Pod Save America - Let the Blame Game Commence!

Episode Date: November 8, 2024

As Kamala Harris officially concedes after a terrible election, Democrats begin searching for lessons—and singling out others for blame. Jon, Lovett, Dan, and Tommy discuss Harris's farewell message, the various conflicting and enraging theories being floated as to why she lost, and how we should think about campaigns going forward. Plus: Sen. Jacky Rosen appears to score a win in Nevada, and Democratic House candidates in uncalled races see a path to victory—and maybe even a narrow majority.

Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Tommy V. Tort. On today's show, Tuesday was for voting, Wednesday was for processing, and Thursday was for blaming. Yay! Just 48 hours after Americans went to the polls,

the Democratic Party recrimination, soul searching, postmortem, blame game, pick your cliche has begun. Plus, and some critical good news for Democrats, Senator Jackie Rosen looks like she's gonna hang on in Nevada, we'll talk about the latest updates with the ballots still being counted in House and Senate races all across the country and what it all means for fighting back

against Trump's second term agenda. Ooh, it just hurts saying that, huh? But first, on Wednesday, Kamala Harris officially conceded to Donald Trump in a phone call and then gave her concession speech at Howard University, where she hoped she'd be giving her victory speech the night before. Then on Thursday, Joe Biden gave his first public remarks

since his vice president's crushing loss. Here is a sampling from each. To the young people who are watching, it is OK to feel sad and disappointed, but please know it's going to be okay. On the campaign, I would often say, when we fight, we win. But here's the thing, here's the thing, sometimes the fight takes a while. That doesn't mean we won't win.

That doesn't mean we won't win. That doesn't mean we won't win. The important thing is don't ever give up. Don't ever give up. Don't ever stop trying to make the world a better place. We're leaving behind the strongest economy in the world. I know people are still hurting. But things are changing rapidly. Together, we've changed America for the better. Now we have 74 days to finish the term. Our turn.

Let's make every day count. That's the responsibility we have to the American people. Look, folks, you all know it in your lives. Setbacks are unavoidable. But giving up is unforgivable. we have to the American people. Look folks, you all know it in your lives. Setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable. Getting harder and harder to tell the difference between him and Dana Carvey. So both Biden and Harris offered versions of it's going to be okay. This is of course after they both spent their respective campaigns hammering the stakes of a

Trump presidency. Obviously, that's a tough balance to strike. What did you guys think and any other reactions to either of their speeches? I find that we're going to be okay, pretty insulting and patronizing, to be honest. You're both giving these speeches because your theory of politics and of the future was wrong, that we all were wrong. We're collectively wrong. That's just a fact. And like, I have great

respect for Kamala Harris and the campaign that she ran and the hand she played. It was a very difficult hand. But they're just not in a position to reassure us right now. And like, they don't know, we don't know. And the we will make it through, like I hope so. I believe so. I think we have to fight to make it so, but a lot of people will be hurt. Like if we keep sliding back on like reproductive freedom, a lot of people could die.

If we have mass deportations, there will be the children of American citizens who will not be okay. If there are rollbacks on LGBT rights, there will be trans people and gay people who will not be okay. So I am not really in the market for bedtime stories right now.

I would like a little bit less reassurance and more vigilance. And I think politicians getting up there and being our mommy and daddy, I'm just not interested in right now. Anyone else wanna take the other side? No, I wanna, I wanna, can I take a middle ground? These are impossible speeches to give.

They, you're there to simply just acknowledge your own defeat and then thank your supporters and that you kind of have to do it. None of them are great. Some of them are remembered more fondly than others. The hard part here is the absolute dissonance between the message 72 hours ago on the campaign trail and right now about what a danger Donald Trump is,

that he is unstable, unhinged, will be governing without guardrails. And I think both the vice president and the president could have done more to acknowledge people's fear, people's pain they're feeling right now, their anxiety about what's going to come in the country to, you know, speak to the fact that for the second time in three presidential elections, a woman has lost to someone like Donald Trump.

I was just talking to my wife who is talking, was talking to her mom about never having seen a woman elected president and trying to explain to her six-year-old daughter why that hasn't happened. And I think this is hard to do, but a lot of people don't feel okay right now. A lot of people aren't sure they were going to be okay. A lot of people are very worried. And so doing a little more to speak to that, I think would have been appreciated in the moment.

Yeah, just to echo on Dan's point, I got a text from a friend I love who's like, I'm really surprised you guys didn't mention Kamala Harris's race and gender and the reasoning behind why she lost yesterday. And the reason for me is I have no doubt that it was a factor in a lot of voters' decision, but I don't have any data to ground that opinion in right now. And I also don't want the takeaway from that conversation to be, well, now the Democrats can never run a woman for president again. Because I do don't want the takeaway from that conversation to be, well, now the Democrats can never run a woman for president again.

Because I do not think that's true. I actually think that would be the worst lesson to take away. So I think just to address what Dan said up front, I found both of their speeches to be like gracious and decent, and especially for Kamala Harris. Because think about, she just spent 100 days pouring everything she had into this campaign. She's exhausted. Even in her private days pouring everything she had into this campaign. She's exhausted.

Even in her private moments, she's thinking about this campaign. She hasn't slept in months. And she's expected, I think, to actually take on a bit of a parental role in the tone of her remarks and to comfort supporters and voters and people that loved her. And I understand that that might be grating to some people.

Like, there's a naive version of like, we're all going to be OK. It's like, no, you don't Like there's a naive version of like, we're all gonna be okay. It's like, no, you don't know that. I think their point is we are all now charged with fighting to make sure that we're okay, especially for people that have it worse for us. And I think that was the takeaway I got from them. Yeah, it didn't bump me as much just because I think

we're gonna be okay is just, almost everyone understands that it might not be true but it's what you want to hear because people want to be comforted in a time like this. I'm sure we're all getting texts from people and emails that are like, are we going to be okay? Are we going to be okay? And I don't assure anyone we'll be okay, but we can be okay.

