Pod Save America - Harris Denounces Trump's Pet-Eating Conspiracy

Episode Date: September 18, 2024

Kamala Harris drives a contrast message with an appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists and gives a searing answer about Trump and Vance's lies about Haitian immigrants. Dan and guest host Addisu Demissie discuss Harris's off-the-cuff performance, how she can keep her momentum up post-debate, and Donald Trump's snoozer of a town hall in Michigan. Then they break down the latest polls and the overall state of the race with less than 50 days to go before the election. 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 Dan Pfeiffer. And I'm Adesu D'Amessi. We are here for a rare all Bay Area show. We are in person in Oakland. Yeah. And we are getting Bay Area weather today. I have a sweatshirt on for the first time in months. It is 60 degrees and rainy for the first time. It is. Fall has come to the Bay Area.

It is. It feels like election time, frankly. It's fall. Actually, today's what? I think. I think it's one day left, technically, the last day of summer with everybody here Okay, these are it's always great to have you on the show

But this is especially a good time to do so because we are less than 50 days to go and it seems like the right Moment we can get together and talk about where the race stands how things are going what the polls say and what the electoral Map looks like but let's start with the news Now that the debate has come and gone it it doesn't feel like there's going to be another one. The Harris campaign is trying its next best option to catch voters' attention and drive contrast. As the New York Times noted on Tuesday, that doesn't necessarily mean a bunch of

interviews with networks, or at least as many interviews as the news networks would like, the campaign's focus is going to be more on local media and other outlets that reach key target demographics like Harris's interview on Tuesday with reporters from the National Association of Black Journalists in Philadelphia. Let's take a listen to see how it went. We had then a lot of work to do to clean up a mess. As of today we have created over 16 million new jobs over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs. We have the lowest black unemployment rate in generations.

Is the price of groceries still too high? Yes. Do we have more work to do? Yes. I don't know if anyone here has heard most recently the stories out of Georgia. Tragic story about a young woman who died because it appears the people who should have given her healthcare were afraid they'd be criminalized after the Dobbs decision came down. I'm working to earn the vote, not assuming I'm going to have it because I am black, but because the policies and the perspectives I have. Why is joy important to you to insert into this

election and what do you make of Republicans using that as a way to suggest that you're not a serious candidate? Well sometimes I think and I'll say to whoever the young people are who are watching this, there are sometimes when your adversaries will try and turn your strength into a weakness. Don't you let them. Don't you let them. How do you think she did? I think it was phenomenally good on both substance and politics.

You know, the contrast with Trump from two months ago was pretty clear to anybody who has eyes and has ears, but she also answered the questions, I think, directly and even made a little news. I think, I don't think we played the clip about the 7% childcare cap that she proposed, but that was news, at least to me. But I think what's most important is what she said there at the end. She realizes she has to earn everybody's vote. Even though she's black, she has to earn black people's vote. Even though she's a woman, she has to earn women's

votes. And kudos to her for saying it out loud, naming the issue directly and acknowledging that she's got work to do because the case that she made yesterday economically, I think, was as forceful as I've seen her do it since that North Carolina speech right before the convention. And to the extent there's work to do with black voters, and I think all voters, it largely has to do with persuading people

that she's gonna fight for them and their pocketbook. And so I think it was pretty much a home run, and she continues to walk that tight rope and hit home runs every time she's out there 47 more days. Let's see if she can keep doing it. Yeah, I thought she did really well. It's a really hard format. These are three very good journalists.

There's, you're just in a room. If you watch the video. Not a lot of reaction. Not a lot of reaction. There's not really, there's not an audience cheering. There's one on three is a tough dynamic in the room itself look like local cable access show From like the 1980s and she and they were all tough questions and they and people had follow-ups

And so she handled that very well. I agree. The economic answer was very good She it was I think very important as you pointed out that she Very directly talked about the need to win and she's specifically talking about young black men's votes and they're really important in talking about that and hit all the marks there. I think for the campaign, an important thing going forward,

we're gonna talk a little bit more about their media strategy is to view these interviews, not just as something to endure a test to pass, but as an opportunity to communicate with voters and deliver a message, because she's very good. She is very good when she is out there. All the research I've seen shows that the more people see her, the more they like her.

And so she's gotta be out there a lot. And she did an interview last week with the local Philly ABC affiliate, biggest TV station and probably the most important market in the entire election. And she did totally fine there too, did good, but there's gonna be more and more of that going forward. And so I think that is good.

And so, and I think there's, you know, the reason why she wants a second debate is because she wants that split screen. And if you can't get the second debate, the best split screen you can get is to go to the same place where Donald Trump melted down in the most embarrassing fashion a few weeks ago for people who don't remember. That's the event in Chicago, I believe it was, where Trump had his campaign had to end the interview early because he was

doing so terrible. It's where he questioned Harris's racial identity. He acted like a complete lunatic. And so to the extent this is going to get coverage outside of that Philadelphia market and outside of black press, It's going to be the contrast. That's very much to her advantage. Yeah. And I think these interviews in general, I mean, I know we're going to talk a little bit more about this, but she now has some batting practice, you know, with the CNN Danabash interview with the debate, obviously,

and the debate prep she went through. And so, and also six weeks or whatever it's been now, eight weeks of her being the nominee, it's a lot safer ground. I mean, it still has its pitfalls. Don't get me wrong. But it made a lot of sense to let her get her feet under her and get some practice of being the Democratic nominee speaking as the Democratic nominee. And now there's Joe Biden's number two for a few weeks before you start putting her in these kinds of situations.

It's just also pure logistics. It's not that she was running from the press. She was not doing that is that she, we said this several times as she woke up on Sunday as the vice president, she had breakfast and by the time breakfast was over, she was the democratic nominee. And then she had to pick a vice president and I

think it was about 10 days to meet the virtual roll call to avoid any ballot access issues. Then she had a convention two weeks after that. And then a debate 10 days after that. And here we are. Yeah, exactly. And in the middle of that, she had a convention two weeks after that. And then a debate 10 days after that. And here we are. Yeah, exactly. And in the middle of that, she had to hire a staff, work on a policy platform, reorganize the campaign

to fit her. I mean, just- And what it's so much they've had to do in two months. And it feels like two years to a lot of us, but I couldn't agree more. It is logistically difficult. It is substantively difficult. It is probably psychologically difficult for the candidate and for everybody around around her. So

We're in a different phase now. We understand that she understands that she's doing things like this And I think like I said, she seems to be hitting every checkpoint on the way towards November 5th one section that got a lot of attention was the was the question and answer about Vance and Trump and the entire Racist made-up lies about Haitian migrants eating pets in Ohio, a sentence that I can't believe I have to say, but maybe I should believe it because I've been doing podcasts about Donald Trump for a long time now.

