Pod Save America - “Democracy dies with Dershowitz.”

Episode Date: January 30, 2020

Trump's defense team argues that the President can do anything to get elected, Republicans close in on the votes to block witnesses, and a SuperPAC makes the case that Bernie isn’t electable. Then Senator Amy Klobuchar joins to talk about impeachment and her closing argument, and Crooked Media Content Chief Tanya Somanader discusses the new and improved VoteSaveAmerica.com

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Today on the pod, Minnesota Senator and presidential contender Amy Klobuchar, who will help us break down all the latest impeachment and 2020 news. You'll also be hearing from Crooked Media's own chief content officer, Tanya Somanator, about our brand new edition of Vote Save America for 2020 that launched today. VoteSaveAmerica.com. Go there now. It's exciting. Put in your email address, sign up, and we will take you through this election every step of the way. We're very,

very excited about it here at Crooked Media. A few quick notes before we get into it. We are all heading to Iowa for the final homestretch. We're all getting on flights today. All four of us will have a bonus pod for you first thing Monday morning, and then another pod on Tuesday morning to talk about the results. Also, the final two episodes of The Wilderness are out. Please listen. Dan, you, and Tara McGowan and I talk about media strategy in the last episode, and then a whole bunch of smart people talk about what the Democratic message should be. I would also highly encourage all of you to listen to Tommy's final episode of On the Ground in Iowa before the caucuses. You know, I love doing Pod Save America every week,

and of course, I'm one of the worst news addicts around on Twitter. But I have like, rarely been more inspired about politics than when I was either working on the wilderness or listening to Tommy's series about Iowa. So do yourself a favor. Get out of the news cycle for a little bit. Listen to some organizers and activists and people who are actually doing the work on the ground. It'll make you feel a lot better. Let me second that by saying that I listened to both of those of those back to back yesterday when I was on a flight and it, it is incredibly important perspective to understand what is happening in this election and helps, I think will help listeners separate sort of the signal from

the noise, the things that matter and the things that just see that feel like they matter in the moment. And Tommy's series is a, just a reminder that there are that behind all of the noise and the tweets in this campaign, there's a bunch of really amazing, mostly young people who are working their tails off for the candidates that they believe so passionately in. And that's going to end in triumph for some and not triumph for others, but it is, it makes me very nostalgic for our previous life and very proud of the people

who we will get to see in Iowa starting tomorrow. And speaking of things that matter, you have some book news. I do. We are two and a half weeks out from the release of Untrumming America, and I have gotten the latest pre-order numbers, and we're feeling good, but we have a lot of work to do to win the bet with the publisher. And I would just say that if like 15% of the people who are going to download this podcast bought the book, we would beat Donald Trump Jr.'s first week sales numbers. Wow. Maybe people... I love that. This is a lot more about the size of our listenership than anything else, but maybe people want to let Donald Trump Jr. win. That's fine. I leave it to you. But I want to make two quasi-serious points, at least. One, I'm hitting the road after the book comes out. I'm going to do a 17-stop tour

for the book. And it's going to start on February 19th in New York City. And then we're going to travel across the country with appearances by many of the friends from the extended Crooked Media universe. We're going to be in Philadelphia and Minnesota with Alyssa. I'm going to be in Washington, D.C. on the 20th with our former White House colleague, Jennifer Palmieri. Going to be in Boston with Samantha Power. Harrisburg with DeRay. Star-studded.

Very star-studded. Very special event the day after Super Tuesday in LA with the four of us, where you can get all of your takes on where the Democratic primary race is in person with a book, which seems quite exciting. Yeah. And so all of that information will be

on our website, untrumpingamerica.com. There may even be a Twitter thread in your future with some graphics and some other things so I can figure out how to use Dropbox. But I just wanted to say one thing. I know I have been a relatively annoying promoter of this book, and I will continue to be for the next two and a half weeks. I do it in jest, in part, because I am naturally awkward, and particularly when it comes to the promotion of my own stuff. But I do feel very passionately about this book, and I've probably never felt as passionately about it as I have this week as I've watched what the Republicans are doing in the impeachment trial. The fears that led me to write this book are sort of manifest right now. And we'll talk about them in a minute. And so that's why I keep pushing it. And I always encourage people to,

if they are generous enough and kind enough to purchase a book, of which a portion of the proceeds go to Fair Fight Action, to share it on social media. And that does make me feel much better. I have to tell you how much nicer it is to open up Twitter and see people saying they bought my book than yelling about something terrible. But there's actually a reason for it, which is it helps other people see it. And I want people to read the book. And if they're going to do it, I would love for them to preorder it because that way we're at least doing it in a way that can make a contribution to Stacey Abrams' very important effort, which has also felt never more important than it does now, based on the things we're about to talk about. End of pitch. No, it's a great pitch. And I will say that I was thinking of your book as well over the last,

you know, 24, 48 hours looking at this impeachment stuff. So it's a great place to just jump in. You know, I was running around New York yesterday. so I was doing my best to follow this thing on Twitter. And then I got back to my hotel and I started reading some of the answers that Donald Trump's defense team gave to the senators during their first day of their 16-hour question session. Here's Alan Dershowitz. Quote, if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment. Later, White House Deputy Counsel Patrick Philbin argued that it would be legal for President Trump to accept opposition research on an opponent from a foreign government. And honestly, Dan, like after seeing those comments, I was like having a hard time sleeping

because I was also thinking how it's very likely that every single Republican senator is about to acquit the president based on the argument that he essentially has the power to do anything he wants as long as he according to Alan Dershowitz believes it's in the national interest he can get foreign governments to help him rig an election to investigate the lives of American citizens. He can pardon murderers and bank robbers and terrorists. He can give fucking Alaska to Putin, which is something that Dershowitz had talked about. And look, I guess it's it's not necessarily that I'm surprised here. Right. It's like, why are you surprised?

We always knew Trump was like this. I get that. But it still feels pretty damn scary to sort of see it in action and watch all of these Republican senators not even really pause and think, do we really want to do this? Do we really want to put our stamp of approval on this? Which goes so far beyond party ideology, substantive agreements, all of that bullshit. A truly dangerous moment for democracy. And they are just, they can't even be bothered to have more witnesses and documents on this. I don't know.

What do you think? Am I being too overdramatic here? No, I do not think you're being too overdramatic. I think you're being appropriately dramatic. And it is easy to comfort ourselves by thinking that this is just a passing moment in time, that all of these senators are acting this way because of the perverse incentives of being a politician in Donald Trump's Republican Party. Yeah. I think that is a dangerously naive view. in Donald Trump's Republican Party.

Yeah. I think that is a dangerously naive view. That this is, Donald Trump has catalyzed because of his unique terribleness, but he has catalyzed a anti-democratic streak within the Republican Party that has been going on for decades.

