Pod Save America - First Rule of Republican Fight Club

Episode Date: November 16, 2023

It's apparently Fight Club week on Capitol Hill. GOP Representatives are bidding farewell to decorum and possibly their own sanity as multiple almost-fights break out in Congress. Meanwhile, MAGA Mike Johnson gets his government funding bill passed in both the House and the Senate without any major cuts to spending or fulfilling any of his far-right fantasies. George Santos is no longer running for reelection as a House Ethics Committee investigation finds he spent campaign funds on Botox, Sephora runs and… Only Fans. Plus, Biden is getting advice from progressives about how to campaign on the economy and the New York Times says Trump may be more resilient than other Republicans when it comes to messaging on abortion. Finally, John Della Volpe, pollster and author of "Fight: How Gen Z is Channeling Their Fear and Passion to Save America," joins to talk about the President's struggle with younger voters. 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 Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Republicans in Congress are picking literal fights with each other. Joe Biden gets advice from progressives on how to talk about the economy. The New York Times thinks Donald Trump is less vulnerable than other Republicans on the issue of abortion. And Biden pollster John De La Volpe joins to talk about the president's challenge with younger voters. But first, MAGA Mike Johnson looking more like rhino mike johnson now that he uh passed a bill to keep the government open that doesn't cut a single cent of spending or include

any of his weird right-wing policy kinks it's probably why the bill passed with mostly democratic votes and 95 republicans voting against it the senate also passed the bill and now it's off to joe biden for his signature uh bad news in all of this is that for some reason, the bill only funds half the government until January 19th and the other half until February 2nd. So we get to relive this shit show after the holidays. There's also no plan to pass funding for Ukraine, Israel, humanitarian aid for Gaza or help for Americans dealing with natural disasters. So no welcoming Mike Johnson's to the resistance just yet. But Dan, how was he able to pass a temporary funding bill with mostly Democratic votes and so many Republicans opposed? Isn't that the exact thing that cost Kevin McCarthy his job? It is, John, is the exact thing that

cost Kevin McCarthy his job. So I think there are a couple of things here. One, I think every new Republican speaker gets one mulligan and this is his, right? So you're going to let him get away with it. Two, McCarthy lied repeatedly to the caucus saying no CRs, no CRs, no temporary bills, no clean CRs. Johnson, and I say this quite lightly to his very, very minimal credit, did tell Republicans before during his nominating speech to be speaker that this was the plan that he wanted to do a short term extension so they could pass all of the appropriations bills and then be in a position to negotiate with the Senate, the White House.

Now, there are some wrinkles in that plan because they have been unable to pass almost any appropriations bills and they can't even get them to the floor. But at least he this was not a surprise to most Republicans, even if they didn't want to put their name on it, he didn't betray them per se in a way that Kevin McCarthy did. And, and Chip Roy and some of the other hardliners are still pretty pissed about this. Yeah. But I also think he just gets a little more leeway because they see him as true MAGA and not a lying D-bag like Kevin

McCarthy. White House initially criticized Johnson's plan and Democrats in Congress had a mixed reaction. Do you think that so many of them ended up voting yes because the bill didn't have any cuts or bad policies and there's no other way to keep the government open? I feel like you're leading the witness with that question. Yes, of course. This is, you know, they're funding the government at last year's levels was actually better than it would be if we were funding it at this year's levels

under the budget caps. And here's the thing, I don't get why the White House initially put out a statement that was like, his extreme plan, blah, blah, blah. I was like, it seems like a fine plan. There are a lot of budget nerds who think

that the laddered cr process is irresponsible the laddered cr by the way for all you fucking dorks out there is uh no you not dork if you're explaining it to people they're not the dorks the dorks are us for all of you i'm sorry that's what i meant for all of you who aren't fucking that's what i meant to say um is the fact that that half the's being funded until January 19th and the other half until February 2nd, which I don't even get that. Let's not explain it. All I will say about it is it's a stupid idea designed to appeal to stupid people,

and therefore you got 57% of the Republican caucus to vote for it. And Democrats went along because who gives a shit? It's better than shutting the government down over the holidays. Right. And I guess the only other thing that Democrats didn't get, which we're about to talk about, is like Ukraine funding, Israel funding, Gaza aid, natural disaster aid.

And it does seem like shutting the government down over that is also not something you want to do before the holidays. You think? No, thank you. No, thank you. So how the hell do you think that gets done? All that aid. And like, does it get done? And two part question.

If for some reason, Johnson tries to pass a more permanent funding bill that's as acceptable to Democrats in January, won't the hardliners just vacate his ass? Let me take the second part first. Probably. There is a question about whether there is an appetite for another month-long shit show in an election year. There's a chance they might, Republicans tend to eat their own in the odd years and then kind of line up with each other in the even years. But it's very, very possible because all it takes is one asshole to do it. And there's a plethora of assholes who could do it. On the question of aid,

really no idea how it gets done. I think there are a couple of options here. One, the Senate passes something, sends it to the House. Tremendous public pressure is put on the House. And eventually Johnson lets it go through with mostly Democratic votes. That probably also ends in the vacate his ass scenario that you put forward. Two, the House refuses to do anything other than Israel aid. The Senate eventually buckles and agrees to just do Israel aid, and then I think the other stuff may never get done because passing Ukraine aid on its own through this house may be close to impossible. Third option is, and this will lead us into the next topic, is trial by combat,

where one Republican fights one Democrat and the winner gets to decide who gets aid. Yeah. I mean, look, I feel like with all of these, every time we talk about government funding, government shutdown, and it seems like there's a solution. It's just kicking the can down the road to an inevitable showdown where there will be a shutdown or we will lose another Republican speaker. So sad. But like, I just don't like at some point the these assholes are going to want their MAGA speaker to act like a MAGA speaker, right? And so they're not just going to let Johnson pass some full year funding bill that doesn't have a bunch of extra cuts in it beyond what Kevin McCarthy already agreed to with Joe Biden. So I just feel like this confrontation is coming at some point, but who knows? And then on Ukraine and Israel, I do think that if you have a bill that has bipartisan support in the Senate, and then they try to jam the House, and it's up to Mike Johnson to put the bill on the floor, and there's at least some group of Republicans in

