Pod Save America - How Trump Built His Coalition

Episode Date: November 10, 2024

The best way to understand what happened on Tuesday is to listen to what the actual voters have been saying. Dan checks back in with two strategists who run focus groups with key parts of the electorate: Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark, who's been talking to Trump-curious swing voters for months, and Carlos Odio of Equis Research, an expert on the Latino vote. Sarah and Carlos discuss some of the warning signs that were blinking red long before last week, and how we can recognize them—and act on them—in the future.

If you listen to Ponce of America, you're a politically engaged individual. Which means you know there has never been a more important time to invest in pro-democracy media in this country. That's why you should add the Bullwork podcast to your rotation. Tim Miller, my pal friend of the show, former Republican operative turned anti-Trump,

pro-democracy crusader interviews a wide range of guests from celebrities to politicians to everyone in between. It's a great, really informative conversation with people of all different views and you should definitely check it out. He's also joined by other members of the Bullwork crew like Sarah Longwell, Will Salaton and George Conway. You'll also catch some of our Pod Save team on there from time to time, myself included. Watch on YouTube and listen and subscribe to the Bullwork Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. podcast. Welcome to another special episode of Positive America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer.

I'm recording this on Friday, November 8th, just three days after the election that left us shocked, angry, scared, and demoralized. On our two earlier shows this week, we talked about the results and about Kamala Harris's campaign strategy. On today's show, we're going to focus on one thing, the voters that made the difference. Knowing how the race ultimately played out, there's no one better to talk to than today's two guests. First, I'm going to be talking with our friend Sarah Longwell of The Bullwork, who has run dozens of

focus groups with swing voters this cycle and Carlos Odio, co founder of Equis Research and one of the real democratic experts of Latino vote. Let's get into it. Sarah, welcome back to Potsdamerica under obviously less than ideal circumstances. But it's great to talk to you. Yeah, welcome to my waking nightmare. Yes. How are you processing everything over these last three days here?

Yeah, I mean, look, one of the things that I'm trying to do is rather than sort of look at what just happened, I think a lot about what we've known for the last few years, right? Because I've spent a lot of time listening to voters. I do the focus groups multiple a week. And like, it's all in there. You know?

It's all in there. You know, it's all in there. We knew that people were really frustrated by inflation. It was the number one thing that we heard from people. You know, we start every focus group the same way. We say, how do you think things are going in the country? And left, right and center, the answer was usually not good. And inflation was the number one reason why. Just general costs. And you listen to young people talk about housing costs and that frustration was palpable. And then there's just a bunch of big factors, right?

Obviously I'm sure you guys have covered this around what's happening around the globe, incumbents are losing. It basically is the post-COVID inflation issue that seems to be driving people along with immigration, which I have too much annoyance for my more left-leaning listeners, said that that is just a massive vulnerability for Democrats and has been for a while.

And so like that stuff was just all in there. We knew it. I will say, you know, I thought that she could eke out a win in the sort of industrial Northwest, the blue wall. And I was very focused on could you offset what were clear slides with Hispanic voters, some black voters, men in general, with, you know, doing a little bit better with white voters? Could you get more non-college white women to vote for her? And the fact is they didn't. And look, we always knew there was some tension between reproductive rights as an issue for women,

along with the fact that they are the primary shoppers, often control household budgets, we were very sensitive to how much groceries cost. I heard about it all the time from women in the groups. It was often brought up long before anybody mentioned reproductive rights. And so, I guess, I guess, like, you know all that. But you sort of hope that Trump's being a felon, being an adjudicated rapist,

being a horrible person trying to overthrow the last election, that the fact that voters hated him, because they did hate him. I mean, like, the number of people that's talking, we just have been doing a couple of focus groups the last couple of days, just we're just checking in with people like, okay, why did you vote for him? And people are like, yeah, I hated his guts, but I thought he'd be better for the economy, which, you know, once you sort of process the fact that a lot of people who really don't like him as a person still voted for him for sort of policy reasons or just dissatisfaction with the way things are reasons. You're like, see how this happened. I've understood the political realignment for a while.

I understand that Republicans are bringing together like non-college voters of all races and ethnic types and building a big coalition. And there are just more of those voters than there are these college-educated suburban voters. And that in that trade, Democrats now are likely to do better in off-year elections, but Republicans are going to be able to, with their sort of more populous stance, are going to be able to pull out more low propensity non-college voters during these general elections.

And so, you know, it was all in there. We knew all of it. It just didn't go the way we wanted. Yeah. I like, I said for a year, I mean, basically since Kamala Harris came to the nominee, I said, this election is a coin flip. She's an underdog.

As you and I, you and I spoke on a substack forum a few days before the election, we thought she was closing strong. We knew all the, I listened to every one of your focus group podcasts. I've heard all these voters. I've looked at all the polling. The fact that three quarters of voters

have said the country's on the wrong track for four years now. 70% of voters say the economy sucks. Biden's approval rating never gets above 41%. Like all of that is recipe where she could lose. Now I thought if she was gonna lose, it would be a closest race. Like they would, maybe, you know, I,

you know, I read Nate Silver's model and his most, his most likely scenario was she wins. He wins all seven battleground states. His second most likely scenario was she wins all seven battleground states. So I sort of thought in there, like maybe she wins Michigan and Wisconsin. If he gets Pennsylvania and the rest in its ballgame. But what I think I was stunned by, and in hindsight I should not have been, was the movement in all the non-battleground states. 10 points in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island,

counties in Texas that are 97% Latino going, like star county in Texas, 97% Latino, has gone for the Democrats for like 130 consecutive years in presidential elections, Trump wins easily. Osceola County, Florida, which huge Puerto Rican population, which we thought the Tony Hinchcliffe joke would swing our way,

and Trump gains 14 points over 2020. Just the full scale of it, I think, was sort of a shock to the system for me at least. Yeah. And I can understand why. And look, I'm not saying it's not for me too. I don't want to be like, boy, I just always saw this coming because I definitely thought

she really could win. But you know, one of the other things, I sort of think back to all the things that I often say, and I say like Listen to them now with the ears of knowing this information and you're like well one thing we knew is that a lot of these young People who were coming into the electorate Donald Trump was not an aberration to them right certainly for young Republicans who were coming into the mix They came for Trump right they were attracted coming into the mix, they came for Trump, right? They were attracted to something that Trump was selling.