And it was one that was, I think, brought to the forefront and accelerated by the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Not to say the Republicans were great before that. Far from it. There's a long history of terribleness within the Republican Party, particularly on racial issues post-civil rights. But I think the overwhelming nature of Barack Obama's victory and then his overwhelming re-election

in the face of a pretty tough economy against the Republican that all the Republicans thought was the most electable, was the wake-up call that political power in this country was shifting. It was shifting away from primarily a white male Christian party to a more diverse majority in this country, and that has required them to take a series of steps that dilutes the power of the majority. And we are seeing that manifest here in this impeachment trial. Yeah. And I think the other thing that worries me is, you know, we talk about impeachment all the time. We pay attention to it all the time. I think when this first started and, you know, reporters would say, well, most of the public doesn't care about this, it would sort of make me mad because I'm like, well, this is really important. So fuck that. And then, you

know, I went out and did all those focus groups for the wilderness. And sure enough, people don't know much about what's going on when it comes to impeachment. And it's not something that they can see tangibly affect their lives. Like when the Republicans try to take people's health insurance away, or when they give a tax cuts to rich people or any number of things that they do that actually that really affect people in the immediate sense tangibly. And I think because of that, Republicans and Donald Trump, they realize that and they have thus been able to get away with more, right? Like, yes, there are polls that show, you know, a majority of the country wants to impeach and remove him from office, but they pretty much track with Trump's overall approval rating anyway at this point, right? And yes, 75% of the country believes that there should be

witnesses and documents. Of course, it is still unknown what kind of punishment the public will exert on Republicans who vote against witnesses and documents. And I think that Donald Trump and the Republican Party have like almost figured out a hack in that, you know, if you're just trying to trample norms, institutions, get away with all kinds of bullshit, be corrupt, you can basically hide it from people or you basically make sure that people don't really care that much because they see it all as just like one big mess in Washington. And they don't realize that like as we're speaking right now, there's a bunch of the president's defense lawyers arguing that this president of the United States and future presidents of the United States can basically do whatever the fuck they want. And there's just no more congressional oversight whatsoever.

You can obstruct Congress. You can target American citizens for investigations. You can get foreign help. And it's just no more congressional oversight whatsoever. You can obstruct Congress. You can target American citizens for investigations. You can get foreign help. And it's totally fine. Totally fine. I think it's even more than they can just sort of pull the wool over people's eyes or distract them. I mean, in one way, they are surfing the inherent cynicism of the American people. This view that, you know, Donald Trump may be uniquely bad in this way,

but all politicians are kind of bad. So it's more of a venal sin than a mortal sin because it's not that different than a generic other politician would do. I mean, that's ultimately how Donald Trump got elected was he was able to turn it into a competition of two corrupt people, which is, I think, a deeply unfair characterization of Hillary Clinton. But he was able to convince enough people that because of cynicism. And cynicism around the Clintons specifically born out of a three-decade caricature developed by the right-wing media and others. But I think there is something broader here, which is, you know, we are people who pushed publicly for the Democrats to take this path to embark on impeachment. We did that

before Ukraine. We thought it was the right thing to do. We thought it was also the politically wise thing to do. I still believe that to be the case. I also believe that if it wasn't the politically wise thing to do, it was the only option before Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and everyone else, particularly once the Ukraine situation came to light. There was no other option. No. Because to do nothing would be to basically say- Accept this without a fight, right? Yes. And we're going to see a thousand infuriating takes about how this was a mistake for Democrats because now that Trump has been impeached and quote unquote gotten away with it, now he will do it. He feels like he can do anything.

took them to tweet that sentence, because to allow to do that and not even open an impeachment inquiry and hold them accountable with the one measure of accountability provided by the Constitution would be an even bigger green light. It would be a flashing green light that says, go commit crimes. And so I think they did the right thing. But the other element of this is the idea behind it was no one believed the Republicans were going to remove him. We knew who they are. We knew where it was. We knew it was 10 months before an election. It is not a thing that could happen that this was a serious endeavor worthy of at least a serious trial from the Republicans, then the Republicans would at least feel public pressure to put on a trial. They could make the decision they wanted to make at the end, but you would have witnesses and impeachment and it wouldn't be a sham. And the thing that I think is scary here is the Democrats

did exactly what they were supposed to do. They made no mistakes. They convinced three quarters of the country that there should be witnesses. They convinced the majority of the country that Donald Trump should be impeached. They convinced two thirds of the country that he broke the law. And the fact that the Republicans feel like they can stick their finger in the eye of three quarters of the Americans and not suffer political consequences is the thing that I think is the scariest thing about the current state of our political system, because they are not politically stupid. McConnell is not dumb. They have looked at the situation and realized that all the structural advantages in American politics that are both inherent and then those exploited by the Republicans give them the opportunity

to ignore the will of three quarters of the country. And that's when politics becomes a huge, dangerous situation in America. Yeah. I mean, you could see a scenario where most Republican politicians serving in Congress go around saying, it's outrageous what Donald Trump did. It is dangerous what he did. We have an election in nine months. I think it should be up to the voters to decide. You know, I do not agree with anything he did. I think it's bad. We cannot have foreign powers investigate people. It was the wrong thing to do. Went over and over and said all these bad things about him and then said, but we're just going to quit him. You know, I would still be furious. We'd still be yelling about it. It would be the wrong decision,

you know, I would still be furious. We'd still be yelling about it. It would be the wrong decision, but it would at least reveal that they felt some sort of pressure, some sort of obligation to at least respond to where the public is. And their posture in this impeachment hearing has shown that they give zero fucks, zero fucks about what the American people think. They just don't care. Well, I mean, they care about what their base thinks. They care about what the 35 to 40% of Trump fans think. And, you know, some of them need that base to get reelected in some of these swing states who are up in 2020. But they certainly don't give a shit about what the majority of Americans think at all. And they're not even like they're not even trying. You know, Mitt Romney submitted some good questions yesterday, some tough questions of President Trump's defense team. I guess Susan

Collins and Murkowski submitted a few good questions too. The rest of them are fucking jokes. Jokes. They didn't take it seriously. So let's just talk about the end game on witnesses. You know, as of this recording Thursday morning, the latest reporting from the Hill is that Republicans are suddenly feeling confident that they have the votes to block John Bolton and other witnesses from testifying. This follows a long meeting that Mitch McConnell had with Murkowski, who people thought might be one of the four votes Democrats need to get witnesses. Senators Romney and Collins have said they want to hear from John Bolton. And the other possible vote in favor of witnesses is retiring Senator Lamar Alexander, who really no one has heard from at all. So we don't know how Murkowski and Alexander will vote,

but we do know that three of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans who are up in 2020 will vote against hearing from any witnesses at all. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona, and Tom Tillis of North Carolina. Somewhere around, as we said, 75% of all Americans and a plurality of Republicans want witnesses. So why do you think these swing state senators are opposing public opinion? And is it politically wise? senators are opposing public opinion and is it politically wise i know i wrote the is a politically wise question on the outline so i will take responsibility for this but the only people who have the answer to that question are the voters of colorado arizona north carolina they are the ones who write the end of that story in november right they get by organizing canvassing

voting they will decide whether it's politically wise. And I think it's incredibly important, not just because we take the Senate, but you have to send a message that if politicians want to stay in office, they actually have to care more about the voters who put them there than the super PACs who fund them, the propagandists who hold their fate on cable television, the president's Twitter account. And that's an important message. I think the reason that they are opposing witnesses, even though the overwhelming majority of the voters clearly support it, because if it's 75% nationally, it's at least that in Colorado, right? Which is a pretty blue state and similar in Arizona and probably pretty similar in North Carolina. And so they have looked at it and decided that they are more likely to succeed if they appeal to the pro-Trump superbacks who spend money, the Trump campaign that is organizing there, the Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, because if they buck Trump, those people turn on them. And so it shows that they've decided that the balance of power is not in the voters, but it's in the outside structures of the Republican Party.

