Pod Save America - “High on Bernie.”

Episode Date: April 20, 2020

Trump encourages Trump supporters protesting against Trump’s social distancing guidelines, governors in both parties plead for help with testing, Congress nears a deal on another economic relief bill, and China becomes a 2020 issue. Then Senator Bernie Sanders talks to Jon and Jon about why our response to this economic crisis should be more ambitious, how progressive candidates can win, and what he hopes to see from Joe Biden.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's pod, Lovett and I talk to Bernie Sanders about his endorsement of Joe Biden and what a progressive response to this economic crisis would look like. Before that, we'll talk about the protests against Trump's public health guidelines that are being organized by Trump supporters, the latest debate over testing, a potential deal in Congress on a new relief package, and China's role in the 2020 campaign.

But first, Love It, how was the show this weekend? We had a great Love It or Leave It Back in the Closet episode. Megan Rapinoe was there. She was... Big get. Big get. She was great. It was great to talk to her.

We played a game about sports. And then we had Dr. Aliima too, who's a psychologist. And it was a really helpful conversation about how it feels to be in quarantine and what helps. So I really recommend that. Plus we talked to listeners in Portland in the monologue and we heard from a bunch of teachers about what it's like to teach under quarantine. It was a great episode. I can't wait to listen to that psychologist. I think I could use that. teach under quarantine. It was a great episode. I can't wait to listen to that psychologist. I think I could use that. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just going to I think everybody should just listen to his part. Pause. Tell him how they're feeling, you know, and then unpause. You know what I mean?

Yes. We have one more favor to ask of all of you. So now that Congress is almost done with this interim relief bill and is about to start negotiating the next big coronavirus response bill. That may be the last chance we have to expand vote by mail and early voting before November, which means we have to put the pressure on right now, as in this week. So we are asking as many people as possible to go to votesaveamerica.com slash call,

which will automatically connect you directly to your representatives in Congress. We even wrote out a script so you know exactly what to say. Please call this week. It doesn't matter if your representative is a Democrat or Republican. Both parties need to understand how important this is. So, again, go to votesaveamerica.com slash call. All right, let's get to the news. So there was a piece last week in the New York Times by two very prominent epidemiologists who estimated that if the White House had issued

social distancing guidelines just two weeks earlier, so on March 2nd instead of when they did on March 16th, it could have prevented 90% of the U.S. deaths from COVID-19. 90%. It's about 54,000 American lives. That's how effective social distancing is. And I bring this up because on Friday, the president of the United States chose to encourage Trump supporters who are now on the streets protesting those very same social distancing guidelines by

tweeting, quote, liberate Michigan, liberate Minnesota and liberate Virginia and save your great Second Amendment. Had to throw that in, too. Stephen Moore, who is one of the president's economic advisers, actually said, quote, I call these people the modern day Rosa Parks. actually said, quote, I call these people the modern day Rosa Parks. They're protesting against injustice and a loss of liberties. So, Tommy, these protests have ranged from like 100 people here in Orange County to a few thousand in Washington state. What do we know about who's out there protesting and who's organizing these protests? Modern day Rosa Parks. So I'm sure there are some people out there at these protests who are genuinely frustrated with the lockdowns. I don't think people are suggesting that they were like tricked into being there or paid to be there. But what is very clear is that there's a bunch of

right wing organizations that are manufacturing these events or helping promote and organize these events. And they're doing so because they know that even little protests will get covered by the press ad nauseum. And just like with the Tea Party back in 2009, Fox News is right there waiting to supercharge the coverage and drive attendance and make this sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And so it's early, but here are some of the ways these are being manufactured. So the Washington Post reported on how a bunch of Facebook groups popped up with identical names. There's Wisconsinites against excessive quarantine, Pennsylvanians against excessive quarantine, Ohioans, New Yorkers. If you hear those names all be identical and you don't believe

it's a coincidence, you are right, because they were all created by three brothers who are far right wing gun activists and like provocateurs. And because so many MAGA people are grifters, what a surprise that these anti-quarantine Facebook pages recommend that you pay to join some gun rights group that they are founders of. In Michigan, the protests were organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition, which also goes by the name Michigan Trump Republicans. And the directors of that group are influential Republican operatives. They're connected to Trump. They're in his cabinet. They have big pots of money. They're backed by billionaires. And they're literally sharing their verbatim playbook with others across the country. And in Michigan, it's very clearly designed to target the governor, Gretchen Whitmer. They posted an op-ed on their Facebook page bragging about how they were killing her VP chances. But they've also aligned with a bunch of really scary extremists. The Proud Boys were there in Michigan. In Austin, Texas, Alex Jones was out there. goal is to project an image that these are average people who are just fed up with the government and they want to get back to work.

The reality is that billionaires, business groups who want to tell those people that they have to go back to work are helping promote these events. And what's frustrating about it is we know from polling that the vast majority of people in this country are worried that social distancing will end too soon. I think it's like two thirds in the latest Pew poll. social distancing will end too soon. I think it's like two thirds in the latest Pew poll. But, you know, what happens is just like in the Tea Party, the Koch brothers then organized these rallies. They gain momentum. They trick the press into covering them. And it becomes a self-fulfilling thing where pretty soon you will see, I think, or I worry, larger and larger of numbers of people at these protests putting themselves at risk and

pushing for policies that put all of us at risk. Oh, one piece of color from the Washington Post story about the brothers who run the gun groups. These gun groups that they run are so extreme that they try to discredit the National Rifle Association, the NRA, for being too compromising on gun safety. That's the kind of people we're talking about here. The NRA has gotten soft, John. I mean, look, I'll believe these protests are real when those three brothers are out there on the streets themselves. And when Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, you know, Jean Perrault is sipping Chardonnay on the streets without a mask on, then I'll believe the sincerity behind these protest movements. But until then, this is classic AstroTurf. Well, and to your point about sincerity,

so there was a protest in New Hampshire. The governor of New Hampshire is Chris Sununu. He's a Republican. Ethan DeWitt, who's a statehouse reporter at the Concord Monitor, decided to talk to a bunch of the protesters. Not one of them, not one of them blamed Republican Governor Chris Sununu, even though it is his order to stay home. And they are specifically targeting Democratic governors because they are right wing Trump supporters, as you said, and not necessarily just a bunch of upset Americans. In Michigan, they blocked an ambulance en route to the hospital in denver protesters yelled at two nurses if you want communism go back to china and said you go to work why can't i go to work and a passerby said well they're going to work because they're saving

people's lives and the protesters said oh bullshit those are the people so perfect those are the people we're dealing with. Love it. What did you what? What did you think about this? And I also want to talk about Trump, too, and get your thoughts on this. Like, why is Trump encouraging people to protest the guidelines that his own government has issued?

