a Senate year. What's your read on all that? I think the challenge for a Democrat in 2020 is that 500,000 Abbott or Rourke voters, which I think is very tied to Ted Cruz being the most unlikable person walking the face of the planet. And it's not obvious. Like, I think Trump gets a large portion of those voters back because there's something very specific about Cruz. Now, is there enough outstanding drop-off vote, Latino drop-off vote, or new voters to make up that delta? Yes, absolutely,

there is. So that's why it is possible. But that 500,000 number is very significant, I think, and it is not easily replicable by any candidate running it, by a Democratic nominee in 2020, even better. The only thing that gives me pause on that is Ted Cruz's approval rating on Election Day in 2018 was actually above water, even though everyone says he's like the most unpopular person ever. It was like 50-49. It's pretty close, but it was slightly above water. And Trump's approval rating on Election Day in 2018 was slightly below water. It was at 49% where it exists today. 49% where it exists today.

And so, you know, there's some belief that it wasn't necessarily Ted Cruz's unpopularity that helped Beto in 2018, but Donald Trump's unpopularity that helped Beto and a lot of these other congressional candidates who won in 2018. Now, Donald Trump also wasn't at the top of the ticket. So you're right. When Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket and not just in the background, maybe voting changes. But I don't know. It's the great, you know, white whale of electoral politics forever. And we've talked about it since 2012, and always poo-pooed by the people who look at the math. But now that the people who look at the math say, you're in the neighborhood of possibly making it possible, it speaks to a really dramatic shift that should really scare Republicans, if not in 2020, over the long term.

that should really scare Republicans, if not in 2020, over the long term. Yeah. Okay. When we come back, we will have Dan's conversation with The New Yorker's Jane Mayer. We are joined today by Jane Mayer, the chief Washington correspondent of The New Yorker. Jane, thanks so much for being on Pod Save America. Great to be with you, Dan. We wanted to have you on this week because there's been so much conversation in the wake of what happened in El Paso about Trump's rhetoric and the entities like Fox News that

have amplified that rhetoric. And you have studied the relationship between Fox News and this White House as closely as anyone. I was wondering if you could give our readers, I know you covered this in your New Yorker article a while back, but give our readers a summary of just how close Fox News and this White House is. Well, they're really so interwoven, sometimes it's hard to see where one ends and the other begins. So that you've got basically Sean Hannity, who's got the highest rated program on Fox, on the phone almost every night with Trump, according to Hannity. So the two of them speak all the time.

The producers speak often to the people in the White House. There's kind of a revolving door back and forth of personnel. And there's a sort of a syncing that is S-Y-N-C-H-I-N-G of the kind of the line of the day. Is there a level of discomfort? Like you mentioned Hannity, we know that Lou Dobbs, who's on the Fox Business Network, has been dialed into White House meetings. One of the hosts of Fox and Friends has been floated for numerous administration positions. Are there any people within Fox who are uncomfortable with this relationship, or is this just sort of how business is done these days? No, there are.

And I mean, people don't realize often when they talk about Fox News, there are sort of two parts of it. There's the talk show hosts who really are opinionated and kind of completely separate from having to even worry about being factually accurate. And then there is the news side that sort of does some of the straighter news shows during the days. The reporters for the news side, to some extent, have voiced discomfort with what's going on. They want to be able to have some independence, just as all reporters are supposed to. And then occasionally you have someone like Chris Wallace, who's a, he's conservative, but he's an excellent interviewer and wants to be able to hold people accountable in the Trump administration as well as elsewhere. And does he get pushback from the top on that?

Because, I mean, I know people... He gets, actually, recently there's been pushback from Trump on it. Trump's been tweeting some complaints about Fox News. complaints about Fox News. Occasionally, he seems peeved whenever Fox News sort of pokes him in any way because he seems to think that he owns it and gets angry with them when they're off the reservation. And do you have a sense of how Fox reacts to that? Does that for them? I mean, I think that Fox is bigger and has a longer vision than just Trump TV. Right now, it looks like Trump TV to many people. But presumably at some point, Trump will no longer be president and Fox will continue. And so it needs to be able to

look beyond Trump. And so its ambitions are greater than just Trump, and its ambitions are global. I mean, Fox has had several iterations, right? There was when it first started, and then there was the post-9-11 sort of organ of the Bush war machine, Fox News. Then there was the reaction to Obama, Fox News, and now there is the pro-Trump Fox News. What do people within Fox think comes after Trump for Fox? Well, I mean, when we talk about Fox now, we're talking about there's also a generational shift within the running of Fox. Rupert Murdoch, its founder, is very old and has had some brushes with really serious health problems. And his son Lachlan is now the CEO and sort of the rising force within Fox. And so really the question of its future revolves to a large extent on what Lachlan's vision is.