It's possible that we can be okay. We don't know. I don't actually think it's useful to spend a lot of time predicting whether we won't be okay or we'll be okay. I think it's about as useful as predicting election winners, which is why I don't really focus on that. Neat Silver Model Dark okay-ness a thousand times. Which I don't focus on that as much, but I kind of just took it as like,

leadership is about trying to comfort people or inspire people or whatever. And I take your point for sure, but I don't think it's, it didn't really bump me as much. I had the same reaction to, similar reaction to Barack Obama's remarks after the election in 2016. You know, it's funny is our friend Terry Zuplat,

who was a speechwriter with us in the White House, just has a new book out and I was doing a book event with him and in his book, he talks about how the only time in his life he'd ever been disappointed with Barack Obama was that speech. But then he said, you know, looking back on it now, all these years later, I'm glad he said what he did at the time. Because at the time everyone didn't want to hear that. But he's like, you know, he was right. He was right. So even though

Biden and Harris both said nice things about each other in their speeches, it's knives out at the staff and advisor level. People close to both camps have been making their case to reporters. Pro-Biden Democrats saying the president would have done better and that Harris could have run a better campaign. Pro-Harris Democrats saying it was Biden's fault for deciding to run for re-election in the first place and waiting too long to step aside. What do you guys think?

Should we do a blanket caveat, which is that, so we don't all have to repeat it, running a presidential campaign and putting it together in 100 days is nearly impossible. She did an incredible job. The biggest moment of the entire campaign, maybe the only one that mattered, was the debate, and she did better than anyone could possibly have expected. So blanket caveat, now we're gonna nitpick.

Great, that's good. Starting at the top, because I don't wanna just repeat it. No, no, I'm good, I'm good. Do you wanna go, we'll- Happy to nitpick. I was just giving someone else space to speak. OK, well, do you want to start with which side do you?

Great. Now I'm going to nitpick. So the substantive critique from the Biden people seems to be two things, that she abandoned the kind of anti-populist messaging and that she failed to respond to millions and millions of dollars of these anti-trans ads that ran on every football game we ever watched.

I didn't find those to be unfair or unreasonable criticisms. I mean, the 10th time I saw the Kamala is for they them ad, I wondered, boy, do people know something that we don't know about how effective that ad is? And the New York Times reported today that when Future Forward, the big Dem super PAC tested the ad, it moved the needle 2.7 percentage points in Trump's favor.

And then the Harris campaign tested a response ad that didn't work well in focus groups, so they never ended up using it. And I think maybe it's fair to say that letting that go unresponded to was a mistake. Here's the problem with that. In the states where Kamala Harris campaigned the hardest, those are the places where she outperformed what happened in the other states. Those are also the states that saw the most number of ads. So, I mean, if you just said, okay, what was the effect?

I mean, it's hard to measure all these different competing variables. But if you just said, all right, there were states where they ran anti-trans ads, and there are states where they didn't, Trump did better in states where they didn't run those ads. That's just a fact of what happened. Well, a lot of those ran nationally.

Even so, there was $100 million dumped in Pennsylvania of anti-trans ads, and you can say, all right, well, what was the impact of that money? Maybe it made things harder for her to claw back, maybe she would have done better if those ads weren't there. I just don't think we know right now. Broadly speaking, that's why, the one nagging feeling I have is,

that kind of is resonating with me, because we felt it a bit at the time and which is That answer on the view. How would you do differently than Joe Biden? And she says well, I can't think of anything or when she's asked about why she how she changed her record from 2020 she had answers that were about well, I haven't changed my values and They tried to deal with what was I think a incredibly difficult Substantive critique which is you're in the Biden administration, you don't represent a break from the Biden administration.

How do you respond to that? They tried to kind of weave a kind of more like vibes-based, message-based argument against that. And then in the same on her, how she differed, because there she was hard to answer that question of how she had differed from the position she took in the 2020 campaign. And I say, okay, could that be something

that has an impact? But even still I say, okay, maybe those were bad. Maybe those were a problem, fine. It still seems very difficult for me to picture how she overcomes the fact that she had a hundred days to run this campaign. And so I am much more amenable to an argument about Joe Biden's culpability.

And actually I'm less angry about the decision to seek reelection. I don't think it was right. I think we're paying for it. But I'm more angry actually about the month after that debate when what happened was unequivocal and he made that campaign even shorter, eliminating the chance to even have a debate

about who the nominee should be and also leaving her such a short, short space to mount a credible campaign. I mean, I just, I struggle with this entire conversation. I can pick 17 things that maybe could have been done differently. I can't pinpoint any of them or all of them that lead to a different outcome in this race.

That's true. And so the way I think to think about it going forward is to try to figure out what from the campaign, sort of overlaying what the campaign did with the results on what we can learn in terms of going forward. Like what are better approaches, better strategies, better messages? On that note, I do think it's funny,

for a campaign that was so good about tailoring their message to what tested well, the, and this was like a hobby horse of mine during the campaign, the price gouging stuff, like she started with it and then it sort of fell off in the middle of the campaign somewhere and then they kind of brought it back. And it w the economic agenda was framed more as small businesses, this going to maybe give you this, going to maybe give you this. And there wasn't a lot of bite against corporations that were doing bad

things. And again, I'm just talking about going forward. I think it would be useful for Democrats to hammer that because you do need people are angry. People are dissatisfied mostly with the economy. And I think it is fair and also politically useful to go after corporations that are making record profits and screwing people over. When they are screwing people over, you don't have to say all corporations are bad or capitalism is bad, not as good money, any of that,

but I think it's a good thing to do. And she had a record on those issues as attorney general that I think was very effective. And even voters that I talked to, when I brought up her record, that moved them. I think maybe the way to think about this is the democratic economic message has not worked in 12 years. It did not work in 2016.

It did not work in 2020. We lost on the economy. In 2022, we won despite our economic message. We lost the voters who cared about inflation. Do we have an economic message? Well, we had Biden our economic message. We lost the voters who cared about inflation. Do we have an economic message? Well, I mean, well, we had Biden's economic record. Biden did all these things. He talked about them.

Democrats ran, they did run a decent number of economic ads, but we won the voters who, the 27% of voters who said abortion was their top issue. We lost the 31% of voters who said inflation was their top issue in 2022. Their economic message did not work here. Yet, once again, when you go through all the, you test all the individual policies, all our policies are popular, but we're getting hammered on the most important issue in every

single election in modern history. And that is the thing we're going to have to figure out to go forward because Donald Trump has built what looks like a multiracial working class coalition that could dominate politics for a very long time. I understand why everyone's calling it like the anti-trans ad, but I would even go one step further and say that the, that ad had an economic component to it. Because it was, what was it about?

Taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgery for inmates who are undocumented immigrants. And it got right to the heart of a Republican argument that Democrats are giving your tax dollars away to everyone else, all these different interest groups, identity groups, people that aren't you and you're struggling, right? Like that is what that ad was saying,

which I think to the extent it was effective, you know, Republicans have tried to run other anti-trans ads over the last several years in other races that have not been effective. They've been a waste of money in other cases. They've been a waste of years and other races that have not been effective. They've been a waste of money in other cases. They've been a waste of money and they failed. It just sounds crazy.

It just sounds like a crazy, wait, they're doing that? That sounds crazy to me. How can that be true? Yes, right. So it turns out there's a third option here beside it being the Biden campaign's fault or the Harris campaign's fault. It was the Obama campaign's fault.

It was Obama's fault. Here's a blind quote given to Politico by an anonymous former Biden staffer. Quote, there is no singular reason why we lost, but a big reason is because the Obama advisors publicly encouraged Democratic infighting to push Joe Biden out, didn't even want Kamala Harris as the nominee, and then signed up as the saviors of the campaign only to run outdated Obama era playbooks for a candidate that wasn't Obama. Those outdated Obama era playbooks that won him two presidential campaigns,

the best record of any Democrat since Roosevelt. But anyway, I just have to say something about this one. Please don't go, the floor is yours. I am going to generously assume that the constant anonymous sniping from Biden world about Obama or Kamala Harris, and everyone who worked for them is coming from like the same three or four people.

That's gonna be my generous assumption. And it does not reflect the views of most of the Biden folks, just stipulate it like Tommy stipulation earlier. We all have a blanket caveat there. Blanket caveat. Yeah, we all agree. Now we're gonna nitpick. Joe Biden's decision to run for president again was a catastrophic mistake.

It just was. And he, in his inner circle, they refused to believe the polls, they refused to believe he was unpopular, they refused to acknowledge until very late that anyone could be upset about inflation, and they just kept telling us that his presidency was historic

and it was the greatest economy ever. We just heard him again say that it's the greatest economy ever. Clearly 70, 80 percent of voters don't believe that. They don't believe that about their own personal financial situation, but they just keep telling us that. And then after the debate, the Biden people told us that the polls were fine and Biden was still the strongest candidate. And they were privately telling reporters at the time that Kamala Harris couldn't win. So they were shivving Kamala Harris to reporters while they told everyone else,

not a time for an open process and his vice president can't win, so he's the strongest candidate. Then we find out when the Biden campaign becomes the Harris campaign, that the Biden campaign's own internal polling at the time when they were telling us he was the strongest candidate showed that Donald Trump

was gonna win 400 electoral votes. That's what their own internal polling said. So like, I don't have a lot of, I don't have a lot of. I just, I don't know what it means by the Obama era playbook. I think what Dan said yesterday about- They're just mad, they just don't, they just-

But let's just try to unpack it. I think what Dan said yesterday about trying to examine, re-examine all the money Democrats spend on field programs is something that it's a conversation worth having because like, I don't want to overreact here because in 2020 there were people saying, well, the Biden people were too scared to get out of their house and knock on doors

and did everything virtually. And that's why the margins were closer, right? So we kind of learn a new lesson every cycle. But I think it's worth thinking about that spend and the opportunity cost. That said, all that infrastructure was in place when Joe Biden was the nominee. This wasn't like an Obama thing or a Kamala Harris thing.

And then also part of this could be, Democrats do need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to figuring out what is the coalition that we assemble to win, right? The Obama era coalition, that is, it seems to be. We've lost it. That is gone. But on the idea that Joe Biden would have won,

I think is what the subtext of that comment was. Again, there were polls showing 80% of voters thought Joe Biden was too old to get a second term before the debate. And then we all watched the debate. And then in the last few weeks, Biden was campaigning and he said, we need to lock Trump up. He created a controversy over whether Trump supporters were garbage.

He said, you know, the weird thing about slapping Trump on the ass, like his moments on the campaign trail weren't flawless either. You can't, you cannot. You look, it's absurd. It's two points. I want to go. I'm done being generous. I want to stay for the record. I also think all the TV- Try to be generous here. I'm done being generous.

I wanna stay for the record. I also think all the TV money actually be- It should be rethought too. Rethought too. But more importantly, the idea that Joe Biden was going to do better in this race than Kamala Harris is on its face absurd. No one is making that case-

There's zero data to support that. There never has been ever. And no one is making that case with their name to it. That's what I was gonna end by saying, one is making that case with their name to it. That's what I was, I was going to end by saying like, if someone would like to put their name on it, or even come here and talk to us about it, right here, we can have a nice civil conversation about it. They're more than welcome.

And it's a lot better than just sniping to Alex Thompson and Politico and whoever else you want to snipe, you know, leak to, which is what they've been doing for a year. The suboptimal place we were put in after the debate was to go from a close to 0% chance of winning to someone who had a chance, but was probably an underdog in the race.

And that's where we went and that's how it ended. We know that, we know that, we know that, because over a hundred days of an extraordinarily well-run campaign, she clawed her way back on all these metrics on which Biden was doing much worse. And she lost by what, two points. And I like, maybe one sign for hope in all of this

is there's gonna be a lot of in-fighting. There's a lot of people with different points of views about the future. We have to be generous with one another. We have to listen to one another. We have to be open to one another, but we can all unite in knowing that Joe Biden would have lost and deserves a lot of blame

for the situation that we're in. And maybe that's something that can bring us all together. Well, I mean, also when Harris became the nominee, Obama people, Clinton people, Biden people, like they all came together in that campaign and did a fucking, it got really close to winning, and they all worked really well together. And they all put their heart and soul into it

and they worked their asses off, right? So it's like this idea that there's all these divisions and blah blah blah. It's like the people who just continue to do this It's crazy because a lot of people from there were had a whole bunch of different bosses all came together to work hard to try to get her to win So beyond the Biden-Harris sniping, there have been a number of other broader critiques about the Democratic Party that we can talk about. Bernie Sanders, whoever the summer had lobbied for Biden to stay in the race, but then became one of Harris's most effective surrogates, released a blistering critique of Democrats' whole strategy and identity saying, quote, it should come as no great surprise that a democratic party which has abandoned working

class people would find that the working class has abandoned them and then blamed the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the party and he expressed skepticism that we'll be able to learn our lesson. He later told the New York Times it's not just Kamala, it's a democratic party which increasingly has become a party of identity politics Rather than understanding that the vast majority of people in this country are working class What did you guys think of Bernie's critique? Is he right that the Democratic Party has abandoned the working class? so my My problem with the statement, so I largely think that like there is a directional