the House who want to pass it, which we know that's true. So then you've got Democrats and Republicans in the House, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Joe Biden in the White House, all saying to pass this bill and Mike Johnson's just going to hold it up. Like that's it's a lot of pressure. I could see he could just decide, you know, I want to do it because who cares? And I don't want to get my ass vacated. But who knows? In every other time in recent history where that's happened and happened a fair amount during the Obama years, the House would eventually buckle. It happened on fiscal cliff. It happened on extension of the payroll tax cut. It happened on aid for victims of the Hurricane Sandy and other natural disasters. But we were not in a world where it only took one House Republican to throw the entire thing

in the chaos. It may be, and Johnson may decide decide this that the only option is to shut the government down like he sort of has to drive the car off the cliff to teach everyone in his party that gravity exists right so you you have still might not do it it may fail but he eventually when under that that's essentially what happened in 2014 with that shutdown um when it was over obamacare is that once you once the government was shut down, the political pressure mounted so much that enough Republicans asked for, you basically gave in, and that you could see that having to happen again. But if the government shuts down, there's not a great path for reopening it again with this house under these dynamics.

Cool, cool. All right. Yeah, it's awesome. Now for the fun stuff. For some reason, this is the week that Republicans all over Capitol Hill lost their final shreds of sanity and dignity with tantrums and meltdowns so epic that they nearly led to several physical altercations. First up, James Comer, House Oversight Committee chair who's trying to impeach Joe Biden for, among other things, loaning his brother money when he wasn't even an elected official or a candidate. Well, according to Story in the Daily Beast, it turns out that James Comer also paid his brother $200,000, quote, related to the dealings of a family company that appears to have never existed

on paper. Who knows if it's shady or not? It seems like it could be shady, but clearly the same thing that he's accusing Joe Biden of doing. And so when Democrat Jared Moskowitz asked Comer about the story during a hearing on Tuesday, things got a little heated. Let's listen. You all continue to you look like a smurf here, just going around and all this stuff. You have gone on TV and said the president did something illegal. You're doing stuff with your brother. The American people have the same questions.

Why should they believe you? Mr. Chairman, this seems to have gotten under your skin. That bell means this was the first of a couple fights that we're about to talk about. Dan, what do you think of the old, I'm not a hypocritical crook, you're a Smurf play? Smurf feels like a very dated reference. I have to say. What a weird. Jared Moskowitz does not look like a Smurf.

Did you see what he was wearing? No, but I just. He had on a particularly blue suit this day. Oh, okay. It is a dumb comment not befitting a member of Congress, let alone just a grown adult. But there was context for it in the blue suit. Okay, well, that's fair. Look, I'm here just to give people the facts.

Point for Comer on that one. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm just trying to give you and our listeners slash viewers context for what's happening here. And just to give everyone some real info, Mike Johnson the other day said there doesn't seem to be evidence yet for an impeachment of Joe Biden. Well, guess what? James Comer's flailing around in hearings and he's getting accused of things that he's accusing Joe Biden for. He's got no evidence.

Doesn't seem like it's going well for them. Well, Mike Johnson put out a statement on Tuesday, Tuesday or Wednesday, I think, reiterating his belief that Joe Biden is committed to impeachable offenses and that he should we should bring everyone in under oath. Biden is committed to impeachable offenses and that he should we should bring everyone in under oath because every non insane action in a Republican Congress requires a much larger insane reaction. And so because he passed this CR, he has to like triple down on the fake impeachment. Fake impeachment. Yeah. All right. Fight number two. This is when things get really good at another hearing on Tuesday, right across the way on Capitol Hill, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma, real person, real name, got so triggered by testimony from the president of the Teamsters Union, Sean O'Brien, that he stood up and challenged him to a fight.

Sir, this is a time, this is a place. If you want to run your mouth, we can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here. Okay, that's fine. Perfect. You want to do it now? I'd love to do it right now. Well, stand your butt up then. You stand your butt up. Oh, hold on. Oh, stop it. Is that your solution? No, no. Sit down.

Sit down. Hold it. Answer the questions. All right, you all want, if I, he made a lot of statements, right? And his statements are fiction at best. Fiction? I read them. What? Answer the question, please.

I can't understand them, to be honest with you. Do you think Bernie Sanders woke up on Tuesday expecting that he would have to stop one of his colleagues from beating the shit out of one of his witnesses? Things in this day and age rarely exceed expectations but when i clicked on that link the other day i could not it was one million times better than i thought it was unbelievable them standing up the making the witness making fun of him just truly great stuff i had heard of mark Mark Wayne Mullen before,

but I didn't know a lot about him. Senator from Oklahoma. This did lead me to Google him. Oh, nice. Because he was very mad that Sean O'Brien called him a greedy CEO. By the way, the whole hearing was about trying to pass the PRO Act,

which helps people join unions. Mark Wayne wanted everyone to know that he's not anti-union, but he's tried to stop unions from being organized around his businesses. And he's worth over $30 million. And he is so extreme, he once said that if his wife's life were at risk during pregnancy, he wouldn't want her to get an abortion. That's just a fun fact about Mark Wayne Mullen from Oklahoma. He is a person serving in the U.S. Senate.

Got up, tried to challenge this guy to a fight. Now, in case you thought that Mark Wayne felt any kind of shame over this incident, think again, because this is what he said afterwards. And keep in mind, too, this isn't anything new. Andrew Jackson challenged two people or nine people to a duel when he was president and he also knocked one guy out at a White House dinner. There's been canies before in the Senate too. Maybe we should bring some of that back and it'll keep people from thinking they're so tough. I'm not afraid of biting, I will bite.

Biting? Yeah, I'm in a fight, I'm gonna bite, I'll do anything. I mean, I'm not above it and I don't care where I bite by the way he wants to bite and he doesn't care Alexander Hamilton never bit by the way do you think someone in his staff proposed the caning dueling talking points

I mean we should bring caning back I'm going to bite and I don't care where I bite. What the what is going on in the U.S. Senate with Republicans? Look, these are the Senate is filled the Congress in general, particularly the Republican the Republican caucus and both House and Senate is filled with a lot of very angry assholes who don't like to work very much and have been working for like a month straight. So I think they're all at the end of their ropes and losing it. Well, Dan, finally, we have saved the best for last.

