Pod Save America - Can Trump Be Stopped in Iowa?

Episode Date: December 12, 2023

With five weeks to go before the Iowa caucus, Donald Trump takes a historic lead in the latest Des Moines Register poll while Ron DeSantis half-heartedly criticizes him on Twitter. Congress tries and fails to reach an agreement on aid for Ukraine and border security. The president of the University of Pennsylvania resigns after disastrous Congressional testimony on campus antisemitism. A woman flees Texas after the state's abortion ban puts her life in jeopardy. And finally, United Auto Workers union president Shawn Fain sits down with Tommy to discuss the UAW's historic wins and what comes next. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. 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 Interim University of Pennsylvania President Jon Leavitt. That was a good one. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's show, Congress' last week of the year could be its biggest yet. The president of UPenn resigns after disastrous testimony on campus anti-Semitism. A woman flees Texas after the state's abortion ban puts her life in jeopardy. And later, United Auto Workers President Sean Fain sits down with Tommy to discuss his union's historic wins and what comes next. But first, Donald Trump has somehow

expanded his lead in the Iowa caucuses, which are now just five weeks away. The latest Des Moines Register poll has him at 51 percent, up from 43 percent in October. Ron DeSantis is next at 19 percent, up slightly from 16% in October. Nikki Haley's support is unchanged at 16%. Vivek Ramaswamy's at 5%. Chris Christie at 4%. And I learned from this poll that Asa Hutchinson is still in the race and polling at 1%. That was shocking to me, too.

Asa, Ada Hutchinson. Who's giving him money at this point? Who's picking him? Who's picking him? Maybe one respondent. Who knows? So this is the largest recorded lead this close to a competitive Republican caucus ever. Poll also shows 70% of Trump supporters say their minds are made up.

You guys see anything in this poll that the DeSantis or Haley campaigns might find even mildly hopeful? Can we just? I tried. I can say no, but before we even get to that, the domination. So Trump leads every age group. He leads with Republicans and independents. He leads with people with a college degree and people without. He leads across every income bracket.

He leads with evangelicals. He leads with rural people, suburban people, city people. He leads every group, even the group where he does the worst. College educated. He's beating Haley and DeSantis in those groups. And non-Republicans, he's doing the worst, but he's still leading among like independents. Yes, among independents. She's doing better. She's closest on that.

Yeah. But even independents. Brutal. Sounds like Republicans want Donald Trump. There is not a sliver of good news in this poll for anyone not named Trump. He moved plus eight from October. He's the highest percentage of people who say he's their first choice, second choice, or actively considering him.

So he's the biggest sort of universe of support. Yeah. If you wanted to find one thing in this poll, you could say, okay, if you look at everyone that would make DeSantis first choice or second choice, or we're consider him, he's doing better there than Haley. Right. But then you realize, actually, that's a place where he's gone down since the last poll that like, at least, at least he is sort of, he has lost people in even in that big wide group to Trump since October. 49% of caucus goers say they've made up their mind, but 70% of Trump supporters say they've made up their mind.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. His electability numbers against Biden improved. I mean, it's just a disaster. Yeah. I mean, I think what it shows is the people who dropped out, even though they didn't have much support, that support largely went to Donald Trump. Maybe a little bit went to Ron DeSantis. I think Nikki Haley has probably maxed out on the anti-Trump vote, at least in Iowa. New Hampshire, there's probably a bigger anti-Trump vote

among Republicans. But it goes to show how she doesn't have a ton of room to grow. And Dan's made this point, but if not Trump, then DeSantis is still the only candidate who can at least have some support from people who really, really like Trump. I think the number that says it all is you mentioned the electability, the way they asked the question. 73 percent of Republican caucus goers said they think Trump can win an election against Biden despite his legal challenges. 73 percent. So there goes the electability argument. And like, honestly, even if the other candidates tried to prove those voters wrong, I mean, it's not easy to do so when poll after poll after poll now shows Donald Trump leading Joe Biden, both in the general election, that was a Wall Street Journal poll that just came

out over the weekend, in states, there were CNN polls of Michigan, where Trump's leading by 10 on Joe Biden. Georgia, where he's leading by five. So, you know, we're not going to have another debate over whether the polls are to be believed this far from the election. But if you're a Republican caucus goer and you really like Trump and you had been concerned at one point about electability, why would you be concerned about electability at this point? Yeah. One thing that jumped out at me too is I think, look, we talk a lot about, and rightly so, just the kind of abysmal performance of people like DeSantis.

But there is a structural problem that they're dealing with. So one thing that was interesting is there is a difference, even though sort of DeSantis and Haley, they're both kind of stuck where they're stuck. You know, everyone, the Haley boomlet seems to have not done too much booming, but there's a difference in their polling among DeSantis supporters. People think Trump can win. They say 59% think he can win. A minority thinks that he, that that is impossible. For Haley, it's the opposite. So Haley has consolidated the anti-Trump vote and DeSantis is doing well with people that still like Trump, but are open to an alternative. But what's interesting is how both of those paths have not worked, right? Like there's not enough of an anti-Trump vote to rally around Haley to

give her anything that she can do. And kind of trying to get people who like Trump to switch is basically impossible because if you like Trump, he's right there. Yeah. All you really need to know about this is the quote that NBC had in their write up from one Republican caucus goer who said, they can promise me a million dollars. I tell them to keep it. And I would still vote for Trump. Yeah, I like that person. Okay. Bergen was like, I tried it. Spin zone for Ron DeSantis and Haley. Here's one thing you could try. Actually run against the person winning. Step one. Step two, there maybe is an expectations management challenge now for Trump. So they lose by like 20 and then they're like, ooh. So I was talking to a political scientist in Iowa saying, look, Trump's basically an incumbent.

Incumbents usually win the Iowa caucuses by like 60, 70, right? They have a much higher total than 50% of the vote. Maybe you could spin that. Maybe, I don't know, maybe if you gain on him in this last month, I'm trying here. I'm flailing here. Much like them. I appreciate you trying. It's not about winning the Iowa caucuses. It's about how you are perceived to have done by an arbitrary jury of your non-peers called the press corps and the pundit class. And then the voters in New Hampshire, right? So like, I do think at this point,

I'm looking beyond Iowa, as I'm sure Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis are like, I don't know how you make up this much ground in five weeks. I have not seen that happen, certainly in our lifetime from anyone this close to the caucus. But if DeSantis stays in and Haley stays in after Iowa, and they go to New Hampshire, I do think there's a bigger independent vote there. There's a bigger college educated vote there that we know for sure. And there's most likely a bigger anti-Trump vote there. And so then if it, if all these voters wake up and say, Oh, Trump's running away with it, then no, who knows? Maybe you get more in the mix in Hampshire, but I'm doubtful. Chris Christie skipping Iowa and almost tying Vivek Ramaswamy has got to be tough for team Vivek. Yeah. Yeah, well, there's a lot of tough things for Team Vivek these days.