And as a result, like he overperformed with young people. I mean, basically overperformed everywhere. But I will say the thing that you're noting, which I'm not saying it makes me feel better, but like as a practitioner, as somebody who was like thinking about the campaign, thinking about who was persuadable, thinking about who we could move, there is something in the totality of it that just shows you like this was sort of bigger than any

one message. It was bigger than any one campaign. It was, I think, a lot of fundamentals that were always sort of stacked against her. And that doesn't mean that we shouldn't view this with an enormous amount of alarm, both in terms of what's about to happen and also what it says about us as a country that, you know, for a guy who tried to overturn the last election that a bunch of people in America were like, I'm fine with that. I still think he's better for the economy, so I'm going to vote for him. Or I like the way he owns the libs or I'm annoyed with libs. You know, I think that is alarming, but I also look, I come from the center right. And so there, I think I am less resistant to some of the critiques of Democrats in a Broadway than some

people who are Democrats might be. Like myself, maybe. Yes. Yeah. And I think it's fair for us to talk about those things, but, like, Joe Biden, in my opinion, never should have run again. And I felt like voters were telling us that from the start. It was very clear people didn't want him to vote run again. They thought he should be a bridge. And then, look, I, like everybody else, once it was clearly going to be him,

I kind of got on board, and I was annoyed with Dean Phillips and other people who were just like, I'm like, guys, this is just gonna make it worse. But like, you know, him, like from the time he picked Kamala Harris as his vice president, she was gonna be his successor. He gets, you know, he finally has to drop out because it's so clear he shouldn't be running again

far too late. Like that was not the recipe for a good campaign. It wasn't the recipe for getting, and I listened to, and this is, I just listened to voters. We were, you know, when we're going through all the tape in our office and just listening to things and like something that came up a lot was how uncomfortable people were with the fact that it just like became her and that there wasn't a primary, that people didn get a choice. Now, do I think that Dave Portnoy is right that it was a coup. But he dropped out and that's insane. She was his vice president. That's who replaces him when the president drops out. That being said, like the idea that voters still didn't feel like they had a voice in that they didn't have a choice, you know,

like they had a voice in that, they didn't have a choice, you know, there's all of that stuff's in the mix. And it's just the but those are like normal political gravity things. Given the totality of Trump's win, and all the fundamental points you made, and the fact that every incumbent party around the globe has gotten crushed post COVID, in the midst of inflation. It's hard to conjure some alternate scenario where you get a different outcome. But it's hard. It's also hard to argue that we wouldn't have had a better chance if after the midterms, President Biden had said, I'm not running. I'm going to, you know, doors open, everyone run. Maybe he says he supports Kamala Harris. Maybe doesn't. She probably wins that primary anyway, but she has a year and a half to campaign, hone her message, become known to the public, win their support, run TV ads in

those States and you do like primaries are good for the person who wins the primary, right? You come out as a winner and then she would have been the nominee and like, you know, April or something and around the time Trump was and like maybe she has a better shot in that scenario, you know, maybe someone else comes out of that primary, hard to say, but a world in which the president that the voters did not, including Democrats,

did not want to run where 90% of them said he was too old, runs until a debate blows up on national television to such a degree that he has to drop out 107 days before the election, but it's not a recipe for success. All right Yeah, these were suboptimal conditions, right? And and I think look there was always a part of you that could say well, I don't know Maybe this is good for her maybe a short primary but I

Don't know, you know that we can kind of these are all you end up sort of trying to debate the counterfactuals And I'm not even sure how productive it is. But I do think in this sort of fractured media environment, I've always thought that the Biden campaign and then what became the Kamala Harris campaign was playing it a little safe. Like you got to go to all these non-traditional places and do interviews. And that means, you know, we're in like a new era of campaigning like she ran a very good technical campaign if it was 2008 or four you know like but the you know I think we make far too much of Joe Rogan but let's just use Joe Rogan as a stand-in for non-traditional media like and you

and I talked about this on the thing and I was like you know the thing about Rogan and his thing on Rogan is it's not for me. So I can't sit there and be like, boy, I thought he sounded really good on Rogan. But I will say that a lot of voters can listen to him ramble for two hours on Rogan and say, you know, that guy's not Hitler. Like, he seems fine to me,

and also I think he's right about X, Y, Z thing, whatever it is. And he's sort of kind of funny. In a way that I do think Democrats are gonna have to figure out how to sound a little less just like regular politicians. Because voters, it's different now. We're in a different culture and climate around.

Everybody's in our face on our phones. And so people wanna feel, yeah, like they can know you. And like, you know, I think voters never they understand certain things. And one of the things they understand well is that right at the end, everyone's just looking for their votes. And so for Kamala Harris to come in with 100 days left and be like, okay, like this is who I am now.

I'm somebody who campaigns with Liz Cheney and talks about the lethal fighting force. Even if she was saying things that voters might like, there was a real sense of is that who she really is, or was she this person from before who was a big fan of gender reassignment surgeries for convicted felons that taxpayers pay for, which by the way, was availed of precisely two times, I believe, and so it is not,

despite the $100 million that went behind that ad, it is not the great issue of our time, nor is it the deep concern of voters, but it did sort of paint her as this, what people were already worried that she was, which is a San Francisco progressive, which is generally a thing that is tough for both swing voters and others who are sort of like,

that's not their jam at the moment. They're looking for something different. So... Yeah, I've really been wrestling with the... Like, I agree with you on the media strategy. Um, my sort of, my hobby horse for the last couple years has been that the Democratic media strategy has to be everywhere all at once, right?

You got to do everything everywhere all at once. Everything everywhere all at once. You got to do it all, right? You got to do Rogan, you got to do Ponce de America, you got to do the bulwark? You got to do everything everywhere all at once. Everything everywhere all at once. You got to do it all, right? You got to do Rogan, you got to do Potsdamerica, you got to do the bulwark, you got to do everything. And Trump has been doing that for a very long time and that works for him, but it's also hard to,

like I can say you should do this or maybe they could have responded to that anti-trans ad, but ultimately does any of that get you six points nationally or three points in the battleground states? Probably not. So I've been trying to think about this in the context of what lessons we can learn going forward because the next time we're in an election, either in the midterms or a presidential, it's going to be a hopefully better political environment for us. We will not be the incumbent right? We've had multiple change elections in a row and we'll be the opportunity to be changed.

But some of the dye was also cast here long before anything happened, right? You know, Democrats have now lost the economy. We've lost the voters most focused on the economy in every election since 2012. Even in 2018 and 2020, I just looked at the exit polls. In 2018 and 2022, when we crushed, voters who listed either the economy or inflation as their top issue, we lost somebody an average of 36 points.

And you can't win a presidential, national election like that when the additional 50 million voters who come in are more economically focused. Right. And so there's like a lot of things to think about. So as you, like, where do you think the Democratic party went wrong here? Just like a couple of places. Even if we don't think it would necessarily change the outcome, but might have led to a closer margin or better prospects for the future.

Yeah, so just taking the big one that I've already mentioned, which is not running Joe Biden, letting there be a primary. You know, look, I happen to believe that the Democrats relentless focus on sort of small niche cultural issues that keep them from sounding like they're talking like normal people, you know, is a problem. And people get a little like, don't just say like, woke. And people get a little, they're like, don't just say like woke. And I'm not just gonna say woke.

I am gonna say, look, let me answer this actually in a slightly different way that I think will make sense. The Republicans actually do, you know, you look at Trump, you think he's so chaotic, there's not actually a strategy. But America first is actually a coherent strategy. And there's this guy, Jim Banks, he actually just got elected Senator, but he was a congressman and he

he would he would write these memos to Kevin McCarthy and it would be like here's how we're gonna build a multi-ethnic multiracial working-class coalition and This is what we're gonna do. We're gonna paint the Democrats as buddies of big business in Wall Street Which is easier to do now that their coalition has made up much more of college educated voters. We're going to hammer them relentlessly on immigration, which is an issue that Democrats have never come up with a position on that lets people say like, oh, these Democrats

like understand that we don't want just open borders. And I think the, I mean, when Biden finally did the executive order to close down the border, I was like, the best time to do this was three years ago. I guess the second best time to do this is right now. But like when she had to answer for that, right, when she was doing that town hall with Anderson Cooper and he was like, so did you guys not think this was a problem before? Like it's obviously you've solved it by shutting it down. Why didn't you do this before?