And that a set of other measures will help prevent them from suffering accountability for this. And that's where it gets dangerous. Yeah, I also think, you know, their calculation must be our Democratic opponents in the Senate races, they're going to run against us on health care. They're going to run against us on tax cuts, on a whole bunch of other issues. They're not going to be talking about impeachment and our votes on impeachment from now until November. At least I'm guessing that's what they think. Or if they think that if they are making those arguments about impeachment, they think that they won't really resonate with a lot of voters.

And I do wonder, as we come out of this trial, to me it seems, after all the danger we just talked about, it seems absurd to just never bring up the consequences of what's going to happen, Trump being acquitted for this, between now and November. But I do wonder how to talk about it in a way that does actually resonate with most people in this country. And I'm not sure, I think that would be a good project for the Democratic Party, because I do think the easy way out that you could see Democrats taking is like, okay, impeachment is behind us. We're moving on to health care. We're moving on to issues that really affect people's lives. And let's put this whole thing behind us for good. And I do think that would be a mistake. I don't think we should make the larger Democratic argument as we head towards November that includes what we have seen over the last couple of months? I think there are a couple of different ways to do it. And one way is that one of the competing theories of what the Democratic message should be,

which is articulated in the last episode of The Wilderness that you referenced earlier. I call it, and have called it for a while, the chaos and corruption message. Our friend David Axelrod refers to it as essentially the national exhaustion message. And this is a data point, which is because Trump is so uniquely obsessed with himself and unable to control himself, we are unable to deal with the things that are affecting people's lives. We are in this mess because of Donald Trump's outrageous conduct. And so instead of spending the last six months dealing with raising wages or fixing health care and all these other things, we're dealing with this, and that is Trump's fault. So there is a way to fit it into that.

So there is a way to fit it into that. Which is – and I think this fits with – because I am just going to shill for the wilderness left and right. This fits from the – Someone needs to. The race class narrative that is talked about in the Midwestern episode of The Wilderness from a project that was being done in Minnesota where why don't the Republicans want you to have a say? Why are they trying to take your vote? Why are they trying to gerrymander your vote out of existence? Why do they want billionaires to be able to fund our elections? It is because they want to keep power in the hands of powerful interests, the corporations that fund the party. And they care so much about helping these powerful interests at your expense that the

president is willing to break the law and Republicans are willing to stand by this corruption because that is in the interest of the people who have gotten rich. The companies like Amazon who are paying zero in federal taxes under Trump, the companies who have gotten huge tax breaks, the billionaires who've gotten tax breaks, those people have an interest in maintaining this system, even though the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with this approach to our economy. I do think one other message is one that you've talked about before. You and I have talked about it with each other, I think, in the wilderness. I lose track of... Is it our text chain? Is it a podcast? Who knows? But that Trump is focused on himself. He's not focused on you. And it sort

of fits with what you've been saying, which like while your premiums are going up what's donald trump doing uh he's trying to cheat to win the election he's he's working with ukraine to take down joe biden that's what he's been busy doing for the last year while um you know all kinds of problems in this country pile up because all he gives a shit about is himself and And look, when you try to figure out, okay, what is it that people believe about Donald Trump? What is it that the most Americans believe about Donald Trump, right? Not just us, but like some Trump voters, some Republicans, some independents. And I do think whether you like him or not, most people get that this is a guy who's a little narcissistic and sort of in it for himself.

And, you know, some of them say like, well, but, you know, the economy is looking okay. You know, you'll hear that from some Obama Trump voters and other people. But they will admit that Donald Trump is only in this, or not only maybe, but is certainly in this for himself and is very self-absorbed. And I think that what he did to lead to his impeachment certainly makes that point. This is going to sound strange, but last night I was watching Below Deck. And you know who was on the yacht this week for her bachelorette party? Who? One time PSA co-host Jemele Hill.

Really? Yeah, it was wild. That's so funny. There's some sadness in my life that the first person to be on Below Deck who has hosted a PSA live show was not me, but that's fine. But I had totally forgotten that all around Jamel Hill's departure from ESPN was the fact that Donald Trump woke up one morning and started tweeting about her. And then I saw some of the tweets about Donald Trump fighting with Don Lemon and Rick Wilson about something that was said on Don Lemon's show. And it's like, it is true. What if you had a president who woke up every morning and instead of fighting with Jamel Hill and Don Lemon and Deborah Messing, they fought for you?

It's sort of the opportunity cost of Trump's narcissism, I guess, would be what that argument would be. And I do think impeachment fits into that? Yeah. And I know, you know, some of you listening to this, that's not the kind of argument, like we're already persuaded. We think the guy's a fucking monster, right? So it's, it's not like that's the argument that's going to get us all going. Most of you listening to this podcast probably, but I guarantee you that for people who are on the fence, for people who are not paying close attention to the news all the time, which is most voters, I do think that argument carries a lot of resonance. Because they do know when they turn their TV on once in a while that what they see is this guy just fucking fighting with someone else and not doing shit. All right.

Let's talk about the final days of the Iowa caucus. Rapidly approaching. In addition to the slew of Iowa polling that shows Bernie Sanders in the lead, we did our own poll with Change Research that Tommy and I talk about on his final episode of On the Ground in Iowa. as other polls. So after we surveyed 704 likely caucus goers between January 22nd and 26th, we found Bernie Sanders in the lead at 27%. Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg tied at 19%. Elizabeth Warren at 15%. And Amy Klobuchar at 10%. And also the final Des Moines Register poll from Ann Seltzer is coming this weekend. Saturday night, we'll be in Des Moines. I hear there's like a CNN live show where they announce the results, which is just right up our alley. Hey, you know what? It is an event. I mean, kudos to Ann Seltzer for turning her polling into an actual event. Like I saw someone was going through what a crazy news week we have coming up and they were like working backwards from Tuesday.

So Tuesday is the state of the union. Monday is the Iowa caucus. Sunday is the super bowl. And Saturday is the more register poll. And which is true. It is a very consequential event. And I am fascinated to see what it says. Do you have any takeaways from our poll from our change poll?

I think there is a very clear effect from our poll and all the other polls that Bernie Sanders has very real momentum heading into caucus night. That is clear. There is going to be an intense battle for second place. And I think second is going to be of great value heading out of here. Because I was looking at the 538 model of the election, and they have an interesting thing, which is they, as I understand Nate Silver correctly, the more expected the result, the less of a bounce the candidate will get from winning Iowa. And so Bernie Sanders will... I mean, don't get me wrong. Winning Iowa is going to be a huge deal for him. But because it is going to become the expected result, there is a lot of room for

the person who breaks out of that four-person race for second. If there is a clear second, that person is going to have a chance to make a real claim to be the alternative to Sanders in New Hampshire and then going off there. So that is what I'm really interested to see. And the fact that that has stayed close in basically every poll over the last few months is, I think, really notable and interesting. I was interested by how this breaks down by age in our poll and some of the other polls, because you've seen in the national media narrative, Bernie's doing quite well with young people and Biden's doing quite well with older people. In our poll, Bernie leads among all age groups, but those 65 plus. So he even leads narrowly among people from 50 to 64, which I thought is, that's a lot of strength

across a lot of different age groups. And I'm interested to see what Ann Seltzer has to say about this on Saturday, because she is, as we've said many times, the best in the business at actually estimating what the turnout's going to look like in Iowa, which is very hard to do. Our poll estimates that 18% of caucus goers will be under 35 and 38% under 50. But it also says if these groups turn out at higher numbers, which is possible since they are just about as enthusiastic as older voters in caucusing, which doesn't usually happen. Sanders could win by even more than the lead that he has right now, which I thought is something worth watching. There's a lot of 2008 vibes from this, and I'm not comparing anyone to Obama. No, just how it felt in Iowa.