Not good. DeSantis seems to be sticking with his strategy of half-heartedly criticizing Trump on Twitter. Latest salvo came after Donald Trump told this bizarre and I'm sure 100% true story at the New York Young Republican Club gala Saturday night. I saw the clips from this. I'm like, what? Trump's dressed up in a tux. He's in New York for a gala?

What the hell? That is the sign of someone who is not worried about any competition in the Republican primary. Let's listen to a clip. And a general who's a fantastic general actually said to me, Sir, I've been on the battlefield. Men have gone down on my left and on my right. I stood on hills where soldiers were killed. But I believe the bravest thing I've been on the battlefield. Men have gone down on my left and on my right. I stood on hills where soldiers were killed.

But I believe the bravest thing I've ever seen was the night you went onto that stage with Hillary Clinton after what happened. And then that woman asked you the first question about it. And I said, locker room talk. It's locker room talk. What the hell? What are you talking about? Locker room talk. I honestly room talk what the hell what are you talking locker room talk

i honestly have to hand it to trump for like not cracking up while telling that story yeah the brain the sir story is an entire genre yeah he tells so many made-up uh generals coming to him and saying sir weeping over things it's awesome yeah it's an awesome category and be like you're so awesome. I just need to tell you that. Sometimes they're hot pilots. Strapping. Big.

Strapping. The biggest guy I've ever seen weeping, crumbling in tears because of how grateful he was to me. So in response to this weird story, DeSantis accuses Trump of denigrating military service and then says in his Twitter post, quote, debating isn't brave. It's the bare minimum any candidate should do. Hiding from debates, on the other hand, is an example of cowardice. Meanwhile, here's what Trump said about DeSantis on Saturday night. You know what I love? I love when they say, we really want to run against Donald Trump. That's the one we want.

How did they do in 2016, by the way? We want Donald Trump. We don't want to run against Ron DeSanctimonious with his high heels. And his bobblehead bullshit, you know. No, he looks like a bobblehead doll. Is that Trump's, like, Netflix special? Yeah. You know what I love?

He does some anti-woke stuff he does cancel culture i mean he's basically yeah it's that's his put it right up next to chappelle why not it's just like ron de sanchez gets up he's like i'm gonna really take this uh no character limit for a spin here on twitter i'm gonna write this long statement that no one's gonna care about i'm gonna call trump a coward but instead of saying it in front of a camera or in front of a crowd or at a debate, I'm just going to tweet it. It's Trump is like, I'm going to fuck these libtards five ways till Sunday. They don't know who they're dealing with. And DeSantis is like, it's whom it's to whom they're dealing. Jesus Christ. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is attacking Ronon desantis's wife and accusing her of planning

voter fraud well she gave an interview did you see what she said yeah she screwed up she fucked that up she's like hey everybody come to iowa and vote i was like i don't think that's right so we should tell people you think she meant volunteer yeah she said people you don't have to be um you don't have to be a resident of i to participate. That's the problem there. In the caucuses. They don't take that well. So people can descend from all these other states. And what she said she meant is that people can come to the state and volunteer and knock on doors, which of course they can.

But do you think Donald Trump's going to take it that way or anyone else? Not the first time people have bused people in. Yeah, we know. Going from the Clinton playbook over there. Mark Penn, love it. Listen, listen. Look, the Iowa polls said what they said. Then all of over there. Mark Penn, love it. Listen, listen, look, look. The Iowa polls said what they said,

then all of a sudden... It's just so funny, like, again, Trump is literally attacking Ron DeSantis' wife in the most personal terms possible, and the only sort of little lane that DeSantis thinks he can carve out and safely criticize Trump about is participation in the debate.

It's so pathetic. Well, and he wants to call... I mean, because it's the whole, you know, Trump is strong, so you got to call him weak. It doesn't work to just be like, I'm going to tweet quietly that he's weak. It doesn't work if you're weak. And that'll do, that'll unlock the, uh. It's just, everybody's reading DeSantis exactly for who he is and it just doesn't, it just doesn't work. And I do think like going back to the poll, like the fact that more Republican caucus goers in Iowa believe Trump is electable today than a few months ago is such an indictment of the way these campaigns have tried to fight against Trump, because that's the whole ballgame for people.

I think it's the polls. It's the polls. It's like he's beating Joe Biden. They also suck. The DeSantis. But they haven't been willing to make any kind of argument around the felonies, right? The fact that those felonies have not changed this calculus at all, it's like it's staggering. And so all these, oh, he's too weak to debate me. Like the, the, how dare you, Mr. Trump? It doesn't work with the country. It's sure as fuck not going to work with Republicans who have become basically full blown fucking animals. Like, how dare you, Mr. Trump? It's our troops that are brave. Like, when does that work? It didn't work with fucking, he did the gold star thing at the convention in 2016. It's not going to work with Republicans in Iowa. And now DeSantis is starting to do like a polling analysis. You know, he told some reporters in Iowa

that if it's Trump, Trump's going to inspire higher Democratic turnout and Trump's going to bring out all the Democrats if he's the nominee and DeSantis won't bring out as many Democrats to vote against to vote against him go play at 538 man yeah what are you doing well i also just think like we've kind of been through a version of this right like when we were first i remember when like we were first thinking about like oh who's going to challenge desantis it's like oh is ron desantis a bigger threat than donald trump in the general and at this point like

watching the way desantis kind of fucking he's doing the worst against joe biden in these trial heats uh above haley and trump he's doing the work he's because he's stuck in georgia debating the wrong guy he's fighting with gavin newsom in atlanta yeah uh he tries to he tries store clerks next well we did get one december surprise over the weekend that could shake up the final weeks of the caucuses. A real, authentic, actual pee tape. But not from Donald Trump. During a Twitter Spaces livestream with Elon Musk, accused rapist Andrew Tate, and the newly reinstated Alex Jones, Vivek Ramaswamy forgot to turn off his mic while taking a leak. You know, humans in America, humans in Africa, Asia, and everywhere else.

Somebody's got their phone open in the bathroom. Yeah, that's Vivek. That's your phone, Vivek. I'm not able to mute you. Go ahead, Elon. Sorry about that. Well, I hope you feel better. I feel great.