Disgraced former speaker Kevin McCarthy, known to his fans as the backbencher from Bakersfield, seems like he is definitely not over getting ousted by MAGA hardliners. They stabbed him in the back, so he allegedly elbowed one of them in the back, also on Tuesday. Must have been a full moon. Here's Republican Tim Burchett on what went down and McCarthy's response. At that time, I got elbowed in the back,

and it kind of caught me off guard because it was a clean shot to the kidneys, and I turned back, and there was Kevin for a minute. I was kind of, what the heck just happened and then I you know, I chased after him of course. He's a you know, he's the type of guy that when you're a kid would throw a rock over the fence and run home and hide behind his mama's skirt. And he just you know, that's not the way we handle things in East Tennessee. We if we have a problem with somebody I'm gonna look him in the eye.

If I hit, if I would hit somebody they would know I hit him. He said he knew you. He said he was in pain that you hit him so him in the eye. If I would hit somebody, they would know I did it. He said he knew you. He said he was in pain that you hit him so hard. Oh, come on now. Three seconds. You just don't expect a guy who was at one time three steps away from the White House to hit you with a sucker punch in the hallway. I mean, first of all, it feels like Kevin McCarthy probably was that kid.

Oh, yeah, 100%. Very perceptive. Tim Burchard, whoever you are. I think you kind of had him it feels like Kevin McCarthy probably was that kid. Oh, yeah. 100%. Very perceptive. Tim Burchard, whoever you are. I think he kind of had him dead to rights on that one. Yeah. Do we really think that Kevin McCarthy meant to elbow a fellow member of Congress walking by while he was talking to an NPR reporter? What do you think?

I feel like this is a trick question. Like, what's the right answer here? Like, am I defending Kevin McCarthy? I know. i'm not trying to get you to defend kevin mccarthy or tim burchett i'm honestly curious because it's like i don't know that seems like it seems like a risky move seems like i don't know if you'd want to it just silly i don't a couple things i would be surprised if his go-to move is a running secret elbow to the kidney. Like, that doesn't seem right. That's what I'm saying.

That's one. During live interviews. Because, yeah, in fairness, like, you're not, if you're talking to the press or into a microphone, you're not paying attention. Like, if someone were to elbow me in the kidney right now, it would come as a surprise. Second, when Kevin McCarthy said, if I hit them, they would know it. I find that one also hard to believe. Also very hard to believe. they would know it i find that one also hard to believe also very hard to believe all these guys whether it's mark wayne mullen the secret spot biter or tim burchett or like

just stop pretending to be tough you are members of congress mark wayne mullen was a mixed martial arts expert this is what i also learned about mark wayne mullen kudos i don't know i don't want him elbowing me or biting me anywhere when people everyone's like these guys are members of congress they they should act better they're adults i don't care what their job is i don't care if you're in congress anything else you just don't act like this like let's not let's not raise congress up to a pedestal anywhere in polite society don't elbow people don't chase after them don't threaten them to a fight in the middle of nowhere or in the middle of a hearing over nothing like it basically like the equivalent of in someone's

office during a meeting just standing up and trying to do that across the conference room table it's insane i've done that a few times with love it i believe it i believe it in this case who are you the secret elbower are you the who like or the biter i just who is who is love it who is love it in the story jared moskowitz yes of course there's one more addendum to this story because none of these morons can just let shit go uh here's birchett giving a post-fight interview on newsmax that got way more interesting than anyone expected. He also has $17 million in an account that he'll be messing in a lot of people like mine and Nancy Mace's campaigns, I'm sure.

I don't know if he does that with Nancy Mace. She could come back at him with some stuff that he doesn't want out there in the public, I think, if you know what I'm saying. Yeah, she's already told me. She said, I hope he does that with me, and she'll take care of him. What is Nancy Mace got on Kevin McCarthy? Of all the things that we have talked about in this section, that is the question I am left with more than anything else.

I don't know what to say about that, Sean. I really don't. Drop the goods, Newsmax guy. I'm going to be refreshing Punchbowl to see if Jake Sherman delivers on the subscription money I pay him. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Speaking of people who don't belong in Congress, I realize this wasn't on the outline, but we have to talk about it because it just happened. I realize this wasn't on the outline, but we have to talk about it because it just happened.

A bipartisan ethics report from Congress that was just released Thursday morning says there is, quote, substantial evidence that George Santos violated criminal laws, which has led him to announce he will not be running again in 2024. Though he will probably also face another expulsion vote in the house before then. Among other things, the report says that Santos spent campaign funds on Botox, designer goods, fancy trips to Atlantic City, and OnlyFans. The thing that is so good about this is I've been in back-to-back meetings since early this morning at East Coast time, and I am learning all of this for the first time and it is really it is glorious I'm so happy to surprise you with this I knew that I knew that the ethics report came out and you've never defeated from the outline before so I thought

I was safe but I had not read the details yet and so I do want to quibble with one thing as someone who grew up in the mid Atlantic region there is no such thing as a fancy trip to Atlantic City. I've been there a few times, and I understand what you're saying. I thought you were going to say as someone who has an OnlyFans page.