She didn't have an answer for that because the answer is it wasn't a priority for us. We you know, and then we realized what a political vulnerability it was and we made it a priority. And so then I just think, look, you gotta you gotta focus on working class people. Like, and that's it. Like working class people. And that's it, working class people. And that doesn't mean you have to throw minorities under the bus or you don't have to attack trans kids. But I certainly don't do that.

That is definitely not what I'm saying. But I do think that that is not, I think at some point Joe Biden did say something like, the trans issue is the is the civil rights fight of our time. And I just think like, you know, the focus on creating like what the government can do the best is try to help people like we want to help people achieve the American dream. We need to talk to working class voters about the way that we're going to improve the economy

and give them an opportunity, not hand them stuff, but give them an opportunity to work really hard and get ahead and to be able to outline not just an economic vision, not a PowerPoint vision, but give people a sense of purpose. That's just not there. It's not in the messaging. And that is what I would say. I think if you look, people are going to fight. If you want to do economic populism, I don't personally, but like, I do think that's what voters want. They want a little more economic populism, coupled with more moderate social policies.

It's such a hard thing because you know, there's been a bunch of people, like a great way to go to get attention right now is to go on like Fox News and say, as a democratic strategist and say, Democrats are too woke, they do all these things, like they should stop saying Latinx and all these things. Then you're like, well, when did Kamala Harris do those things? Yeah, in this campaign, in this campaign.

And so I say that only because we have a broader branding problem as a party. Like we have allowed the Republicans to brand us as the party of cultural elites.. Like we have allowed the Republicans to brand us as the party of cultural elites. And so we have this cultural disconnect from working class voters of all races that is preventing them from liking us. Despite the fact that we just laid out our policies and Trump's policies in a blind taste test, they're going to pick ours almost every single time on economic issues, right? Hiring minimum wage, tax cuts for the middle class, raising taxes on

the wealthy, protect social security, Medicare, all those things. But they don't trust to do those things because they don't believe that's who we're fighting for or what we're focused on. And so we've absolutely lost a branding war here. And we have to, I think for the party, we have to really think about how we fix that. And that was one of the challenges for Kamala Harris was that she started as a blank slate. So she immediately adopted, in voters' minds, she cannot be unique from the Democratic Party. Democrats had a lot of these same challenges when Barack Obama became the nominee, but because he had had time to build up name ID and introduce himself, he could be different than that caricature. Trump, same way. Republicans

had this opposite problem of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, cut Social Security and Medicare. We had done a very good job as a party of branding the Republicans as sort of plutocrats who want to cut your Social Security and Medicare and take your healthcare away. Trump comes along, redefines the party in sort of this America first nationalist way. And despite having a bunch of policies that are going to hurt working class people, they think they're more likely to trust him because he seems, which I know is insane because he's a billionaire with a gold toilet

in his own airplane, but he is seen more culturally similar because the anti-establishment, I guess, to than Democrats do. No matter how Kamala Harris was raised or what her personal story was. Yeah, I think the other thing I'll just throw out there that was just an issue that came up a lot is like, look, these voters, there's a lot of trading of voters.

And so there's a lot of ways in which Trump's Republican Party feels like the Democratic Party circa 2006, but one of them is on foreign policy. Like, you know, I just hear so many voters talk about how they do not, and this is again, this is sort of their America first posture is like America first means, I don't like it when we send money to Ukraine

because that means we're not spending it here in America. I don't like it when immigrants get X, Y or Z because it means we're not giving it to Americans. And what they see, so like the reason that the trans ad was so effective is it was also, it wasn't just, it's not about the trans issue per se, but she is for they, them, Trump is for you, tags into what everybody already sort of thinks America first is about. She's like, Trump is going to prioritize Americans, right? That means not immigrants. That means not Ukraine. That means not all these things. And like, you know, and that like people, people want that right now. I mean, the way that I hear voters talk about money being spent abroad to like support Democratic allies, they don't want that. Not most Republican

voters anymore. And that's a big change. But like, if you ask me, so none of this is me saying, like I agree with it, it's me saying like, if you wanna know the why, I feel like voters have been telling us for a while about this. And it's not a question of whether they're right or wrong. Like the macroeconomic environment was quite good, but like the way voters felt was that it was not good.

Now, mostly those voters are people making less than $100,000. And those voters who are making less than $100,000, you know, on a family income, are made up of two working class people often. And those are the people that Democrats are losing, because they don't know how you're going to improve their lives. It's interesting you bring up the wars, right? And the money and Ukraine and all of that. And this is the, that's exactly, you're right. It's 2006. This is a perfect example. It was the way in which we, I've been thinking a lot about post 2004 Democrats because it's the most analogous time from our party in a sense.

Obviously, as horrifying as the reelection of George W. Bush was to me as a Democrat, the second election of Donald Trump seems so much scarier and so much worse. But that election felt the same way. Bush had built, he had done better with Latinos than any president and Republican in 20 years. Ken Melman was taking over the RNC to become, they were gonna do all this stuff. And it felt, and there were all those books that were written, the emerging Republican majority

that was gonna take over. And two years later, we get the House and the Senate, Obama gets elected, but one in ways in which- And they demonized gay people in a big way, which worked as part of the cultural. Yes, and it caused a lot of Democrats to shy away from our true beliefs because we're so scared of the cultural. Yes, and it caused a lot of Democrats to shy away from our true beliefs because we're so scared of that issue.

But one of the things that we became sort of the America first party there, if you mean there was all stop, you know, it was all about ending the Iraq war so you could spend that money here at home. I mean, this is a very esoteric thing that only people of a certain generational do, But when Bush tried to sell our ports to Dubai, and with the Democrats stopped that in the Senate, there, you know, there was, we became, that was who we were. And Katrina in that

moment was an example of this was horrible at home because we were focused abroad. And that was sort of the breaking point. And so Trump now owns everything, right? He's going to be in charge of it all. And we're going to have to find ways, Democrats are going to find ways as a party to get back to that sort of messaging. And the other thing that I think is real, that I'd be curious as you take on, is that we are, even when we were out of power

from 2017 to 2020, we still remain the establishment party. And people hate the establishment. Is that sort of something what you get from your focus groups as well? Yeah, I mean look, although especially from Republican voters talking about why they like Trump, is that you know they think that, well here's, so this is the phrase that I hear all the time and I've been on a lot of podcasts and things so just forgive me if I've already said this, but it's like the not a regular politician,

oh, I think I did say this earlier, but not a regular politician is what people love about Donald Trump and he cultivates that, because now he's been president already, so he's pretty, he could have been the incumbent, but his burn it all mentality, burn it all down mentality, his anti-establishment, and look, I've got my buddy, Jamie Last, over at the Bullwork being like, maybe Democrats

should start talking about they should burn everything down too. And like, maybe they should start being more anti-establishment. And I, you know, with all this like talk of preserving norms and institutions and like when people are angry, does that work? I think that's not quite it. I think, I just think we are in an era where you're going to be in change election after change election after change election in part because I think human dissatisfaction is going up because we have our faces and phones that show us something better elsewhere all the time.