Thank you. Sorry about that, guys. I'll tell you, I'd rather hear him pee than talk. I think I'll take the pee my boys come out for water sports what a world happy happy holidays everybody thanks like alex like sword fight uh i do like that he just called it out i mean i i accidentally tuned into this twitter spaces yesterday if i tripped on a slip on a keystroke there it was alex jones andrew twain vivek uh it was like mike flynn was on truly the

worst future secretary of state it was it was the trump cabinet for the second term the worst people in politics i tuned in and they were complaining about uh the possible creation of an unelected world government in davos in the world economic forum it was exactly what you would expect so i turned it off i meant to tell you when you just brought up the uh newsom desantis debate did you see or hear that at the gala on saturday night with the trump was at the republican gala he did say that newsom uh won the debate oh nice which is what you predicted for that yes that's the meanest All right, it's a big week in Congress. This is their last scheduled week of 2023, and they're still nowhere close to an agreement on a bill that's supposed to include

$60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel, a few hundred million dollars in humanitarian assistance for the Palestinians, and some combination of funding and policy to address the migrant crisis at the southern border. Republicans are still saying they will not vote for Ukraine aid without new border policy. And even though Democrats and Biden have said they're open to some new limits on asylum, some of the latest Republican demands include ankle bracelets for children detained at the border and banning people from even applying for asylum, closing down the entire border. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is making a special trip to D.C. to plead with Congress for support, though Senator Lankford,

the lead Republican negotiator, just told CNN that nothing Zelensky says will change Republican minds and that they probably won't be able to get a deal by the end of the week. Nice. So it does look like, I mean, I guess that doesn't mean that Ukraine aid is dead for good, but it does seem like it's not going to happen in 2023 because they don't have time. Yeah. So Murphy said something like, if I were cynical, I would say they're using the border to make sure we can't pass Ukraine aid. But I'm not cynical, which I think was a... Sounds pretty cynical. Sounded like a way of saying without saying that he's pretty worried about the whole thing.

Don't you think that the Republicans could have said that nothing Zelensky says would change their mind before Zelensky got on a plane to Korea? The guy got on a plane, yeah. It's pretty fucking rude, actually. It's like he's in the middle of a war. It is a real war. I know it's on television for you It's pretty fucking rude, actually. It's like he's in the middle of a war. It is a real war. I know it's on television for you, but it's an actual war. It's terrible. For him.

I still don't see how this is going to get done even in 2024 because, I mean, Murphy on, Chris Murphy, who's the lead Democratic negotiator, was on Meet the Press. And he basically outlined what a compromise on the border could look like. He said, we're not going to support anything that shuts down the border completely to people who legitimately are coming here to have their lives rescued. But we are willing to talk about tightening some of the rules so that you don't have 10,000 people arriving a day. But like, I don't know. I don't know what the Republican incentives are to political incentives are to go along with a compromise like that. I don't either.

political incentives are to go along with a compromise like that. I don't either. I mean, it seems like they've all just gotten into a place politically where they feel like being in support of Ukraine funding is bad politics for them with the base because Trump has demagogued it because it's become this right-wing cause to oppose supporting Ukraine. And it just means that over time that the Ukrainian military is going to slowly run out of weapons. I mean, literally.

Their air defense system is pretty good right now. But over the couple months, they will run out of interceptor missiles. The things will slowly break down. They'll stop being able to defend from these drone attacks. I mean, people will die because they're not able to intercept these things. And so, I mean, it's not going to be like a precipitous, you know, one day they just won't be able to fight anymore, but they're going to have to change their strategy. They'll probably have to leave territory.

You'll have Putin feeling like he's ascendant and he'll be looking to our election and thinking, boy, if I can press now and wait till Donald Trump's around, then they'll have nobody in my way. I mean, this is a very bad setup. And Trump will pull out of NATO. Yeah. Well, they're certainly threatening that or talking about it. Yeah. And look, the minority of Republicans, mostly in the Senate, who are for Ukraine aid, still know that Republican voters are in favor of much, much tougher immigration and border policies. And so even though, even the ones who are for Ukraine aid, I don't know what the political incentive for them is to compromise on the border

when they know they've got the issue and that their base wants tougher policies. Right, especially because even if they could get, even if they get a compromise, which by the way we say is still possible, right? Like deals have come out of more intransigent situations than this, that even if they get a compromise, which by the way, we say is still possible, right? Like deals have come out of more intransigent situations than this, that even if they get a deal that has incredibly restrictive changes to border policy, there'll be enough Republicans calling it a

capitulation and a failure to kind of mitigate any political gain they could have, right? Because as you said, like Republicans in Congress are more in favor of Ukraine than Republican voters. So there are Republicans who want to vote for aid and are looking for a political way to do so. Border security is a way for them to get there, but not if doing it, then all of a sudden all these House Republicans who say, if it's not our bill, it's basically it's basically a kind of amnesty or whatever they're going to say. All of a sudden they're doing something to help their politics and their own members are going to make it seem as though they've capitulated to Democrats. Yeah. Like even theoretically, if you get some kind of a deal with Republicans in the Senate who were, again, theoretically slightly more moderate on border stuff and might want to compromise that kind of deal, it seems very difficult for that deal to get through the house.

Then I think the question is like, did they try to split Israel aid off at some point and do that? Though, I don't know. Like, I think the idea, again, that the Democrats in the Senate should all vote for aid to Israel with no conditions is lunacy at this point. I do too. I think they probably will, but I absolutely think it's outrageous. I talked to Senator Welch last week from Vermont, and he was talking about all the conditions he wants to see. I mean, there's definitely growing concern about the number of airstrikes by the IDF and the need to condition aid. And I haven't seen, I don't know if you've seen Tommy, like any evidence whatsoever that over the last couple of weeks, netanyahu has changed strategy at all to

do more to limit civilian casualties or settler violence at all the opposite yeah so uh that's just terrible all right so one thing congress did get done is uh forcing the resignation of university of pennsylvania president liz mcgill who along with the presidents of harvard at mit was called to testify last week about anti-Semitism on campus. When Elise Stefanik asked whether, quote, calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their school's code of conduct, McGill only went as far as to say, quote, if the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. The other two presidents gave similar answers. The clip went viral. It was widely condemned by politicians in both parties. And even though they all tried to apologize, McGill ultimately resigned on Saturday. So we

haven't talked about this yet. Just been brewing in the background. What do you guys think about this whole controversy? Oh, man. Okay. So I think, first of all, I feel like Stefanik set two traps and they stepped into both. They kind of dove headfirst into both of them. All right. Trap number one is conservatives have created a caricature of what's going on in college campuses. And the character basically says, if you express any kind of conservative viewpoint, it's considered bigotry. It's considered hate speech.