It was how it felt, and there was this question that was holding a lot of people back about Obama's, would these first-time caucus scholars turn out? For Obama, that was obviously young people, but it was also a lot of independents and, frankly, Republicans who were drawn to Obama's message. And there were polls that actually, the more registered polls showed Obama winning and accurately predicted results, but there were other polls that did not account for that effect because they were skeptical that these people who had not caucused before would caucus for Obama. And then obviously they did at even higher numbers than people thought. Nate Cohn has a real, we're just talking about all the Nates, but Nate Cohn had a,

he talked about his poll and how the biggest difference between his poll and other polls was there was a huge number of Bernie Sanders supporters who said they're going to support Sanders, did not caucus in 16, and did not vote in 2018. Wow. And so he includes them in his poll because if someone says that he has a very open policy, whereas if you say you're going to caucus, we're going to count you, and other polls will screen those people out that if you say you didn't vote 18, you won't be included in the sample. And I would tend to, in the first presidential election after Trump, put myself in the camp that these people will turn out. And if that's the case, Bernie Sanders is going to be in a very strong position. Bernie Sanders is going to be a very strong position. It is also possible because we live in the upside-down world that a completely unexpected result will happen and, like, Andrew Yang will win or something and everyone will be shocked. That is also true. So who knows?

You know, in these polls, I also like to go below just the horse race numbers and talk about sort of why people are picking the candidates they pick. I thought this was very interesting. was very interesting. 29% picked their candidate because they thought that the candidate would have the best chance to beat Donald Trump versus we gave the people the option of picking a candidate who will bring major change to Washington and how things work, which I thought was, you know, electability had been such a concern throughout most of the race. And, you know, this breaks down how you'd expect among the different candidates. So the Klobuchar voters and the Biden voters overwhelmingly picked their candidate because they think they can beat Trump. The Sanders voters and the Warren voters overwhelmingly picked their candidate because

they think they can bring major change to Washington. What's interesting is the Pete voters, Pete Buttigieg voters by 58 to 42 are picking Pete because they think he will bring major changes to the way things work in Washington, which could be an interesting thing to watch if Pete does well enough in Iowa to continue. I'm very interested in seeing Buttigieg's performance because there has been this sense in the narrative that he is sort of lacking momentum. He has fallen in some national polls. He was obviously winning in these polls pretty recently and is now second, third, fourth, whatever, you know, however you want to look at it. But he's in that – he's a distant second to Sanders at best. large crowds in these very Republican parts of Iowa, which is a way in which he could end up, even if he loses, which I think is very possible, loses the overall vote that he does very well in delegates because he may have strengthened parts of the state that others do not.

Yeah. I also was fascinated. We polled people, we polled the supporters of the candidates on how often they use Twitter. And this will probably not surprise you that the Sanders and Warren voters use Twitter the most. And 80% of Amy Klobuchar supporters never use Twitter, which I think is just amazing. And good for her, I guess. Yeah. So now that Bernie is in the lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire with quite a bit of momentum, the attacks have begun, which tends to happen when you become a frontrunner.

On Wednesday, one came from a pro-Israel super PAC called the Democratic Majority for Israel, which is running ads in Iowa featuring Iowa voters who say they're concerned that Bernie's positions would hurt the party's chances of beating Trump in November. One voter even said she's worried about his health and talks about the heart attack he had last fall. Mark Millman, the pollster and the head of Democratic majority for Israel, told the New York Times that the ads were happened because they were worried about Bernie's potential electability and his positions on the Arab-Israeli peace conflict. Dan, what'd you think of the ad in terms of, um, its fairness and I guess its effectiveness? It's hard to evaluate it because I have a opposition to the fact of the ad. Like I think it is a terrible idea for the unified effort to defeat Trump for an outside secretly funded Washington group to be running ads,

trying to put their thumb on the scale in the favor of one candidate or another. I think that is disastrous. I think it's just a terrible thing to do because it will so distrust and make it harder to unify if Bernie wins, and it'll make it harder to unify if Bernie doesn't win. And so the best way to ensure unity is to just let the voters decide. And the DNC, to their credit, has done a very good job of staying as far out of this as possible. There have been no accusations of meddling or rigging. A lot of the superdelegate policy has been changed to make it more open and more fair. And so let's just let the voters decide and figure it out. I don't think the execution of the ad is particularly good or it's particularly effective. I think I am somewhat shocked that we are sitting here a few days before the Iowa caucus and none of the other candidates have made

an electability case against Bernie. Yeah. I was going to say, I agree with you on the outside groups meddling. I think it's, I don't like it. And I also think it is counterproductive. the outside groups meddling. I think it's, I don't like it. And I also think it is counterproductive. And one piece of evidence that it is counterproductive is Bernie's campaign raised $1.3 million the day after the ad aired. And so, you know, I don't, I don't think that that works very well, but if one of the candidates wanted to run an ad like that, or say something like that on the stump about Bernie, I think that's totally fair. But you're right that it, at least in terms of the electability stuff. But very few of them have done that. Or, you know, they've sort of danced around it. We talked about this last episode, I think that, you know, Pete had a fundraising email that said Bernie can't beat

Trump. Klobuchar has been talking about Medicare for all as sort of a liability in the general election. But Biden, who I thought would probably lead the charge here, has been sort of quiet about it. Yeah. I mean, and notably Pete's campaign sent that fundraising email out, but then he did not, when asked about it, back up that contention in person. Right, right, right. Look, candidates have to be the ones to make the arguments against other candidates.

Bernie himself has made an electability argument against Biden repeatedly. Right. Yeah. He has talked about Biden's support of NAFTA and China trade as not just wrong policy-wise, but would make him a less effective candidate because he could draw a less sharp contrast against Trump in the Midwest, which I think there is a lot of truth to that. It's fair. It is fair. And I think someone could make the argument against Bernie. But it has to be made

by the candidates. And we are continuing to live in this world where the candidates, I think, have been struggling to figure out how to do contrast in a multi-candidate field. And it's very – look, there are a thousand jokes about three-dimensional and 27-dimensional chess, but the Iowa caucus sort of is. Because if you make the attack, you diminish your chance of being the second choice to the supporters of that candidate if they don't make viability. And so it's very hard, but we have the stars have aligned where one candidate is running away with it, and no one seemed to have a plan to stop that candidate. And no one seemed to have a plan to stop that candidate, which I think is to Bernie Sanders' campaign, it's great credit that they put themselves in this position. Yeah.