Yeah. So what do I think of people being prodded by right wing interest groups into risking their own safety to oppose public health measures designed to save millions of lives in the middle of an emergency and pandemic that struck every corner of the country, goaded on by a president more interested in a chaotic, hard to follow story than one that actually discusses his culpability in it? I'm thumbs down. I don't like it. I'm not a fan of it. It's, um, it's obviously very sad. You know, these people deserve to be held to account for being out there, right? Like, the fact that they are dupes, that a lot of them are simply dupes of a organization that doesn't have their interest at heart that is kind of fooled them over a very long time, doesn't mitigate their culpability for being out there. But at the same time, you know, what we are seeing is what happens when the dog catches the car. Rush Limbaugh

has been doing this for decades. Fox News has now been doing this for decades. Donald Trump is a culmination of that logic, as are many right wing propaganda outlets on Facebook and just online generally, backed by billionaires, never made a profit, never could make a profit. They're all predicated on the idea that the main institutions, the government, the mainstream press that does the vast majority of genuine reporting in this country, the functioning bureaucracy, whether it's the CDC or the health or health and human services or veterans affairs or the Pentagon or what have you, that these organizations are going to be strong and are going to do their job and are going to exist no matter how much shit we throw at them from the

sidelines. And we can get our people all riled up and we get them angry and we get them to vote for Republicans and we can get them to be spiteful and we can get them to buy gold or supplements or whatever the shit is that they push on their shows, on their networks. But now we're in a situation where they have the White House. And now one of the leading figures of right-wing propaganda is doing it from the briefing room every day, doing it from his phone every single day. And it's incredibly dangerous. And we are sort of seeing it everywhere. You know, millions of people, you know, there was another story about a person whose family was pleading with him, don't go on this cruise. It's not safe. It's not safe. But this person had been

listening to Fox News and listening to the president. I mean, this is what is playing out. There are millions of Americans who have been duped and they are playing the kind of useful idiots to Trump and Trump's allies for their own political and financial purpose. Counterpoint, why is no one marching in favor of social distancing? Why don't you libs get off your asses and hit the streets? But well, Tommy, there was a really incredible protest in Israel against corruption by Netanyahu. I'll probably hear about it on Pod Save the World.

But it was a socially distant protest. I saw that. They were measured out six feet apart. It's an incredibly moving image to see these people trying to have their voices heard while following the rules. How dare you suggest I didn't see all the details of an anti-Netanyahu protest? Come on. Yeah, it is really. It's right. How dare you suggest I didn't see all the details of an anti-Netanyahu protest. Come on.

Ben Rhodes was there. A COVID story meets a Netanyahu story? It is made for Pod Save the World. I will say, you know, I saw a New York Times story, I think Peter Baker tweeted this, like you know, by Trump

encouraging these protests, he could sort of fuel the kind of working class populist rage that that helped him in 2016. I actually think he is he has he's in a tricky position politically trickier than we might think, because Trump obviously is tweeting this shit because he wants the protesters to know that he's on their side, right? And clearly they do in a very, and some of them in a very scary way. You know, Ben Collins at NBC said that Trump's tweets led right-wing extremists to speculate whether the president was advocating for armed conflict. Some of them were tweeting after that. So it's very scary. But at the same time that he wants them to know he's on their side, he also the most important thing for Trump is to win reelection. And he sees the same numbers that we do. Tommy, you briefly mentioned this, but, you know, the latest

Navigator poll has just 10 percent of Americans say we should relax social distancing. And that's even reflected among Trump's base. 18% of Republicans, 17% of 2016 Trump voters, and 14% of Fox News viewers want to ease social distancing right now. There was a Yahoo pullout this morning. Only 22% of Americans support the protesters and Republicans opposed the protests 47-36. Now, propaganda works. If Trump suddenly decided to be 100% on the side of the protesters, and Fox News ramps this up every single day like they usually do, you could start to see those numbers change. But that still gets you, you know, 35-40% of Trump's base. And I think Trump knows that the vast majority of Americans and even a lot of his voters appreciate and believe in the social distancing guidelines. So he needs to play both sides here.

Yeah, I mean, the Michigan part was instructive. Like there was some reporting that maybe some of the people protesting felt that some of the most recent round of Gretchen Whitmer's restrictions on being able to purchase like lawn care items and things like that were a bridge too far. And that's what finally upset people. But I mean, I think that's probably specious and silly. The reality, I think the Democrats need to explain to folks is a lot of these protests are backed and organized by your bosses who want you to go back to work, to be forced to go back to work, and they want liability protection in case you get sick. And we need to say as Democrats, we hear you, we feel your pain. That's why the government needs to take more steps to protect you and make sure that you're able to feed your family and have health care and can get through this time without putting yourself at risk.

I'll say one other thing about this too, which is, you know, you talked about the failure to take it seriously enough early enough and how much death might've been prevented. You know, and, and, and many have pointed out, right, that there was a period of time where it wasn't just Trump who wasn't pushing us hard enough. Like it took us as a nation, it took us a beat to really understand the nature of what we were facing. Part of the reason it took us a moment to figure out what we were facing is that the person best suited to help the country understand what it was about to go through with the most intelligence, the most access to information, the best scientists in the world, all of whom were saying this is an emergency and it's coming, wasn't doing his job because he was more worried about the stock market than he was the American people. But even beyond that,

was more worried about the stock market than he was the American people. But even beyond that, we're now well over 30,000 deaths. We had more than 4,000 people die in one day last week. Millions of Americans are out of work. The whole country is basically at home, not sure how it's going to end. Imagine how different it would look if there was a president saying something like, thank you. Thank you for what you're doing to protect your country. I know it's hard. A lot of people are working hard to get this to be over. Our doctors or nurses, thank you for supporting them. I'm grateful to you. My thoughts go out. And you know who's saying that, Lovett? Gavin Newsom is saying that. Mike DeWine, Republican, is saying that. Larry Hogan, Republican Governor of Maryland, is saying that. Democratic and Republican leaders all across the

country are saying that very same thing. We don't have a president who will say that as well. there is going to come a point where, you know, the economic pain of these shutdowns is so great that a lot of people, particularly people who live in states where there haven't been significant outbreaks, are going to look around their community and they're going to see a lot of people out of work and they're not going to see many cases in their state or in their community. And they're going to say, why the hell can't we go back to work? Like, I get that. But play this out a few months. Like, in May and June, a lot of these governors of both parties are going to start to lift a lot of these social distancing, at least some of the toughest social distancing guidelines. People are going to start going back to work. They're going to be able to start leaving their homes safely, hopefully. Once that happens, the biggest barrier to the economy getting back

to normal is going to be the fear people have that because we still don't have a vaccine, it's not safe to go to a restaurant. It's not safe to go to a stadium. So then what's Trump going to do? Then what are these right wing groups going to protest? Like, I just don't know. I understand why this is a problem right now. But in two, three, four months, I'm not sure where this goes. What do you guys think? John, are you suggesting that Donald Trump is taking a short term view of this big problem? Yes.