You'll be yelled at. You'll be barked off campus. And then they pull out examples of protest or a conservative judge gets yelled at. And then they say, see, if you express anything other than liberal orthodoxy, you're not safe on campus, but you can say any kind of antisemitic thing you want. And that's okay, because this is about espousing

what they call like sort of extremist views on gender and race and all the rest. So that's like trap number one, that character. The second trap is equating any form of legitimate criticism of Israel or a belief or anti-Zionism at all and trying to equate that completely with anti-Semitism, right? That's what a lot of Republicans in the House have done. They just passed this resolution and it says right there in the middle, anti-Zionism

is anti-Semitism to basically paint anything, anyone who is not supportive of Israel as being anti-Semitic, that is a part of this project. And basically, this hearing was a way to get these college presidents to fall into both of those traps. And in the way, by the way, they'd sat there for hours answering questions. And by the time they got to this moment, they kind of fell in that trap. Why? Because it's sort of like Ghostbusters. When someone asks if you're a god, you say yes. If someone tries to bait you into doing anything to defend a call for genocide, you have to not take that bait. Yeah. I mean, they've just seemed so rigid and lawyered up and tied to their talking points that they somehow were incapable of answering the most

obvious question in the world, which is, is genocide bad? Right. That shouldn't stump you if you're a college president. But you're right. Like Stefanik was playing a game in bad faith, which was trying to say, she was trying to get these presidents to accept the premise that the word intifada is calling for a genocide. That is just not true. Just not true. Intifada means uprising. Often people are referencing specific points in time. The first intifada was in 1987. It was primarily civil disobedience. So there was rock throwing, there were Molotov cocktails, there was violence. The second Intifada started in 2000 and was much more violent. Suicide bombings, huge crackdown in response, just like a intolerable loss of life. So the traps she was trying to lay is to say, to get them, it's like if P then Q, a little logic bomb to say,

do you agree that saying Intifada is calling for genocide aha why didn't you punish those kids then for saying intifada but they stepped on the rake before she had time to lay her full trap yeah i was just gonna say she's like shocked at their response they can't answer the question does calling for the genocide of jews violate your policy against harassment i was just gonna say like i don't think the trap was that clever that she said that yeah no i didn't even get to it because when you look at she hadn't even put she hadn't put leaves over the hole yet when you look at the when you look at the transcript she actually does separate intifada from the genocide thing so she starts talking about

intifada which is something as you point out to Tommy, that does depend on context, whether or not it's violent. So that does depend on context. But then she says, and this is a completely hypothetical because this is not something they heard from students at Penn. What would you say about a call for the genocide of Jews? And if you hear, if someone asks you, if your university is okay with students calling for genocide of jews you just say no yeah you just say no that's what some questions are hard that's an easy one some questions are hard easy one the other the other part about this so like i do think that like as progressives like i think it's worth calling out the game right like first of all like weaponizing anti-semitism

is it wrong because there isn't anti-semitism it's wrong because there is a lot of anti-Semitism and diminishing it like changes the incentives for people like there is anti-Semitism inside of the anti-Zionism movement. That is a problem. That is a real problem. That is a problem in some parts of the left. And like, if we don't take that seriously and treat that with like the specificity and honesty that it requires, like I just it's it's it's dangerous. Yeah. I think most people at a Harvard pro Palestine rally are there to call for a ceasefire and to call for a two state solution. You know what I mean? It's like sort of self-evident. I think part of the problem more broadly for some of these college presidents is there has been a context created in a lot of progressive spaces that words are equivalent to violence. And that sometimes how you perceive those words is more

important than the intention of the individual saying them. And I think the intention of the individuals at these pro-Palestine rallies got lost in this bad faith logic trap. And so like long story short, these college presidents looked unbelievably tone deaf when it comes to combating anti-Semitism. And they botched their testimony so badly that I do worry that it could shrink the political space for pro-Palestine activists who just want to save lives on both sides and are just like there for legitimate speech and political purposes because these fucking people couldn't say genocide is bad. And there was a moment earlier in Stefanik's testimony where she asked the president of Harvard. She said, quote, a Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African-Americans has not protected free speech at Harvard, correct? And the president didn't just say, correct.

She said our commitment to free speech extends. Hedged on that too. It was just like, wow. You're the president of a college. Throw the talking points book away. I get that they all feel, a lot of these presidents and administrators at colleges now feel like they're caught in this free speech debate that again, a lot of it's bad faith that the right wing started. It's been weaponized. But like you can

have a code of conduct. First of all, a lot of people like first amendment, first amendment, it's the code of conduct at a private college university. So you can have the conduct be what you want it to be. like you should be able to police hate speech especially hate speech that calls for violence against marginalized groups whichever the groups may be and if it and that's the decision of the administrators if the speech sort of goes into calling for violence against marginalized groups really against anyone calls for violence like then you're right but it should. But it should be the intent of the speech. And like, if, and obviously, that's a case by case basis. But like, yeah, hate speech, the calls for violence, you should be able

to police that on campus. Yeah. And I just one other thing about all this is like, oh, right, these conservatives don't give a fuck about free speech, because the thing that they've been trying to accuse the left of forever, which is basically trying to make conservative views beyond the pale by turning anything you say that isn't progressive into some kind of bigotry to make it unwelcome on college campuses. That is exactly what they're trying to do here. So it's it's just a it's just a farce. Yeah. But for presidents of colleges and administrators who actually want to, like, have real standards that everyone can abide by without any hypocrisy. Like maybe, maybe start with, okay. Yeah. Violent speech is violent speech. That's step one. Step two, don't go to Congress unless you get subpoenas.

They were invited. You should have better things. Hey, look at this hot stove. Think I want to touch it. Why don't I try? Why don't I get on a plane? I hear there's a hot in dc yeah i wonder if i can get there by the end of the day also i didn't realize love and i were talking about this before like did you know that this uh that mcgill there was like a long history of her getting in trouble for not taking a stance against anti-semitism even before october 7th okay so she's had this long history there which makes it even crazier for her to accept the invitation to go. And I also, look, I also do think it's like the standard, right? Is that like, these are supposed to be places where people can express unpopular, dangerous,

abhorrent views, as long as they're not calling for violence against anybody. And like, that is an important spirit. Like that, that idea that like, that's what tenure is about, like the free exchange of ideas, like that is an important part of like the culture on these campuses. But I do think that like, there have been times when these college presidents, because of pressure from on campus, from administrations, from professors, from faculty, from students that have like, they've, they've put them, they've, they've to get through short-term news cycles where they wanted to seem a certain way on certain contentious issues of like put out statements and taken stands. Right. And that's put them in a position now, and then they go before Congress and they're put in a position like this where they have to

answer these questions. They suddenly feel on their heels because they once again want to go back to the basics of, well, we don't take a position. Well, we don't take a position. I think like we don't take a position is a good position to have for people at a college campus. Yeah. Well, and to the point Tommy made too about how it shrinks the space for Palestinian protesters and other people on the left, like I think it is good for the me made too about the um about what how it shrinks the space for palestinian protesters and and other people on the left like i think it is good for the left to understand too that when like some conservative you don't like comes to campus and and uh says some odious things that don't cross the line into directing violence towards people like yeah you're free to protest

them you're free to argue with them tell tell them they're fucking idiots. But like the idea that those people shouldn't even be allowed on campus at all. It's the same kind of because on the flip side of this, if you have Palestinians on campus who were trying to talk about a ceasefire or two state solution to then have that be characterized as anti-Semitism automatically and that that shouldn't exist, like you don't want that either. Look, a bunch of conservatives just spent their whole weekend trying to get the president of the university of pennsylvania canceled and she was you canceled her she was a victim of cancel culture now they won't call it that they'll never think about it that way but that's exactly what happened and they're happy about it and she did apologize and so do the other presidents doesn't count apologies yeah the stefanik stefanik

going on twitter being like i got one for three like she's on it like she's uh doing doing whack-a-mole at the carnival. I do think that if you're really for free speech and intellectual freedom, you should be very concerned about the conflation of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism. First of all, a lot of the earliest Zionists were actually anti-Semitic. A lot of them live in the United States. They were like, oh, yeah, yeah, let's build a state for the Jews and send them there. Right? Like, you can imagine how that happens.