It's my sub-stack, John. Which is Tommy once suggested to you, you should be called OnlyDance. Some people have an OnlyFans. Some people have a sub-stack. I'm more of the sub stack crowd yeah only dance it could have been it could have been the message box title it could be that it's so great oh my god that's such a good point it does feel like this expulsion vote should go forward i mean we talked before about how you know jamie raskin katie porter some other

democrats were like we want him to have due process part of the due process was about like you know he's been indicted but he hasn't been convicted but also that there hasn't even been a house ethics process yet now there is a house ethics process they had access to more evidence um than the public about george santos's potential wrongdoing and so the fact that the ethics committee now says oh yeah he he's probably committed a crime and it's a bipartisan ethics committee yeah i'd vote for that expulsion i don't know who wouldn't yeah i think that's it i mean i know who won't the republicans who can't afford to lose one house vote right right right right but among the democrats i'm among democrats yeah for sure and it really and you know we talked about this after that vote the i think there is a

very legitimate argument that we should at least let the you don't someone doesn't have to be convicted to be expelled from congress but the official governing body of the House should render or finish its investigation before you have that before you actually expel someone. So now let's have I'd be very interested to see how Republicans vote on this. OK, back to our reality where Democrats fight each other with polling cross tabs and messaging memos. After a week where Democrats argued about the validity of a New York Times poll taken a year before the election, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Data for Progress did something useful. They commissioned a poll that doesn't focus on the horse race, but on the most effective economic message for President Biden and Democrats. We will dig into the data in a second. But the main takeaway, which they reportedly shared in a meeting with White House officials, is that it is extremely difficult to convince voters that the economy

has improved and much easier to persuade people that Biden's plans are better than Trump's plans. Dan, what did you think of the poll and the recommendations? I think, as you said, an incredibly useful exercise, right? For all of the complaining and screaming about polling, this is what it's ultimately for. Not to tell us what's going to happen, but how to give us the guidance and strategic advice to get the outcome we want. And I think there's two very incredibly useful findings here. The first one is that we have to start by acknowledging that people aren't happy with the economy.

And I think for a long time, particularly over the last six to nine months, there's been this sense that perceptions of the economy were a lagging indicator. The economy was actually getting better because all the macroeconomic numbers suggest it is. So people are eventually just going to wake up one day and be happy about it. Or we're going to grab them by the lapels via their TV screens and phone screens and make them realize that. But I think the persistent and growing negative perceptions about the economy, I think, suggest that there's something else going on. One, the macroeconomic numbers we have used previously to suggest a good economy through the lens of politics don't work anymore in the same way. And our friend Mike Podhorzor was on

Ezra Klein's podcast, and he talked about this. And he made the point that in previous eras, before we lived in this world of really yawning economic inequality, prosperity was shared. we lived in this world of really yawning economic inequality, prosperity was shared. Under Bill Clinton, for example, when GDP went up, everyone benefited. That's not how we live anymore. Those benefits are not being distributed equally. That's one. Two, we talk about inflation all of the time.

And inflation is coming down in a report today on wholesale prices that is now actually below pandemic levels. But people don't care about how much costs are going up. They care what costs are. And then we still, I don't think we have a way of understanding the political environment in a world of interest rates. So I think we are past the point of trying to make people feel good about the economy and try, we have to speak to where they are. Because as we've said before, on questions of in politics, the customer is always right. And this is where the voters are. Then the other point is comparison.

And what I found really interesting in this poll was they tested a number of messages, and the best comparison against Trump was that narrowed the gap on economic approval the most had to do with Trump's support for big tax cuts for corporations and supporting corporations. And so that's like a real formula and roadmap for Democrats to adopt going forward that I think can be very, very, very useful. Just to dig in on this, because I think a lot of folks have wondered if the media's refusal to cover the improving economy or refusal to cover it extensively enough has contributed to the bad feelings about the economy. So what they did in this poll,

which I think is very smart, is that they presented the poll respondents with some information about the economy. They said, economists have found that the rate of inflation is going down and unemployment is at a record low. Which statement comes closer to your view? One, the economy is not getting better for people like me or two the economy is getting better for people like me not getting better 70 is getting better 30 and there's also you know there's been some uh speculation that maybe people's views of the broader economy is bad because the mute music is bad and all they see the headlines are bad but their personal financial situation is good. This suggests that's not the case. Then they added some messaging to the two choices. And they even gave them, you know, the economy is not going in the right direction for people like me.

We need to change direction and reverse Biden's economic policies. Or we should not return to the chaos created by Trump. Our economy is beginning to turn a corner after a few tough years felt across the world. I trust Biden more than Trump to crack down on corporations that inflate the price of gas and food and fight for people like me. That brought it down to 50% Trump,

43% the Biden statement. And so it's like it narrowed it a little bit, but it's still the statement, we need to change direction and reverse Biden's economic policies, still won out, even when you had that messaging. And to your point, what really changed the polling was talking about both of their visions for the future and what Biden and the Democrats would do and what Trump and the Republicans would do. effective statement which made people trust the democrats 15 points more than republicans on the economy was democrats support increasing social security benefits increasing taxes on billionaires and fighting big drunk companies to lower prescription drug costs that made people trust

democrats more than republicans on the economy so i do think it's about like it is about recognizing that people are still struggling that costs are still high that people are still struggling, that costs are still high, that prices are still high, even though inflation is coming down, and that Joe Biden and the Democrats have been fighting on your behalf and will continue to fight on your behalf if you return them to office. If you return Trump to office and the Republicans, this is what they did last time they were in office, cut for billionaires and this is their plan going forward and i think that is a message there's gonna be much more effective has gives democrats a lot better chance than just saying over and over again look how many jobs we created look how many of this we created the media is wrong the media blah blah blah like that's just it's not gonna work it's not gonna work yeah i mean it's it really shouldn't be that complicated and there is this level i think of elitism in this idea that these people are all just too dumb to realize how great the economy is right which is yes such elitism which has been

pervasive and it's not not all and not even most democratic messaging but a lot of the political conversation around the economy is that view is that people would are getting their cues from cnn not their bank account or their grocery bill or trying to figure out how to pay just the basic cost of living. And so we just have to, it's not, it's really not that complicated. And the messages here are the ones that have worked in every campaign prior. And so we just have to do that. Now you've written about other polling that shows more people approve of Joe Biden when they hear about his accomplishments. Is that because telling people about his economic accomplishments is different than telling people that the economy is good or that he fixed the

economy? Yes. I think that there is sometimes a sense in politics that re-election campaigns, whether you're running for mayor, Congress, Senate, or president, is like a report card where it's like, if you do these things, the voters are going to thank you by sending you back to office. And that is the exact opposite of how it works. People are not going to vote for you for what you've done. They're going to vote for you on what you're going to do. And these accomplishments are not so people say, oh, thank goodness Biden brought us this economy, because there is some tension of saying, look at all these great things you