Critique that I agree with, right? That like when Bernie came on Pods of America and talked about we're not talking enough about corporate influence over politics, the money in our politics, we're not talking enough to those concerns of the working class. Like I believe that I agree with that. I think the nuance that is missing here and I think is important is Joe Biden, when he won and one of I think his great achievements and one of the things we talked about when we were beseeching Joe Biden to step aside is that he listened. He brought in Bernie Sanders, he brought in Elizabeth Warren, he put Lena Kahn at FTC, he canceled student debt, he pursued an incredibly progressive economic agenda. Now, I think we should think about why did that not resonate with people, why did people

not believe that, why did people not see the effects of that, why did people still not trust Democrats as messengers? I think those are really important questions that Bernie Sanders is gonna be very helpful in figuring out how to solve. But I think to say carte blanche, Democrats abandoned working people, is I think to embrace a part, a reality of our politics

and the influence of money on our politics and in part to embrace a Republican critique and Republican vibes. And I just think and in part to embrace a Republican critique and Republican vibes. And I just think those things need to be separated out. Yeah, I feel Bernie's like rage here and he's got some fair points and his analysis of votes we're losing is absolutely right.

But I think the harder thing to reckon with is the fact that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden worked together to pass COVID relief money, cap the price of insulin, they passed the child tax credit while Republicans voted against all of those things. The Biden administration was great on antitrust and breaking up corporations. Joe Biden fought for unions.

He went on the picket line and then Donald Trump campaigns with Elon Musk, famous union buster and wins those working class voters. And so the question is, how does that disconnect happen? And how do we fix that politically? Because we're doing the right things substantively. Not enough, not enough. And the messaging wasn't perfect, right?

I've criticized the lack of economic messaging on the campaign before, but we're not reaching the voters we need to reach. We've been dealing with this since the Obama years. And I know President Obama thought, well, we should prove that democracy can deliver, and if we deliver for people, for working people, then they'll, like the Democrats, Joe Biden certainly had the same theory. And I've thought that would be true as well over the last several years.

And I do think that's one of the things we have to re-examine, the idea that if we deliver for working people economically, they will automatically, you know, start voting for Democrats. Cause I think it's more complex than that. The economy in politics is a cultural issue. We think of it in Democrats as a substantive issue. What are the policies we can stitch together to prove to them that we will fight for them?

But it's all vibes. Donald Trump doesn't have a policy director. He has three policies about taxes. That's it. And, but he wins. And all of them would screw working people. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and, but we're losing because the

vibe that he gives off, he is coming off as someone who was fighting for a certain set of people and we are not giving off that vibe. I think you can have a fair critique about whether the Harris campaign used as much populist messaging as a, perhaps it could. Maybe that doesn't feel particularly natural to her.

That's maybe that's not, she's not Bernie. She's not Elizabeth Warren. She's not even Joe Biden, like Scranton Joe era. But there's a broader issue here is that we are approaching the issue wrong. The last time we won an economic fight was in 2012 when that was, that was a cultural war. That was an identity issue, culture war.

Not, we had better policies that supported that. That's not really what it was about. And just in case you think we're just simping for Obama here, like we get a lot of help because Mitt Romney was the opponent. Yeah, for sure, for sure. You know, and just seemed like a rich, a non-tech rich guy. You know who else is a non-tech rich guy?

Donald Trump, right? How culturally, this is to your point, how culturally different did Donald Trump and Mitt Romney seem, even though they're both rich guys? But it's worth pointing out, right? Barack Obama wins a throw the bums out election. He wins in 2012 against a plutocrat running a campaign against the plutocrat, which is an exception to the rule.

Donald Trump wins a throw the bums out election. He loses his reelection when he's now the establishment. Then he wins another throw the bums out election, right? his reelection when he's now the establishment. Then he wins another throw the bums out election, right? And so I do think part of, like, I wanna, I actually agree with everything that we're saying, but I also, like, there are signs here that we can point to that, like, part of this is the energy Donald Trump brings,

but part of it is also he got to just, he is a walking fuck you, That is how he won in 2016. He built an even broader coalition of people who wanted to say fuck you this time. And there's lessons we can learn from that, but we also shouldn't, I think, over learn those lessons. And it's a different fight when we're fighting as outsiders taking on an incumbent in a country

that is extremely angry at the establishment. One more point in this to Bernie's point that we've become the party of identity politics rather than understanding the most people working class. It did make me think that after 2016, after Trump won, it became this sort of like punchline in liberal spaces that, oh, it was economic anxiety, because someone said, oh, some people voted for Trump

because of economic anxiety, and then you were mocked if you said that because really everyone just voted for Trump because they were racist. Or misogynist. Or misogynist. And like a couple things can be true. There's like a lot of people who are say racist things and misogynistic things and who voted

for Donald Trump partly because they like that. There's also people who just they did have economic anxiety and voted for Donald Trump despite his racism and misogyny and I think that you know that's one thing if we're gonna be introspective going forward is that like yeah there's some people who are just racist you do racist shit and then when we hear that we don't necessarily have to say well that means that everyone who voted for Donald Trump the economic anxiety thing was just bullshit that wasn't that runs into a real that argument runs into a real problem when his largest gains

were with Latinos. Yeah. I just wanted one just push back to Bernie. Kamala Harris did not play identity politics or highlight her identity at all on the campaign trail. At all. The opposite happened, where Republicans called her a DEI hire.

So they played identity politics in the most racist, sexist way possible. And the Democratic Party did not do that. She went out of her way, I would say. Yeah, but that doesn't mean the Democratic Party writ large hasn't focused on identity as part of the coalition. We'll get to this. We'll do this campaign.

Yeah, we'll get to this when we, I think we're gonna talk about it. But like sometimes a lot of what people are directing at Kamala or at Democrats, they're directing actually at the commentariats, they're directing at Twitter, directing at social media. Exactly.