Let's take a listen to her answer. I know that regardless of someone's background, their race, their gender, their geographic location, I know that people are deeply troubled by what is happening to that community in Springfield. And we've got to say that you cannot be entrusted with standing behind the seal of the president of the United States of America engaging in that hateful rhetoric that as usual is designed to divide us as a country. And I think most people in our country, regardless of their race,

are starting to see through this nonsense and, and to say, you know what, let's turn the page on this. This is exhausting and it's harmful. What'd you think of her answer? I mean, I think this was her letting her hair down a little bit. I, this felt like of all the answers and I only watched, I'll be honest, I watched clips and probably at three quarters of you never have to admit that I just got just saying, honestly, like I didn't see every, every answer that she gave to every question,

but you could almost see when she was answering this question, she was like, how am I going to do this? Am I going to try to do what I did in the CNN interview, which is bat it away and say nothing, or am I going to lean in and try to hit a homer? And this was as unscripted and sort of on talking point of O'Connell Harris as we saw. And it turns out she's really, really, really, really good at that. And I think she was really smart in leaning into And it turns out she's really, really, really, really good at that. And I think she was really smart in leaning into the divisiveness of what he did and sort of the political strategy behind it, as opposed to making it simply about the racism and the,

you know, disgustingness of it. We have learned, I think, over the course of the last nine years that Trump throws bait into the water, asking us to get into a fight about something that we feel passionately about and should feel passionately about but may not help us politically. And she figured out a way to talk about this in a way that spoke not just to the black folks in the room or the black journalists she was talking to, but to all Americans. She even said it explicitly in the answer. So I was truly impressed. And I think the more that she, you know, this was also a safe space for her. I think in a way it's easier for black folks to feel safe in this place, but she didn't,

she gave exactly the right answer that appealed to the swing voter and the base voter alike. Yeah, I was fascinated by this because I could, having been down this road with working for Barack Obama for all these years is I can imagine the prep meeting before this where a bunch of her advisors probably told her to do exactly what she did in the debate or what she did after former President Trump questioned her racial identity and just brush it off. Because that's been the thing that works.

It could have been a five second answer. And I can imagine her looking at her advisors and saying, I'm not doing that at the National Association of Black Journalists when this is a vile racist lie that has endangered lives in Ohio. And so we're going to do it this way. What I thought, so I thought it was interesting that she took the pass and it felt very authentic to me. And I think it's good to have moments like that. But she also, I do think walk the tightrope of answering it in a way that felt authentic and real

and measured up to the gravity of what Trump and Vance are doing here and the danger of it without putting too much spin on the ball that it became a thing. Like this is the most newsworthy thing, but it did not spark an outrage cycle. Yes. And that, that, that takes skill. And so I think that was, that was impressive.

And I'm sure her campaign was just kind of holding their breath there. And I'm sure, yeah. And end up feeling very good about it. And just on top of that, being able to walk that tightrope, I think is very important, and being able to give the answer that way says a lot about, I think, how she's doing in this race.

I'm not sure she could have done it two months ago, and I don't mean that as a dig on her. It's just that's what the batting practice and the feeling comfortable in your own skin as the principal as opposed to as the deputy does for you. And that, you know, she could have given that answer eight years ago or six years ago or two months ago, but she was able to sort of in the moment, I think,

you can almost, like I said, you can almost see the switch go off in her head. She's like, I'm doing this and I know I can do this and land the plane. And then she did it. I think running against Trump takes a little bit of practice to figure out how to modulate your responses to be able to get

your message out and really I think live up to what she said in the convention speech which is he is an unserious person whose actions have serious consequences and this is one of those and how do you do how do you address the seriousness of his consequences without giving him what the attention he wants or elevating him to be some sort of strongman figure but she also or elevating the issue to a point where you outrage cycles are great way to put it. And she managed to do all of those things. And I think that is something learned by not just by her, but

by us as Democrats. Yes. Of course, over the last nine years, we did not do a good job of this in 2016 with Hillary Clinton because I think partially because Trump was so new, partially because we thought and believed nobody could possibly be willing to vote for this kind of vileness, but it turns out that is not the case. If there's 47% of the American people

and more of them in battleground states than the nation as a whole. Exactly, and we need to take a different strategy. We talked about this a little bit on the Tuesday pod, but Republicans and the Trump campaign in particular keep telling reporters that they're happy to keep this Springfield story alive. What's that about?

Because it keeps the conversation focused on immigration and they think that's a winner for them. Even if people don't believe the specifics of the story, how do you think Democrats should handle? Do you have any fears about this? I mean, I do, okay. I don't wanna give Jason Miller any credit here. I do have fears about it.

I do think that the more that we are talking about the economy and abortion rights, the better. The more we are talking about immigration, generally speaking, the worse. Not because it's not an important issue for us to talk about, but because it's safer ground, honestly, and more talking purely politically here. Once we get to January 20th, it might be a totally different story about what we need to do as an administration, or what you might need to do as that. But this pets and Springfield thing has turned into more than immigration. It's about Donald Trump's lunacy.

It's about divisiveness as the vice president talked about at NABJ. And I think it is driving a, to the extent it's driving any message at this point, it's driving a message that Donald Trump has a screw loose and Kamala Harris is a sane, competent, unifying leader. And so I do still think we can't talk about this and only this for 46, 47 more days because ultimately we still have to make a case on the economy, we still have to make a case

on abortion rights, we still have to remind people that what a Donald Trump second term would look like. But the only way this is hurting us in any way is opportunity costs to not be talking about something else. It certainly isn't helping Donald Trump or his campaign in my opinion. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. It is true that if we're talking about immigration, that is good for Trump, right? It's in the Monmouth poll, Trump has a 12 point advantage over Kamala Harris on immigration.

It's larger in other polls where the question is phrased more on border security, but this is their issue. It's their chosen issue. It's why in addition to being a man with a pickled brain, Donald Trump answered the first question in the debate that was on the economy about immigration. It's like, it is what they wanna talk about. Exactly.

Talking about immigration and border security is not the same thing about screaming at the moon like a nut about mythical pet eating and abducted geese. Like that's not the same thing. And the polling actually shows the same thing, right? There's a YouGov poll that shows that a majority of Trump supporters believe these lies. It's not as many Trump supporters as you would think,

but it is a majority. A majority of independents, which I think is the best proxy for clinical persuadable voters that you can get from a poll like this, do not believe the lies. Five times as many of these independents believe the allegations are definitely not true, then believe they are definitely true. And so I don't see how this is necessarily helping him

in any real way, except for the fact, we can't control what he says. If he wants to rant and rave about it, that is his business. We have proven over the years that we're not gonna stop him from saying crazy things. I do believe that, as you said, there's an opportunity cost here.