And you can see some of that by seeing what Lachlan did when he was running his news enterprises in Australia. is in Australia. What he did was he is very much someone who has tried to profit off of anti-immigrant sentiment, fan the flames of sort of xenophobia and kind of white grievance. And so, I mean, it's in line with the Fox that we know, but it may be even more toxic in some ways. That's what we're all watching to try to see what the future might be there. That's very interesting and I think important to know because from its inception, Fox really, I think a lot of us thought, represented the worldview and political strategy of Roger Ailes. And there was always this gap between Ailes and Murdoch. Murdoch, who had been a vocal supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, had even made some mutterings about better gun safety laws in this country. And so there was this view that maybe a post-Ailes Fox would be different,

but it has actually gotten exponentially worse. And that is because of Lachlan, you're saying? Well, it's partly because of Lachlan, but it's also, I mean, I had the same question you had, I think, probably, and many people have who take a look at Fox. You know, we all know that it's founded by an immigrant to America, by an immigrant to America, Rupert Murdoch, and that he has actually spoken up on behalf of immigrants from time to time, and even criticized Trump before Trump was president on this issue. And at some point when Trump was talking about how immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists, I think it was in 2015, Rupert Murdoch tweeted back something about how actually

immigrants from Mexico, like most immigrants, have lower crime rates than native-born Americans. So we know that Murdoch has a more level-headed view and a more positive view of immigration, more accurate view factually of immigration in terms of crime. And yet his network has done more than almost any you can think of to really fan xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment. So when I was writing that, Fox, I was trying to understand how did he rationalize the two? How does he rationalize the two? And I interviewed a lot of people at Fox, and one of them was Greta Van Susseren, who used to host a show there and then went on to host one at MSNBC, and she's worked in other networks.

And she said basically, hey, kid, don't kid yourself. It's about the bottom line. With Rupert Murdoch, it's about the bottom line. And I think the same is probably true of his son, Lachlan. There's a tremendous amount of money to be made by fanning fear. It glues people's eyeballs to their screens. It brings viewers and holds viewers. And really, that is the business plan that Fox follows. And so if you take a look at the Murdochs as people who are interested primarily in making money, so long as that kind of politics draws viewers, that's what they're going to do. As I mentioned earlier, there's been a lot of discussion about the connection between what happened in El Paso and some of the rhetoric that came out of the president's mouth and on Fox. Do you see a connection in some of the verbiage in the El Paso manifesto and the

messaging on Fox? Yeah, I think there's a really disturbing echo of what you hear on Fox in the El Paso shooters manifesto. I mean, incredibly disturbing. And what we've seen is that Fox increasingly is giving a platform to white nationalists and to the rhetoric of white nationalists. And in this year of 2019, But in this year of 2019, before the El Paso shooting, there were at least 70 references on air, on Fox, to immigrants as being an invasion of some sort, using this kind of military threat language in discussion of immigration. It's the kind of thing that stirs hatred and fear. And, you know, so yes, there seems to be a very, very disturbing echo there. There have been a lot of efforts to organize advertiser boycotts and put pressure on advertisers from these companies who, you know, proclaim in their core values that they're for diversity or they're for immigration reform, but advertise on Fox News. And there's been some success, at least, in some advertisers backing off at least the more toxic shows, as I would refer to them.