Yeah. I mean, look, also, the economic pain is going to be felt differently across different states. There's been states that expanded access to health care under Obamacare. It's probably a little bit easier on those citizens. There's been a lot of reporting lately about how Florida's unemployment insurance system was built to be incredibly hard to use. So there are people who are going to be punished by bureaucracy that was put in place, usually by Republican governments who don't want social services to go to the poor. So you're right. It's going to be felt differently. There's going to be pain points differently. You know,

go to the poor. So you're right. It's going to be felt differently. There's going to be pain points differently. You know, I worry about like phase one of Trump's plan, including opening up sports stadiums. Like a lot of this just seems incredibly unrealistic to me. And you're right that like in three months, the frustration is going to be far greater than it is right now. And like I worry about what his angry Saturday morning tweets will look like at that point. Like, I worry about what his angry Saturday morning tweets will look like at that point. I also think because because he has been so focused on the short term and there is no kind of national voice of, you know, calm, of reasonableness, of fortitude, that there is actually very little understanding, I think, of just how much of a loss victory is going to feel like, like just how closed an open economy feels like in any other period. If like, if we get back to the point where like 75% of the economy is running, that's an incredible achievement, maybe impossible until there's a vaccine or vast more testing.

That's a massive recession. That's a massive, massive downturn with millions of people immiserated, forced into economic dislocation, having to move, having to move in with their families, having to desperately seek relief somewhere from the government on an ongoing basis. So because there's no one setting expectations or nobody in a position to set expectations, there is so little preparation for the millions of people who I agree with you, John, are going to start bristling against the walls of this stay at home order and then will come out to discover that things are not what they were. So we've talked about this before, but the only way to make it safe or safer for people to leave their homes and go back to work

is with a national strategy for fast, easily accessible testing and contact tracing. We still don't have that. Democratic and multiple Republican governors keep saying that they don't have enough supplies or testing kits. Trump said that governors have enough testing capacity that they need to, quote, step up and get the job done. And he accused them of complaining, which led to this response last week from Andrew Cuomo. The president doesn't want to help on testing.

He said 11 times. I said the one issue we need help with is testing. He said 11 times. I don't want to get involved in testing. It's too complicated. It's too hard. I know it's too complicated and it's too hard. That's why we need you to help. I can't do an international supply chain. He wants to say, well, I did enough. Yeah, none of us have done enough. We haven't because it's not over. So, yes, thank you for the Javits. Thank you for the U.S. Navy ship comfort. But it's not over. We have a lot more to do. And no one can take the posture, well, just say thank you for what I've done, and I'm now out. I'm not doing anything else.

I've done my part. What if I said to the people of my state, okay, I'm done. By the way, I saved hundreds of thousands of lives. I flattened the curve. I created more hospital beds than anyone ever imagined. I coordinated the entire state. I'm done. I'm done. I'm going home. I'm going to go see my mother. I'm going to spend time with my kids.

And I'm going to go out fishing in Connecticut because their marinas are open. That's it. I'm done. What if I said that? That's what he's saying i'm done so during sunday night's briefing i was gonna do a cuomo impression hey i want to do some fucking dead list i'm sorry wrong cuomo wrong cuomo sorry it'd be good uh so during sunday night's briefing uh trump did say that he's quote calling in the defense production act to fix the

testing shortages and quote you'll have so many swabs you won't know what to do with them. He's such a dick about it. I know. What an image. Fucking give you all the swabs you need. Throwing a handful of swabs in your face for no reason. So we'll see if he actually does this. But, Tommy, why did it take him so long?

And why does he keep pushing this on to the states? I mean, the why is the hard part. I just think he doesn't want to own the responsibility for anything that is hard and anything that might be seen as a failure. But just in case folks think that we're being partisan here, Larry Hogan, Republican of Maryland, Mike DeWine, Republican governor of Ohio, Charlie Baker, Massachusetts, They are all the ones who are saying the lack of testing is probably the number one problem in America and the number one thing holding up the entire economic response. So I'll be honest, for the life of me, if I'm Donald Trump and I want nothing more than to reopen the economy, because I think that's the only way I'm going to get reelected, then I would prioritize widespread, free, massive, pervasive testing.

But that has been the CDC's single greatest failure since the very beginning. And for some reason, he still doesn't want to fund in prioritizing. And I don't get it. Lovett, what do you think? Yeah, I don't understand it either. It does feel like it is just based in competence. And the focus he has is on the briefings. And he's saying, get it done, get it done every day to a bunch of people who lack the

aptitude to get it done. It is also a really hard problem. You know, we need we need to we need an order of magnitude more tests. We need testing in the millions. We need places that can produce tests and process tests in the millions. And so in the absence of leadership from the White House directing all of this, you now have the kind of the states that have a kind of built in capacity, places like Massachusetts, places like California, trying to kind of figure out what they can do to ramp up their

own testing because they're not getting any leadership from the White House. It is sort of hard to explain because we're all operating under the assumption that Donald Trump is doing whatever he can out of self-interest. But out of self-interest weeks ago, he should have been activating the Defense Protection Act to ramp up testing, and he doesn't. So I don't think anybody can explain it. It's unexplained. Apparently, the Washington Post got a couple current administration officials, Trump administration officials, to say that Trump's the buck stops with the state's posture is largely designed to shield himself from blame should there be new outbreaks after states reopen or for other problems. So and like maybe he believes that

maybe these aides who went on background believe he believes that. But like on what planet is that going to happen? say, like, it's about sort of coordination and organization here. Like, I think he said, like, I can't do a supply line, coordinate a supply line with China or other countries on my own. Right. Like these states, and this is the same issue with medical supplies, protective gear, ventilators. Like they're bidding against each other. They're competing against each other. They're trying to fit like there's parts and reagents and all this shit for testing that are scattered across 50 states and 180 countries. And you need a national strategy for that. You need national coordination for that, even if the states are the ones administering the tests. And for some reason, they have just been

so slow to get it done. And you're right, like, I don't know, doesn't Donald Trump understand, like his dream of opening the economy, having the economy surge back, opening America, that only gets realized if people feel safe, and they only feel safe if there is massive testing. I don't understand why someone can't tell him that that's actually a political benefit for him, if there's if there's massive testing. I don't understand why someone can't tell him. That's actually a political benefit for him if there's massive testing. All right, so one fairly piece of good news is that Congress and the White House are close to a deal on another emergency relief bill. This came about because the Paycheck Protection Program