And this is not really, and the Harris campaign has really, they've done a little messaging on this. They circulated a very useful story this morning from the Wall Street Journal, which showed that JD Vance's office actually fact-checked the story before they went out. We're told it wasn't true and went out with it anyway.

Which is shit, tell you something about JD Vance. But this is not in ads. This has not been a big part of the stump in any way, shape or form in the post debate world. But for everyone else who's having conversations with voters or people who are posting on TikTok or Instagram or Twitter about the election, there's not a lot of evidence that the cat memes,

the cat eating memes are helping us. Yeah, they're not gonna persuade persuadable voters at this point, but they're not going to help Donald Trump Yeah, they don't this is a situation where there is talking about it does not seem and the evidence that we've seen have backlash But it's not moving the ball forward and still and this is the thing We always have to remind ourselves because it is a complete change for our mentality in 16 and 20 Is that the path to victory is in building Kamala Harris up more than it is tearing Donald Trump down? Amen, of course this any BJ interview is the same event as than it is tearing Donald Trump down. Amen.

Of course, this NABJ interview was the same event as we mentioned that caused Donald Trump to melt down in Chicago. Trump advisor Jason Miller apparently was watching because he tweeted, I can't quite put my finger on it, but the tone of this NABJ interview with Kamala Harris seems to be a little bit different than the tone of the interview with President Trump. What changed? What do you think Jason Miller's missing here? I mean, he's missing that his candidate is a lunatic,

but I think, I mean, my reporter friends are probably gonna hate this answer. That's fine. But you know, we're kind of, here we are. But I think it's wishful thinking to think that interviews with political reporters are gonna be what, win the election or lose the election for Kamala Harris. And I think maybe more importantly, what voters actually want to see at this point, because, you know, the debate, the CNN interview, this NABJ interview, I think,

are checking those boxes for people to the extent people care. But, you know, they're risky. They are risky. And the voters who are still undecided or at least waffling between Trump and Harris or Harris on the couch, I think they want to see her in sort of unscripted situations, but not necessarily get grilled by, you know, Tim Russert right now. They want to see, can she handle herself on her feet? And I think the debate kind of started to prove that to folks, but it doesn't

have to be interviews with, you know, with the New York Times or with Politico or with Axios. It needs to be maybe NABJ friendlier places to be. I think that is a totally fine thing to do. I think these adversarial interviews in general are overrated as, when she's president, it may be a different story. But right now, as a pure point of campaign strategy,

that is not what we need to do to win the election. We need to expose her to more people in the ways that those people, the persuadable voters, wanna hear from her. A couple of points here. First, Jason Miller is a ridiculous buffoon. Yeah, exactly. Sorry, I should've started there.

Yeah, right. Point number, I wasn't suggesting you did not agree with that. Uh, point number two is yes, the tone was different, but the questions were very, these were hard questions. These were not softball questions for Kamala. As there were followups, she was pushed on several things. The questions were different in Donald Trump's interview because he was different. He was adversarial when he was in the room, but let's not forget that for his entire life

and for all of this campaign and for all of his presidency, he was constantly saying and doing racist things. And to expect to not be called on that when you go to the National Association of Black Journalists is the epitome of naivete. It's like they were shocked that got asked. Of course it was gonna get asked. You can't do those things and not get asked. And we know that this is the classic tactic of Trump

role, which is when an interview doesn't go well. Or a debate doesn't go well. It's never Trump's fault, right? It is obviously the fault of the press. Yeah. And I think the three reporters who questioned her for that 45 minutes or whatever it was, deserve a lot of credit. They did not take it easy on her. No. Whatever Jason Miller says. No. They also had less fodder to go after her

because she hasn't done things. She answered the question. All white supremacists, very fine people. So, you know, it can't necessarily be equal when the substance is, is a little different. Right. If you call several countries in Africa, shithole countries, you might get asked about it

one day later in life. And this happened. So tough luck, tough luck, buddy. Two quick things before we go to break. You guys all already know about John Lovett and Tommy's great book, democracy or else how to save America in 10 easy steps. It's a funny practical guide to help you

navigate the rest of this election. Just a very super casual reminder that picking up a copy is a great way to get motivated to get involved or to help motivate someone in your life. It'll give you the tools you need to convince your cousin to get their ass off that couch and vote in this election. Plus, every purchase supports Boat Save America in 2024 campaigns, so it makes a real impact. Grab your copy at your local bookstore or online at crooked comm slash books also on tomorrow's episode of our subscribers exclusive show Polar Coaster I do a deep dive into the latest post debate polls with fan favorite Elijah Cohn I am a hundred percent positive

that Elijah Cohn wrote that this copy either way Elijah will be on that on that podcast whether he's your favorite or not we're looking at Trump's loosening foothold in red states and we nerd out about the latest numbers in key Senate races. Head to crooked.com slash friends to get access to this exclusive subscription series and more. Just in general, as you think about our communication strategy going forward, you hit on this a little bit, but let's talk a little bit more about it. You spent a lot of time studying persuadable voters, the folks we actually need to reach. What's the best way to reach them?

Yeah, maybe too much. If there's one thing that listeners should just remember and internalize is that there are still persuadable voters out there, people who in swing states and significant numbers who are deciding how to vote still. It is hard to believe every morning I wake up and I'm like, really people still are looking after the debate, after the last nine years and potentially considering Trump.

But the answer is they are. And I'll talk a little bit more about why in a second. But ultimately, I think what people need to understand about those voters in this cycle, at least, is every piece of data I've seen suggests these folks are the least interested in politics, the least connected to politics, the least engaged in politics, and honestly, in many ways, rebel against the idea of politics as important in their lives. And so they are not consuming the New York Times or Politico. In fact, it's not like a hating the media thing. It's a hating politics thing or at least feeling like politics isn't important to their lives.

And so to answer your question, I think it's really, really important to engage those people where they are and kind of force the issue. That's local press, like the campaign has been talking about doing. That's social media and influencers. That's paid media. It really is important to just like force impressions on people so they see Kabla Harris at her best. It's field. It's really important to go, you know, engage them in person where you can't avoid it at some level, or at least it's put right in front of you. But these persuadable voters who are left, who are going to decide the election in seven or eight states are not voluntarily engaging in politics. Jim Messina used to say, I remember in 2012,

the normal person engages in politics for, what, four minutes a week. And so you've got to get them for those four minutes, where they are. That is not in the places where people like me, people like you, and probably a lot of people listening to this podcast get their news. I mean, it is the hardest thing for people who listen to this podcast to understand is how different we are. That we're actually more like the people listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast in some ways than everyone else. Yeah. Because there, it's a, the biggest divide in politics

is between people who engage in politics and people who don't. And we're the minority. Yeah. And we're the weird ones. Somebody said to me recently, and that's true. And I don't mean that ideologically or otherwise. It's the way we engage with politics is the minority. We are. The folks at Blueprint did polling where they looked at swing state voters and their media consumption habits. And they asked them how many people have heard or watched big events, right? Uh, the debate, the debate can be, this was on pre debate, but the convention speeches, et cetera. And so Kamala Harris is convention speech.