No, I'm very surprised that Joe Biden – and look, we might see this. If Biden does not do well in Iowa, the week between Iowa and New Hampshire, you could certainly see Biden making a very robust electability case against Bernie Sanders at that point. Because if he's not, then I don't, I don't, not quite sure what his plan is. You know, other people have started to make the electability case here. There was a piece by New York magazine writer Jonathan Chait that got a lot of attention this week with the very clickbaity headline, running Bernie Sanders against Trump would be an act of insanity. He argues that the 2018 midterms provide a lot of proof points for Democrats about where they can be successful this cycle, particularly from the races where more moderate candidates flipped red districts and the one where aggressively progressive candidates lost in red districts. He wrote, quote, At this point, there is hardly any serious evidence to believe that the best strategy to defeat Trump is to mobilize voters with a radical economic agenda. What'd you think of Chait's argument, Dan? I mean, it is a argument well made with a lot of compelling data points. There is one, I think, just overarching point that I think is more important, which is congressional races are more often sort of generic than presidential

races, which are very personality driven. And so it is a little bit of an apples, it's like an apples to pears comparison, right? It's a little closer than two completely different things, but they aren't the same. And I thought about just as a thought exercise, writing why Democrats should nominate Bernie Sanders. And I'm not saying I am certain that that's the right thing to do. I actually have no idea. I can convince myself at any moment that any one of the candidates is the most electable, and then I can have a different opinion by lunchtime. Yeah, no, I've done that. I've done that myself. And I think there is a very, there is a compelling case for Sanders and some people are out there making it. Uh, David Korn in mother Jones has a piece today, which raises the,

which sort of takes on some of the, the series of anti Bernie Sanders arguments, but his also clickbaity headline is, is Bernie Sanders, GeorgeGovern or is he Donald Trump? And he was very clear to point out that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are two very, very different people. Right. But it is... Can you scramble sort of electoral coalitions like Trump did? Scramble electoral coalitions and sort of upend the traditional ideology arguments? Or do you suffer a terrible defeat by electing what you'd call a high-variance candidate, someone with high risk and high reward, and you lose mightily like the Democrats did in 1972 with McGovern? I don't really know the answer to it. I think that there is, you could write the cheat piece about Biden too. Yeah. You could take 2016 and say,

here's an example. We ran a candidate against Trump who was a longtime member of the political establishment who had, even if they were unfair, had vague accusations of corruption around them that were then weaponized by Trump and the Republicans and the propaganda machine, and that this candidate had limited enthusiasm among young people. Right. Like that is the – you could – I mean, Chait would write it with longer – make it longer and better. But you can do that case against them too. And I have just come to the conclusion that – and we also – and I would say this is a really important point. We have no idea what attributes in the candidate are going to matter most 10 months from now. It was seen as a detriment to – that Obama was so calm and didn't have the passion of other candidates. It wouldn't

get fired up as much as the media wanted him to. But then when we had the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, his thoughtfulness and his natural calm was seen as a gigantic attribute as someone who would be well-suited temperamentally to take on this crisis. And that was not true in January, but it was true in October. And I think that could be true of all of these candidates as well. If there is an international incident, Biden's experience on the world stage could be much more valued in October than it is now. If there is a financial crisis, Bernie Sanders' opposition to bailouts and his strong populist rhetoric could be much more valuable then than it is now. And so we just, we don't really know. And it's that we're really going to have to trust the voters who I do think generally pick the most electable

candidate. We just don't know that because you're only electable if you get to be president. So if you win the election, you were the most electable candidate. And if you lose, you weren't, but you can't really do the hypothetical thought exercise of what if it was Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders or Howard Dean instead of John Kerry. And so you don't really know. So we're going to trust, even though our system is quite flawed, I'm just going to have to believe the candidate who best navigates that system is the one best able to take on Trump. I think we spend way too much time on ideology and policy positions as the way to figure out vote choice, like how people are going to vote. And, you know, I know

a lot of the political scientists will say, well, there's a lot of there's a good amount of political research that says if you are candidates who tend to be further towards the ideological left, have a harder time winning elections than candidates that are closer to the center left. And that research is real. But as you and I know, and as we have seen in multiple campaigns, the candidate, and you said this, the candidate themselves really matters. The campaign they run matters and the opponent matters. I went into the wilderness with two races in my head to try to sort of answer this question for the series, which was in Arizona, a state that's trending towards the Democrats that is on our list for 2020. In 2018, Kyrsten Sinema wins there. She's a very, very moderate candidate.

People are talking right now that she might actually vote for acquittal. I hope not. But as moderate as they come, she's like a new Joe Manchin. And she wins the Senate race in Arizona, while the Democratic candidate for governor, who was much more progressive in Arizona, lost by double digits to the incumbent governor of Arizona. Then you go up to Wisconsin, and Tammy Baldwin, who is as progressive as they come, one of the most liberal members of the United States Senate, four single payer, a lesbian, wins Wisconsin by 11 points when the more moderate Democratic candidate for governor, Tony Evers, barely squeaks by in beating Scott Walker. Now again, governor's race is different than Senate races. Their opponents are different, right? So there's

a whole bunch of different factors. But those two races told me it's really hard to map a candidate's ideology neatly on vote choice, on how people vote. And I think when it comes to Bernie, we sort of see this in a lot of polls have asked people over the course of the year, do you think a woman can be elected president, a gay candidate, a democratic socialist, someone over 70? And democratic socialist fares very poorly. It fares very poorly, even in comparison to all those other attributes. And yet, even though Democratic Socialist as a label performs poorly, Bernie Sanders, the candidate, performs quite well. And I think if it ends up that Bernie does win the nomination, I think the answer to like, can he win is like, who, who knows? Because it really depends on what kind of a campaign he runs.

And I think if Bernie Sanders runs a campaign, that's like the independent Senator from Vermont, who has taken on both parties at times and, and taken on corruption in Washington and is sick of the establishment and just wants to talk about, you know, taking on corporate power and helping people with health care and jobs and all that kind of stuff, then, you know, I think he has a pretty decent chance. If the election becomes about Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Socialist, and it's an election about ideology and an extreme left ideology versus an extreme right ideology, then I think he's going to have real problems. Time will tell. Is that the right pundit thing to say?

Time will tell. But look, no, I mean, time will tell, and it's hard to predict, obviously, but I do think the one missing piece of all this, and this goes for Joe Biden's campaign and Elizabeth Warren's campaign and all of their campaigns, a lot of this is within the control of the campaign and the candidate, right? Like, I mean, back to Biden for a second. There's a million reasons, right? Like Joe Biden on paper you could make an argument for is a good candidate for this moment, right? And Chait sort of does that. There's a piece in Vox that does that.

And, right, you can, and you look at the 2018 midterms and you say the same thing, right? Like people are sick of the chaos and corruption from Trump. They want some normalcy. They know Joe Biden. They trust Joe Biden. And the polls show that he can beat Trump in some of these states. And so that's the kind of candidate we want. And you could imagine a campaign where, you know, in the general, Joe Biden runs a very proficient campaign.