And I think we are grappling with a moment in human history where not only is our media environment deeply fragmented, not only are we optimized for rage, but also like we just always feel left behind because somebody else has it better. And we didn't used to be able to see that person, right? We lived in a neighborhood where everybody in that neighborhood was roughly had the same amount

that we did. And so like, you just felt like, oh, this is what life is and it's okay. And if you get ahead a little bit, that's cool. And now it's like, but what about this person who gets to fly on a private jet? Well, I have to do this. Or what about this person, you know, getting to do this

and take these vacations? We'll have to do this. And I see pictures of it all the time. Like the level of chronic dissatisfaction, I think could lead us to a lot more change elections and You know I do think that getting to a place where Democrats have some leaders who understand how to talk to people meet them where they are focus on the working class

Broad swaths of voters that that look that seem deeply invested in making their lives better and I get it I'm not arguing that Donald Trump was making a case that seem deeply invested in making their lives better. And I get it. I'm not arguing that Donald Trump was making a case that he was gonna make people's lives better. Donald Trump came from a place of grievance and selfishness and sociopathy. And like, you want more people to see that, but man, I just listened to so many people talk like,

you know, we use words like fascist and authoritarian. Most people don't know what the word authoritarian means. I mean, listen to the way people use socialism and communism. They just like throw it out there. People don't like really know what they mean. They kind of know it's bad, but like, what does it mean? They don't know. They're like eggs are expensive.

You hit on our important point here, which is Donald, John Trump does not talk like a politician, right? And he probably, it is that has been to his group. Like we, we ridicule that a lot as Democrats. We say he sounds dumb or like a clown and he often does. The things he says are often insane. Sharks and wind turbines and whales and all that other stuff.

But the fact that he doesn't sound like a politician helps him. And Democrats probably, we all sound like politicians at a time in which people hate politicians and even, like I think Kamala Harris ran a great race under impossible circumstances. She crushed it in the huge moments, right? Her convention speech was great. She was amazing in that debate. But even when you hear her talk about things like the opportunity society, like that's just not a real term that people understand, right? It sounds like no offense to focus groups, but it does sound like focus group gobbledygook, right? Where you-

Yeah. You just take the things that people dialed high and you string them together in a sentence and hope you find some verbs to go in there. Um, but it's a thing we have to work out. Do you see anyone in the democratic party on our bench, which I feel is very strong, you know, but who might meet that moment is not a, it may come off as like an advocate for working class, you're not a politician or not establishment or something like that.

Yeah, I mean, look, I love a Josh Shapiro and I know that, um, uh, ultimately, I think I'm glad he wasn't, uh, her vice president this time because that might have done real damage to him. I think he does. People people think he comes off, I think at a very surface level they're like, but he's too much like her. He's sort of a college educated, you know, but that is not how voters view him in Pennsylvania. Like he is very good at working with people. He is very good at speaking directly. That being said, like going back to this not a regular politician, I just, I watched Mark

Cuban as a surrogate this time and I was like, it's kind of like that guys. Like a guy who, you know, owns a basketball team and understands business that people see as successful but also, you know, thinks but like who isn't a sociopath. And I bet that Mark Cuban has done a hundred things that would get him cancelled, like, or whatever. But like, do I think somebody like him could win an election? I do. And I'm not just saying like, go run celebrities.

But I do think that, and I honestly used to really dislike that, that just sort of reaching for non-traditional candidates, because it feels gimmicky. And you want somebody who's serious and has serious policy chops and can deal with other world leaders. But I just, I can't shake after listening to voters just talk about how they just don't feel like she really connected with them. And I listen to her, and I agree with you, you hear things like opportunity economy and you're just like okay but like it also the idea that it was word salad or that you know she couldn't express policy views I didn't think that at all like Donald Trump sounds like a lunatic but and so you want somebody sort of better than him but you also want somebody's kind of

talking it to voters in a way that feels straightforward authentic connects with connects with them where they are, even in terms of vocabulary, right? They're just not like trying to talk over people or talking in ways that feel like, man, this person not really, they're giving a boring speech. I don't want a boring speech. Like I want to, I want to laugh. I want to be, and this is, look, what do we do? Why? It's changing all over our culture, right? People don't want late stage cable. They want Pod Save America and the bulwark.

Why? Because they want to like connect to people and they also are like, hey, I know where you guys are coming from. Like, you guys are those Obama bros and this is what you believe and this is how you talk about things. And with us, they're like, oh, you guys are those Republicans who hate Trump and they know exactly where we're coming from. Right?

We're not trying to tell them anything that we're not. And they're like, okay, you're giving it to me straight. I feel like you're telling me what I want. And that is much closer to how people are consuming things now. And I think politics is going to have to change a little bit in that direction. What do you think? Who do you think? I honestly don't know. And I'm very... This is my life experience here, which is... so I worked for Tom Daschle in 2004 when he lost the job there. And I was obviously unemployed after that. And the party is trying to figure out who's going to run who's next like is it Mark Warner, we need someone

from the heartland who can connect with voters, because of what just happened against oh four. Evan by calls me tells me he's thinking of running for president, hires me to be his communications director because he's a former governor from a red state who can win a red state and I worked for him for two years. He drops out and I go work for Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama from the South side of Chicago who then went to presidency. And so what we think now about who that person, the profile, the profile of that person, because it's going to be very different four years from now or two and a half years from now when we actually start picking a nominee. But one of my predictions

before the election was that if Democrats were to lose that Mark Cuban would be on everyone's short list very quickly because he was, he can go on Rogan, he can go on Theo Vaughn, he can carry his own on the All In podcast and all of that. And he speaks like, no, that's for better for worse. I actually don't know a ton of what Mark Cuban's policies are. But you can sort of see that in the immediate aftermath of his loss, that's a sort of person that people will immediately flock to because he's not like Trump, I don't want to say that, but he has a media personality, a businessman media personality like Trump was. So you can see people flocking to that. I just don't know. I look at it and I feel like everyone but he has a media personality, a businessman media personality like Trump was. So you can see people flocking to that.

I just don't know, like I look at it and I feel like everyone seems like a politician and people do not want politicians. And Barack Obama was technically a politician but he didn't come off like a politician. And he was so new to it that he was almost more celebrity than politician because of how he got famous. The fact that he was Senator

was almost like an afterthought for voters. And so it's hard to be like, and maybe the Trump presidency is such a disaster that you will want someone who is like serious and experienced. And this is actually how Biden ended up winning in this pandemic. So maybe it's, it is like Gretchen Whitmer or Josh Speier, or maybe it's someone like Ruben Gallego, you know, a veteran, a working class and veteran Latino. You know, maybe it's West like Ruben Gallego, a working class veteran Latino. Maybe it's Wes Moore. There's probably some people out there and will know more. But just this idea, I just feel like we have to reevaluate

what we say and how we say it to people because the muscle memory is all focused-grouped, economic language that we're then gonna say on CNN. And the biggest takeaway for me from this whole election is Democrats have no capacity to reach less engaged voters. Because what you can see is where we spent a billion dollars on TV ads and we had thousands of organizers knocking on doors

making phone calls, we lost by three points. Where we had no presence, we lost by six points. And so somehow, and Trump had no presence there either, right, they're not running ads in New Jersey and Connecticut and Rhode Island, yet they're making huge gains there. So something is filtering through to those voters that is coming from their framework

and we are offering no countervailing messaging to it. And so like that to me is a thing we have to absolutely think about in terms of our media strategy, our investments, how we say it, who says it, where it goes, because this is it. Like we become the midterm party for time immemorial. We will just keep winning midterms and the Senate map is pretty unpleasant so it's gonna be possible but hard to get it back next time. And maybe you can get the House in a thermostatic election, but you're not going to win a presidential election.