Let's just take that 34% of swing state voters had any other watch nor heard of her convention speech. 34% said that for Donald Trump's convention speech. We see this for every single thing that dominates politics. A third of voters in swing states, right? These are people who have indicated a chance

they will vote in this election, have heard nothing about it. I'll give you a story. When I was in Chicago for the convention, the day that the vice president gave her speech, a Thursday, took a Lyft or whatever to the United Center and our Lyft driver was like, where are you going? A woman, I think a woman of color, she was very excited about Kamala, didn't even know that the vice president was there, didn't know the speech was that night,

but was very engaged in politics once we started having the conversation, but it just was a reminder to me that this is somebody who is obviously it's Illinois, not Ohio or North Carolina or Georgia or whatever. But just a reminder that like people have lives and the swingiest of voters out there are really, this is tangential to their life. And honestly, even in mid September are just beginning to pay attention to what's going on in this race. And we're gonna have this thing probably decided in these last, certainly in these last seven weeks and probably in the last two. I mean, these voters are just not consuming news in the way in which we think of political news.

They're not watching CNN, they're not watching the New York Times, they're not watching local TV. And one of the things that's made life harder to reach these voters organically is that Facebook in particular was the delivery mechanism for a lot of news to people organically. He would just be scrolling through Facebook, looking at your friend's kids or whatever weird memes your mega uncle posted. And you would,

and Facebook algorithm would serve you some form of political news, right? Something from a candidate, maybe something from a news outlet. Facebook does not promote politics more. So you're never organically bumping into the news anymore. And it just is become in, you know, this is your life, but reaching these people even in a paid way is incredibly challenging because if you don't have linear TV, you're almost impossible to reach. Because a lot of, you know, I always think about the person

who streams Netflix and TikTok is their social platform of choice, there is no way to person who streams Netflix and you, and Tik Tok is their social platform of choice. There is no way to spend money to reach those people. Right. Yeah. It's just, they are, they live in it. They live in a bubble. And that's why when we get to her, you know, as

we, if she thinks about this interview strategy going forward, a lot of it is influencers. Yeah. That's the media for low information, low engaged people is, you know, your cooking influencer on Tik Tok is actually to the extent they're getting information of any kind, that's their primary source. And that's not a knock on the news. And it's not a knock on them. It's just the way that people consume media nowadays. And

particularly those low engagement voters who happen to be in this election, the most persuadable ones. And when the press screams and yells about Kamala Harris, not doing more, the traditional press screams and yells about Kamala Harris not doing more, the traditional press screams and yells about Kamala Harris not doing more interviews with them. They do have to understand that. Like, yes, I think it is good for democracy for candidates to take tough questions. I think taking tough questions makes you a better candidate. So when you're talking to voters on the stump

or at a town hall or whatever else you are better. But for a long time, there was huge benefit in doing them because the media could get your message in front of the issue. Need that relationship does not exist anymore. Most like that CNN interview, which was, I think very well done by, uh, Dana bash and the candidates, 6.6 million people. It's hard to imagine how many persuadable voters even knew that ever happened or

bumped into it. Right. And it was, it was checking a box for the influencer class, which then has a second order effect on the voters, but it's not a direct voter contact. You have to do that through paid media, through field, and through these outlets that might be non-traditional, but that is where people are living their media lives

nowadays. Switching gears to the Republicans now, tonight Donald Trump is headed for a big rally in the key battleground area of Long Island, New York. On Tuesday, he held a town hall in Flint, Michigan, moderated by his former press secretary and current governor of Arkansas, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. This was his first big event

since his second assassination attempt. Another sentence I can't believe I'm saying. Yeah, seriously. Typically when Trump does an event like this, our producers get together and they cut a very funny, interesting, outrageous clip of all the crazy things Donald Trump said. But last night's town hall, which I watched all of was so boring and so repetitive that there was

really nothing worth cutting. Which is, we don't say that often, but not because he was more normal than usual. He just sort of low, he was less interesting, low energy and just said the same things we've now heard from a thousand times in a row. I bring all this up because this is Trump's second town hall in recent weeks. He had one moderated by Tulsi Gabbard recently, another sentence. I can't believe I'm saying, um, and it seems to be the campaign as a new

strategy of periodically doing these town halls, as opposed to the more, the rallies that Trump has sort of lived by. Is there anything to the strategy they're trying to sand down the edges of his lunacy? I mean, good luck with that. Like, uh, I don't think that is possible. I think I saw governor Newsom talking about

this at the debate. He's just a little old, a little tired and just not, he's like lost a step, I think. And so I think on any given day, he might just be in a bad mood. I'm psychoanalyzing a lunatic now, but he might just not be up to the challenge as it were of being his normal bombastic self.

I think it could be the next day and he could be back on his bullshit as it were. But if they're trying to make him boring, I think that's a strategic mistake because I think his appeal to the extent he still has it is that he is interesting and entertaining. And he is, like, I don't know if we, if the election were today, we would win or lose, but he is losing in the sense of the trajectory of the

race. And so he needs to change something for the trajectory to change. So if they're playing prevent defense, it's a huge mistake in my mind. Problem is they have a candidate who can't drive a message. So they're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yeah, I think these town hall formats are a little bit more, they sort of hem him in some because not that he necessarily answers the question,

but at least the campaign is dictating the topics he hits. I mean, he took some of these. Yeah, I'm quite quite a journey. He did not get somewhere linearly. This is we saw that this is sort of like all the stories we saw before the debate where they were like policy Trump who's not going to take the bait like that was their strategy and in your head you can kind of see some Republican political consultants like Chris LaSavita or Susie Weil sitting around being like, you know, what would make sense when it seemed presidential, a town hall where he's on stage, interviewed by a

woman in this election with a historic gender gap. In Long Island, but that's what it is. Well, the Long Island thing is going to be a rally because I think there's a real like one for them, one for us thing with Trump. Like I'll do this, but I'm going to like threaten to arrest the entire country on truth social later that day. Fair. So I think they were like, yes, if I'll do this, but I'm going to like threaten to arrest the entire country on truth social later that day.