Two, the suggestion that criticizing Israeli policy is somehow anti-Semitic, I think is just wrong. Israel is a country. It's governed by people. They have political views. They can be right and wrong, right? And they get to vote on those. And so conflating those two is just a very dangerous path to go down. Yeah. And obviously a lot of hard debates here, but again, what do you think about a call for genocide? Bad. Yeah. Did I get that right? Denounce anti-Semitism, denounce the weaponization of anti-semitism in harvard if you really hate genocide let's talk about henry kissinger for a little bit oh there we go and hey look and i go

back to my position if you want and i'm comfortable with this we can just shut harvard down i do think that that money can do a lot of good elsewhere i'm like i think it's like i think we've all had enough that's where this You had a nice run. It's done. All right. Waitlist me. Waitlist me? Oh, now we're going.

How fucking dare you? What kind of process? What kind of fucking process? I've actually never heard this before. And thus he reveals that most criticism of Harvard is for people who did not get in and are pissed. Please, please. Oh, and you went to school in Massachusetts anyway. Oh, tough.

I was born there. I was born there. I didn't apply to Harvard. Didn't realize that you were carrying that chip on your shoulder. Unbelievable. All right, let's talk about what's happening with abortion in Texas. A woman from Dallas named Kate Cox found out that her fetus had a fatal genetic condition and that carrying the pregnancy to term could threaten her own health and ability to have children in the future.

Because Texas has a total ban on abortion, she had to go all the way to the Texas Supreme Court to get permission. First time a woman has had to get permission to get an abortion from a court since Roe v. Wade was decided. And of course, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opposed her doing this, asking for permission. He also sent threatening letters to the various hospitals as well, saying that they would be prosecuted if they allowed her to have the abortion.

But while the Texas Supreme Court was deciding, it was too dangerous for her to wait for the ruling. So she just left the state to get an abortion. This is horrific, horrific story. We've seen a lot of debate recently, I think, about whether abortion will be as big of, the results weren't as good for Democrats, that there was a way in which places, in places where people felt the threat personally, locally, it felt more real and severe. We saw better outcomes. I do think that like there's another there's another example to a woman named Brittany Watson, Ohio is facing felony charges. She had a miscarriage

at 22 weeks. Another awful, awful story. And I do think it's like we head into 2024. The fact that if Donald Trump wins and Republicans hold the House and win the Senate, they will pass a nationwide abortion ban. And look, Kate Cox was able to leave Texas to find healthcare in another place. The goal of Republicans, their explicit goal, is to make sure there is nowhere for people to go to get medical care. There will be no safe place. There will be no place where doctors

won't face the agonizing choice between practicing medicine and facing criminal or civil liabilities. There will be no place where people will feel like they can get the care they need in time and making sure that that is real for people everywhere. Being in a democratic state will not protect you if there is a national abortion ban. Having a good governor who understands this issue will not matter if Republicans win the House, the Senate, and the White House. And that, to me, is the point we have to be driving home over and over and over again. This is just, it's unspeakably cruel and vindictive and like undercuts a Republican lie that these are decisions that are made carelessly

or casually by women or anybody else. I mean, this is a woman who wants to have another child. She already went through the hell of learning that her fetus will not survive. And now she wants to have a big family. So the doctor told her the safest thing to do is have an abortion. And because of this dystopian nightmare, she had to go to court to get authorization for a healthcare procedure. Like, can you imagine that?

And she's been to the emergency room four times already because of complications. And then this guy, Kim Paxton, is threatening to arrest doctors providing care. Again, you can get 99 years in prison for providing an illegal abortion, 99 years life in prison in Texas. So, yeah.

And by the way, she's had two kids before, so she'll probably have to have a C-section again to deliver this child living or dead, which means that could complicate her ability to have kids in the future. So like there might be a small sliver of like extreme religious conservatives who think this is the path we should be going down on. But I think that the majority of even Republicans in this country will think this is a horrifying nightmare and will not want this. Like Ken Paxton should not be making these decisions. His last job before he

worked in politics was at JCPenney. This man should not be in your fucking hospital room telling you what to do. This is unbelievable. I don't care if his last job was being a fucking doctor, right? Like, it also shows that, like, Republicans trying to have it, have some kind of, find some kind of middle ground on this, right? And some of them are like,

well, we will have exceptions for rape or incest or the life and health of the mother. But that still means that those decisions are not being made by the doctors who are treating these women. The decisions are being made by politicians who are writing it into law. And then the doctors have to decide, well, is the health really in jeopardy here? Is the life really in jeopardy here? And then they have to get court orders and then they have to wait for it to go up through the different, you know, they have to go through the district court and then they go to the federal court.

It's just a fucking mess, which is why Roe v. Wade offered the protections in the first place, because a bunch of politicians and judges should not be having to make these fucking decisions. This is literally an attorney general saying, no, no, that doctor is wrong. I know better than this woman's doctor. I know better than this person. I will decide what medical care she can and cannot receive. And we'll just wait for it to go through the courts.

And sending threatening emails to hospitals in the Houston area saying he's going to prosecute them. Again, also Ken Paxton, by the way, is like the worst of the worst. This is a man who was so bad at his job that he was impeached for bribery and abuse of office by Texas Republicans.

He might get prosecuted by the feds in the next year or two. I mean, this is the, this is the logical end state of Republican policies, even the ones, the moderates pretend that they're carving out some middle grounds. And I think that's key because they'll, they'll, you know, some of them, there's a story to me, see that some of the Republican Senate candidates for 2024 are trying to moderate their position on abortion. And then you have Trump out there talking about exceptions are important, blah, blah, blah. This is why the exceptions thing, the 15-week thing, all of these attempts at supposed moderation just don't actually work in real life. You talked about the 99 years that doctors could get.

Missouri Republicans are now introducing legislation that would allow law enforcement to charge women who get abortions with homicides. This is women getting charged with homicide. And if, of course, back in 2016, when Trump was running the first time, he said there has to be some kind of punishment for women, which is what Trump said. So Trump's going to try to sneak away from his position on abortion. But as Levitt said, if he wins and Republicans hold Congress, which they are likely to do, if Donald Trump wins, then we're going to see a nationwide ban. Conversely, if Joe Biden wins and Democrats keep the Senate and you replace Kyrsten Sinema with Ruben Gallego, Democrats can pass a national law that will nullify the Texas ban so that women like Kate Cox, even in states like Texas, don't have to leave the state. So it's not just to stop

awful things from happening in this case. It's also if we elect Joe Biden and Democrats, then we could get national abortion protections for people. So just another thing to think about. All right, before we go to break, if you're looking for something to binge this holiday season, friends of the pod subscribers now have access to a new limited series feed where you can listen uninterrupted to This Land, Dreamtown, Atalanto, and another Russia Right Now. Great series. Take a listen. Head to crooked.com slash friends where you can sign up and

listen to some limited series. Also, catch Pod Save America's final live show of the year in San Jose. It is tomorrow, December 13th. Co-host Adisu Demesi will be there and I will not.