You can't be the party. This is where the Republicans were prior to 2016. You are the party who can't win presidential elections. You can only win midterms and we cannot be that. We're going to have to do some dramatic or radical changes to avoid that fate. Yeah, I do think there's this conversation around the rights media ecosystem and how effective

that's been, which I think is right. One of the ways that that came about, because I was on the right when this was one of the main complaints, was like, well, the left-wing media. The right went and built its own media ecosystem. They built Fox first, but then they built all these other things. Once basically anybody with a microphone that could plug into a computer could become a podcaster, all of a sudden, I mean, I know Theo Vaughn because Theo Vaughn was on Road Rules.

I'm like, I remember when Theo Vaughn was on Road Rules. But like, I actually didn't quite know that he'd become a famous podcaster until like this, like within this year. Um, and like those are the right now owns not just political podcasting or political sort of not just real, it's like wellness. It's working out and fitness. Like the number of people in the focus groups are I'm like, cause we always ask, what do you get your

media? What do you read? What do you listen to? What do you watch? And like so many of them, I mean, a lot of people say Rogan. I will say there's just, there's a huge, it is a, is the biggest media in the country hands down. And like, to the extent that like the Barstool sports guys and Rogan and Elon, when they

all got red-pilled, like that opened up a huge door to non-traditional voters, uh, to get their information from people that they respected for entirely apolitical reasons who were now giving them political information. And that political information was essentially like, how annoying are these libs with their woke stuff? And I don't know. And like the thing is, it's one thing if you're like, well, it's all manufactured, like you're saying things that aren't true. But it's another thing when people are like, I don't know, I get my emails from the person in HR and it says she, her, and they're making me put my pronouns in my email or any of that. And it's like, all it takes is that kind of stuff

for people to be just annoyed enough to be like, yeah, I think Theo Vaughn's right, or to get a little red pilled. And I do think that's what's happening. You're right. There is the fully political right wing space, right? Which is Fox news, Breitbart, Ben Shapiro,

the Tucker Carlson podcasts, Megan Kelly, that stuff. But the right is now dominating non-political spaces, right? It is gamers streaming on Twitch. It's crypto conversations. It's a lot of gambling stuff, which is like really where they're nailing the young men. My wife brings up the wellness stuff to me all the time. All the Instagram influencers and the wellness podcasts are just all wellness. And then all of a sudden there's just like a lot of RFK junior, especially since RFK junior endorsed Trump.

There's a lot of maybe Trump's going to get red dye out of our snacks, which is a thing that is a lot of people are worried about, like just banded here in California. And like the, and there's just a lot of, you's gonna get red dye out of our snacks, which is a thing that is a lot of people are worried about, like they're just banded here in California. And like the, and there's just no similar infiltration. Now there is a very vibrant left-wing podcast space, right? Not just some of Black, Positive, American, Crooked,

but there's also streamers like a son, Piker and all these other people, but the democratic party does not engage with them in the same way the Republicans do, in part because they disagree with us on some issues, right? Like if Kamala Harris had done something with some of these folks, she would have had to answer a lot of hard questions on Gaza.

But also, Rogan and Trump don't agree on everything either. Yeah. And it just, there has been all the, there's like this video going around Twitter that is presponding the point, it's like, who's the left's Rogan? And it's like, oh, it Twitter that is presponding to the point, like,

who's the left's Rogan? It's like, oh, it was, we had one, it was Rogan, right? When he, you know, he endorsed Bernie, he was a big Obama fan, he, you know, supported who's like very friendly with Andrew Yang. And our response to that was because we did not agree with him on some things where he is very, very wrong, vaccines, a lot of transphobia and other things on there,

but we just cast him out as to never go on there. And I can argue round or flat whether, you know, Kamala Harris should have gone on that podcast three weeks before the election, a month before the election, sure. In that last six days, you and I talked about this before, it's hard to spend a day in Texas that last day, but the fact that that is the place

where Democrats are not willing to go is a massive problem. Rogan, I'm not, because we're talking about Rogan as like a stand-in, like for, you have to be able to go everywhere and talk to everybody. Like that's the new rule. The new rule is like, and you got to be able to do it in ways where like, and Pete Buttigieg is probably the one that's so far the best at it.

But like, you sort of have to be able to shoot, no. Like here's the thing about, let's say Mark Cuban, let's take him hypothetically. Mark Cuban probably believes like a real hodgepodge of stuff that doesn't feel neatly Democrat or Republican, which is sort of what Trump's done. And people like that, you know why? Because they don't think things have to fit neatly

into a package for a political party. Like that's one of the things that they like. And so they're like, I don't know, you got some heterodox views on this and you got these other things that I think cool like that. And like, I don't have to agree with you on everything. Like, there's a reason that people, I think, reacted well to the idea that he had RFK as a surrogate and Elon as a surrogate and Tulsi Gabbard. And, you know, I'm sitting here going, those are all Democrats. But then I'm like, oh yeah, but so was Trump. So was Trump. And what they did was they built a new coalition

out of lib-hating Republicans and a bunch of people who might otherwise be Democrats, but heterodox thinkers. I just think of all the people that now, Republicans I know tell me they think are really smart. It's like Matt Taibbi, you know? And like, obviously, you know, the guys over at whatever, what Barry Weiss is doing with the free press,

the sort of anti, like there's a whole massive political ecosystem and I think that Democrats are gonna have to figure out how to engage with those people. Yeah, and we have to build our own version of it too, right? Like, which we have been doing, and this is a very self-interested hobby horse of mine, but Trump and all the Republicans do all the right-wing media.

They value it, they nurture it, they put their arms on it. They view it in their political interest to grow that ecosystem. And there are exceptions to this. Some Democrats will do it, but for the most part, there is not that, right? And that was, that's really not something that Harris campaign did a lot of. There are a couple of examples, but, you know, didn't come up on state America, didn't go to Brian Tyler Cohen, didn't do a bunch of other things

like that where you curry your news. Some of the, you know, some of the real like large parts of, you know, the, the emerging parts of the progressive version of it, like our political media apparatus, Democrats just don't see the imperative in the same way. In part because, I mean, it makes sense because Republicans believe the mainstream media was biased against them and Democrats do not believe that even if we have turned hard on the Washington Post and the New York Times in recent years. but for the politicians themselves still, like there's like some, I don't know what it is,

like they feel like an air of legitimacy if they do it on Ezra Klein's podcast instead of ours, right, yours or mine or whatever else. And it's sort of a, it's a very counterproductive way of thinking. It is, I mean, you gotta just go where people, when you say meet people where they are, it's like what they're listening to and engage,

they wanna feel like you engage authentically then with the people that they like, who they trust. And look, I'm not saying it's a good thing for our politics that so many voters trust Joe Rogan. It's not a good thing that that's where they get most of their information. But you know what? If you know, if that's just a reality, if that's where the ball lies, like play it as it lies and be able to go on there and like talk for three hours and like, you know, have it out. People will respect that, but that's what they wanna see out of people now. So you and I can probably talk about this for hours

and hours and hours. This has been my own personal therapy is instead of disconnecting from the internet, I'm just talking to as many people as I possibly can and consuming as much information as I can to just wallow in the misery. But thank you so much for being here. You have made us much smarter as always.