did, and the economy is also not yet great. The reason you have to tell people these things is it gives them a foundation of belief of what you're going to do going forward. It builds credibility with voters. And because of changes in the media environment, voters have never, ever in time been more ignorant about the huge things a president has done than they are with Joe Biden right now. I mean, it is mind boggling. The Inflation Reduction Act should be akin to either the stimulus or the Affordable Care Act under Obama. And now those things may not have been popular in their time, but they were known. Here you have all these popular things and no one knows. And if you tell that to people, it gives them a reason to believe

that Joe Biden can do more things like that in the future. If they think he has done nothing in the first term, why would they elect him in the second term? Why would they believe him when he says he wants to do X, Y, and Z in the second term? Yeah. And I think part of the reason they're not as known is the information environment, as you said, but also there's a huge fight over the Affordable Care Act and a huge fight over even the Recovery Act. And I think the Inflation Reduction Act, while most Republicans voted against it, the fight was about what Joe Manchin would allow in the bill, and then it passed, and it just didn't break through. And then the Republicans did not spend a lot of time attacking it after it passed. They kind of moved on to the next crazy conspiracy theory.

Yeah. It helped the knowledge of and approval of Obamacare immensely. The Republicans kept trying to repeal it every two seconds. Yep. So the economy is usually the number one issue for voters in every poll, but abortion is right up there, too, especially for Democratic voters. Biden wants to pass a law protecting abortion access for every American. Trump's out there bragging about ending Roe v. Wade. And yet this week, The New York Times wrote that Trump is, quote, showing surprising resilience on the abortion issue, appearing less vulnerable than fellow Republicans, despite his key role in shaping the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. Story made a lot of people on the Internet very mad, including the Biden campaign, which criticized the media and specifically the Times for its Trump coverage. What do you think? Is Trump less vulnerable on abortion than the typical Republican? I think I'm going to do, we're going to do one of those very positive

America-like things where we try to hold two competing notions in our head at the same time. I think it is fair to say. Everything is binary, left and right, black and white. I think it is fair to say that overall, the press coverage of trump is not as good as it should be right it is too often through horse race coverage not actually focusing on what he's doing although i will say the times has written a lot of stories recently in great detail about all the terrible things trump plans to do if he wins um yeah just because it's longer than a tweet uh their their their very long well-reported story about his fucking terrifying immigration plans was outstanding. All the Project 2025 stuff from the Times and others, that stuff is happening.

Now, people aren't seeing it in the way we'd want them to see it because of the information environment, because long stories don't get attention like they used to. The anger over this specific story, which is written for the Upshot column, which is basically a polling analysis column for the New York Times, seems a little misplaced to me, I will say. Yes, the problem being pointed at is correct broadly. This was not probably the right target for that because what that article says is actually true. We should stipulate that Donald Trump is absolutely vulnerable in abortion because he is the person walking this planet most singularly responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. Yes. He is absolutely incredibly vulnerable on it, but voters don't yet hold him accountable in the way

they should. And there are a couple of reasons for this. One is, if you listen to focus groups, or you listen to the focus group podcast from Sarah Longwell, who just had an episode on this, if you ask Donald Trump if he is anti-abortion or pro-choice, a shocking number of voters will say he is personally pro-choice. And some of them, and I've heard this from multiple people who do focus groups, will put up their hands and say, I would bet Donald Trump has personally paid for abortions. Yeah. Because he is this thrice married, New York, sad wannabe playboy who cheats on his wives, people, he has this sort of aura of liberalism on cultural issues that has allowed him to win voters he wouldn't otherwise get. And you see it in the polling, right? In that Times poll, which is what this godforsaken, horribly derided piece was

written on, Biden has a nine-point advantage on the issue of abortion. It's one of his biggest margins on issue margins across the thing. But Trump gets 14% of the voters who trust Biden more on abortion. Well, and in that same poll, four out of 10 Trump voters believe abortion should be always or mostly legal. That's a big chunk of his, that shows that either people don't consider voting for him again

a threat to abortion access, or they don't agree with his position on abortion and know it, but are voting for him for other reasons. There's a very interesting question in that Times report where they ask people what was more important to their choice for president, economic issues like jobs, inflation, et cetera, or social issues like abortion, democracy, and guns. Economic issues won by more than 30 points and a number and a number that is a number that's gone up 12 points in four battleground states since 2022 so what should democrats do here uh besides uh tweet at the times cancel our subscriptions all that kind of stuff

we need to challenge joe khan who i think is the editor of the times now to a fight Challenge Joe Kahn, who I think is the editor of the Times now, to a fight. No. Biting allowed or not allowed? Look, everyone can bring one weapon to the combat. Elbows. If you want your teeth to be the weapon, you can do that. Elbows to the kidneys. That's okay.

All right. Look, I think there are a couple things here. One, there is, and I think this is one point where the critics of the broader coverage of Trump on abortion are correct. It's always like, Donald Trump has been so careful on abortion. He's so smooth on it. The guy brags about overturning Roe v. Wade every time he's in front of a microphone. There is a internet's worth of clips of Donald Trump saying incredibly damning, unpopular, extreme things about abortion all within the last year and a half.

Like also in there's a very famous one from the 2016 campaign where he says women deserve some sort of punishment. Yes, yes. And of course their campaign, of course, knew how damaging that was and then they later tried to walk it back. But he is on video saying, yes, women deserve punishment. And so we should be, the broader us with our networks

and our friends and family and Democratic super PACs and campaigns showing those clips to people just in their own words. We don't need fancy political ads. us with our networks and our friends and family and democratic super PACs and campaigns showing those clips to people just in their own words. We don't need fancy political ads. We don't need voiceovers just like video of Trump saying those things over and over again. Do you remember in 2012 when we polled early in that campaign and we discovered that Mitt Romney's support for defunding Planned Parenthood was incredibly damning. Voters hated that.