Where, you know, in the general, Joe Biden runs a very proficient campaign and he is the type of candidate that we saw our eight years in the White House and he's a happy warrior and that's the campaign. And then you can also see a campaign where he doesn't, you know, put in that kind of performance. And it goes very differently, which is the case that you just made. But a lot of this is not baked, right? Like it is entirely within the control of the campaigns and the candidates. And I think we would all do well to remember that as, uh, as we go forward here, I would just, I would make one more point just about Biden's electability. Just, I think it is worth noting. Um, like I said, we don't know. I do think in all the various data points or theories about various candidates electabilities. And I put the, the, the polling 10 months out into a corner of

informative, but not particularly instructive. I think it is notable that the house members whose job depends on strong performance at the top of the ticket in purple and red States do. Most of them do believe that Joe Biden is, is their best option, whether that is Cindy Axne or Chrissy Houlihan or Colin Allred. And I think that could they be wrong? A hundred percent. But I just think that is a thing that Biden campaign has touted and should continue to tell because as voters are making that evaluation, I think the opinion of those people is worth more than the opinions of a thousand pundits and podcasters and the like.

Yeah. And again, I should end by saying, like, we're talking about the Biden and Bernie electability cases because at this moment, you know, it seems likely that one of them could be the nominee. But part of the reason that it's like so tough to predict this could mean that, you know, as the voting starts in Iowa and New Hampshire and elsewhere, voters are like, I don't think that either of those guys are the most electable. And, you know, then Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar and even maybe Mike Bloomberg will all have a chance to make their cases. And Andrew Yang. Do not stop the Yang media blackout.

I'm sorry. I know, I know, I know. And Andrew Yang and Andrew Yang. I am going to black out all the rest of the candidates because I do think I do think that is the universe. Though, who knows? Prove me wrong. Someone else running. But yeah, so I think, you know, the fact that there's a reason this race is so unsettled. And it is, as we have said many times, there are, each of these candidates has strengths that you could see

really working out well in the general and they have weaknesses that would not. And that's why people have had a hard time deciding. Okay, when we come back, we will talk to Crooked Media's Chief Content Officer, Tanya Somanator, about the launch of Vote Save America today.

On the pod today, her debut on Pod Save America, finally. that can't be true it is she's been on the wilderness but not pod save america the chief content officer of crooked media the woman who started it all employee number one you gave me a job that's your tanya sominator is here with us today i often said in those early days that you all would be dead without her. Oh, my God. And you were correct. Flattery gets you everywhere in this town, guys.

Tanya, we have you on because Vote Save America has relaunched. It has launched. VSA 2020. And we all remember that Vote Save America in 2018 was a website that is a one-stop shop for all of your voter registration and volunteering opportunities and ballot information needs. Right. So tell us all about the new program. Right. So Votes of America 2018 was kind of an experiment, right?

We, you know, I think, John, you and I were basically like, what is our registration date? And we started googling around and being like what the hell there's no one place where you can figure out what your registration date is polling place like all of that stuff didn't exist i'm disappointed you neither of you are registered right right we were wondering we're like there has to be one website where you can both register to vote check check your registration, and figure out how to volunteer. Right. And figure out what the hell is going to be on your ballot in one place no matter where you live.

And that was not the case. Not the case at all. I mean, there's a lot of great websites out there with a lot of information. So we worked with a lot of partners to pull that together. And it was an experiment to see if people would use it. We knew people really cared about what the result was going to be, but how much did they want to do to help bring about the result they wanted to see? Turns out a lot. Granted, we like totally, you know, bootstrap that site together. I think like I was coding at one point, which is not a good sign for anybody. And we were just like-

Better than us coding. sign for anybody. And we were just like, right, well, listen, some standard. But and so we were like desperately trying to like build this site while while the election was happening. But we saw that a lot of people really did care and really wanted to do more than just vote. They wanted to figure out what else they could do and wanted to make sure they could help other people vote and other people like understand the stakes of that election, which were high. Well, the stakes of this election are much higher. And it's not only the White House, it's the Senate. It's keeping the House.

It's state legislatures. I mean, Dan, you talk about Texas all the time. That could actually end up setting the stage for what the next decade and beyond looks like for this country. So we, this year, knowing that the stakes were so high, we wanted to put together a strategy that actually helped people have the impact where we all know it needs to be. So this time, Vote Save America is not just a website. It's an initiative. It's a program. Save America is not just a website. It's an initiative. It's a program. It's a strategic program. And it's a community where anybody who is super anxious about what's going to happen,

we wanted to give you something to do with that. And that meant like putting together a website that not only would you be able to make sure you weren't kicked off the rolls, that you could register, that you could find your polling place, that you can understand what's on your ballot. All the stuff that was in 2018 will exist now. But you can also figure out where to donate so your money has the biggest impact and at the right time. It's not just about where you're putting your money, but it's like when you're giving that money. Because if you think about it, as this primary is going on and we're heading to Iowa and people are really focused on the candidates, the candidates are focused on the candidates. They're trying to win a battle between each other. Meanwhile, Trump doesn't need to worry about that at all. He's got

a huge war chest. He's got nothing on his plate. He's got literally, he doesn't have to do anything but engage with voters and spend money on Facebook, on TV ads, and just talking to voters all the time. Our candidates aren't doing that yet, or they can't really afford to spend that money there yet. So when we're spending money early in this year, like you should be donating to people who are doing that voter engagement, who are on the ground in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, in Arizona and Florida and North Carolina, Michigan, the states that are really this election is going to come down to. And we can help carry that load.

And so, you know, when you come to Vote Save America, you can see the strategy behind where we're asking you to donate. We will never ask you to donate to a place where we don't think your dollar is going to have a huge, huge impact on the outcome of the election. So the promise of Vote Save America 2020 really is a program that's like we talk to strategists, we talk to activists on the ground, we talk to state party leaders, we talk to campaign staff, we talk to everybody, we talk to you guys. Everyone's in the loop.

Everybody's in the loop. We're work. To quote American hero Lev Parnas. That's Gordon Sondland, man. Oh, I was also Lev Parnas. Yeah, yeah, yeah. To quote American hero, Lev Parnas. That's Gordon Sondland, man. Oh, it was also Lev Parnas. Yeah, it was Lev Parnas, yeah. We're working with everybody

and like all the groups you know, Indivisible, Swing Left, groups that you don't know, Souls to the Polls, like people who are on the ground, they're part of this program and we're going to connect you to them throughout the year.

So instead of like having to freak the fuck out about what you're supposed to do, what we're promising you is we're going to take you step by step through the year, like phase one, you're going to do this next step. You're going to do this next step. We suggest you do this. And if you keep wanting to do more, we're going to give you options to do more. And anybody who wants to leave it all on the line, Vote Save America 2020 is going to help you do that. Yeah. I mean, the most common question we get, and there's many variations of these questions. Who's going to win? There's that, right.

Whether we're, no, people know now not to ask us that question. But when we're at live shows, on Twitter, on live streams, it is, what can I do to help? Or it's, I live in a super blue state yeah right and I don't think there's any competitive elections around me which is also wrong um but what can I do to help I live in a super red state yeah what can I do what can I do go to votesaveamerica.com right put in your email right and we will tell you every step of the way exactly what you can do to help 100 and so one example we can give for that, because so many people tell us, as you know, I live in California.