And it's so hard and infuriating because it's like, we can't control those people. We've tried. Yeah, there's not a mute button at the DNC for all Democrats. But Tommy, you talked about the effect of organizing in field and Ben Wickler pointed out all the ways in which organizing Wisconsin

was what allowed them to be in a position to keep the Tammy Baldwin seat, despite the incredible national swing. And I think there's like, I want to just like, you know, I am not ready to say that organizing or field did not matter in this race. But what I do want to figure out is Donald Trump didn't need it.

He did something else, right? He did podcasts. He had these influencers behind him. And like, what is he doing instead of field that we should be doing too? Well, that's a good segue into- In a way that being online is now real life. Yeah.

Well, that's a good segue to, we're gonna take through some of the other theories making the rounds here. And the first is Harry should have done more to meet voters where they are, as they say, including, but not limited to going on Joe Rogan. And more broadly, Democrats need to run the kind of candidate who can go on those kinds of shows and mix it up.

I think we're all in agreement there. Is anyone not in agreement? No, I, yeah, I am in agreement. I just think it's more complicated than she should have gone on. Oh, yeah, I'm talking again, sorry. Looking towards the future. Forget about like nitpicking the past,

but like, yes, I think in the future, the whole conversation, like, why are you talking to this horrible person? You shouldn't be on the set with them, and that you're legitimizing them is like, no. Yeah, also there's been a few people saying like, well, we need a Joe Rogan of the left. And it like, we were talking about this yesterday, which is like, that's to me is quite stupid on two fronts.

One is like, Joe Rogan wasn't built in some conservative lab. He's a, as Tommy was saying this yesterday, like he was a television host and a fear factor guy got into MNA, started hosting this show and had built an audience. And then people went to that audience. The second problem with that is,

if there was a Joe Rogan on the left that appealed to the kind of people Joe Rogan appealed to, he would be vilified by people on the left for all of his heterodoxies and ways in which he annoys them. It is very annoying and terrible that Joe Rogan is anti-vax. He has stupid views on a lot of issues

that I don't agree with. But Joe Rogan was somebody that had Bernie Sanders on. When Joe, Dan, you said this yesterday, when Bernie Sanders put out that Joe Rogan endorsed him, people fucking went after him for that. And you know what? People are right to find Joe Rogan's noxious views noxious. Totally.

But I think we should be honest about the ways in which we've kind of pushed, like there's this conservative media ecosystem that is directly partisan, right-wing conservative covers politics every day. But now around it, there is this collection of comedians, entertainers, influencers who are not political, but feel much more comfortable on the right than they feel on the left. And so I am less interested in should Kamala Harris go on Joe Rogan or should we have a

Joe Rogan in the left and more thinking, A, how do we build the progressive version, we're trying to do that here at Crooked, but we need help of that kind of partisan infrastructure. And then how do we make those non-political hosts that have huge followings feel as welcome in our world and we as welcome in their world as they can now currently feel on the right

without giving up on our values, being honest about where we disagree, but being willing to go there and those people feeling comfortable with us. Yeah. I mean, I think that Lovett handled the infrastructure piece of this and I talked about it last episode, but I think it's Rogan's sort of become a proxy for a broader conversation about like should Kamala Harris have let it rip a little bit? You know what I mean? Like should she have gone on Joe Rogan? Arguably the biggest media

platform in the country? Yes, obviously she should have. But if you watched Trump's three-hour rambling mess of an interview, we all had the kind of a Rorsak test about what was our takeaway. And I think the takeaway for a lot of people was he didn't sound like a politician. You know? We made fun of him saying he does the weave. We called it being a rambling incoherent old man. We thought he did pretty well. Well, yeah, but like, you know, so I think that's the question is like,

should Democrats have to find ways to communicate to people where they don't sound like they're reading a script or talking points? Because that was the narrative you started to hear a lot about Kamala Harris. There was a lot of TikToks where people ask, hey, like Bruce, what do you want for dinner? And it's like, well, I grew up in a working class family

with a four-micro table. That was kind of a meme that people were making fun of her because she was so on message. Charlemagne asked her about this directly. She gave a great answer. Well, it wasn't great. We don't know. I mean, she gave an answer that worked in the moment,

but maybe it was a sign about a broader challenge that was never addressed. There are two separate issues here. One, there is what we say and how we say, right? There's what we say, the words that come out of our mouth. And as we talked about in our last podcast, which feels like seven years ago, but was yesterday, that Democrats sound too much like politicians.

And that is not Kamala Harris herself, that is everyone. And also like 90% of Republicans too. Yeah, exactly. Just to. I mean, JD Vance sounds terrible. He's bad in these forums. The second issue is how we get people to hear what we're saying.

And that's what we are failing dramatically as a party. We have not yet figured out how to get our message in front of voters who do not consume news as a hobby. And you can see that in part in the giant gap between how come Larry said in the battleground states where we spent several billion dollars to communicate to those voters and where we didn't. Yeah. Right?

Lost six points nationally, three points in the battleground states. And that's because those people, they are consuming some information, but they are not getting our side of the story. We do not have a capacity as a party to tell our story on our terms to our voters. And that is, we don't fix that problem.

None of the other things are gonna matter. We can have a thousand messaging discussions about how to talk about the economy or how we sound more like a human as has been your hobby for us for 20 years. And it won't matter because no one will fucking hear it. Yeah, we could spend another billion dollars in ads and you know, battle to a couple points down.

Well, or just that we like, we were talking about this before we recorded, like all this fucking conversation about Tony Hinchcliffe's joke and the WhatsApps about the Puerto Rican community vote coming out in droves. It didn't matter, none of it was real. Or maybe it was real in the maybe 30 or 40% of the country that was tangentially touching the campaign, but that there's this vast tens of millions of people

who are silent. We are not talking to them and they are not talking to us. And so we can run these campaigns and maybe they'll help at the margins, but those, but winning or losing will be determined by the vibes in a place we don't reach. Yeah. All right.

Another take. Uh, this one's embodied by a Wednesday's Brett Stevens column. You know, it's a good day at Pod Save America when we're going to Brett Stevens. It's been a while since we've done that. I will say Reed included this because he said he was getting some texts from friends

about the Brett Stevens column. And as he said that- So that's more about Reed's friends? I woke up and I had a text from my friend about the Brett Stevens column too. No texts from my friends about Brett Stevens. Not me either, not a friend anymore. So Brett thinks that we're too annoying

and elitist as a party, that we focus too much on scolding voters into appreciating Joe Biden's economy and achievements. We all talked about that, yes, agree there. That we too quickly respond to even reasonable critiques of progressive ideas by labeling them racist or misogynist or transphobic. And that by going so hard after Trump's crimes

and trying to get them off ballots under the 14th amendment, we ended up validating the narrative that we were using the levers of power against him. Who wants to take any of that? I just want to just note that he begins his column about how Democrats are kind of pedantic and priggish with an anecdote about a jazz era chess master.