from the last bill has already run out of money. That's the program that basically pays small businesses to not lay off their employees. Republicans in Congress only wanted more money for that program and nothing else. Democrats wanted more money for that program. Plus, they wanted to fix the program because it wasn't helping enough small businesses in underserved areas. Plus, they wanted money for hospitals, testing cities and states. Tommy, what looks like it's going to be in the final deal as of right now? And do you think it's a good one? about a $450 billion package, which we should just pause for a second and say, wow, that's a lot of cash. Barack Obama would have loved a second $450 billion infusion of cash during the financial crisis, but a complaint for another day. So it sounds like $300 billion will go to the Paycheck Protection Program. That's the program that's been designed to give loans to small businesses for rent, payroll, utilities, necessities, and the businesses that accept these

loans and don't fire their staffs for a certain amount of time or a high percentage of their staffs, they can get those loans forgiven. There was a previous PPP relief package that included about $350 billion for that program, but it got used up very quickly. So initially, the Republicans said, let's just pass an extension with more money for PPP. And Pelosi and Chuck said, you know, look, we're down with PPP. You know, you're familiar with us, as they say, as the song goes. But we want some other stuff. So the bill now has $50 billion or $60 billion for the Small Business Administration Disaster Relief Fund, where you can get like $10 grand really fast if you're a small business that was hurt by some sort of disaster. There's 75 billion for hospitals. There's 25 billion for

testing. Some progressives have pointed out that there's not hazard pay for frontline workers or rent stabilization support or rent payment freeze support. But it's a pretty, you know, look, the Democrats moved McConnell from 300 billion to 450 billion. So that's that's a hell of a lot of progress, I think. Love it. What do you think? Right before we started recording, AOC and Pramila Jayapal said that they will oppose this bill partly because of what what Tommy just said. It leaves out, you know, the Republicans so far are saying that money for cities and states is a red line. They will not do it in this bill. People like Governor Cuomo, a lot of other governors, Republican governors are well as well

are saying we don't get money soon. Like it's going to hurt fire departments, schools, you know, all kinds of state and colleges, state and local funding. What do we do here as Democrats? Because, yes, Democrats have leverage. But before this deal was struck, you know, Democrats were also blamed for a week for holding up money to keep people on the job. Yeah, I'll be honest in saying that I don't know, because part of the the part of what makes this, I think, nuanced is it's not just about what's it's about what's in this bill. It's about what's in the next bill. It's about what's the biggest emergency now, but also what are the must pass parts of the next bill that will give Democrats more leverage on the next and bigger package? that will give Democrats more leverage on the next and bigger package, right? Like, I agree with all the priorities that aren't in this bill that AOC and others are advocating for.

I don't totally understand how the negotiation will play out based on not having things here versus what will be in the next one, because support for states seems like it is inevitable and necessary. Some measure of hazard pay seems necessary. I don't know how inevitable. I mean, there's a bunch of different pieces about this. I guess I don't totally understand the negotiations enough to understand whether it is worth pushing this through now and making sure you fight for those things in the next bill, or if this is a one-time opportunity to get some of those pieces in. One dynamic that keeps playing out is Democrats are concerned that they'll lose their leverage because, you know, Mitch McConnell says something like, we don't need more money for anyone. We've done enough, you know, and maybe

there won't be a phase four bill. And then, you know, Nancy Pelosi calls up Steve Mnookin and he's like, oh, yeah, I'm ready to play ball. And I think that dynamic is not because like Steve Mnookin is a wonderful person. It's because Donald Trump wants to win reelection and Donald Trump needs a good economy to win election, or at least he needs a better economy to win an election. And so Donald Trump continues to want to play ball here on successive economic relief packages. So I do think there will be a phase four bill. I think, you know, the Trump administration has said this as well, even if Mitch McConnell might not want there to be. So I do think there is another chance for Democrats to exert even more leverage than they did on this bill. But look, it's a tough position for Democrats to be in, again, because

not just for the politics, but because we are the more responsible party who wants to help people like, you know, the small this paycheck protection program really did run out of money. We're seeing stories today that there's a ton of very small businesses who didn't get their didn't get their loan from this program. There were a lot of small businesses, small businesses, I put in quotation marks, because they're part of larger restaurant chains, like Ruth's Chris and Shake Shack and others who got lots of money from this program. And a lot of like mom and pop small businesses and small businesses and minority communities and in rural communities did not get anything from the first tranche. So like, at some point, you don't want to hold up funding forever when there is a possibility that a bunch of small businesses could get money to keep their employees from being laid

off and a bunch of hospitals now could get a bunch of money that they badly need to help save lives. So like how long do you really hold that up? Yeah, like I totally understand the frustration from some of progressives that there's not enough in the bill to get money directly into the pockets of working people. There's also understandable frustration with the implementation of the first round of PPP money, because in many instances, your ability to get a loan had nothing to do with need. It had everything to do with how strong your pre-existing relationship with your bank was, because if you had all that paperwork sorted out, you could get it quickly. And if you didn't, you couldn't, which seems like a dumb way to implement a program. But, you know, look, Mitch McConnell is a terrible, cynical person, but his people would say like this was about sequencing and just getting this money out the door as fast as possible. And I think it was smart and right to fight to add one hundred and fifty billion dollars more money into the package.

Like ultimately, I too am hopeful that we'll see another tranche of money because Donald Trump, McConnell and every Republican, frankly, have a vested political interest in the economy, not burning to the ground, which means they're going to need another tranche of money. Now, like these guys always find a way to help out business interests and donors and corporations before real people. But yeah, like you, I'm not sure what exactly Democrats are supposed to do here. We're supposed to like filibuster a bill, just fight for better priorities. Like it's hard. It's hard to understand how the negotiation is happening besides these calls between Pelosi and Mnuchin. happening besides these calls between Pelosi and Mnuchin? I would say this. For the next bill,

I think that Democrats should pass a bill through the House that is the most ambitious progressive bill possible that includes everything they didn't get in this one, plus everything they believe, basically their vision of what it looks like to take care of people during a pandemic. vision of what it looks like to take care of people during a pandemic. Rent stabilization, hazard pay for frontline workers. Bernie Sanders had some great ideas. Elizabeth Warren has some great ideas. A whole bunch of people do. Put it all in this bill for phase four, election protection, pass it through the House, and then say, all right, this is what it's going to take to fix the economy. Like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, how much of this do you want? And then if they accept it, great. Then, you know, we've helped the economy. We've helped a lot of people. If they don't accept it, then you have your difference

for November. Then you have this is what the Democratic plan is to fix the economy. This would help workers. The Republicans refused it. Donald Trump refused it. They want to just help their rich friends. So like at the very least, the next time we get to a phase, instead of Pelosi calling up Mnuchin first to negotiate, pass a bill through the House that represents what you want to see ultimately in the final product. Yeah, that makes sense. All right. Let's talk about 2020. Here's the lead of a Washington Post story from the weekend. Quote, President Trump's campaign is preparing to launch a broad effort aimed at linking Joe Biden to China after concluding that it would be more politically effective than defending or promoting Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Now, apparently not everyone on Team Trump agrees with the strategy, including Kellyanne Conway. But apparently their internal polling is getting worse for Trump.