But Fox is still doing quite well business- Fox, more than almost a serious business concern. family said to me, that, you know, the advertisers will maybe withdraw their advertising from whatever show is considered offensive at that moment, and then move the dollars to another Fox show. So it doesn't actually necessarily hurt Fox that much. Fox is quite cynical about these boycotts, but it does give them a black eye, and it's a public relations problem. You mentioned Chris Wallace. Shep Smith is another Fox personality who has, at least at times, expressed, taken less of the party line when it relates to Trump. I often wonder how it is that a lot of these new folks who view themselves as journalists, right? They, even if they may be personally conservative, they view themselves as journalists. How, you know, whether there is a growing sense of discomfort within the news side to the things

being said on the opinion side, because the opinion side, or is it just sort of this is the nature of doing business because the opinion side pays for a lot of the news side? Because the opinion side, or is it just sort of this is the nature of doing business, because the opinion side pays for a lot of the news side? Like, is there any chance that someone's going to quit, right, in anger or frustration at what both the racism that is happening in the evenings, but also just sort of the propaganda that happens during the day, even on the news side? I mean, over the years, there have been people who have quit occasionally. I mean, you've got the instance of Alison Camerata, who's a terrific host now on CNN. And she has spoken out, and I actually interviewed her for my piece. And, you know, she wanted to be at a more respectable news organization where a serious journalist can work.

And she has talked about that and actually shed a lot of light on what happens over at Fox, which is really – some of their news practices are really disturbing if you take journalism seriously. take journalism seriously. I also wonder sometimes if the Megyn Kelly experience is a lesson for some folks at Fox that there may not be life after Fox that you have been poisoned to the fact that it is hard to succeed in a more traditional news environment after the Trump era, right? Like when Allison left, Fox was still known as really bad to a lot of people, but it was, I think, less publicly toxic than it is now. Yeah, I mean, I would think people going to Fox would have to take into account that it may be, you know, a dead end if you want to go anywhere else afterwards. It's become a reputational, you know, concern, I would think, for most of the serious news people who are working over there. I wanted to switch topics briefly to one of your many other areas of expertise, but that is

the Koch brothers. And you wrote what I think is one of the most important books written about politics in a very long time called Dark Money, where you chronicle how conservative money, primarily from the Koch brothers, has influenced politics. And I was wondering if you had a view on how the Kochs are adjusting to life in the Trump era, given that they were ambivalent, if not opposed, to the idea of Trump as president in 2016. ambivalent, if not opposed, to the idea of Trump as president in 2016? Well, for one thing, we always talk about the Koch brothers. There's really only one Koch brother who's really active anymore, and that's Charles Koch, because David Koch is kind of retired from the arena. He's kind of in failing health. And so we're talking about Charles Koch. And,

And so we're talking about Charles Koch. And, you know, in some ways he's made a Faustian bargain with the Trump administration. He may not like their policies on immigration, and he's anti-big government anyway, so he probably doesn't like their military spending. But he loves what they're doing on taxes and the environment. And so his people, actually, people who've worked with the Kochs over the years and in their political organizations are all over the Trump administration, including Vice President Pence, and including many other people in all of the key departments that have to do with the business that Koch has, particularly energy and the environment. And do you expect that they would play a significant role in the 2020 election? At this point, the Kochs have an unparalleled private political machine in this country. It's a conservative machine, and it will play a

role no matter what. If it doesn't necessarily get behind Trump in a big way, it will get behind Senate races, House races, all the way down to school board races. It has nodes all across the country. It has an almost unlimited amount of money, and it has a very strong agenda, which is to weaken the government and weaken regulations and lower taxes and make sure that the government does nothing to stop climate change. They want to make sure that the country continues to use fossil fuels, which they sell, and they want to make sure that there's no carbon tax. And they will continue to exert all kinds of pressure to make sure that that agenda is served. So in other words, even if they don't explicitly support Trump, their efforts will aid Trump in his reelection, most likely.

Well, you know, I don't expect them to ever get behind a Democrat. They always say maybe they will, but they never do. They actually, you know, they've one or two Democrats over the years that they've supported in states where they've got business interests, and they have to. But basically, it's a ruse whenever they say, oh, we're going to take our money away from the Republicans. They always support the most conservative candidates they can find. Jane, thank you so much for joining us. This is a fascinating and somewhat disturbing conversation. And we will be tracking both Fox News and the Koch brothers throughout this election. So we'd love to have you back on

as this election unfolds. Well, thanks, Dan. All right. Thanks to Jan Muir for joining us today, and we'll talk to you next week. Bye, everyone. Bye. Pod Save America is a product of Crooked Media. The show is produced by Michael Martinez.

It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Caroline Reston, Tanya Somanator, and Katie Long for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Nar Melkonian, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these bad boys every week. We'll see you next time.