I'm on, Emily and I are on Baby Watch. What are you talking about? What do you mean? I don't want to be a, I don't want to be a plane wide away from home if Emily goes into labor early.

What are you going to do? What are you doing? You're an observer. I'm just kidding. It's basically going to the theater for you. Oh my gosh. Jesus Christ.

Anyway, it's going to be a great show. I can't wait to listen. Get your tickets at crooked.com slash events now. All right, when we come back, UAW President Sean Fain sits down with Tommy to talk about the union's historic wins and what comes next. Sean Fain is the president of the United Auto Workers. Under his leadership, the UAW won historic contract victories this past year and now has its sights set on non-union plants across

the U.S. Sean, thanks so much for doing the show. Hey, thanks for having me. Great to be here. I was hoping we could start with just a little bit of background about you, because I know you've been a UAW member for a very long time, but you were elected president as an outsider, as a reformer. I don't think a lot of folks were betting on you in the early days when you started to run. Can you explain the basics of the reforms that led to you getting elected? Yeah. Really, I'm just like a lot of our members.

I've been frustrated for the better part of 29 years. We've had a very complacent leadership that just really was what I would say was more of a company union philosophy where they, you know, were somewhat working closely hand in hand with the companies. And, you know, when they do that, workers tend to pay the price. And with all the things that went on in this union, there was a corruption scandal with some of our leaders. You know, the government became involved in that. You know, I think that was a genesis for, you know, we've had reform movements in the past, back in the 80s. But, you know, this establishment, the administration caucus is what has ran this union for years, which was the top leadership. They created their own caucus, and they had immense power over everything, and have had, you know, for longer than I've been alive. So with the things that have went on recently in the last several years, you know, there was a reform caucus that formed called Unite All Workers for Democracy, UAWD.

And, you know, they pushed a referendum for one member, one vote, where every member was able to directly elect the top leadership of this union. In the past, we were elected by a convention system of elections, which every local was allowed so many delegates based on their size of their membership. And, you know, it was a very controlled environment. The conventions of the past, the administration caucus had their hand over it and was able to, you know, twist arms and threaten people and, you know, get the results they wanted. So there was really never a true democratic election in my lifetime. So UAWD was able to push for this referendum and, you know, the membership supported it and, you know, it passed overwhelmingly. So we were able to get one member, one vote. And that's really what catapulted myself and, you know, a lot of reformers into these positions of leadership, because without

that election, without a direct election of our top leaders, I wouldn't be sitting here right now. So that was really the catalyst. Yeah. I bet a lot of people listening are thinking, boy, I'd love a direct election in American politics. That electoral college thing seems like a pretty good reform. So, you know, just six months into your tenure as president, the UAW launched strikes against three of what we've been doing has not been working. Our numbers have been going backwards for years. Our conditions have been going backwards for years. And it was really about just, you know, when I was elected, was trying to bring in some people that weren't, you know, UAW members

that had experience in organized labor and, you know, in growing unions and organizing and bargaining good contracts and, you know, recognizing people we did have in-house, you know, on staff and in the UAW that had a lot of the same frustrations I had that knew, that saw the issues that needed to be dealt with. So, you know, we got our team put together. And mind you, I'm only eight months into this. So, you know, we've done a hell of a lot in eight short months.

But, you know, it was about changing the culture. You know, we've never ran a contract campaign, as sad as that sounds. We have never ran a contract campaign in my lifetime in the big three when it came to bargaining, which that to me was the thing that really got the membership rallied around our issues and their issues. I mean, it's their issues, not mine. And so, you know, we've had these tiers, what, not mine. And so, you know, we've had these tiers, what we call tiers of workers that, you know, are doing the same work on the same line or the same job in a plant or in a facility. And one person's at, you know, full pay. One person's taking eight years to get to full pay. And another may be a temp worker

that's been out there for working as a temp for five or six years, but they're working seven days a week. That's not temporary work. So ending tiers was a big issue. Cost of living allowance, naturally, because of what happened with inflation the last few years, was a massive issue. We've had cost of living allowances since the 1940s and 50s, and it went away with the economic recession. The companies used the recession as a means to pretty much go backwards on a lot of our victories over the years. And so that was a big one. Retirement insecurity is a huge issue, not just with us, but in this country. So trying to address some of the retirement issues, job security, and then the EV transition, the EV battery work. job security, and then the EV transition, the EV battery work. When I was elected, we were screwed,

just to be blunt about it. I mean, the joint ventures these companies had formed to circumvent their obligation to their workers and to our contracts, it's unacceptable. So, you know, there were several issues that, I mean, we were trying to undo literally decades of going backwards in one contract. And so, you know, we ran a contract campaign to get the members rallied around those issues and corporate greed. I mean, this all boils down to one thing, and it's corporate greed. And the fact that, you know, that's why we pushed the initiative, you know, and the narrative that the big three had made a quarter of a trillion dollars in profits in the last decade. And CEO pay went up 40 profits in the last decade, and CEO pay went up 40% over the last four years. With our two, three percent pay increases in the last four years with inflation, we went backwards. And so we really wanted to get members rallied around those issues. And so that was a piece of the contract campaign. The other thing was,

you know, the communication, the transparency of our union. We had to turn that around because in the past, members and local leaders and even people on staff were always told, you know, you don't speak to the media. Only the president speaks or only the vice president speaks. But then nobody spoke. So all we ever heard, you know, going into bargaining was, you know, the company putting the narrative out there about the greedy union workers or, you know, they got these pensions or they have this or that and it's bankrupting the company, which is all lies. But we didn't have leadership that was aggressive in responding to that and putting the facts out. So we really, it was important to have transparency with the membership.