Yeah, Brett Stevens is not, he's not in touch with the working folk. Or particularly self-aware. Right, yeah. This is a man who tried to get a professor at a random college fired because that guy tweeted something mean. Yeah, that's right.

Yeah, called him a bedbug. So maybe not the best messenger. In the interest of a good debate, right? There's a good debate. Take Brett Stevens out of it, let's just go with the message. I mean, yes, it is stupid to tell people the economy is great when it is not.

Yes, it is stupid to demand that someone agree that Joe when it is not. Yes, it is stupid to demand that someone agree that Joe Biden is actually FDR if they don't feel that way. Yes, it is stupid to scold someone who has different views. But again, what we're saying, it's exasperating because there's not a Democratic Party mute button where we can shut up all our annoying supporters. He also talks about the prosecutions. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden couldn't tell Merrick Gardland

who to prosecute or not. They couldn't tell Alvin Bragg what to do. We couldn't tell prosecutors in Georgia what to do. Yeah, did the prosecutions galvanize Republicans behind Donald Trump's candidacy and probably helped deliver him the primary? Yes, but no one's in charge of all of that. But-

Also, Donald Trump broke the law. Maybe people who break the law should be prosecuted for breaking the fucking law. Yeah, the idea that like, okay, I would like to stipulate, Democrats are annoying. Correct. Present company included. Democrats are annoying.

However, the things that annoyed you personally aren't necessarily the reasons Donald Trump won. No, I do not believe that the Colorado case about the 14th Amendment is what drove turnout in Arizona and Nevada. Give me a fucking break. I had forgotten that happened. I did too.

I was forced to read this Brett Stevens column out of professional obligation. But, and what is also frustrating as we were saying is a lot of what annoys people like Brett Stevens and Elon Musk and all these people that are talking about this kind of thing is what they're not really talking about democratic politicians,

they're talking about democratic activists, they're talking about shit they see online. It's, if Twitter was gone, probably most of the people who piss off the Brett Stevens of the world, they wouldn't like, they wouldn't even hear their critiques. But it is like, and the thing I like, look, there is a scolding, right?

Like, and I think, I think for those of us online, not the democratic politicians, when someone says something that you don't agree with or that you think is racist or sexist or transphobic, one thing you have to think about is what does labeling that person racist, misogynist, transphobic, what does it get you? What does it do?

Sometimes it's just like, well, I did it because I'm angry, right? So it's like, that's fine. But in terms of like building a political, you could also say, here's why that's wrong. Here's why I think that's wrong. Here's why that was hurtful, what you just said, right? Though there was a like a, from 2017 to now,

the like check your privilege and do the, like it just doesn't, it doesn't bring people in. So that is the only point there. But I would just say like, these are not the people running and losing elections. These are just people on the internet. And so to me it's like, okay, what does that say about like the democratic apparatus

and the kind of candidates it's producing? And I was thinking about this anecdote, which is that Hillary Clinton failed the bar the first time she took it. And it turned out that she had studied incredibly hard as she did for every test she's ever taken, but she had somehow, I can't remember the details, but she had studied for the wrong version of the bar.

The bar had changed. And sometimes I feel like Democrats are front of the classroom kids studying really, really hard for the wrong test. And a lot of our candidates feel like front of the classroom kids. And I think of Barack Obama, who had a front of the classroom brain, but back of the classroom vibes. And I think of Barack Obama, who had a front of the classroom brain,

but back of the classroom vibes. Bill Clinton is kind of like that. Bernie Sanders is kind of like that. These are really smart people who are a little bit annoyed and kind of throwing spitballs at the teacher. And like that, like the- Gretchen Whitmer has that vibe in Michigan. And so like, I just, I am gonna try to be on guard.

Because by the way, I'm a front of the classroom kid. And like, I like front of the classroom. I was Elizabeth Warren voter. Cause they built a, they should have a shrine in the front of the classroom for Elizabeth Warren. She's front of the classroom person. But Donald Trump is not that. And he appeals to a lot of people.

And I think in part because of that. And that is my takeaway from Democrats are annoying. There's, I think we're missing a point here, which is there are annoying Democrats. None of them have been our presidential nominees recently. Right? They're not our Senate candidates. Republicans are also annoying. They also have very intolerant views.

They also respond to people in insane ways. The Republicans have an apparatus that lifts up the worst of democratic commentary, whether it's a Twitter person, a random state Senator from Maine. Or by the way, now just fake. That we're fake. Right? They will just make up something crazy

that sounds like a leftist would say, and then that's pretend to be fake. This is the power of Libs of TikTok. Yeah, exactly. Right, and this entire apparatus, Fox has been doing this for decades now to brand the Democrats in a way to bring it to make the caricature of Democrats seem real to lots of voters.

We do not have a similar apparatus to do that about Republicans. Right. They're like, do you remember in our intro video for a while at our live shows, we had that guy who used the example of Hitler. He was a random state senator, I think from Oklahoma. That's so good. Yeah. Uh, like use Hitler as an example of how you can make it

from the streets to success. Like, if we had that- Then Donald Trump said something, then he praised Hitler and then he became president. Yeah. What a country. But there is no apparatus to make that guy incredibly famous and emblematic of Republicans.

And that's something that goes back to the other point about how we're losing the information warfare Well, you know, but also do you know Trump Tucker Carlson some of the biggest voices in conservative media? They call Democrats demonic and even unpatriotic. Yes. It's you know, I mean, it's just no one cares Yeah, she's anti Christ audiences Well, they called they called them they think they're calling like Democratic politicians that you know And what happens is they try to say that we think of other voters like this. They take that.

You know what I mean? It's deplorable as politics. It is deplorable and garbage and. And again, but they're allowed to say, I mean, imagine if like Elizabeth Warren went and said, I was in Tennessee the other day, what a fucking dump it is. It wouldn't be seen as politically helpful,

but Tucker Carlson can rant against San Francisco as a place, right? Trump said Detroit was a shit hole, basically. I mean, the sweet state city. And picked up votes. And again, I was gonna say, again, those people can say it and they won, and we're losing, so.