It's a very analogous situation. Voters also didn't believe that Mitt Romney would actually support that position because he had been this pro-choice governor of Massachusetts. It's very similar to Trump in the sense that people thought he's kind of faking it on the social stuff to get through the primary. He's kind of faking it on the social stuff to get through the primary. And so the Obama campaign went up in, I think it was April, with sort of a low-level cable buy that was very targeted at women voters and also young voters about Romney wanting to defund Planned Parenthood. It just stayed up. And it went up and never came down.

And I think you can see a similar thing happening here where you try to do that. Now, the second thing I think we ought to do, and you see this in the Times poll, where even one of the most unpopular things that the Times polled is support for a federal abortion ban. Yes. There is even a significant number of people who strongly oppose a federal abortion ban who are voting for Trump. And I think that's in part because it may be they're prioritizing other issues, but in some cases, they don't think a federal abortion ban is going to happen. And so we talked about this last week, but we have to make that a central part of this campaign every single day. Donald Trump wins with a Republican Congress federal

abortion ban. And I think that's really important because in a lot of states, because of the great work that happened in 2022, like whether it's Michigan or Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, they have Democratic governors. They've, in Michigan's case, passed an abortion referendum to guarantee access. And we need people to understand in those battleground states, even if they feel safe right now in this very short period of time, that a Trump victory would mean abortion is banned everywhere in this country. There was also a story in Axios this week. The Heritage Foundation, which is the idiots behind Project 2025, is urging all Republican candidates for president to unilaterally

prohibit mailing abortion drugs, which are the most common, safe and effective ways of getting an abortion. Trump has been vague about this, but Republican senators said that they insist the next president does this. Obviously, MAGA Mike Johnson in the House wants this to happen. So this is not even you don't even have to put Congress into the equation here. Donald Trump could unilaterally ban abortion medication. And yes, it would go up to the equation here. Donald Trump could unilaterally ban abortion medication. And yes, it would go up to the Supreme Court and there's all kinds of legal theories whether that would hold up or not. But he could do that. And I'm sure.

And so I would run those ads now and also force him to have to answer it now while it's still a primary. the ads now about how the Heritage Foundation and all these people that are doing Donald Trump's plans for 2025 want him to unilaterally end the ability to mail prescription abortion medication. So I think that's a it's got to be perspective, because I think you can a lot of people you get a lot of people to believe that he's the one responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade because he brags about it all the time. But people are going to vote based on what is going to happen to me and my life if this person becomes president. And so we have to push towards Trump's plans for the future as much as we talk about things that he's done in the past. Democrats also in 2022 talked about, Biden said, give me a filibuster proof Senate majority,

and we will pass a law codifying Roe. And we should get back to that because we haven't heard a lot about that in a year. And I think that's an important part of this campaign. There are going to be states where, like potentially Arizona and others that have abortion referendums that guarantee abortion access like the one we just saw in Ohio. But we should do that.

And I think you raise a really important point here, which is Donald Trump is going to put all of the worst people in government, like MAGA Mike Johnson clone bureaucrats, and they're going to put all of the worst people in government, like MAGA Mike Johnson clone bureaucrats, and they're going to use every lever of power they possibly have to try to destroy reproductive freedom in this country. And it's banning abortion medication, everything they do, right? Everything that Joe Biden, his administration tried to do after the Dobbs ruling, they're

going to undo that and do things a thousand times worse because they're going to care a lot less about what is legal and appropriate uses of government, et cetera. And it is a nightmare. An election of Donald Trump as president, whether it gets a Republican House,

Republican Senate or not, is a nightmare for reproductive freedom in this country. Agreed. All right. Few quick housekeeping notes before we head to break. We are excited to announce

Inside 2024, our new monthly podcast series available exclusively for Friends of the Pod subscribers. Shows a chance to hear White House alumni, like some of us, talk about what really goes on behind the scenes of a presidential campaign, everything from debate prep and convention speeches to campaign ads and botched media appearances. To get access to Inside 2024, join our community over at Friends of the Pod

by signing up at crooked.com slash friends. There's going to be a Dan and Alyssa episode soon. It's going to be even better than the Me and Tommy episode that's out now. Lots of great stuff coming up. Also, here at Crooked, we love Kariyuma and their comfortable, cool, sustainably made sneakers. We love them so much.

The Crooked released our second collaboration with them, a Love It or Leave It sneaker. They come in pink and black and have really fun LA-inspired designs. Now's the perfect time to step up your shoe game. Plus, Kari Yuma plants two trees in the Brazilian rainforest for each pair purchased. Head to cricket.com slash store to grab a pair. When we come back, I talk to young voter polling expert, John De La Volpe.

Joining us today, he's a pollster who's been focused on understanding young voters for the last few decades, and he most recently served as an advisor to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. He now says that when it comes to young voters, the president is in trouble. John Della Volpe, good talking to you again. Welcome to the show. Thanks so much for having me, John. It's great to be here. So when you and I last spoke before the 2022 midterms, you were confident that young voters would turn out in big numbers and potentially make the difference for Democratic candidates. You were right. You do not seem as confident that young voters will do the same in 2024 for Joe Biden. What changed over the last few years? Well, over the last few months, actually, over the last year, John, for me, the best predictor of whether we can expect an average, above average or below average turnout are a set of attitudinal measures that we developed over a couple of decades ago.

And those attitudinal measures, when I look at that set of data in 2023 compared to the same point in the 2020 cycle in the spring of 2019, I see increasing levels of cynicism across just about every significant socioeconomic and demographic group, which means that there is less confidence, not just about Joe Biden, but there's less confidence in the system. There's less confidence in politics can serve the people and to make the systemic changes that young people care about. That's the warning sign that I'm most concerned about right now.