Fair. So I think they were like, yes, if you do this in, they're going to let Trump be a lunatic on Long Island and they're going to do the town hall in Michigan. Yeah, but it doesn't, it's, it's like, sometimes I feel like the campaign hasn't met Trump before and they just, it's a really good point.

I mean, he is a fun, you know, he is his own worst enemy. Uh, this was true in 2020. This is true. This was true in 2020, this is true, it was true in 2016, even when we lost. And I think it's true now is that he is incapable of not being a narcissistic asshole. And if they were driving a consistent message from the candidate's mouth, it would have an effect,

whether that's, you know, downwind second order, like I was just talking about, or directly with the voters, it would have an effect and there are things he certainly could talk about, but he can't do it. And maybe the town hall is an attempt to like, to your point, put some guardrails around him, but doesn't matter.

You could, you know, lipstick on a pig, like good luck. It's not going to work. They're going to do it in paid media, I think a lot. And I think, you know, this is where a second debate to me is a risky proposition because the bar is pretty low from, you know, high for Kamala and low for Trump in terms of what people will expect out of a second debate. So if he were able to like

turn on a switch for 90 minutes the next time that could have, that could be dangerous. But I don't know, I don't trust it. You know, he can't even do it for one answer, let alone 90 minute debate. This is not, This is not in our outline, so we're just gonna live freely here, but if someone were to ask you, should Kamala Harris do a second debate or not? Not on NBC, right? It's not on Fox.

What would you say yes or no? I mean, I'd probably say no. I think it's just risk. I'm also just maybe risk averse, I think, right? You'll one-one, the trajectory is good. There are other ways, like we've talked about before, to get your message out there. The contrast really helps, but you are counting on

a good performance by your candidate, a bad performance by your opponent, and moderators that don't screw you. And like, we got that once, but do you really want to go back to the well and get that again? Or can you be sure you're going to get that again? I don't know.

So the odds are probably in our favor. If, if one happens, don't get me wrong, like there's an 80% chance it's the exact same thing as what happened a week ago. And we are even happier that time in October than we were in September, but like that 20% chance scares the shit out of me. I am a strong advocate for doing a second debate. If I was on the campaign, I would encourage them to seek it out. I certainly publicly advocate for

and be the one who wants the debate. But even if the opportunity came to do it, I would do it, I'd wanna do it pretty late. Because my general take on the race is he has a lot of advantages. We can talk about, we're gonna get in a little bit about where the race is, but he is a former president of the United States who has run for president three times.

It gives her the big stage. It gives her a big stage. People know everything they know about him. He is in a, he still shows up as the safer choice and a lot of the point in that New York Times, CNN polling Kamala Harris is a riskier choice because she is unknown to so many voters are not known deeply to so many voters And so if you have a chance to be on that giant stage and do it like it is terribly risky It's a yeah, it's really more of a it really I guess it's your assessment of where you think the race is if you think I I'm I am a more glass half empty person and feel like Like I think she's doing very well right now

But this thing always reverts back to where it's been. It always reverts in the mean. And the mean is that Trump is right there on the cusp. And so it's a fair point. Like just because we are on that trajectory on September 18th, doesn't mean we're going to be on that trajectory on October 18th. And we've seen, I mean, 2016, I just have such flashbacks to Comey letters and, and, and debates and, uh, uh, ASX Hollywood, like. Seven weeks is still a long time. So we could be in a very different place a

month from now where the trajectory changes and we actually need something to shake up the race. But it is not an easy, no, no, no, no, no, it is like, it is very easy for me to say it as someone who doesn't have to, doesn't have to prep for it. Yeah, me too. And that's the other thing, right? To your, to our earlier conversation about opportunity costs, like the opportunity costs for prepping her

for a late October debate or a mid-October debate, that's taking her off the trail for a week. Cause that's like, you gotta, you gotta be sure you are nailing it. So there's the unseen downside cost of taking her away. But yeah, I don't envy Jen and those folks trying to figure this out because it is not, Brian, it is not an easy call

and it's a high risk situation if you do it. So if we do get it, good luck guys. That's right. I mean, it's probably a theoretical question because Donald Trump doesn't seem like someone who would risk getting his ass kicked like that again. So either way. Somebody made the point to me, sorry,

to take us too far down this, that there may be the outcome of the vice presidential debate might actually change his mind, which I think is, which is coming up in on October 1st. Like there's a world in which Vance totally bombs or Vance does really well, which I don't think is likely. And like Trump can't allow either of those things to stand as the last word. Yeah.

I think we'll have a lot of conversation about the VP debate going forward, but Vance has a real expectations advantage here, which is if he, as Mike Pence did against Kamala Harris, she obviously won that debate, but people thought that he would be absolutely miserable. And he was only kind of miserable, and that was seen as fine. Vance is in a similar situation. The guy can't even order fucking donuts on camera.

And so if he stands up there and he's a smart guy, so you can see him doing fine. Either way, we're down a rabbit hole here. On Wednesday, more than 100 GOP officials, former members of Congress and appointees, Republican presidents, including Trump, signed a letter endorsing Kamala Harris. This comes on top of the recent endorsements of resistance heroes, Dick and Liz Cheney. Do these endorsements for Republicans matter or are they just sort of fodder for a press that yearns for a bygone era of? Bipartisanship when my text chains blow up about Nick Cheney endorsements like 20 or 23 year old me just absolutely

It loses my mind, but hey, I think the answer is they don't really matter I just think I think I think they matter in so far as it continues to be a signal to particularly donors and High information voters that like there's a Trump There's an anti Trump wing of the Republican Party that is not totally dead yet and obviously voters that come from them But Sarah longwell in her work, I think has made pretty clear that it's not the politicians that matter it's the people and I would rather have an endorsement from Joe Schmoe white guy from rural Michigan, who's willing to go direct to camera and say,

he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 and is not doing it now than I would any politician at this point. And that's probably true on the democratic side too. Like it is going back to who these voters are, these are people who don't trust politicians. Like they don't believe politics works for them, Democrat or Republican, it's not part of their identity. And so any't believe politics works for them, Democrat or Republican.

It's not part of their identity. And so any politician, whether they be Republican or Democrat giving their imprimatur to a candidate, I don't think has the value that it did once before. It certainly matters, but it's not gonna swing the swings. Yeah, I think it's greatly overstated. Dick Cheney is not a popular person among Republicans or Democrats.