And we're very grateful for all the work you did in this election. LESLIE KENDRICK Well, I appreciate that. Can I ask you one last question before we close? PAUL BAKER Of course. Yeah. LESLIE KENDRICK To be annoying. Do you think the Democrats will run a woman again ever? PAUL BAKER Yes, I do.

LESLIE KENDRICK Yeah. PAUL BAKER I do. LESLIE KENDRICK I mean, I've heard people be like, Dems won't run a woman again after this. PAUL BAKER I think that we have to be able to, this is always hard in shorthanded political discourse, but we have to recognize that there is very clearly a lot of misogyny and racism in our politics.

It is some of it conscious, some of it unconscious. It comes through in press coverage and how women candidates are portrayed in the media, what they can get away with, right? The kind of, just on that debate stage, Joe Biden four years earlier could tell Donald Trump to shut his pie hole and Kamala Harris could never do that as a black woman, the way they'd be treated. But at the same time that that happened, you did have women candidates like Tammy Baldwin, Alyssa Slotkin and Jackie

Rosen run ahead. And so there is work to do there. I absolutely believe we will have a primary process. And I hope that we do not, as we did in 2020, I think in 2020, we picked the most electable candidate and the polling was pretty clear that Biden was the most electable. He was the only one running ahead of Trump. But what we can't do, we have to have a very broad view of electability. It can't be just white man who can relate to white voter in Wisconsin, which is how I think we were thinking about it in 2020. But, you know, I absolutely think we can and should. Interesting. Thanks for letting me ask you.

Of course, of course. All right, Sarah, thank you so much. Thanks, guys. Bye. OK, when we come back, I'm going to talk with Carlos Odo about what happened with the Latino vote in this election. But before we do that, as you heard us say on Friday's pod, the House is still in play. There are lots of races where the count is ongoing and they need your help.

Taking the House majority is our best shot at constraining Donald Trump, but it's a huge lift. And those races need your support to keep paying their staff and to help cure ballots that have problems. The best way you can ensure that every vote is counted is to go to votesaveamerica.com and donate to their house fund. It is really critical. There are also opportunities to volunteer, especially if you live in one of these key districts. Again, vote save America.com. This message has been paid for by vote save America. You can learn more at

vote save America.com. This ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. When we come back, Carlos Odeo. Carlos, welcome back to Pod Save America. Dan, it is always good to be back even under these circumstances. You're one of the first people we thought of on election night to try to figure out what happened and where the Democratic Party can go from here. But before we get into that, I just got to ask, how are you doing? It has been a very long week as it has been for many people. I don't feel special in that regard. I will say that I haven't allowed myself a lot of moments to think about

or process what this all means because when you do get a break and you do contemplate it, you know, my mind goes to people who I love a lot, who I feel like have a reason to feel unsafe, either because of things that this next administration might do or because of what he's unleashed in America, like what people feel emboldened to do. So, like many people, I'm mourning the fate of the country, contemplating the bad stuff that can come, even while I'm trying to understand how this came to be. And in the midst of it, Dan, because you asked.

And I did, yes. Is that you have people blaming Latino voters for what happened, which actually, you know, I'm flying your debate. That's a data question. That's an empirical question. What's not fine is what anyone who is Latino has had to face on social media this week. I hope you get deported. I hope you get thrown in camps. I hope you have your passport because you're about to get thrown out of the country.

Go back home, Beaner. And what's amazing is that these are coming from liberals. And it makes you wonder, is this how people have felt about us all along? So, in addition to everything else, I'm now also mourning the loss of decency, humanity, among the many things that Donald Trump has robbed of us. And at the same time turning to what needs to get done next to protect our people and bridge the divides so we can get back to a better place.

done next to protect our people and bridge the divides so we can get back to a better place. Let's stipulate that exit polls are an imperfect vehicle to analyze what happened and that we will have another conversation. They're polls. They're polls, right. Which as we have proven, are imperfect before the election, after the election, during the election, and that we will revisit this when we get better data like from catalyst impute in a few months. But it seems pretty clear based on both the exit polls and when you look at county by county results, particularly in counties with large Latino populations, that there was a further shift among Latino population to Trump. What's your analysis of what we know right now? to Trump. What's your analysis of what we know right now?

Yeah, and I understand actually why people pounced on the Latino numbers the way they did. These were eye popping, frankly. I was, as much as my job is to document and explain shifts in Latino vote, I was surprised by some of the numbers we saw. I live in Hudson County, New Jersey. We saw massive shifts that I would not have anticipated the extent to which they would be that big.

And so look, I think it is, I think it is, I've always hesitated using the word realignment. I feel like it isn't offered very much to this conversation. But I think essentially what we're headed to is Trump gained about eight points in support from 16 to 20. I think it's going to be another eight to nine points. And so you're talking about nearly 20% increase in support from 16 to 24, which I don't care what you call it.

It looks like a realignment. It sounds like a realignment. The question of whether it's specific to Trump, unique to Trump or something more lasting is almost a moot point because we've got another four years of the Trump era ahead of us. So regardless of what it is, let's call it the Trump realignment among Latino voters, it is the current reality in which we find ourselves. There is a difference in the battleground states, and I think we can talk about that. Part of why I say you shouldn't blame Latino voters is the shifts while they were eye popping

are not the reason Donald Trump won. The battleground numbers were not surprising. We actually knew, we've known all along, that we were going to have this kind of drop among Latino voters in the states that matter the most for the electoral college. And it was already baked into campaign strategy. It was baked into the forecasts. We had narrowed this down to the point where it was the blue wall, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.

What was surprising was the wider erosion. I mean, you had a six-point uniform swing nationally. You had Trump overperforming his margins in nine out of 10 counties that have been counted. That's not a demographic story. You can't narrow that down to any one group. That's massive. Even to the point that, especially in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, you can't attribute what happened there to Latinos. You know, in Pennsylvania, you could erase the Latino shift and Trump still wins the state. One point in white support in Pennsylvania is the equivalent of 19 points of Latino support. So I think we have to,

as people who care, hold both stories true, that there is this wider Latino realignment that we have to contend with, and that there is a story of this election that is much broader, and something so broad requires big large explanations. I think it's just, I want to just stipulate that one, blaming voters for an election outcome is incredibly stupid and counterproductive. So dumb. It's just, I want to just stipulate that one, blaming voters for an election outcome is incredibly stupid and counterproductive. So dumb. It's just, it was yelling at non-college, you know, the yelling at white women or non-college educated voters in 2016. It's how you end up doing worse with them in the next election cycle. And we lost ground everywhere, right?

And even in the places where we thought we would gain ground, like the collar counties in Pennsylvania, Trump made gains, right? In college suburbs where they're largely white and college educated, Trump also gained ground. Absolute failure across the board. I wanna dig into the Latino one with you because it has massive implications long-term if this trend is not reversed.

Because it takes the sunbelt sun belt out off the map largely for Democrats. You can't win in Arizona, Nevada. The idea that Texas would turn blue in our sometime in our lifetime is mathematically impossible with these sort of margins among Latinos and it's the fastest growing population in the United States and if you are losing ground the fastest growing population in the country that's a if you are losing ground with the fastest growing population in the country, that's a bad thing. You're on the wrong side of math. Yes, we are on the wrong side.