And it shows that three quarters of all voters, including Biden voters, some Biden voters, blame China for the pandemic. So a Trump super PAC is trying to get hashtag Beijing Biden trending with an ad buy in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The Biden campaign last week hit back with this ad. Trump rolled over for the Chinese. He took their word for it. Pennsylvania. The Biden campaign last week hit back with this ad. I think it's going to all work out fine. Trump praised the Chinese 15 times in January and February

as the coronavirus spread across the world. It's a tough situation. I think they're doing a very good job. Are you concerned about its potential impact on the global economy? I think that China will do a very good job. Trump never got a CDC team on the ground in China. And the travel ban he brags about? Trump let in 40,000 travelers from China into America after he signed it. Not exactly airtight. Look around. 22 million Americans are out of work,

and we have more officially reported cases and deaths than any other country. Donald Trump left this country unprepared and unprotected for the worst public health and economic crisis in our lifetime. And now we are paying the price. All the negative ads in the world can't change the truth. So, Tommy, how serious is the China ad strategy here on both sides? How much how much is this social media or is this some real money here? No, it seems like real money. I mean, the Trump super PAC is spending, I think, $10 million to tie Biden to China. And then American Bridge, a Democratic super PAC, is spending $15 million criticizing Trump for the way he coddled China in response in the early days of the pandemic.

So this is seemingly going to be a core part of this strategy. What I found so fascinating about that Washington Post story was that you have Kellyanne Conway on the record in the White House basically fighting with her own campaign team about ad strategy. She wants the TV ads to talk about all the great things Trump did. And what the campaign is acknowledging is there's not much there there. And that, in fact, you can't really move numbers by talking about Donald Trump's record on coronavirus. So the big question is, will it work? And the answer is, with all things predicting, I don't know.

I mean, I do think there is very fertile ground here. Like you said, like 75 percent of voters blame China for the coronavirus outbreak. 75% of voters blame China for the coronavirus outbreak. There is another element of this, which is the suggestion that the Chinese are maybe even more culpable because the virus somehow escaped from a lab rather than just naturally occurring in a bat, right? Like that's the new theory that the Trump people are trying to push really hard. If I were operating with the same set of facts, I would rather be Team Biden because you could point to all the things Trump

did and said in those early days with respect to China. And I think that's much more relevant, frankly, than like quotes from Joe Biden going back to 1979, which is what they said will be potentially part of their ad campaign, the Republicans. But I mean, I always worry that the Trump people have way more money and are way more shameless. And so that can overwhelm even the best set of facts. So who knows? Love it. Which side of in the Trump campaign do you think is right? Kelly, Kelly and Conway on that? They should promote more of his pandemic response or the campaign that they should just. Kelly and Conway is full of shit. She she was on the first one.

She knows she knows that that you don't win for Donald Trump by making Donald Trump good. You win by making his opponents bad. That's what they did to Hillary Clinton. That's been their plan from the very beginning. That's what they're going to do. It's ultimately pretty simple. They didn't just pick China coincidentally. They picked it because they think they have a big liability on China. We talked about this last week when this first started happening. They think that they have a big China liability because of what what Donald Trump said in the early days of this pandemic in being deferential to China, praising China and not taking the threat seriously enough. And so they are attacking Joe Biden for this. And Biden is going to respond to make sure that there's only that there's that there's more than one argument being made, that there's an opposition argument being made to kind of inoculate Joe Biden from this attack. And so if we are talking about China and who did a better job of protecting the

country from a virus that did begin in China. There is one person who praised the government of China while allowing a pandemic to take hold in the country. And now that is not to say that like, and by the way, like, and then that'll come with a lot of demagoguery from Trump about China, which he's been doing for a very long time anyway. And so it's sort of the same playbook,

just a different chapter uh yeah like quarter i saw some people being like oh you know criticizing biden for jumping in on demagoguing china and like oh now we have both parties demagoguing china and this could be dangerous and i agree that like you know it's not in anyone's interest certainly not in the country's interest to just be all anti-China for an entire election. You know, that's how you eventually get to wars. But Biden didn't start this thing. of China and weak on China, I think it is not only important, but absolutely fucking necessary for Joe Biden to point out the facts of Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic,

which included believing President Xi over his own intelligence. Like, it just seems pretty obvious. Democrats should not like work themselves into a position of defending the Chinese response to this outbreak. They covered it up. They locked down doctors and critics. They've scrubbed webpages of information that had been posted previously about their initial response. They're not letting in experts that are internationally recognized. So China screwed this up in a big way, and we should get to the bottom of exactly how. Now, part of this that's being suggested in the press is that this is a piece of a bigger puzzle that will include like Hunter Biden's business dealings in China. And I'm sure they will try to drag everyone they can possibly find through the mud on the story of the Trump people. But I would be worried about the fact that back in 2018, the Chinese awarded Ivanka Trump a whole bunch of new trademarks for her businesses. Wow, what an amazing coincidence.

And then right at the same time, Donald Trump was helping out ZTE, a Chinese telecom company, Jared Kushner's having all these secret meetings with Chinese authorities. There is a lot of shady shit happening with the Trump kids in their business dealings in China that I suspect would be the very first thing the Biden folks would say in response to allegations about Hunter Biden. So again, like I'd rather have the Biden team set of facts. Yeah, I mean, the Trump campaign is working overtime to spend quite a few political reporters somewhat successfully that, you know, this is their this is the silver bullet right here. They're going to attack Joe Biden is weak on China and you got the Hunter thing and this and that. It is not to say it's not a clean hit for them is an

understatement for like they have family connections to China. Trump screwed up the response by believing China. Like, I just think it is so every time i see one of these pieces it's like trump campaign has polling that thinks this is the big deal you know it's like yeah if biden says nothing in response it's gonna work right but if you match it with the record of what trump actually did uh his what he's done to with china um i don't think it's gonna work very well all right right. When we come back, Lovett and I will talk to Senator Bernie Sanders. Now that we have a Democratic nominee,

it's the perfect time to revisit The Wilderness, my six-part podcast series about how to win the White House and flip the Senate in 2020. I interviewed voters, strategists, organizers, and candidates in battleground states to find out what it will take to beat Donald Trump. Listen and subscribe now, wherever you listen to your podcasts. We are now joined by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, thanks for coming back on the show. My pleasure. Great to be with you.