I don't think that a lot of people were just waiting to see what Dick Cheney was doing. Where I think it is mildly helpful is there is a smaller subgroup. This is like Sarah Longwell's group, right? These are people engaged in politics. They watch the news, they pay attention. They are people who voted for Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020, and soured on Biden and have been Trump curious going forward. And so you do want to create what it's not the individual Republicans, but just the general idea. It's the, there are a bunch of Republicans who are going

to vote for Kamala Harris and it makes you feel a little bit safer. I think that's in doing that. I guess I was talking specifically about Cheney or either Cheney or even Adam Kinzinger to some extent. But like the idea that there are hundreds of Republicans out there makes you, it's why Kinzinger spoke at the convention, right? It's because it gives a permission structure to another specific, I think, high information Republican to come. But that's, everything matters when this thing's going to be, everything matters. I mean, the weather in

Maricopa County is going to possibly decide to be the president of the United States. Over an eight hour period on one of three or six days of the year, that weather could decide to be the president of the United States. It's the most, it is both, I think I said this last time I was on the pod too. It's like after the election, win or lose,

this thing is going to be close. Everybody is going to be able to say their thing was the thing that changed the election because it's going to come down to a few votes in a few states and they're going gonna be close. Everybody is gonna be able to say their thing was the thing that changed the election because it's gonna come down to a few votes in a few states and they're going to be right. So anything that marginally helps us, helps us. Yeah, that's exactly right. That's exactly right.

Tuesday was one of those days that makes it easy to get your fantasies for an easier election night and then you're gonna be like, I'm gonna go to the next election. I'm gonna go to the next election. I'm gonna go to the next election. I'm gonna go to the next election. Tuesday was one of those days that makes it easy to get your fantasies for an easier election night up because we had a bunch of post debate polls that came out which were almost all good news for Kamala Harris. We are still waiting for the granddaddy of them all, the New York Times, Sienna poll, which will, they have a post debate poll we assume coming any day now that it may or may not be more accurate the other ones, but it is the one that most affects the the media narrative

But the New York Times average has Kamala Harris up four points as of Tuesday And then this morning we got Quinnipiac polls that showed Harris up with a decent lead in Michigan in Pennsylvania and a narrow lead in Wisconsin And frankly, I'll be honest the vibes feel even better than that right now. When you hear numbers like that, do we have this thing in the bag? Oh, the vibes. Don't I love the vibes? I joke with my friends that I worked

on the Clinton campaign in 2016, and I am unable to feel political joy until Donald Trump is gone, dead and gone. Not literally, but politically, figuratively. We do not have this thing in the bag. You know, even a four point lead nationally does not translate to that. There's like a discount in the battleground states.

That's what Biden won the popular vote by in 2020. Exactly. And won by 40,000 across several states. So we have to win by four points, three certainly, probably four points nationally to even have a chance in the electoral college. I, you know, I alluded to this before. The trajectory is good.

We are improving. We started behind, even when, certainly, when Biden was the nominee and even for the first weeks of when Kamala was the nominee. But things have basically been on a one-way ratchet since then, right? And so if this keeps up for the next seven weeks, we are going to win the election. But A,

nobody should assume that's going to happen. And B, I am not sure, it's not that I don't trust public polling, but I do think there is an effect, I forget what it's called, but that I've talked to some pollsters and researchers about of like Democrats being sort of more willing right now to answer polls and how can you actually control for that in these surveys? I don't know if these surveys are necessarily doing it, certainly not across the board. I would guess that the better ones,

the more expensive ones, you're able to do that. But a lot of these surveys are, you know, they're horse race polls that are sort of inexpensively done to drive news and to get a set, you know, put your toe in the water. But if we're basing our, our vibes off the polar coaster, we are making a huge mistake. Cause a, they might not be accurate.

We literally had happened in 2016 and 2020. So why shouldn't that be different in 2024? And B, the polar coaster can go up and down. So like when it comes down in early October, don't feel any better than how good you feel now as they're going up. And if you want to hear more about all the post debate polling, check out the latest episode of Polar Coaster,

my subscriber only show. Our new episode will be out on Thursday. Now, I don't want to make anyone feel not good now. Like, we, like Kyle Harris wants us to feel joy. We should feel joy. Oh yeah. Joy helps. And we're thinking that you're definitely going to lose

is not somehow more likely to lose is not like some strategically smarter than thinking you're, you might win or probably could win because you're going to do the same things anyway. I don't think we're in any danger of complacency in the way these elections have gone, particularly with the last couple, like there wasn't 2016 where it was people like, well, my vote's not going to matter. So I can throw it away. And maybe that's where my, my fear comes from is, is definitely had it in 16, but not 20 and not 22 and not 18. And certainly not yet. I was doing, we had talked, John and I talked about this a couple of weeks ago, but I was doing a podcast with John Heilman from puck. And he was like, what would the polls have to say for you to be able to sleep the night before election? I was like, there is no number. Yeah. Like I would, there is just, that's, I'm never asleep the an election, get out for 2016. Like that's not even a possibility.

Biden was up, I looked back at this sometime in August, maybe July, I should have looked at this before this. There was Wisconsin polls that had them up 10 in 2020 in like the summer. And we won by point something percent in that state. So like it is 2020 isn't 2024, different candidate, et cetera, but like you're right, there is 2020 isn't 2024, different candidate, etc. But like, you're right. There's no number that's going to make me feel there. I mean, he was up Biden was

up eight in a high quality public Wisconsin poll in late October. Yeah. And he won by less than 1%. And I mean, that's everyone's operating assumption should be that American politics is such that the six battleground states are unlikely to be decided by more than two points. is such that the six battleground states are unlikely to be decided by more than two points. I think that is, I would put my house on it. And something could change. It would require a campaign changing event at the scale of the Lehman Brothers crash of 2008. That's what I think ultimately led Obama to win by, what did he win by seven points over McCain. It was something of a catastrophic, large national nature to actually move people in large mass towards us in 2008.

And obviously a good campaign that we all ran. But without that, if things sort of remain fundamentally as they are right now, it's five states within two points and we can win by two. We can lose by two. More likely with a winner lose by 0.5. Exactly right. I mean, Trump got shot in the ear and the polls moved two points. Kind of, yeah. That debate has moved the polls to two points. The New York Times average the day before that poll was two points. It is four points a day. That is that, you know, I was speaking to some of the other day about this.

A one point move in this race is massive. We spent when Joe Biden was the nominee, we spent a year and a half with basically the same race. He was down two or three points, maybe four. Obviously July was its own animal, but it was very stable. And now we've kind of reached a new stability which feels like tide. It feels like what 2020 was. Yeah, exactly.

Not what the whole public poll said, but what 2020 actually was. What 2016 actually was, but we didn't know at the time is that we are in, it is coming down to these small groups of voters. I mean, this is not unusual in history. I mean, Al Gore did not become president because someone printed the wrong ballot

in Palm Beach County, Florida. Yep. And Joe Biden became president because a few people in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia, you know, voted for him. And we're headed towards something similar here, which states, I'm sure, I mean, I'm curious what you think. Do you think the blue wall is still the path to 270? Do you think, you know, where do you see this? Well, that was my next question for you is whether the blue wall. So I think if you're just doing probabilities,

the most likely path for Kamala Harris to become president and frankly, Donald Trump to become president is winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. And it all really comes down to Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the keystone because of its 19 electoral votes. It's very hard to replace. You need to win two of the other states to replace it.