Well, yeah. So that's something to think about for us. Well, this is why, by the way. Maybe it's not fair, maybe the world is it is not fair, but maybe we should think about how to win. For sure, but also that's why I go back to like Kamala Harris saying we're all gonna be okay, and it's like, I don't know, are people in the market for that?

Is that what the leadership we need is right now? Seems like people want a little bit more anger and a little more antagonism. And we can do that in a way that's- So we should yell at voters more? I'm not saying we should yell at voters. I'm not saying- We should call them more racist.

That's not- I know, I know. Obviously, I'm not what I'm saying, but there's an imperious vibe. Fred Stevens is annoying. Yeah. Some good points. But so are we.

Everybody's annoying. He. Some good points. But so are we, everybody's annoying. He said some good points. ["The Daily Show Theme"] Lastly, there are those who say this wasn't really about Trump at all, it was about prices and the global anti-incumbent mood. We talked about this a little yesterday. And we are in danger of over-learning our lesson because MAGA only works for Trump. What do you guys think? Yes, you mean the biggest factor is the political environment

Right that supersedes every tactical strategic decision every that the Harris campaign made that the Trump campaign made The Trump Chris Ossivito and Suie Wiles will be seen as geniuses. Cause they won this race in the most favorable political environments. I'm going to possibly imagine. And that's just how it works. Yes, it's true that Maga only works for Trump, but Reagan only worked for Reagan.

And then they won more, one more election after that and the Reagan, the coalition that Reagan built lasted for three presidential cycles and Bill Clinton kind of had to win with the Reagan coalition. It did not change again until 2008. So we had 28 years of basically the Reagan coalition working.

And this is the, the urgency of our task is to make sure that the Trump coalition does not exist beyond this election. And it's not a guarantee that that automatically falls by the wayside of Donald Trump's not a guarantee that that automatically falls by the wayside of Donald Trump's not at the top of the ticket. Yeah. I mean, John Byrne Murdoch at the Financial Times

had this chart for the first time since 1905. Every governing party facing an election in a developed country this year lost vote share. First time that's happened since 1900. And that is like center left party, center right, far left, whatever it is. So there was an anti-incumbent mood. I do think that like there's also been this rise of authoritarian movements all across the world. And you can, I think, adequately blame inflation for sort of accelerating that,

but it was also the forces were there before the pandemic causing this too. And I think one of the projects we have to figure out is like how we drain the appeal of autocratic regimes and demagogues so that people who might feel economically stressed sort of like they've been left behind, overlooked, whatever it may be, actually don't vote for them and then vote for pro-democracy candidates.

Yeah, I was thinking about this too. And it's like, you know, I know a lot of people listening have been feeling this too, which is like, how did this happen? How is it even close? It doesn't make sense. I still can't make sense of it. And I do think we'll also look back on this era and say,

we went through a traumatic once in a 100 year pandemic, millions of people died. It messed with all of our mental health, it messed with our sense of safety, our sense of security, our sense of the world. And I think what we're talking about here is, yeah, maybe it really is just anti-incumbency, right? Maybe it really was just anger and inflation,

but we gotta make sure the door doesn't lock behind us because that's the risk here. And I think even if it is true, I think we should live as if it is not. We should do everything we can to fight back. Because if this does represent a real kind of, of a real change, we have to figure out how to argue our way out of because of what it is. I think anti-incumbency is very real in the largest driving factor, but I, and I'm not suggesting you guys are doing this, but I don't think we can let ourselves believe that that was all of it. I do think Trump has a unique appeal in the Republican Party and he outran a lots of down-ballot Republicans and he's a noxious person and in many ways the worst candidate we all could

imagine and somehow he did better than we thought and we need to sort of reckon with and understand that. And then also there were discrete issues where voters were like telling us for a year that they're mad about something and the Democratic Party refused to listen. And my biggest hobby horse on this is Gaza. The war was raging for a year. The Biden administration walked through the uncommitted vote process. A hundred thousand plus people voted uncommitted in the Democratic 100,000 plus people voted uncommitted in the Democratic primary in Michigan, and they didn't change a fucking thing about the policy.

And then the DNC comes around and no Palestinian is allowed to speak, and Arab American, Muslim American voters feel pushed out. And then when you look at precincts in Dearborn, Trump won Dearborn, Michigan with 42.8%, Harris got 36, Jill Stein got 18. It's half Middle Eastern. In 2020, Biden won almost 70% of the vote in Dearborn.

And again, I'm not suggesting those margins would have changed the outcome of the election. Obviously, there are broader forces at play, but when voters are like, we hate this thing you're doing and you keep doing it, and what we're talking about here It's outsourcing US foreign policy to BB Net Yahoo One of the worst people on the planet besides Donald Trump like Trump of his country should listen to them

We have like you can't just not course correct in a situation like that I think we are also not fully analyzing the impact of gossip when we limit it only to Michigan definitely because it's there are like four% of voters in the exit poll said that foreign policy was their top concern, which to me, I find personally shockingly high. Hey, those are my people. Trump won them 55-39. But it's just the year-long impression

about Democrats, two young voters, because of the Biden administration's approach to Gaza, mattered. I mean, there's a gigantic shift among young voters, particularly young men. Is it only Gaza? Of course not. But it did become a reason not to trust the party among voters we need. Well I will say too it's not I mean just you know we're all in support of the Ukraine against Putin's invasion here but when you look at polls and you listen to focus groups, what comes up even

more often than Gaza is like, why are we sending money to Ukraine or Israel and Gaza, right? Like it's all of it together. So you have some people who, like as I am, are like, I can't believe the fucking slaughter in Gaza is being allowed to continue right now. But also like a lot of other people, why are we sending so much money overseas?

And, you know, you can argue about how much we're sending and relative to this and that and the other thing, but like, that's a, that's a message that broke through. All right. So did we fix everything? I think so. Any other, any other takes on how to do better? Do it for us. Does that work?

I think we've talked about going forward. Uh, anyway, there's going to be a lot more. We're going to have a lot more research in, talk to some really smart people. Dan, you're gonna talk to some folks for a special Sunday edition of Pod Save America. I am. I'm gonna talk to Carlos Odio, our friend who is an expert in Latino vote, and Sarah Longwell from the Bullwark about, we're gonna dig in the details about what actually happened and maybe some lessons about going forward.