So in the interim relief bill being negotiated in Congress right now, it seems like Democrats won funding for hospitals, testing and more relief to underserved small businesses. But they reportedly aren't getting money for cities and states, hazard pay for frontline workers, rent freeze or any of the other provisions that you and many others have called for. Obviously, this can't pass without quite a few Democratic votes in the Senate. Will you support this? Well, what we're looking at is a multi-stage process. I'll find out more. I'm going to be on a Democratic leadership meeting in a few hours, and I'll get more detail. But this will be a modest proposal, quote unquote modest. But clearly what has got to happen is that we need a new major,

major piece of legislation. And in that major legislation, there has got to be all of the things that you talked about and a lot more. For example, one of the things that I am fighting for with senators who have a different political perspective than I do, people like Mark Warner, Doug Jones, and others, is to make sure that every worker in America continues to receive his or her paycheck, similar to the approach used by many European countries, which I believe is the fastest, most efficient way of getting money out to working people throughout this country. John, the other thing that I believe has to be done in the midst of this terrible crisis is to make sure that all Americans have health care without out-of-pocket expenses. And what that means to me is that Medicare should cover the uninsured and fill in the gaps for the underinsured and pick

up the burden for those people who are now losing their health insurance when they're losing their jobs. We also have got to make sure, I mean, this is a scandal beyond belief, that our medical providers, our doctors, nurses, others have the protective equipment that they need as quickly as possible. How confident are you that Trump and McConnell will actually negotiate a larger phase four bill? I am reasonably confident. And obviously, you know, what is in that bill will be a struggle. They want continuously tax breaks for the rich. They want as little accountability as possible. They want as little accountability as possible. They would like to dole out billions of dollars in aid to corporations without giving the American people the details.

But at the end of the day, we are facing such an unprecedented health care crisis and economic crisis that I am absolutely confident they're going to be forced to come to the table for a major, major piece of legislation. Senator, you wrote an op-ed in The Times over the weekend talking about some of the ways the pandemic exposes fundamental brokenness in our economy, in our society. How do you see the pandemic affecting what is politically possible? How do you see it? What lessons do you think it's teaching our society? Well, I think, let's be clear, we are living through a moment in history. And I think many of us, because we're living through it, we don't even fully appreciate

the dimensions of it. But this is an unprecedented moment in the history of the United States of America. So we're looking at a horrible virus, which is killing tens of thousands of our friends and our neighbors. Everybody is worried about their own health. They're worried about their family. In the meantime, we're looking at 22 million people who have officially applied for unemployment insurance, and the number of unemployed is

much higher than that. So a massive economic downturn, a massive economic crisis. That is what we are dealing with right now. We can't even deal with it effectively, because I'm sitting in my house. You're sitting in your home. Workers are not able to get into factories, into offices to do their jobs. So this is a horrible, horrible moment. offices to do their jobs. So this is a horrible, horrible moment. But I hope that in the midst of this unprecedented and horrific moment, people are sitting back and asking themselves

questions which we don't hear discussed in Congress or in the corporate media. For example, we have been told over and over again how wonderful and how popular our current health care system is, which ties health care to employment, right? We've heard that a million times. I have a good job and I have good health insurance. What more do we need in the world? Well, it turns out that this system is a little bit more vulnerable than was previously discussed. Because when you have tens of millions of people losing their jobs, you know what? Many of them are also losing their health insurance. And then on top of that, we end up spending twice as much per capita for health care as do the people of any other country on earth.

And on top of that, before the pandemic, we had 87 million uninsured or underinsured. So I think that all over this country, John, people are saying, hmm, is this really the kind of system we want in the future? Why are we the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a human right? Should we continue to tie health care to our jobs? So I think that's issue number one. Issue number two is the broad economic issue. And that with so many people, it is a tragedy that so many people are losing their jobs. But what we are also seeing is that millions and millions of people, when they lose a paycheck

or two paychecks, find themselves in dire, dire economic circumstances. It's one thing if you have a couple of hundred thousand dollars in the bank and you lose your job. It's not a good situation. But what happens if you have $200 in the bank and you lose your job and you don't get a paycheck? How are you going to feed your family? How are you going to pay your rent?

How are you going to pay your mortgage? And you know what? Half of the country was in that position before the pandemic. So that raises the whole issue of the nature of our economy. Do we think it is a good idea? Are we allowed to discuss the reality of three people owning more wealth than the bottom half of America and half of our people living paycheck to paycheck? And by the way, half a million people who are homeless and God knows how many people because of poverty end up in jail through mass incarceration. So I would hope that those are some of the issues that people will start thinking about and acting on as soon as we're through with this pandemic. So it was a little over 10 years ago that we went through a previous massive financial crisis that required a massive intervention by the government. What lessons

did you learn in how the government responded then that you think Democrats and Congress should be applying right now? Well, you got a couple of hours for that discussion, John, because I remember that very well. That was not long after I was elected to the Senate, and that was in 2008, early 2009. And I remember the Secretary of Treasury in the Bush administration coming in and saying, okay, look, we've got a very, very serious crisis. Wall Street is about to collapse. please give us $750 billion that we can distribute to our Wall Street friends. And on top of that, obviously, the Fed is going to provide zero interest loans or almost

zero interest to the tune of trillions of dollars to corporations in America, banks in America, and central banks all over the world. Thank you very much. Please sign off on that. And that was with a few modest exceptions, some help for homeowners, not much. That was a bailout for the big money interest. And before the pandemic, at least, we find that Wall Street has more concentration of ownership than even before the bailout, and Wall Street is doing phenomenally well. So the lesson, and I voted needless to say against that bailout,

the lesson to be learned is that in an economic crisis, our focus has got to be on the ordinary people, the working people, the lower income people who are struggling. We've got to help them. And while this last so-called stimulus bill of $2.2 trillion gave away much too much, $450 billion to the corporate world, there was a lot more in that bill to help ordinary workers than was the case back in 2008.

And perhaps the most significant part, doesn't get a lot of discussion, is the fact that we put some $25 billion into the airline industry, not to help the CEOs, but to continue workers in that industry, 2 million workers continuing to receive their paycheck. You guys aware of that? 2 million workers in the airline industry continue to receive their paycheck. That's a model that I want to see applied to the entire economy. Obviously, we extended unemployment for workers, gave them $600 a week more, got a check for $1,200, et cetera, et cetera. So this bill was far, far from perfect, but there was a lot more consciousness. The Democratic leadership stepped up to the plate. I think the expression was workers first.