And now, yes, Donald Trump won those three states in 2016. Democrats have won them almost every other time going back to the 80s, and we did very well there in 2022. So that seems like, if you were to say what is more likely that Kamala Harris wins Pennsylvania or she wins Georgia and Arizona or Georgia and Nevada or North Carolina and one of those other three winning Pennsylvania seems like the more likely one but it's I mean it's hard. Yeah it's you're talking about these two point states, like I would put everything on the, on the idea that Pennsylvania is going to be

within two points and probably within one. Um, but I completely agree. I think the 19 electoral votes is the key. I think the most likely outcome of the race, sorry listeners, is 270 to 268 for Kamala Harris today. Uh, but that's today and not, not seven weeks from now.

Um, and that means winning Nebraska too means winning Nebraska too and the blue wall. And, but she has opened up other paths to victory, which is really what the, I think the lasting effect of her as the nominee instead of Joe Biden is, it used to be basically 270 or bust in the path I just said. And now there is a world in which we lose Pennsylvania and win Georgia and Nevada. It is a plausible world that we live in

that we win North Carolina and Georgia and lose Pennsylvania and Michigan. Like unlikely, I think very unlikely even, but not with Biden at the top of the ticket, it was zero. And now it is not zero. What is interesting is it used to be this view that like demographically alike states were correlated, right, where if you were winning Michigan,

you're probably winning Pennsylvania. And if you were winning North Carolina, you were probably winning Georgia too, because they're similar. But now the margins are so close that yes, they're correlated in the sense that they're all really close, but just because you win one the sense that they're all really close, but just because you win one,

doesn't win your meeting the other because of one small blip here or there. So your point, weather. Things that you have no control over and some that you do. Like delayed mail ballots in North Carolina. Or the number of drop-backs is in Fulton County, Georgia. Or how long the lines are,

whether people stay in line or not is could literally be the difference I mean wasn't it 11,000 votes in both, Arizona and yeah, and Georgia Yeah, both of them and Wisconsin was not much more I think was 40,000 across those three states Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia and of all three of those had flipped the other way I believe Trump would be president right now. So it is We are I don't know what states it's gonna be. It's gonna be one of those seven plus Nebraska two in my opinion.

The good news is we have more places to compete in. The bad news is that costs more money, more time, more energy, more everything. And it requires people listening to this podcast and others to open up their wallets and give their time for the next seven weeks. But it's, you know, we can win all of them. That's the other thing, right.

And like finally drive a stake in, in, uh, in this guy, I think, uh, going forward and I hope and pray that that's possible. I mean, we forget this, but Biden won all of them. Exactly. Well, not North Carolina, but all the other ones, right. So it, you know, that would be, if I can do the math, like 318 ish electoral votes and that feels like a landslide. Um, so we'll see. I mean, it's not, it electoral votes, and that feels like a landslide. So we'll see.

I mean, it's not, it's none of that is, to answer your original question, none of it's in the bag. All seven of them are not in the bag. What do you think is going on with North Carolina? Cause that one is actually showing up in the public point, doing a little bit better in Georgia. And that doesn't make a ton of sense given partisanship and the demographic makeup of the state.

Like obviously there's room for democratic victories. There were Obama won there, Roy Cooper's won there twice, but Georgia seems more friendly on paper, but North Carolina seems to be punching above its weight. Yes, I think it has everything to do. It's two things. One is, it's really one thing, black folks who have come home to Kamala Harris

more than other minority groups, people of color groups, and are sort of more solidly with her than certainly than they were with Biden. The other is that the white people in North Carolina are more college educated and generally more friendly to candidates of color than Georgia white folks. I mean, we win, I don't remember what Stacey Abrams got in 22, but we win 25, 30%

of the white vote in Georgia. It's just like, and they're obviously a majority of the electorate. So, whereas it's some more like 40 in North Carolina. And so there's just like a fundamental difference amongst the white electorate in North Carolina that's friendlier to Democrats, probably because a lot of people from the North

have moved to the triangle and Charlotte and other places like that. That doesn't exist in Georgia. We have to like hang on with white folks, basically in Atlanta and some other places, lower the margins in the outplaces as much as you can, and then max out black turnout. And that's really the only path to victory there.

Whereas in North Carolina, you can kind of turn the dials differently. And it doesn't hurt Republicans are running a complete lunatic like Mark Robinson at the top of the ticket. It certainly does. He is the embodiment of the dangers of the MAGA movement and I think that probably helps on the,

like everything helps on the margins. And if you can squeeze another 2% out of the white vote or 1% of the white vote, that is a different screen picture. I mean, that is true. You truly have to in those kinds of states because our ceiling in Pennsylvania, I mean, we saw Josh Shapiro got 56, 57%. I don't know what Rudy Cooper got, but I'm guessing it was,

it was not 57%. And even if it was, he was a two term attorney general, one term governor, had all these advantages that Kamala Harris doesn't have. So our ceiling in North Carolina is probably 50.5, you know, or 51. And so we got to have everything go right there in Georgia both. Our friend Peter Hanby of Puck had a particularly smart piece recently called the Swift Rogan election. That was largely about Gen Z men moving to Trump as one of the definitive trends in this election. There's been some online quibbling about how much that's really happening. The New York Times swing state polls recently, it actually had Trump winning Gen Z men, including by double digits in some cases. Other polls have shown a more narrow thing.

What do you see happening here? Is this a real problem? I definitely think it's a real problem. I think Peter's kind of nailing it as I go with his reporting. He is a very smart observer of this, but I do think that there's a particular, I don't want to say radicalization because that's a little too far, but sort of right movement of young men. I don't think it's just Gen Z. I think it's millennial men too, mostly based on cultural issues, but I actually think there's an economic element to it too, which is if you are, or perceive yourself as the provider for a family, if you're 35 years old and a person of color or white person alike, and you have a young family, and you have childcare costs and prices have gone up and things like that, you are more susceptible

to both Trump's negative arguments about the Biden-Harris administration and sort of this anti-woke-ism that is permeating, I think, social media and other places targeted at men. So, I 100% think it's a real thing. I think we're probably gonna see a gender gap in this election unlike we've ever seen before because it's not just white folks, it's people of color too who are starting to diverge men and women.