And I guess if you look back over the last year or two, is this increasing sense of cynicism about government, has it just built gradually over time and now it's really hit a breaking point? I think a lot of it is about expectations. So just to give you a little bit more of a backdrop on this, from 2014 to 2018, we saw cynicism went down by, I think, 15 or 16 or 17 points as youth participation increased by that same number,

16, 17 points from 2014 to 2018. This is a relatively new phenomenon. And I think it's certainly complicated. There's not a silver bullet. There's not an easy explanation. I think it has a variety of different reasons behind it. One of which is, of course, the challenges of communicating, especially from the bully pulpit, you know, in a kind of algorithmic, you know, series of bubbles that people find themselves in. But I think another part of this conundrum, frankly, is that because of the concern around mental health, both pre and post COVID, what we've continued to find is this connection between negative feelings about the country, the direction of the country, and negative feelings about mental health. younger people, millions of younger people are choosing to turn away from current events, choosing to turn away from the news to protect their own mental health, because there's a correlation around that, which means that they're less willing, less able to see some of the positive news that's been happening. Because as I've written many times, I don't think there's

been an administration, certainly in my lifetime, that's been more youth focused, more youth centric than the Biden administration. However, a lot of those accomplishments just aren't being felt yet or being communicated in ways in which they can understand. That's fascinating to me. Do you have data that points to young people disengaging from the news to protect their mental health? Because the other, you could also see a factor being just the media environment itself has become so fractured that if someone is, let's say, only getting their news from TikTok or Twitter or wherever it may be, they are in either an ideological bubble or some kind of other bubble where they're getting just not the good information

or not the best information? So a couple of things, one of which is the more you follow the news, the more closely you follow the news, the more closely you follow politics, the more likely you are to support President Biden's reelection, right? So we've seen that for a while. The more you know, the better off that campaign feels to people. But I published a study on my on my sub stack, J.D.V. on Gen Z. And it had it was about how happy are you? OK. And it had 30 something variables. And I looked at across generations, the best predictor of whether or not a Gen Z or a young millennial was happy that particular day was their views about basically politics, the instability that they felt, the concerns about climate, the economy, our place in the world.

That was the number one predictor, more than personal relationships, work, school, their finances, et cetera. When we looked at other generations, Gen Xers and folks older, the number one predictor wasn't politics, though that was important. It was health, your health and the health of those around you. So I think that's something that really needs to be understood because before this isn't just a persuasion mobilization game at this point, before that we can have a meaningful conversation with young people, we need to kind of respect kind of where they are with

their mental health. and we also need to to basically show them the impact that they've already made that we have a different and better country because of them one thing i'm confused about though is if you would think that um the people who are most engaged with the news and following the news most closely would be pretty bummed out. But you're saying that those people do tend to vote for Joe Biden, but it's the people who are more disengaged. Are they disengaged from the news, but just have a general sense or general feeling that there's chaos in the world and that things are going bad and that politics is going bad just from their periodic scanning of headlines?

Yes, because those are the headlines that stick, right? The negative headlines, you know, and the extreme amount of chaos that they've not just felt over the last year or two, but literally, John, over their entire lifetimes, right? This is a generation, Gen Z, which has really not known maybe an evening, maybe an evening of hope in optimism in 2008, right? But they don't remember 9-11, which means they don't have a member of 9-11, which means they don't have a member of September 12th and 13th, when we all put flags up regardless of which kind of red or blue county we're in. So it's just not just the chaos of today. It's this chaos that's been building up over the course of their lifetimes. So you just did an audio essay for The New York Times where you played a few clips from a recent focus group you conducted

with young voters. Let's take a listen. I vote. I just don't think it makes a difference sometimes. Like, yeah, they for us, but are they really for us? Really? So the comments from the young voters in that group reminded me of what you call the modern trickle-down effect theory. Can you explain that for people? Sure. Well, the original trickle-down effect was supposed to be positive, right? During the kind of Reagan era, the idea was that the super wealthy and corporations, the more money they made, the more that would trickle down to help the working class folks. Instead, what I've heard in multiple focus groups over the last couple of months is that rather than the wealth trickling down and making all of us feel better off, it's the reverse. It's a negative trickle down effect where the problems, the challenges,

the wars from previous generations are trickling down and having an inordinate impact on those who are most vulnerable. And again, that gets to, I think, kind of the cynicism that is driving much of the disaffection with two-party politics today. So in some ways, it's generational, not even in a left-right divide, but almost a top-bottom, which is like young people feeling like the older generations have screwed so much shit up for them and that the people in power are also in older generations. And so they hold them accountable for that. Right. It's something that connects Democrats, Republicans, independents alike, you know, and there are many examples of that where younger people, even across personal lines, have more in common than younger Democrats and older Democrats, younger Republicans, and older Republicans. The thing is, and the thing that to me is often frustrating, is that this is a generation who, despite the cynicism, every single year are becoming more progressive, right? Who are asking, they understand that we need government to work in collaboration with other institutions, private, et cetera, to solve these challenges.

So they're not like disagreeing. Their values are aligned with the Democratic Party. They're just not seeing the Democratic Party right now as being, as delivering as much as what I think they've actually delivered over the last couple of years, to be honest. You were saying in early November that the president's handling of the war in Gaza could cost him potentially decisive support among younger voters. Can you talk about where most young voters are on this issue and what you think Biden can do to keep or regain their support? It's obviously incredibly complex issue. You know, I was, I did a review of the polls in the second half of October. And, you know, when you, when you look at overall approval ratings among younger people

towards Biden's handling of Israel and Hamas and Gaza, only about a quarter or so said they approved, you know, and that was basically on the low end of a series of issues. So they disapprove of him more on this issue than other issues. And what is of concern is really about a potential disconnect over values, that what young people, specifically young progressives who were so critical to to not just voting, but the energy around the 2020 cycle. They're concerned about they're concerned about a lack of recognition for civilian life on both sides of that border and that's I think is what is really kind of driving this they they don't support Hamas of course they see what happened October 7th as a savage terrorist attack but they also are more upfront in terms of of basically completing to to have new thinking around the best ways to protect civilian children, women, etc. I mean, it seems like there's only what Joe Biden can do about this is either join the calls for a

ceasefire or somehow condition aid to Israel based on Israel taking different actions or conducting the war differently. It feels to me, and you tell me because you've been in the data, that this is more than a Joe Biden can fix this problem by, you know, talking more to some of these young voters and reengaging them. It feels like they need a policy decision here, or that feeling's not really going to go away. decision here, or that feeling's not really going to go away? I think young people want to see the president as a peacemaker, right? They want to feel good about the president. They want to feel good about themselves and the country. And the degree, we talked about them watching a lot less news, and there's a lot of data that indicates that.