Could we have done better? Yes. Must we do better? Yes. But at least this was not a complete bailout for Wall Street and the rich. So, you know, Republicans had been giddy about attacking you for being a socialist. They were excited by the prospect of it. In the last few weeks, we've seen Republicans, at times dragged by Democrats, get behind a boost on employment insurance, forgivable loans for small businesses, direct payments to Americans, some even now supporting wage subsidies. Did you ever expect to have so many Democratic socialists in the Senate with you? Yes. Democratic socialism is rippling right through the U.S. Congress, right? Yeah. Look, you know, John asked me a moment ago, you know, you asked me, you know, one of the lessons that we've learned. Well, you know what? Turns out that right now, both economically and from a healthcare perspective, where are people turning to? They're turning to their government, that big, bad, terrible government. Well, when you don't

have food in the pantry and you lost your job, you know what? You remember that you're a part of a democratic society, that we're all in this together. And that's called government, whether at the local, state, or federal level. So I do find it interesting, John, picking up on your point, that in the midst of this crisis, even the most conservative Republicans have now understood for their own political preservation, I suspect, that government is going to be having to play an enormously important role in protecting their constituents. So it was interesting that in a $2.2 trillion bill, big, big, big government, not one Republican voted against that. So you've noted rightly that many progressive policies have the support of a majority of voters.

And we've seen progressive policies like a $15 minimum wage win in some purple and red areas of the country. But we still don't see a lot of really progressive candidates win in places that aren't very blue. And the few that have won in more swing areas like Tammy Baldwin or Katie Porter tend to de-emphasize their ideological labels. How do progressive candidates win in swing states and swing districts? What have you learned from your last few presidential campaigns about this? Look, this is what I believe in, and I have friends who disagree with me on this. I start off with the assumption, the correct assumption that you just brought forth, in that the ideas that we are talking about are not only the right ideas from

a policy perspective, they're popular ideas as well. So it's rather raising the minimum wage to a living wage, dealing with income and wealth inequality. A lot of Republicans understand that maybe the top 1% should not own more wealth than the bottom 92%. Dealing with healthcare as a human right, understanding that climate change is not only real but an existential threat to the planet. Conservatives understanding that we are spending $80 billion a year locking up our fellow Americans. Understanding that at this moment, when you got undocumented immigrants putting their lives on the line, dying in this crisis, that maybe we might want to move the comprehensive immigration reform, et cetera, et cetera. The fundamental dividing line, I think, between progressives and the Democratic establishment

is that I believe that at a time when we have the lowest voter turnout of almost any major country on earth, the future of the Democratic Party has got to be aggressive in reaching out to disillusioned working people, some of whom ended up voting for Trump, to young people whose voting percentages are much lower than the general population, of getting a level of excitement in the political process that we have not had in the past. And I think the only way you do that, John, is by telling the truth, to be honest, by having the courage to talk about the political structure in America. Now, I know you know a lot about this. You've worked with President Obama and others. But do we tell people, look, we are living in a nation in which big money has enormous influence,

not only in the economic life of our country, but in the political life of our country, that we cannot continue to go to billionaires and wealthy people for campaign contributions? Because as soon as you begin to do that, your views change. Whether you think so or not, they really do change. You're not going to take on the insurance industry. You're not going to take on the drug companies. Now, you tell me. I've campaigned all over this country, and any time I talk about the pharmaceutical industry,

people boo like crazy. They hate the drug companies because they know that they're crooks and they know that they're charging us, in some cases, 10 times more money for the same exact drugs than are paid in other countries. You tell me, do you think the Democratic Party has taken on the drug companies in anywhere near the degree that they should? Clearly, we haven't made any progress on actually doing something about it. Well, you're being polite here, John. Well, the rhetoric is there. The rhetoric is there in all these campaigns. And then for some reason, the campaign's over, everyone gets elected, and nothing happens.

You're a smart guy. You know a little bit of politics. Yeah, the lobbyists are there and the special interests. That's right. I mean, maybe it has, do you think that some reason might have to do with the fact that the drug companies have spent some $4 billion in the last 20 years on lobbying and campaign contributions? Oh yeah, of course. All right. And that's the issue. Can we deal with that? So if everybody in America understands that not only are the drug companies incredibly greedy, they are corrupt, they are

engaging in price fixing, and we can't do anything about it. How do I talk to ordinary Americans and say, get excited, vote for this candidate, when it turns out that former leaders of the Democratic Party are now lobbying for the drug companies? Those are the truths. And I know they're uncomfortable truths, but those are truths that we have to bring out. And then people say, yeah, you're right, Bernie, or you're right, Alexandria, or whatever it may be. We got to deal with that reality. And if you don't deal with that reality, you're not going to get people excited. And if you're not going to get people excited, young people, working class people are not going to vote. And if they don't vote,

then the rich continue to dominate the political process. That's a long story. No. So, you know, last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said this about the progressive movement to The New York Times, quote, There's so much emphasis on making outreach as conflict based as possible. And sometimes I even feel miscast and misunderstood because it's about what tools you use and conflict is one tool, but not the only tool. What do you think about that characterization of the progressive movement? Well, I think for a combination of reasons, I love Alexandria and I think she is brilliant. And she has played an extraordinary role. This is a woman who has been in Congress for one term. You know, she has impacted America more than most members who has been in Congress for one term. She has impacted America more than most members of Congress who were there for 50 years. I think the issue of

conflict, I think there are two parts of it. I think media loves conflict. So if I'm on your show right now and I say, you know, da-da-da-da is the worst human being in the history of the world. Be a big story, right? Right. Okay. But if I talk about the need for health care for all or taking on the, you know, lowering the cost, that's boring, you know. So media plays that role. Yeah.

And I think, you know, Alexandria's point is well taken, though, is how you bring people together patiently without loud, you know, verbiage of sometimes once or twice I myself I'm guilty of now, because, you know, this was a place where there was a lot of conflict in the campaign. And the axis of the debate was around Medicare for all versus a public option that may get you to universal or near universal coverage. Right now, as you mentioned, right, there's more than 20 million people out of work, many, if not most, will lose their employer based healthcare. What do you see as the prospects? I mean, you mentioned trying to get them into the public system. What do you see as the prospects of getting those 20 million people or whatever the number of people it turns out to be into Medicaid, into Medicare in a permanent and ongoing way? Well, I think, John, that's a great question.

And it's a question we're not talking about enough. And again, this is an area, I say to both of you, where I have not been impressed with democratic leadership, because the ideas that I'm hearing about health care are very, very weak and corporate-oriented ideas. their jobs, and many of them are suffering financially, they want to know that if they have to go to the doctor for whatever reason, coronavirus or anything else, they have to end up in a hospital for whatever reason, that they're not going to have to take out their credit cards or their wallets to pay the bills. And in this crisis, for the moment, that the government should be there in covering all of their healthcare needs. that if they have private insurance, that the government through Medicare, in my view, will be there to supplement their out-of-pocket expenses. So I think the message is pretty simple.