So throughout the entire process before bargaining and during bargaining, we were doing weekly updates, Facebook Live, social media updates. And really, it just took off. It took off not just with our membership, but nationally and globally. It was great to see that. And I think that all was laying the groundwork for where we were going to go with, you know, we knew with what we were going to be asking for, the companies weren't going to just be willing to freely give it. So in all likelihood, we thought we would have to have a strike. So, you know, typically in the past also, our leadership would pick one company, they would call it the target company, and they would bargain with one company and set the pattern,

and then they would go to the next two. I never liked that philosophy because I felt like it would leave the other two companies kind of with what they're doing, you know, just on the back burner waiting. And so we wanted to take on all three at the same time. The companies traditionally would, knowing that, would drag negotiations out until like a week before the deadline. And then they'd start getting serious. But at that point, the president and the vice presidents would come in and cut the deal behind closed doors with the corporate leadership. So my philosophy in that was I didn't like that. We made it very clear to the companies before we even began bargaining that September 14th was a

deadline, not a reference point. It was a deadline. And it was a deadline for all three companies, not one. We were not going to pick a target. The target was all three of them. And we expected them to be at the table and get the agreement done by the 14th. And if they didn't, there would be repercussions for that. There would be action. We knew in all likelihood we'd have to strike to get what we needed to get. So we have a strike fund, and we wanted to figure out what was the best way to attack these companies and maximize the effect but also efficiently use our strike fund so that we can keep taking action on down the road rather than go through know, go through all the money in one big massive strike of everybody walking out at the same time. So we

came up with a stand-up strike campaign, you know, and kind of a homage to our sit-down strikes that built the labor movement back in the 30s. And it worked out, you know, I mean, really, this was all, it was uncharted territory for us. We were, you know, doing this, you know, we had a lot of people feed into this, our research team and a lot of, you know, we were mapping out the plants, mapping out each company plant, what they did, how it would affect other plants down the line. And we tried to, you know, assimilate targets based off high profile targets, mid-level targets and things and the impact it would have on the company. So we really did a lot of legwork on that early in research and just, you know, to formulate that plan. And it worked masterfully.

I mean, it's, you know, so that was really what led into all this, I guess. I mean, it's a long answer, but I hate it. No, it's good. I mean, it's a complicated, you know, set of actions. But you guys really did a masterful job of getting the narrative out there and talking to folks and, I think think getting public opinion on your side. And I know that will be important because I think you've said publicly the next step for the UAW is unionization drives at non-union plants in the US. Companies like, you know, said some pretty nasty things about unions in the past. How does that work? What is like a unionization drive at those non-union factories look like? Well, you know, if you look in the past, I mean, again, we're a different union now than we've been in my lifetime.

And I think that's the starting part of this is just, you know, I think we have a lot of momentum now. the starting part of this is just, you know, I think we have a lot of momentum now. Throughout this entire contract campaign and through the strike, we've literally had thousands of non-union auto workers reaching out to us and actually signing cards online. And so, you know, I've always said this, I've always had this philosophy that, you know, when my grandparents' generation, when the UAW formed, I mean, people went through a Great Depression. They wanted a better life for themselves. And so, you know, the union, when they organized, you know, they found a better life and it led them, you know, they lived the American dream. since the, I don't want to say the president's name of the 80s, but since that person took over and drove this economy in the ground and drove this country in the ground and, you know, went

to a different philosophy of just enriching the rich and sacrificing the working class and the poor, you know, we've been going through 40 plus years of this and it's time to turn that around. And so, you know, this to me, it's not about the Elon Musk of the world, you know, I mean, you know, Tesla's a company just like the rest of the non-union companies are, and they're getting rich off the backs of their workers. And, you know, it's interesting, you know, looking at the numbers alone. I mean, we looked at the big three, you know, we, you know, talked about the quarter trillion dollars in profit the big three made and the 40% CEO pay increases. But when you look at the top 10 non-union auto manufacturers, they made over $12 trillion in revenue in the last decade, a trillion dollars in profits.

The Japanese and what we call the Japanese and Korean six made $480 billion in profits, and the German three made $460 billion. And Toyota, of all of them, I actually was just in Georgetown. and six made 480 billion in profits, and the German three made 460 billion. And, you know, Toyota of all of them. I actually was just in Georgetown two days ago and spoke to some workers from Toyota there in Georgetown and who, you know, have expressed a desire to organize. And, you know, as I told them, you know, these companies will run massive campaigns. They'll bring in union busting firms. They'll put every negative narrative they can out there about unions. And it's all designed for one reason, to put fear in the mind of workers, to make them afraid of recognizing the real power that they have. I mean, the workers have the power. But when you don't have a union and you're

an employee at will, you don't have a lot of power because they can fire you any day of the week. You know, we talk about the UAW bump. Since we bargained these record contracts, right away, Toyota, three days later, gave an 11% pay increase to their employees. Honda followed suit. Nissan followed suit. Hyundai gave them 25% through 2028, which matched what we had done. They could have done this a year ago. I mean, they could have done it six months ago. Why did they do it now? Because they know the threat is there, that these workers are going to realize the potential of the power they have. So they're trying to throw them some crumbs, hoping that they'll not come for their full share of the pie. And, you know, you look at all those things, and it all comes back to one thing. It's corporate greed. And it's insane to me that, you know,

you look at the history of the big three, and we played to that in this campaign. Toyota alone made $256 billion. They made $6 billion more than the big three combined in the last decade. And their CEO's pay went up 125% in the last two years. They're doing all that off the backs of the workers. So this all comes back to one thing when it comes to know, we have the philosophy of record profits that equal record contracts. And these workers don't have contracts. The only way they're going to get a contract is through organizing and joining a union. But they've got to stick to facts. And that was my

message to the workers at Toyota. And that's my message to all these workers all over the country that don't have a union is, you know, you have the power and it's only going to happen when workers get fed up and they stand together because the companies and the wealthy class has always taken all the loot, doing what they're doing. You know, having 26 billionaires have as much wealth to have a humanity that happens because they divide the working class over every issue under the sun, whether it's guns or whatever it is, you know, working class people fight over all these things, you know, then they scrape and to get by paycheck to paycheck, working seven days a week, working multiple jobs, trying to survive. And the companies in the corporate world and the billionaire class is walking away with, with all the money and concentrating the wealth in fewer

and fewer hands. So when we, when we talk about So when we talk about that, that to me is something that I learned from COVID, that it was a silver lining if there was one in the COVID pandemic was we had a great example there if you look at the fast food industry. People said, I'm not coming to work at McDonald's for $12 an hour and risking my life. And they stayed home. And what happened? McDonald's started paying $20 an hour and risking my life. And they stayed home. And what happened? McDonald's started paying $20 an hour, $25 an hour. The pay went up immensely to get people to come to work. And to me, that's a great lesson for working class people at the power that we have. So, you know, when you're an employee at will, you don't have that power as much because you could

be fired at any reason or no reason at all as an employee at will. But when you have a union, you can't be. You have due process. You have a contract that governs those terms. And so, you know, to me, working class people need to focus on, we need to harness that power. And the best way to do that is organizing and unions and coming together and working and fighting together in all this for, to raise a standard for working class people. And that to me is the key. For instance, Toyota and these companies that gave these raises and stuff here recently, we call the UAW bump, they can take it away tomorrow. The contract we just bargained for, they can't take that away tomorrow. They have to live up to the terms of the agreement. So there's so many benefits, and I just think workers have to realize the power we have.