And we were after being on the right side of math for a very long time. And it's like for people like you and I who come from the Obama world to then confront the opposite, right? The emerging Trump coalition as opposed to the emerging Obama coalition is a very hard thing to fathom and reconcile. Do you have a sense, either looking at county data, what you guys did before the election, or even digging into the exit polls about what parts of the Latino population move? Was it mostly men? Was it more working class? Or was it more sort of broad-based and across the board? Yeah, you know, as you said, the exits are unreliable

on this point. And in fact, the Edison exits have Trump winning Latino men, AP VoteCast, which is actually more reliable, has Harris winning Latino men. Really, we won't know that level of demographic difference until we get individual level data back from the official state voter files. I think what we know right now, is a story similar to 2020, which is that as much as there are lots of different divisions in the Latino vote, right? Like what falls under the Latino umbrella is a stitched together group of very different communities and experiences, and yet the shifts we saw cut across those differences. So as we're trying to explain what happened, you need explanations that span Lawrence, Massachusetts, which is heavily Dominican,

where you saw Trump gain 15 points in two-way support. And in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas along the border, which is very Tejano, Mexican-American descent, you need theories that explain both of those, right? Like things that are unique to Venezuelans in Broward County cannot possibly explain the shifts among Mexican-Americans in Michigan or Wisconsin. So at this point, what it appears to be is fairly broad-based. The people who shifted, what they have in common is that they are Hispanic. Now we do know from our pre-election polling that there was a wide gender gap in this election. And so it is reasonable to say that there is a story that will

center around men. And I think what this moment calls for is deep reflection about Latino voters, but then we almost immediately have to ladder up to a conversation about men across race, and from there to a conversation about working people, and from there to a conversation about a broader cultural and economic divide. We live in one reality, the people who are listening to a podcast like this, and the people who voted for Donald Trump essentially live in an entirely different reality. I think there's a really important point here, which is the gains towards Trump are so broad based across so many different groups that like we were talking about the Latino vote

here that is incredibly consequential, but it is also possible that the reasons why the Latino vote shifted are not that different for why Trump made gains across the country, right? And particularly among he won voters who make under $50,000 according to the exit polls with the appropriate caveats. And when you have populations where more, our disproportionate number of that population makes below $50,000 or below $100,000, whatever income level you want to get, you know, the Latino community faced, you know, on a whole, you know, a tremendous amount of hardship from inflation. And so it's not shocking theoretically if one of the reasons for the shift

in this election towards Trump is because of inflation, communities that disproportionately suffered more from it would shift more, right? Yes. Now, of course, this is so much about the economy. I mean, the backdrop to any analysis has to be that there were the twin crises of inflation and migration that have afflicted the globe. And any incumbent who presided over this period of post-pandemic inflation has faced a major penalty at their next election. That's the starting line. And then you have to ask yourself, well, could different decisions have led to different outcomes? So did our president rise to that challenge of the inflation and migration crises? Or were we denying for a very long time that it was even happening while voters were

yelling, my grocery bills are going up. And we were saying, no, the economy is doing great. And so, you know, gaslighting voters is generally a way to communicate that you don't actually hear them or understand them. In addition to the president himself, a man I deeply love, at the same time, voters did not feel like he was up to the challenge. And so that's your starting place. You know, when Kamala Harris joins the race, she recovered a lot of voters. She did better, I think, undoubtedly than Joe Biden would have done. Undoubtedly. And yet some people were just far gone at that point.

There was no making up that deficit. And so that's why I think we can, we should think about campaign tactics and what could have been done differently. But at the other day, we're talking about such a broad shift that we have to have a more zoomed out look at what we were facing and the fact that we probably lost a lot of these voters much earlier in the cycle. Yeah, before Kamala Harris ever became the nominee, right? Correct. And so I do want to talk a little bit about immigration in here. You

know, you see this come up in a lot of research about there's some liberal assumptions about how Latinos voters feel about immigration. You have pushed back on this a lot, particularly around how people feel about the border. What role, if any, do you think immigration played, particularly with the Latino community? People try to simplify what is such a complex issue. And I'll just give one example of where I think the analysis is lacking. You hear a lot of swing Latino voters saying in focus groups that they were upset at their perception, by the way, wrong perception, but still their perception, that people crossing the border today

were being handed papers. They were being given legal status. Now, their reaction to this was, well, what about my undocumented family who've been working and living here for decades? This was a sense of fairness, not of xenophobia, not of nativism. It wasn't about turning against immigrants. It wasn't about thinking that America should fundamentally rethink its relationship to immigration. It's about saying, hold on a second, we were in line. We are immigrants. And we feel like there are others being handed benefits that we're not in the midst that we're struggling. In the same way, by the way, that as much as it pains me because I support the cause in Ukraine, people saying, we're spending all this money in Ukraine and there doesn't seem to be any money for us who are struggling at home.

This is not about being anti-immigrant. This is not about being racist. It's not about acting white. This is about saying, I am facing tough material conditions and I'm looking for someone to take care of me. Now the last time Trump was president, he had engaged in a series of cruel immigration policies, deportations, family separation, et cetera. He is promising to do all of that and more next time around. Like you, I'm now on my third podcast since Tuesday. I have tried to resist too much of like second guessing of campaign tactics because I struggle to find a strategic or tactical move made since Kamala Harris became the nominee that

changes the outcome here, given the margins. But I think there are some lessons we can learn from things they did or didn't do that might project forward as we think about what comes next. Last time you were on a couple weeks for the election, we talked about, and both you and I both lamented the fact that Democrats, Harris campaign on down, were unwilling to talk about, to speak out against Trump's proposed

mass deportation policies. We had sort of limited the immigration conversation entirely to who was gonna be tougher on the border. One, Democrats are almost destined to lose. I am not attributing that to the huge swing here. I'm not saying that that's why she lost, but just what are your thoughts on that in hindsight? Look, my feelings on this are well documented. I think if there's one decision that I thought was foolhardy was to entirely cede to Trump,

we allowed Trump to define what his mass deportation plan was. When JD Vance in the VP debate was asked about this, he said, no, we allowed Trump to define what his mass deportation plan was. You know, when JD Vance in the VP debate was asked about this, he said, no, we're going to deport criminals. That's not their plan. Their plan is to deport anyone who is undocumented. They are going to get DREAMers. They want to get the spouses of American citizens who have been working and living here for decades, and we just couldn't call them out on it.

I don't think that's why he lost, but certainly I think that would have been important. And now, especially that we're facing this moment, I think seems doubly so that we would have fought that debate. That said, here's the thing we heard a lot in folks groups. People were voting for Trump, the people who shifted for him.

It was about the economy. I want to be very clear. The sense they got about Donald Trump in the midst of the pandemic was that he would prioritize the economy above absolutely everything else. Literally over human lives, he would value economic growth. And that was the takeaway from the pandemic. And so if you have a voter who themselves in their own life values the economic well-being of their family, they see a kindred spirit. And what they did in voting was saying,

I'm gonna do that exact thing. I'm gonna put the economy above everything else. But that feeling also impacts other things, which is voters told us in focus groups, we don't believe that Donald Trump is gonna ban abortion. We don't believe he's gonna repeal Obamacare. We don't believe that he's actually going to carry out mass deportation because we don't think he actually cares about those things.

He's a businessman. He just cares about the economy. And literally, they would say mass deportation would wreck this economy, and that's why we don't think he's going to do it. They threw it off as political rhetoric, and they kind of have reason to do it, by the way. If you look at Ron DeSantis, Ron DeSantis passed a draconian immigration bill, right? We haven't talked about it a lot since then. And let me tell you part of why we haven't. Please do.