I think from the Democratic leadership, the message has got to be now, and I'm going to fight for this hard, is that during this crisis, no more out-of-pocket expenses. If you have no health insurance, Medicare is there for you. If you have private insurance and you have deductibles and copayments, Medicare will fill those gaps. There are some discussions you may have heard about the government supplementing or funding COBRA. You've heard that discussion? Yeah. And frankly, I think that is an absurd idea for a dozen different reasons. It is really just a

boon to the private healthcare industry. It is inefficient. It is unfair. Some people have good coverage today or had good coverage. Others did not. Why do we maintain that situation? Others did not. Why do we maintain that situation? So right now, I think the demand is health care for all during the crisis. And the day after the crisis ends, we make the case that health care in America must be seen as a human right, not something tied to employment. And we're working with Biden's campaign. Obviously Joe does not believe in Medicare for all, but hopefully does believe

in the government playing a stronger role in terms of health care. And we're going to push them as hard as we can. Bottom line is every human being in the United States of America should receive health care as a human right, period. So on that note, you know, when you endorsed Joe Biden, the two of you put together six task forces to discuss issues that were central to your campaign. You know, it doesn't seem like he's going to wholeheartedly embrace your Medicare for all bill. But what additional policies do you think are realistic in terms of him embracing before he accepts the nomination

this summer? Well, first of all, I had talked to Joe about this, and I very much appreciate his willingness to do that. I think Joe and his, the people around him, understand that if he is going to win, and I'm going to do everything that I can to see that he wins, because it is preposterous to conceive of four more years of Donald Trump, that if he's going to win, he is going to have to reach out to a constituency which has not been overly enthusiastic about him. And that's just the fact. They understand that. I'm not saying anything out of school here.

Everybody understands that. So I think what these task force are about, and I think once the names are released, I think we're close to doing that, you're going to see really, really strong people on both sides representing the Biden perspective and the Sanders perspective. And the issues to be discussed are the economy in general, healthcare, immigration, criminal justice, climate change, and I'll think of it. I forgot. There's a sixth one as well. And you will see a coming together of our people saying, look, I know you can't go to Medicare for All, for example. All right, that's not your view. What can you do to guarantee health care to all people? How do we move toward

Medicare for all? In terms of criminal justice, I believe you're going to see some real movement on Biden in this regard. I think he does feel very strongly about the absurdity of locking up people whose crime is that they have been poor and have not had the education that they need. So I think you'll see some pretty big steps there. I think on climate change, I think where the Biden campaign will acknowledge to you they have not been strong. I think you're going to see some real movement in that area as well. So last question. New York Times spoke to a few dozen of your supporters last week, and there was one young man, a 24-year-old African-American who's registered

in Pennsylvania newly. And he said, if I happen to be at my polling place, I would vote for Joe Biden, but I'm not very enthusiastic about him whatsoever. What would you say to that supporter about why he should get to that polling place? I think that's the challenge, exactly the challenge that Joe Biden is faced with. So I say to that supporter, but before I say to that supporter, I say to Joe, that is the guy you're going to have to bring in to the polling booth. And the way you're going to do it is to make him appreciate and believe that when you are elected president, and again, I will do everything I can to make that happen, you're

going to stand up for that guy, and that you have the guts to take on powerful special interests who this fellow understands in many ways of destroying our country. So I mean, a lot of that burden is not just on me, it's more significantly on the Biden campaign. But to that person, I would say this, look, I very much, I am so grateful for the support that we have received all over this country. You know, John, we had millions of people knocking on doors, contributing to our campaign. And I'll, you know, from a personal perspective, that is something that I will never forget. It means the world to me. But right now, I say to

everybody out there, I don't know that this country survives four more years of Donald Trump. I don't know that we survive as a democratic country. I don't know how you have a president who has shown time and again that he doesn't believe in science, whether it's the coronavirus or climate change. I don't know how we survive as a nation when you have a president who wanted to throw millions of people off the health care they already have, who lies every single day, who's a racist and a sexist and a homophobe and a xenophobe. And what we all have got to do, being involved in politics is about it. It ain't easy stuff. Believe me, I wanted to become president of the United States. I really did. Thought I would be a good president. Thought I was the strongest candidate to defeat Trump. All right. Didn't

happen. So I can't walk away, and nor can I believe anybody in America. So what we've got to do is two things. We've got to work as hard as possible to defeat Trump and elect Joe. But at the same time, we've got to put as much pressure at the grassroots level on the Biden campaign to be representing the working class of this country, the middle class of this country, having the courage to take on powerful special interests. So that's what I would say to that particular fellow and anybody else in the country. That's a pretty great answer. Senator Sanders, thank you so much for joining us as always. Please come back again and stay safe and healthy.

Well, John, you too. Good to see you. We need serious political discussion in this country. And thank you for you and your staff for helping to make that possible. Keep up the good work. Thank you, Senator. Take care. Bye-bye.

Thanks to Bernie for joining us today. And... Hey, boys. Hey, boys uh hey boys hey boys 420 bitches i forgot about that it's my mother-in-law's birthday happy birthday marnie hey one thing we didn't talk about today but maybe we should talk about more later for all you people who stay after the interview love you hooks by the way. True fans, right here. There's some reporting over the weekend about how much, whenever someone says reporting over the weekend, I think of the weekend, like writing for the Washington Post. There's been some great reporting about how

Donald Trump's online campaign is just so much bigger than Biden's when you look at Twitter follows, Facebook, YouTube. So one way people listening who say after the interview can help is just by following Joe Biden on those platforms and also like posting things about why they like Joe Biden. So just something to think about as we end the show today and we all go back to our sad quarantine lives. Don't just post anti-Trump stuff. And I'm saying this to myself to talk about Democratic policies put forward by Joe Biden that make you want to support him or help your life. posted anti-Trump shit all the time. Not nearly enough people posted about positive things about Hillary, her policies. And there was a lot of critique of her campaign for not having a positive message. But like, again, this is on all of us. All of us have feeds. All of us have the power to push out positive messaging, push out progressive policies that Joe Biden has embraced.

There's a lot of garbage out there on the Internet, and it's going to be nastier and nastier as we get closer to November. And each of us has the power to help promote some good stuff. Are not what you can do for your country. 420, baby. Bye. Bye, everybody. bye bye everybody Pod Save America is a product of

Cricket Media the executive producer is Michael Martinez our assistant producer is Jordan Waller it's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick Kyle Seglin

is our sound engineer thanks to Tanya Somenator Katie Long Roman Papadimitriou Caroline Reston and Elisa Gutierrez for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Nar Melkonian, Yael Freed, and Milo Kemp, who film and upload these episodes as videos every week.