If we withhold our labor, nothing moves, no matter what industry it is. And that, to me, is a lesson out of COVID and out of the fast food sector, what we saw there and everywhere is, you know, the billionaire class and, you know, the other parties want to call these people job creators or whatever stupid name they want to give them. They're exploiters is what they are. And we have the power, but if we, you know, billionaire class to corporate class can build all the factories and all the businesses they want. But if workers don't do the work, nothing moves, nothing's going to get produced, nothing will get done. So we have to recognize that power and it's organized labor's job to lead that fight. So that's really what this whole initiative is about. Yeah, agreed. You mentioned political support in your answer there.

President who we won't name, raps with pagan. Obviously the workers who put their jobs on the line and hit the picket line deserve all the credit for these recent successes. But I'm wondering what it meant to you, to your members, to have political support from the White House, to have President Biden become the first president to join the picket line. Oh, it's a big deal. I mean, it's never happened. So naturally, it's a big deal. And that's one thing else, another thing that I'm proud of when we took over. We had a history in this union and a lot of organized labor of just endorsing one party and, you know, and not really requiring much work out of them. And so, you know, that's one thing I said early on was we were not just going to give endorsements.

They're going to be earned. And we mean that. And there was a lot of work to be done with the EV battery transition. And, you know, the proof's in the pudding, you know, for our members and for me as far as when we make endorsements. So, you know, President Biden coming and visiting the picket line was a big deal. Their team working with us, Secretary of Labor Julie Hsu and U.S. Trade Ambassador Catherine Tai, you know, dealing with some of the Korean issues with some of these partnerships that these companies had. You know, they worked hard with us, and not just with us, with the companies, to make this happen. So, you know, I think there's two disparities when you look at these two candidates right now. I mean, obviously, you have a president that came

and visited the picket line and stood with workers, and you had another former president that went to a non-union business and had a rally for union workers at a non-union business, and that person's just trying to play to the crowd. And it's, you know, I think workers are smarter than that. You look at the track record of that person, and he has an abysmal track record when it comes to unions and organized labor and workers having their fair share. So, you know, there's two, with the two leading candidates, there's two great disparities there. I mean, and so obviously, but, you know, the president coming and visiting our picket line was a big deal. And, you know, it's, we still have work to do, but we're definitely on the right track.

Yeah, I mean, about that sort of broader labor record in contrast, I mean, I know Biden joined the picket line. You talked about the work he's done with you guys on EVs and the battery factories, but also the NLRB has taken steps to prevent employers from unfairly impacting union recognition votes by firing pro-union workers. I saw one reporter called it the NLRB's most important ruling in decades for labor. There's new overtime rules. They're updating the Davis-Bacon Act. And then when you look back at the Trump record, it's him stacking the courts with anti-labor judges. He made Eugene Scalia, who's a union busting corporate lawyer,

his labor secretary, NLRB is making it harder for workers. But I still noticed that Trump got 40% of the vote from union households, according to the 2020 exit polls. So I'm just wondering what you think leads to that level of support. Is it people just care about other things that aren't necessarily union specific? Is it, you know, lack of understanding of that contrast you talked about earlier? What's your take? I think we have to do a better job. Again, I go back to our leadership.

Our leadership's been silent for years, for decades. And we have to get the facts out there. And even with this organizing campaign, you know, it's, you know, as I told these workers at Georgetown the other day, and we're going to keep talking about this, you know, the companies put the fear out there. They want fear, fear, fear. That's how they operate. fear, fear. That's how they operate. But we have the facts on our side. Working class people have the facts on our side. And the facts are very simple when it comes to this. You know, when we talk about the profits of these companies, and it's no different in politics. You know, I think the former president, who I refuse to say his name, you know, the facts speak for themselves about where he stands for working class people. And I think we really have to put that out there. We really have to continue to pound that home to our members and working class people in general. Again, I go back to, you know, the billionaire class, the wealthy class, by design, they create a lot of issues out there and try to divide the electorate over single issues. And it works.

It's worked in the past. But we've got to be focused on what matters. And what matters at the end of the day is we go to work to put food on the table. We go to work to have a decent standard of living. And most people are struggling in that realm. Majority of people don't have any retirement savings, can't afford to save for retirement. And so there are a lot of issues I I think, that, you know, that I think the Democrat Party needs to get focused on. And really, we need to drive together. And I think we'll have a lot of success, a lot more success.

I think, you know, the last person getting elected in, you know, prior to President Biden, I think that was more of a, I don't know if I can drop an F-bomb or not, but an F F you to the establishment because, you know, they were just fed up. People are frustrated. They're frustrated with going backwards and fighting and struggling. And so I think that was just basically a fuck you to everyone that I'll vote for this idiot because I'm just pissed. And so I think we really have to connect the dots, you know, and just really put the facts out there. The facts speak for themselves. And so I just think we really need to bury that, you know, embed that. And I think it'll change. changed significantly in their lives. So yeah, I agree with you there. Last question, speaking of divisive issues, I was, as I was preparing for this and reading up on you, I heard that you're a big nineties rap guy. I don't know if how you bridge the East coast, West coast divide, that was really problematic for a long time, but also that you occasionally will do some rapping and karaoke.

Is this, is this factual? I've done it. Yeah. I've done a few, but yeah, I guess I'm Midwest. So, you know, I like, I like the East coast and West coast. I mean, I like T it, yeah. I've done a few. But, yeah, I guess I'm Midwest, so, you know, I like East Coast and West Coast. I mean, I like Tupac, but I love, you know, I mean, I love Public Enemy. I love, you know, a lot of the music back in the 90s. But, I mean, even, I mean, I raised two daughters, so, I mean, my daughters are 28 and 31 now. But, you know, I mean, they, we always, we always we shared music you know so i always stay up to date on all that stuff so they keep you young oh yeah you bet so i mean it's um i love all the genres of music but naturally i played basketball back in the 80s in high school and stuff so i was

always uh you know back run dmc was my days i hate to say my age and the beastie boys came out my senior year so you know i'm i'm uh telling my time but uh listen i'm 43 so the 90s were my defining generation for music for culture for everything i have a one-year-old daughter all right so god knows what she'll be listening to when she's in high school that i'll be either hating or trying to pretend i understand but listen thank you so much for doing the show thanks for all the work you're doing. It is, it's incredibly impressive and inspiring and,

you know, keep at it. Best of luck at these Tesla and everywhere else. Oh yeah, no, I appreciate it

and I look forward to hopefully more dialogue in the future and talking about more victories coming, to come with organizing and we're going to,

we're going to grow. We're going to grow the working class and grow this movement and it's time working class people get their fair share. Amen. Amen. Well, thank you again. Thank you. All right. Thanks to Sean Fain for joining us. Everyone have a great week and the,

you'll all hear the San Jose show on Thursday. Bye everyone. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our producers are Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari, writing support

from Hallie Kiefer. Reid Cherland is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support

from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Tolles, Kirill Pelleviv,

and Molly Lobel. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube to catch full episodes and extra video content. Find us at youtube.com slash at Pod Save America. Finally, you can join our Friends of the Pod subscription community for ad-free episodes, Thank you.