You know, I'm going to volunteer. Thank God we had to convince you to move here. That was a real tough one. I mean, yeah. And I, like, what do I do? I, you know, I know that Michigan matters. I know that Wisconsin matters, for God's sakes. Everybody's told me. You guys have said it a thousand times. Wisconsin matters. So what am I doing? Do I just have to sit here in an anxious ball and worry about it? like an adopt a state program where you can adopt a battleground state. And while you're like making sure your friends are registered, while you're making sure,

you know, you're volunteering around your state, you can do one more thing and adopt Wisconsin. And we will send you specific asks that are driven by people on the ground, like Ben Wickler. And he'll be like, I need this right now. And we will deliver that to you.

And we will tell you, this is why you need to do it. And this is why, you know, you need to vote, save Wisconsin. And we'll deliver that to you and we will tell you this is why you need to do it. And this is why, you know, you need to vote Save Wisconsin. And we'll give you feedback. We'll tell you what happened to your dollar, what happened to the volunteer opportunity that you helped make happen. And, you know, you'll hear messages from people on the ground about exactly what's going on. Because I think that's super important to see that if you're going to commit and you really want to help in battleground states, that you see exactly what's going on there. There's no reason to just not know.

And so that's one thing that we'll be rolling out later this spring. Well, this sounds pretty good. Yeah, it sounds like a great website. So final ask to everyone is just every single person listening to this. And we will we will take it as a personal offense. single person listening to this and we will uh we will take it as a as a personal offense if you do not uh go to votesaveamerica.com and just you know sign up sign up like we're not gonna we're not we should also say sign up we're not gonna like spam you with bullshit no so this is this is super important we're not gonna ask you to like buy all kinds of shit no no no like a certain book which requests you guys yeah maybe there's that maybe there's that but um no like this this site is very much just about like we are you know

very it's not a product we're not hawking anything uh we're not making money off this no no not at all um we just want you to have the information that you want to have and the and certainly the information that you need to have and i just want want to say, like, you know, we're really, you guys talk about it all the time, this election sits on a knife's edge. I think everybody knows that. Everybody who feels anxiety about Trump getting reelected, that shouldn't breed a sense of pessimism

or a sense of just depression that it's not changeable. It's actually really, really so much in our hands. If you're looking for somebody to save you, if you're looking for a candidate to swoop in and be like the candidate to beat Donald Trump, that's not going to happen. What's going to beat Donald Trump is what you do and what you bring to the table. Because anybody who's listening to this, you're so much more persuasive than you think. You're so, you can convince people to believe that they can make a difference this year. And that is the most crucial thing that we can do. And Vote Save America is just there to help you convince people to at least register,

at least get the information that they need, at least like maybe come with you to a volunteer event, or at least like find out what's happening in Wisconsin and what they can do. Because if you, you know, we're not Pollyannish about what could happen on November 3rd. We're not at all like foggy eyed about our chances to win. We know that this is going to be extremely close, but that should breed a sense of determination. Everybody should do what they can. And our job, we just wanted to make that as easy as humanly possible for you to do all the right things when you needed to do it. So that's what Vote Save America is about. So John, you're right. Just come there, check if you're registered first, then Pledgister, trademark TM, give us your email, and I promise we'll just send you the information you need to

feel like you left it all on the field. You did everything you could to win on November 3rd. Look, and if you don't believe that election can come down to one person, just ask Jim Comey. Oh my God. We're really running there. Tanya left it on such a high note. We have all levity.

That's true. That's true. We don't have levity here. A higher loyalty. Tanya, thank you so much. Thank you guys. Thanks for joining us here on Pod Save America. Come back.

I appreciate it. Votesaveamerica.com. Go there now. Okay. When we come back, I'll talk to Senator Amy Klobuchar. Hey, everyone. Pod Save America and Love It or Leave It are going on tour for 2020. Between the news, this primary, and the general election.

That's right. We're going to have a lot to talk about. So come see us live when we're in your town. Get those tickets at crooked.com slash events and come hang out. That's crooked.com slash events. Hi, I'm Erin Ryan, host of Hysteria on Crooked Media. Every week on the show, I'm joined by former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Alyssa Mastromonaco, plus a bunch of funny, opinionated women here in L.A. and New York City.

We talk about the political news of the week and the topics, trends and cultural stories that affect women's lives. From reproductive rights to rom-coms, we do it all. New episodes of Hysteria drop every Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts. On the pod, the senior senator from Minnesota and presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar. So you've been sitting in this impeachment trial for the last few weeks. President's defense team just argued that he can do whatever he wants to get reelected as long as he believes that action is also in the national interest. They argued it's legal to receive dirt on an opponent from a foreign government. And it appears that just about all of your Republican colleagues

are ready to not only ratify this defense, but to do so while actively blocking all witnesses and documents. I guess my question is, like, what is your outrage level? I mean, like, doesn't this go far beyond substantive ideological differences with your Republican colleagues? Yes. I just, I'm still, I'm still, I mean, we still have another day. I am hoping at least a few of them make the case for the truth. You know, regardless of how they're going to vote on impeachment, they at least have to acknowledge that you can't have no witnesses in impeachment. The question I asked last night was that I had been part of the trial

committee for the last impeachment in the U.S. Senate, which was a federal judge out of Louisiana. Among many things, we had about a week-long trial. It's the only trial in the history of America in the U.S. Senate where the word lap dance was used 10 times, but that's beside the point. So we had 26 witnesses for that trial. So my question was, how come for a judicial impeachment of a federal judge from Louisiana, would we have 26 witnesses, 17 of whom had not testified in the House. And for a presidential impeachment trial, we would have none. And I think that just puts it in a nutshell here, because they are basically denying justice. I keep looking over them and thinking, okay, did you just run for this office

because you can buy your chair at the end and put it in your office, little back you can. Did you just buy, run for this office? You can have a trophy on the wall and you can have a title for life, you know, because I just don't understand. They are supposed to be doing the job of the American people. They're supposed to be upholding the Constitution. And this is their moment. So let's see what they do. But the Dershowitz argument, as you know, is even separate from the witnesses. You know, he's basically saying, oh, you can do anything you want, which some of them have voiced some discontent with. They have.

Because that would basically mean, I guess, Nixon could do whatever he wants. I mean, anyone could do whatever they want. And some of your Republican colleagues have voiced discontent with that to you? I haven't seen anyone do anything publicly. There's been a few people that I've read in some news articles that have said things about it. I've just been over there trying to get them to do the witnesses, you know, what's in front of me. I can't control what Dershowitz says, but I can try to convey to them how bad this is going to look. Because by the way, the truth isn't going to come out in five years. The truth is going to come out in five weeks.