And are you mostly just gonna yell at her about Kamala campaigning with Liz Cheney? No, I'm not gonna do that, no. We forgot to talk about that, you know, clear disaster for the whole party. Well, guess what? We got a lot of podcasts to go, so. My sense as a Democrat has been around a lot of losses. This conversation is gonna continue for a while.

Especially now, yeah, we've been there. We're doing the same thing we've been doing. All right, let's talk about the Senate and the House where things stand with congressional control. In the Nevada Senate race, it's looking better and better for Jackie Rosen. AP hasn't called it as of 1 p.m. Pacific time on Thursday, but Decision Desk HQ

and John Ralston's Nevada Independent have. The AP has called Pennsylvania for Dave McCormick, but Casey has not conceded. The Casey campaign still believes there's lots of ballots that haven't been counted and they think they could come out ahead. So we shall see on that one. In the House, it's a more fluid picture. There are 29 races that haven't yet been called, but that includes a lot of races that are, you know, probably going to be the Democrats gonna win or the

Republicans gonna win, but the count just isn't done for whatever reason. Within that number, there's about a dozen swing races that aren't over yet. That includes Marcy Kaptur in Ohio, who's ahead a tiny bit and her race has gone to a recount. And then of course, races in California and Arizona where we canvassed, where the final count will likely be determined by on the ground efforts

to cure defective ballots. Something's wrong with your ballot. You signed it wrong. You did something wrong. You get a call. You can fix your ballot, and they will count it. Democrats, including our friends at Votes Save America, believe there is a path still to a razor thin House majority.

More on that in a minute. Just so everyone understands, what's the real world difference between a Republican trifecta, Democrats getting control of the House? If we win the House, Donald Trump will pass no legislation in his entire presidency. That's cool. I like that. That's a big one. That's no national abortion ban.

If they want, if they try to do that, no repeal of the Affordable Care Act, no budget cuts, no huge tax cuts, got the IRA. No, that's right. No gutting of the IRA. The chipsack stands. Thank goodness. It's a good, it's creating jobs all over. It's funny the way you said it.

I know, I know. I do. That's why I did it. What do we know about the map and these uncalled house races? What are you, what are you thinking? I mean, we, we just, we know from 18 that, that in California it does take a while.

And then at the end in 18, that's when a lot of the democratic ballots came in. It could take a while and it's going to be tough. I think there's six races in California does take a while. And then at the end in 18, that's when a lot of the democratic ballots came in. It could take a while and it's gonna be tough. There's six races in California, two in Arizona, so it could be a while. And the question in California primarily is, is the remaining male vote that still has to come in going to be as democratic as it has been in previous elections?

If it is, we get a very good shot. Male ballots, not male. Not male versus female. Yes, yes, male ballots, male ballots. The male ballots we know are not good for us. That's right. Did yes, male ballots. The male ballots we know are not good for us. That's right. Did female send male ballots? If so, we got a shot.

That's it, okay, that's a good take. Let's talk about the Senate. We know Republicans will get control. So here's the map in 2026. We can flip Maine, because Susan Collins is there and either we beat her or she might retire. Murkowski in Alaska has a wild card, I don't know. That's a wild card. I don't know.

That's a wild lot of cards. Here's a good one. North Carolina. Tom Tillis. That's a possibility. And then it's like Texas again. Yeah, it's John Cornyn's up. It's Cornyn.

So it's Texas. Tough. And then after that, it's Ohio, Iowa, because there's going to be a JD Vance replacement. Ohio, Iowa, Montana, been there, and Nebraska again. So it is a, and to defend, we have to defend Ossoff in Georgia, Gary Peters in Michigan, and Tina Smith in Minnesota. Gene Shaheen, Mark Warner.

Gene Shaheen and Mark Warner. Yeah. So that's our, Ossoff's hard. Obviously, Peters is hard. The defend seats aren't as hard as they were, I think, this time around, but flipping after you get, after you get through Collins, it's a tough map. The defend seats aren't as hard as they were, I think, this time around, but flipping... After you get through Collins, it's a tough map. Tom Tillis should be beatable. He spells his name with an H, Thaum. Yeah, that is stupid. Disqualifying.

Okay, that's something, that's good. See, this is the kind of creative thinking. I can say that. This is the kind of creative strategic thinking we need at the Democratic Party. As a baby named adult Tommy, I can say that. Now that now that we talked about the stakes let's talk about what you can do these uncalled house campaigns they could use your support they they need to fund legal challenges they need to keep paying staff salaries

as the courts continue to count and then an easy thing you can do is help people cure their ballots they need volunteers to help people do that, to reach out to people, to find out how you can help. You can just go to votesaveamerica.com. It's really important. This message has been paid for by Vote Save America. You can learn more at votesaveamerica.com. This ad has not been authorized

by any candidate or candidates committee. It's unbelievable I have to say that every time. Yeah, I don't think we can. I don't think we have to. I just don't believe it. What are laws anymore? Trump's president, you have to say that every time? What's gonna happen? I mean, for president. You have to say that every time.

What's gonna happen? I mean for us again. Yeah, I guess the law just. We're on the wrong side of the law now. The first law the FEC ever enforces will be a Trump FEC case against us. Anyway, how are we all feeling? Terrible.

I'm doing the stages of grief in reverse. I'm on anger today. I'm pretty mad. Yeah, I woke up cause I hit myself with too many of the takes this morning. Honestly, I'm on anger today. I'm pretty mad. Yeah, I woke up because I hit myself with too many of the takes this morning. Honestly, bad is better than sad, and I'm really enjoying the stupid fucking takes, I am. It is getting me putting one foot in front of the other.

All right, well everyone enjoy your takes, but more importantly, enjoy your weekend. And Dan will be in your feeds on Sunday with a great new episode, and then Tommy and Lovett and I will be back in your feeds on Sunday with a great new episode, and then Tommy and Levit and I will be back in your feeds on Tuesday. Bye, everyone. If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at Cricut.com slash friends.

And if you're already doom-scrolling, don't forget to follow us at PodSaveAmerica on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review to help boost this episode or spice up the group chat by sharing it with friends, family, or randos you want in on this conversation. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media Production. Our producers are David Toledo and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari.

Ree Chirlin 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 Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hefkoat, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pellivive, and David Toles.