There's basically watching 39% less news, according to Pew, than they did at the same time during the Trump administration. So some of the news that is breaking through are obviously the horrific images on October 7th and beyond. And that just is something that really, I think, is having a greater impact on how younger people are thinking about politics and government than some people might otherwise suggest. Beyond Gaza, what else do you think the Biden campaign and Democratic candidates should do over the next year to win the votes of younger voters? I think it's not a one step, it's a two or three step system. The first thing they need to do is they need to recognize, as I said earlier, that there's a better country because of what young people did before. President Biden, Vice President Harris are not in office. Donald Trump is without younger

people. And what that means is we have the first African-American female in the Supreme Court. We have the first significant gun violence prevention legislation in not one but two generations, the largest investment in climate, $127 billion last I counted in student debt relief. And we could go, we can go further. So I think the first thing is to recognize the important part that young people played, thank them for that, recognize that and let them know what has been delivered. But then to say, there's no guarantee that obviously any of this continues without kind of further engagement. So I think they really need to kind of build some trust that being part of a system actually had tangible results. That's the first part.

And then the second part is it's a very different electorate. also kind of build messaging around that a vote for Bobby Kennedy, a vote for Cornel West, a vote for anybody other than Biden or staying home is a vote to reelect Trump. And they'll have to be reminded in terms of what that means. I was going to ask about that because it's a sort of a delicate thing to handle. Obviously, young people choosing third party or independent candidates or choosing not to vote at all seems like an especially serious threat to the president's reelection. And of course, if the president loses, as you mentioned, we get Donald Trump. What do you what would you say to a young voter who is considering one of those options? Because there's some debate whether you say,

oh, well, if you're doing this, you're just going to vote for Donald Trump. And then that sort of puts people on their heels and say, well, you know, it's my choice. And why are you telling me what to do? Or do you say, you know, these third party independent candidates, they are not going to be able to fulfill the promises they're making because they're not going to win? How would you handle that? I don't think I would even think about handling that now for nine months. Instead, what you need to do is understand why they're looking at third-party candidates. They're looking at third-party candidates because they don't think that, as you heard in the clip, that they don't think that voting has made a significant difference in their lives or the lives of those people that they care about.

And I think it really needs to focus on the tangible difference that government has and will continue to make when they engage. I think that's going to be critical. And thinking about messaging and comparing yourselves to third-party candidates, it's not going to be as effective if they don't have trust in the system. Yeah, you've been talking a lot about sort of focusing on like communicating Joe Biden's accomplishment, the Democrats accomplishments. How much would you focus on that versus focusing on the contrast between both Biden's accomplishment and his forward looking vision and what Trump would do in a second term? Certainly, there's, I think what we learned from 2022, right, is there is that balance,

that chemistry between positive and negative partisanship, right? Certainly, there was concern about Americans continuing to feel like they're losing their rights. And we saw how many rights were lost because of Trump's Supreme Court. So absolutely, that has to be an important factor of this. But listen, John, I don't know at this point what the right mix of cocktail is between the negative and the positive partisanship. All I know is that we need to, and listen, that's why I wrote that. Listen, I didn't write that headline. Of course, you know, they have editors, the New York Times who write headlines. But I do think that your listeners and the people who support Democratic campaigns and causes need to appreciate the fact that despite the fact we've had three incredible turnouts among young people, we can't guarantee that every cohort is new. It's different. And we need to kind to kind of build up faith in the system. But of course, I think there will be a significant part of the contrast. I think when I look back at 2018,

right, that was, I think, a right combination. You had the deep concern about the first couple of years of Trump administration with the hope of what the March for Our Lives, what David Hogg and his friends were doing. That was like an interesting, I think, combination of factors, I think, that really lifted youth support. And it's going to be something similar because it's a terrific story. There's a terrific story. I think, you know, when Vice President Harris was on her college tour, she had incredibly enthusiastic audiences. She literally showed up where they were, not just on social media, but literally kind of, you know, in the quads and

in the auditoriums of some of these colleges. And she spoke to young people, she listened to young people, and I think they responded. And I'm hopeful and expect that Democrats can do this. But again, the reason I, you know, wrote wrote those pieces and have been thinking about this is these underlying concerns I have from the attitudinal data that has been highly predictive for now a couple of different decades. And the sooner that we recognize that, the more I think we can all engage in helping young people appreciate the importance of civic life and participating specifically in this next campaign. Well, last question, you mentioned Vice President Harris sort of going where voters are.

In a media environment or an information environment that is this fractured, this rampant with misinformation on platforms or emotional polarizing content, like what's the best way to communicate? Who are the best, most trusted messengers to reach young voters where they are? I think other young voters. I think other young voters. And I think the White House, honestly, you know, you probably know better than I, but the White House, I think the first couple of years have done a terrific job at empowering kind of younger activists, bringing them kind of inside to share some of their accomplishments, to listen for advice on other ones. And I think that was a big part of the Democratic success in 2020, in 2022 midterms,

a big part that you had kind of alignment among many of these progressive groups. And we need to continue to do that. I sense, based upon the number of text messages I have on my phone, that some of those progressive activists are questioning some things now, which is related to Israel and Gaza and Hamas. But it's really about, I think, kind of empowering those kind of micro, whatever you want to call those, micro-influencers, those everyday folks and mentors to communicate.

It has to be, of course, from the top down, that needs to be improved, but certainly kind of on the, you know, from the grassroots up. John De La Volpe, thank you so much for joining Pod Save America again and talking us through this and keep in touch over the next year.

Will do. Thanks to John De La Volpe for joining us today. Everyone have a fantastic weekend and we'll talk to you next week. 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 Cherlin 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 production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn,

Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kiril Pellaviv, 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, exclusive content, and a great discussion on Discord. Plus, it's a great way to get involved with Vote Save America. Sign up at crooked.com slash friends.