We'll see if they can stop that manuscript or not, but it's going to leak out. And they will be the ones with not just the history on their shoulders, they're going to have the wrath of the voters on their shoulders because 70% of the people in this country want to hear the truth. And while whatever happens with its impeachment hearing moving me into my efforts and my argument here for the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina and beyond is that, yeah, this is an economic check on this president. We know how he hasn't kept promises and the job that we would have had if it wasn't for his trade war and the pharmaceutical prices and not helping people to get child care or housing. We all know that that's going to be a major part of the campaign. But it is more than that. It is a decency check. It is a patriotism

check. It is a president that, when asked about Russian interference, standing next to a ruthless dictator, Vladimir Putin, makes a joke about it. When hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives on the battlefield, standing up for a democracy, and four little girls at the height of the civil rights movement lost their lives in that church in Birmingham, Alabama, because they were simply trying to be part of the democracy, and other people were trying to push it away from them. If we miss that, we're going to screw this up. We have to see that there's people that don't agree with everything that's said on the debate

stage. I don't agree with everything on the debate stage, but we have to see it in a bigger way to bring in the coalition we need with independents and moderate Republicans. Well, so it seems to me, you know, at most, you might get three or four of your Republican colleagues voting for witnesses and documents, which means that the rest have shown that they are willing to defy, you know, 75% of the public to cover up a very serious abuse of power in order to stay in power themselves. It seems to me that with this Republican Party, as it exists right now, the only way to pass any legislation of any significance

is by defeating as many elected Republicans as possible. Am I wrong? Am I wrong? No, you're right. So that's why we get to my argument, you've got to win big. You know, it will be sweet if we eke by a victory at four in the morning. Don't get me wrong you've got to win big. You know, it will be sweet if we eat by victory at

four in the morning. Don't get me wrong when it comes to the presidency. But if that's how we do it, we will most likely not be sending Mitch McConnell packing. We won't win all those Senate seats. And it is in our grasp when you look at those numbers in places like Arizona and in Colorado, where our candidates are doing quite well, the possibility of winning in places like Arizona and in Colorado, where our candidates are doing quite well. The possibility of winning in states like Maine and in states like Texas or a state like North Carolina. Just what we are seeing. Look, we won the governor's race in Kentucky, John. We won the governor's race in Louisiana.

And guess who went down there to campaign the night before? Donald Trump. So my one question is, where can we send him next? If we stick with those basics and they are not celebrity candidates, I bet a lot of your listeners can't even name the name of that new governor, Wisconsin. I hardly could, Governor Evers. But you know what? He beat Scott Walker. listeners can't even name the name of that new governor, Wisconsin. I hardly could. Governor Evers. But you know what? He beat Scott Walker. That's right. So in our Iowa poll that we did, and a bunch of others, your candidacy is showing real momentum. According to our poll, one out of every four respondents who've made up their mind recently are supporting you.

The data also shows, and I'm sure your campaign knows this, that a big chunk of Iowans are trying to decide between you and Joe Biden. What's your argument to someone who says, I know the vice president, I like what he did during his eight years with Obama, all the polls show that he beats Trump in these swing states, you know, why should I support you instead? Well, I would agree with the fact that he has done a lot for our country. I would start with that. But the second thing I would say is the area we need to win is the Midwest, and it isn't flyover country for me. I like to tease Pete that 59 is the new 38 in this race, and that I'm in the next generation. And I think that's going to be important to have

a fresh face and someone new. And then the final thing is I've been governing in the era of Trump, and I get how to get things done. I get our angry but fired up Democratic base and how important that is to our victory. But I also see how people have felt screwed by this president because I've been living it. I've been there. And I think all of those things, plus the fact that I've passed over 100 bills as the lead Democrat. And if you want one proof point, the receipt, I'm the one that has won, the only one on that stage that's won those congressional districts like Michelle Bachman's every single time, rural ones, northern Minnesota, flipping 42 counties that Donald Trump has won. And I think a lot of that is getting how to bring people in and not shutting them out.

And I think a lot of that is getting how to bring people in and not shutting them out. But it's also about can you beat Trump? And I've certainly shown I'm tough enough and nimble enough on the debate stage. But I've also shown in the numbers, the one poll in the place that knows me best, my state, where Hillary had almost lost. I beat him by 17 points two months ago. More with men. More than eight points more than the vice president. So speaking of beating Trump, you said on Meet the Press that Bernie Sanders shouldn't be leading the ticket. Obviously, you want to lead the ticket.

But do you think that Bernie Sanders can beat Trump? Sure. I mean, I think a lot of people can beat Trump, depending on the circumstance. But it's more than that to me. I don't think that he would, in the way I do, bring those independents and moderate Republicans with him so that we firmly keep those House seats that we need to keep, and also that we win in those Senate races we just talked about. That's the difference. It's winning things. It's bringing people with us. It's winning big. It's bringing people with us. And I think, of course, there's got to be the skill and the ability to bring Bernie and the liberal wing of our party, which is so critical with us. We did it in 2018. I've shown ability to do that. I personally get along with all the candidates up on the stage. I'm in leadership with Bernie and Elizabeth. So I think that matters.

And you've got to have someone that can unite the party and unite the country. So I just want to give you the opportunity to comment on a story that I've been seeing go around over the last couple of days. The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that they've uncovered new evidence that may exonerate a 17-year-old who you prosecuted as Hennepin County attorney. Mayan Burrell is serving a life sentence after being tried and convicted twice of murdering 11-year-old Taisha Edwards. Obviously, this is a story you've told before. But the AP has found that some witnesses have recanted since, saying that they were coached or coerced, and that Burrell's co-defendants have actually confessed to the murder and say that Burrell wasn't even at the scene. There was never any fingerprint or DNA evidence. Your old office,

the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, says that they'll evaluate new evidence and are working with the AP, but they also said that they are, quote, confident the correct person was convicted. As the person who first, you know, was in charge of the office that first prosecuted that case, are you confident that the correct person was convicted? I was not involved in the second trial, and that's what they're referring to, because I wasn't there at the office at the time. I was in the U.S. Senate at that point, and I think some of this evidence, I don't know the details on it, might have been considered, But all I know is this, and I really do appreciate the AP thoroughly looked at this case, because if there is new evidence in the case, it should be immediately reviewed by the court. And that's what must happen. And just so you know

some context, I've advocated for reforms to our criminal justice system throughout my career. I've worked with the Innocence Project. We did a DNA review of all of our cases in which there was DNA at their urging. I have actually gone around the country for them advocating for videotape interrogations as well as a new way to do eyewitness identification, where you show one picture at a time instead of all the pictures at once. And obviously, in the Senate, I've been a very strong supporter of the First Step Act, a co-sponsor, and believe we need to go even farther. So that's my, to give you some

context. Yeah, no, that's very good context. I mean, have you read the AP story of the investigation? Yes, I did. Reading that story, as I did, and it's matters are the facts. What matters is the case being brought forward so that a court can review it and seeing all the facts together. And that's what I think has to happen. If there's new evidence, it should be immediately reviewed by the court. And that has to come forward to the county attorney's office and then to the court. Okay. So you're going to be shaking a lot of hands these last couple days talking to a lot of voters. What is the what's the 15 second pitch, the closing

pitch as you try to wrap this thing up? I can win. I can lead our country and bring people together and cross the river of our divides to a higher place in our politics. And if you are sick of the noise and the nonsense in our politics and the extreme, you have a home with me. And that means bringing together our fired up Democratic base, independents, moderate Republicans to beat this guy, because the heart of America is so much bigger than the heart of the guy in the White House right now. All right, Senator Amy Klobuchar, thanks for joining us, and good luck out there on the campaign trail. All right, thank you. All right, everyone, thanks for listening, and maybe we'll see some of you in Iowa,

and we'll have a pod out on Monday morning. Bye, everyone. Bye. Bye. Pod Save America is a product of Crooked Media. The senior producer is Michael Martinez. Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer.

Thanks to Carolyn Reston, Tanya Somanator, and Katie Long for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmel Cohnian, Yale Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as a video every week.