But the flip side of this is that women, because of jobs, because of other issues as well, I think are kind of moving more our way as well. And you might see, you know, 55% of women or something vote for Democrats and 42% vote of men or something along those lines, which is kind of crazy. But it's something we have to deal with as a party. I think in the long term, in the short term, it's a bit of a triage to win the election and make sure that men get the message that they need to get in the places that they need to get it

to feel comfortable with Kamala Harris as the president. Yeah, I sort of, there's one of the things I've come to really, really sort of annoyed me all election cycles. Whenever there's been an identified challenge within the democratic coalition, we get, we like quibble over the severity of the challenge. And that becomes a thing like, are we losing Gen Z men or are we as the NBC survey monkey, Gen Z poll shows only winning them by four?

Yeah. The problem is our coalition depends on doing better with young voters than we are. And if we need to do that, we have to win some of these are back. We saw the same thing, uh, back when Biden was nominated with black and Latino voters and we're still having some of that conversation around the senior voters is are we in the middle of a historic racial realignment? Who knows? Probably not.

It doesn't seem that way, but are we, is even Kamala Harris still a little bit behind where Joe Biden was and certainly far behind where Barack Obama was? Yeah. Did we have to make up some of that ground? Yeah. And I think that's particularly true with Gen Z men and it is like, we can win this election because of the gender gap this time in the future. If the way this is going is that, you know, 46% of men under the age of 30 are

MAGA Republicans, that's bad for the democratic party and that's bad for democracy and it's in large part because we don't have a very good way. And Peter points this out in his article, very good messengers to reach them. Yeah. Obama was very good at talking to young people and talking to young men and particularly he had ways to meet them where they were. That's not something that we have done over the Trump years. And the information space, Obama could reach these people by going on ESPN. Doesn't work that way anymore. You have to do, we talked about this recently, but you have to go on some of these podcasts,

right? And you have to talk to them and they are in this, um, algorithmically driven information bubble where there's no countervailing information about the Democratic Party. You have to, someone has to be able to go in there and make that case for why Democrats are the ones who will fight for you. And people have legitimate grievances about the economy, about politics not working for them. And we have to address them. And if we don't, we're not gonna get these voters.

Yeah, I like the way you framed it too, is it's not that we necessarily are losing. It's that we're not winning by as many as we, as much as we need to. And yeah, it's not a failure per se of messaging or strategy or policy or whatever. I think at some level, it's, we haven't focused on it because we haven't sort of been able and been willing to name the problem, but it is a problem and it's going to be worse for us. I hope we can solve it at least enough to win on November 5th, but I do think as a party, we need to have a strategy

around this very specifically. And to your point, very important, messengers, people like Tim Walz, people like, I mean, there are others that are out there that their job in some ways is to go try to pierce these bubbles because culturally and otherwise, they can relate to those folks in ways that maybe other people can't. That's not a knock on Kamala Harris or anybody else.

It's just like, that's how you do politics is you put people who feel like they can talk to a certain audience in front of that audience to persuade them. Peter used Joe Rogan as his example of the avatar for these young men, where a lot of them get information he is the biggest podcast in the world. I do think we need to share with our listeners that Joe Rogan recently praised Kamala Harris for her debate performance and made fun of Trump on a recent episode.

Let's take a listen. Before I say anything, I just wanna say, whoever's helping her, whoever's coaching her, whoever's the puppet master running the strings, you did a fucking amazing job. She did a great job. helping her, whoever's coaching her, whoever's the puppet master running the strings. Yeah. You had a fucking amazing job. She did a great job. They did an amazing job from the moment Biden drops out, forcing Biden to drop out, whatever

they're doing, whoever's writing those speeches, getting her to deliver them, coaching her, she's nailing it. She nailed that one speech. She's like, say it to my face. There was cheer. Yeah, she nailed that one speech she's like say it to my face she nailed it dude and then last night to me when I was like oh my god this is jujitsu where she's like if you go to his rallies his crowds are boring they're tired my crowds are the best crowds I have the number one crowd he couldn't help himself and she got him him. She baited him on that. She walked him right into it.

100%, 100%. Really interesting. Two things, one is he didn't give her credit. He was like the puppet master. Yes, of course. Which is like, you know, okay, gotta call that out, but God bless. But the other thing is the stuff that appealed to him

was kind of traditionally masculine stuff, right? The like baiting of him and the say it to my face stuff, et cetera. And again, like whatever our listeners or ourselves feel about that brand of masculinity and, and, um, and politics, like clearly it has an effect on somebody who is probably Peter is right. The most influential podcaster in America, no

offense to present company or present company that I hear, uh, or the most influential podcaster right now, right now. Yeah, exactly. We got, you know, you guys have time. Um, but also somebody who I think is a little bit Or the most influential podcaster right now. Right now, yeah, exactly. You guys have time. But also somebody who I think is a little bit of an avatar for that, you know, contrarian way of thinking,

who's I don't think he is, Atlantic had a really good profile on him. He's not a right winger per se. He's one of those, I'm just asking questions guys. But those people might be more attainable for us in the long run than the, you know, the true mega mega righties. I mean, there are people who listen to Joe Rogan whose votes we need. Yeah. Amen. And so

someone, you know, who can go, there's always a debate about it. Should you go on Rogan? Should you platform? Point being is you got to reach some people listen to him. You got to reach some people who listen to Theo Vaughn and some of these other folks. And, you know, we saw this during the convention, but Tim Walz and Doug Emhoff in particular have a different, more progressive, more compassionate version of masculinity that could be very appealing if offered to do that. And so this is one of those clips that I think will be,

yet she does not give Kamala Harris, he does not give Kamala Harris the credit she deserves by far. It's quite sexist and demeaning, but him making fun of Trump has value. And so there are all those people out there who are sharing your clips on Tik Tok. Like this is a good one to share because the Rogan stuff goes viral. Tik Tok loves for very good reason to show people Joe Rogan clips.

They are hammering me with your Rogan clips all the time. And so a Joe Rogan clip that is anti-Trump that makes fun of Trump, that is a useful thing. So that's, that's my final piece of advice that we give. I think it is very good advice. You're good at this. You should do it for a living. I put podcasting, unfortunately I do. Okay, that's our show today.

Thank you so much, Adisa, for joining us. John and I will be back in your feed with a new episode on Friday morning. Talk to you then. Bye everyone. Take care. If you want to get ad free episodes, exclusive content and more,

consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at Cricut.com slash Friends. And if you're already doom-scrolling, don't forget to follow us at Podsave America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review to help boost this episode or spice up the group chat by sharing it with friends, family, or randos you want in on this conversation. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production.

Our producer is David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farah Safari. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor and Adrian Hill is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglund and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroote is our head of production.

Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hefkote, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pellaviveive and David Tolz.