Soon after it passed, Republican state reps were dispatched to evangelical churches in Hialeah and in agricultural areas to reassure people that this wasn't real. To say, please tell your people, don't leave the state. This was about politics. We are not actually going to come after you. So, it is not irrational for a certain kind of voter to view all of this as pure political propaganda, as hyped up rhetoric, but that at the end of the day, when it comes time to make decisions, a belief that Donald Trump is just going to do the practical thing.

And we let him get away with that. Now it seems, you know, we can debate the degree to which he's going to engage in the policies, but immigration policy is going to get much crueler. There are going to be more deportations. There are going to be people who are not criminals who were deported from day one. And how do you think Democrats can go about having that conversation? And if we do, is that a way to begin to rebuild credibility with elements of Latino community? Yeah, that's an excellent question. Look, first of all, by the way, whether Trump believes things or not, the people he's going to empower are a bunch of psychotic freaks who have a fetishistic desire to punish immigrants.

So Stephen Miller now is going to have an ungodly amount of power. And that's what scares me. Look, I think there's a real danger here. I think in the context of an election, you have to hype up the threat. I think in this moment, we have to be really careful not to be hyperbolic. Meaning, Trump caught us in this a lot last time. And by the way, it's a thing that DeSantis has caught liberals on in Florida as well, which is if we say he's going to deport 12 million people and then he deports eight,

he says, look at me. Look how moderate I am. I'm so reasonable. He catches in this trap all the time. You know, I think what we really have to do is as much as we can shape the mandate and say, if there was a mandate here, it was to bring down prices. It was to focus on the economy and the pain that people were feeling. And that's what we're going to hold you to.

And we're not going to talk about the rest of it, because we're saying we expect you to just focus on the economy, such that when they are overreaching and when they are doing things that are not about bringing down prices, right, we can call them out on it. Because even when we're calling them out on this, they have to be, it has to all still be an economic argument as well, or we seem out of touch. This cannot be symbolic resistance. You and I are kindred spirits on this. I spent a lot of time thinking about and getting a lot of questions from people about why Dobbs did not deliver another victory for Democrats,

especially when you get the exit poll and it's like 68% of voters think abortion should be legal. It's because the voters who think there's a large spot of voters who think abortion should be legal, but they prioritize the economy and we lost those voters by like 40 points. And the test here as we go forward is, people elected Trump to lower prices, raise wages and make their life better. And every time he does something that is not that, we have to point out that he's not doing

the thing he said he would do. So when they get in there and they start trying to, you know, put in place some, whatever their mass deportation plan is, however many people it is, when his first move is to a giant tax cut for corporations, when they try to ban abortion or all the bullshit that gets the MAGA base going, it is going to be coming upon Democrats.

And that will benefit us, I believe, with all voters, right? The ones we lost, the ones that didn't turn out for us, Latinos, white voters, black voters, young people, et cetera, is he's full of shit and we have to prove he's full of shit. That he did not deliver on the thing he said he was going to deliver. We've got to regain common sense. We've got to regain common sense. And I think, how many times do you tell us that Project 2025 isn't his agenda? Let's take him for his word. Hey, he's not going to do Project 2025. He told us he's not going to do Project 2025.

We should take him to his word. And then when he breaks that word, we again are trying to regain at this point the common ground. You know, Kristin Solstice Anderson, who's Republican, pollster, extra-line insights, had a great piece before the election about this being a stop the madness election, but that both sides interpreted stop the madness differently. That for Republicans, they thought that Democrats were presiding over a period of madness, really that was about the economy, that was about the border, and so forth. I think if we play our cards right here, we can regain the advantage on who represents order

and stability versus who represents chaos and madness. Last question for you. It seems pretty clear, both looking both at exit polls, county results, that Ruben Gallego significantly outperformed Kamala Harris among Latino voters. It also appears that it, perhaps, Jackie Rosen also did at least a little bit better for Latino voters and Kamala Harris.

You take anything from the way they ran their campaigns that could be lessons for Democrats going forward? Well, first I think it's a lesson for Republicans, which is that to some extent this was about Donald Trump and this is about Joe Biden, and that these gains do not extend automatically to other Republicans. Where Trump, the businessman, had a unique anti-elite appeal, it does not extend to them automatically,

and they should not take for granted that they are going to have those votes going forward. I think Rubin Gallego in Arizona really does represent a great deal of hope and shows a path forward. I mean, he is obviously Latino himself and proudly so. He didn't shy away from that identity at the same time that he was leaning into his working class identity, working at his record as a veteran, talking to people about things they cared about,

showing up in their communities as much as he can and not being scared to separate himself from Democrats and saying, I will not follow any kind of ideological line all the way down. That's part of this is we have to establish that we have some independence, that we are not a faceless mob of people. We have people with differing opinions. So I think there is a path forward for a kind of multiracial, class-conscious, progressive in substance, but moderate in style kind of

Democrat going forward. I take a lot of solace in the fact that 2004 was a point where I felt incredible despair as we all did. And that the Obama election was only 40 years later. A lock and change over a very short period of time. And I think a lot of our people listening to this, a lot of people who I work with at Crooked Media, they are obviously too young to remember that, but it was very similar. There was a long talk about the emerging Republican majority. Bush had done incredibly well with Latinos. He had from Texas, spoke Spanish.

The new RNC chair was going to spearhead this whole effort and Bush had actually done better with black voters. He actually won Ohio because he did much better with black voters in Cleveland than any previous Republican had done. And two years later, they lose the House and the Senate. Four years later, Barack Obama was elected, built an entirely new coalition that is incredibly diverse, moves those voters back.

And so that can be our future. Now Democrats did a lot of things. They got lucky our future. Now, Democrats did a lot of things. They got lucky in some ways, but also did a lot of things to get back there. And I think it is a little bit analogous to what you're saying about holding Trump to his promises, because Bush's first move when he was reelected was to try to privatize Social Security, something he had not run on, something voters did not want. and Democrats beat him, and that was the beginning of the downfall of the Republicans, because we unified, we ran, it's a different media environment,

but made it a huge deal everywhere in the country that this is what Bush was trying to do, and we stopped him, and it seemed like he had violated his promise to voters, and we can do the same thing with Trump starting next year. Absolutely, and listen, we gotta let him screw up. his promise to voters and we can do the same thing with Trump starting next year. Absolutely. And listen, we got to let him screw up. We got to let him screw up because if we know anything about Donald Trump is there's no

discipline, there's incompetence. When he hires people, he's not bringing in the best people. And so I think there's going to be a lot of overreach and we have to be prepared for it. And what we certainly can't do is lose hope. As much as I think in the short term, people should disconnect and take a break. There's going to be a lot of time to fight in the future. Um, I think we've got to be ready and remain hopeful in spite of the very dark

moment in which we find ourselves right now. That seems like a great place to leave it. Carlos, thank you for doing this. I know you're very tired and you would very much like to disconnect yourself, but you, you've suited up for one more podcast interview. So we appreciate it. Thank you. The battle continues. Thanks, Dan. That's our show for today. Thanks to Sarah and Carlos for joining.

John, Lovett, and Tommy will be back with a new show on Tuesday morning. Hang in there, everybody. If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.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.

Podsave America is a Crooked Media Production. Our producers are David Toledo and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is 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. Madeleine 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, Hayley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hefkoat, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pellivive, and David Toles.