Pod Save America - “Peak stupid.”

Episode Date: March 28, 2019

Trumpworld and the Washington media make sweeping conclusions over a report they’ve never seen, Democrats pivot to health care after the Trump Administration declines to defend the Affordable Care Act in court, and Democrats work to counter Trump’s 2020 message that they’re radical extremists. Then Andrew Gillum talks to Dan about his new effort to register voters in Florida and turn the state blue in 2020. Also – Pod Save America is going on tour! Get your tickets now: crooked.com/events.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Later on the pod, you'll hear Dan's interview with Andrew Gillum, who talks about his new voter registration effort in Florida and the attempt to turn that state blue in 2020. We're also going to talk about the latest on the still-elusive Mueller report, the Trump administration's renewed assault on the Affordable Care Act,

and the president's 2020 re-election strategy. Apparently he has one. Finally, as a little treat, at the end of the show, you'll hear a quick excerpt from our weekly Pod Save America live Q&A, where What A Day's Priyanka Arabindi asks us questions that listeners have about the news, and we attempt to answer them. You can check it out on Wednesdays if you'd like. I know that you watch every Wednesday, Dan.

I'm not even familiar with what you're talking about. See? That's why we're doing it on the pod, so we get more eyeballs. I won't listen to this part. I don't listen to our pod. This is Elijah's genius. Okay. Also, before we get to the news, a quick heads up about a special election in Wisconsin next Tuesday, April 2nd,

for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Republicans are spending millions of dollars to elect a guy who started a school that allows banning teachers or students for being in same-sex relationships. That's their candidate for the state Supreme Court. Lisa Neubauer is the Democrat. So if you live in Wisconsin, make sure to vote for her. I know we talked recently on this pod about special elections and how they're sort of going under the Democrat. So if you live in Wisconsin, make sure to vote for her. I know we talked recently on this pod about special elections and how they're sort of going under the radar. So we will

do our best to keep you informed ahead of time of any special elections around the country we see coming up. If you live in Wisconsin, if you have friends in Wisconsin, family in Wisconsin, tell them to make sure to vote on Tuesday. That's a very important seat in a very important state. All right, let's get to the news. The White House is in a celebratory and vengeful mood after Donald Trump's handpicked attorney general exonerated him from criminal charges based entirely on his own reading of Robert Mueller's report, which we have yet to see, which Congress has yet to see, which no one has seen except Robert Mueller, his team, and a few people at the Justice Department. A report in the New York Times described Trump world's mood as follows, quote, Any caveats in the letter or the possibility of surprises when more of the report is released has not put a damper on the celebratory dinners at downtown Washington restaurants, the number of teamwork-focused photos posted on social media, or the hugs in the White House driveway between television interviews. Quote, we're colluding, Kellyanne Conway, the counselor to the president, told

reporters as she embraced Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, in the driveway after returning from a Fox News appearance on Monday. One Republican strategist told the Times, quote, the mood from the pundit class to friends of mine that work in the White House is over the moon ecstasy. Meanwhile, the Washington Post says that Trump reportedly has a plan to seek, quote, vengeance and accountability from his critics. He's accused FBI agents of treason, said that Adam Schiff should be forced to resign. Adam Schiff's Republican colleagues on the House Intel Committee released a letter this morning also saying he should resign. The letter notably did not quote a single word from Mueller's actual report, but only made up

a bunch of bullshit and talked about Barr's summary. Dan, we haven't talked yet about this on the pod, you and I. What was your initial reaction to the Barr report on Sunday? And do you feel any different today? Well, John, I was actually going to cut this podcast short and cancel it and all future podcasts, because if you read all the smartest, most both sidesy pundits and journalists on Twitter and on the Internet, we would know that this is pointless because not only is Trump going to win reelection, he has won reelection. It is over. He was sworn in for a second term this morning by Judge Neal Pirro with his hand on the latest copy of Greg

Gutfeld's newest book. So it's done. Cancel it. Crooked should only focus on keep it and your slightly less political podcast because this election is over. Don't even show me the report. I know what's going to happen. What the fuck are we doing, people? This is insane. We are at peak stupid right now. Everyone is at stupid. The Trump people are obviously at stupid. Congratulations on reducing your criminal exposure by 18%. The media is engaged in a bizarre level of self-flagellation. The worst people on the internet are at their absolute worst on all sides. Everything is stupid. I will say, Dan, I want to find the clip from a couple of weeks ago where you and I predicted this exact reaction from just about everyone.

Yeah. We, I think we did it twice. I'm seriously considering getting back in the prediction game because we knew exactly. We nailed this one. Maybe we can't figure out who is going to win quote unquote elections and who wins what state.

But what we do know is how the political media, Twitter industrial complex reacts to things. And it's very easy to always bet that they're going to do it wrong, which is what we did. And we were right. And look, I will say that the Trump world reaction, which includes everyone from the White House to Fox News, because it's all the same world, did not really surprise me in the least. Like, I thought they would be celebratory. I figured that they would start, you know, making all kinds of threats against all of their perceived enemies. Like, that was going to happen no matter what. I guess they wouldn't have been a celebratory

if Mueller found that the president committed a crime for, you know, in in terms of conspiring with Russians. But they still would have threatened people. They still would have yelled about the deep state. I mean, like their their reaction was predetermined long ago. Nothing about that surprised me. I'm not totally surprised by the reaction of the political media either, but it's a little worse than I expected. I'm I'm I'm even more disappointed in than I thought I would. And look, again, we should never just, we do this too much. We use the media as a blanket term. The reporters who have been doggedly pursuing this story from the beginning, there's a set of reporters at the New York Times, at the Washington Post, at CNN, at BuzzFeed, at all kinds of outlets. Those reporters have just

put their heads down and they're continuing to try to report on this. And they're doing a great job. And they've been doing a great job all along. But the more pundit-like reporters, the reporters that write political analysis, the pundits on cable, the media reporters, right? They have just been doing such a piss poor Mueller, who's a pretty conservative guy, chose to use the words, the president is not exonerated from a crime. I would probably be more interested in talking about that than writing a whole bunch of pieces punching down at some like fringy hashtag resistance types and their fucking Mueller votive candles. Like it is astonishing what some of these the stories that some of these people are writing when we have not even seen this report but what

we do know is that robert muller uncovered all this evidence that the president united states obstructed justice i mean i i don't know i don't. I feel like we all collectively, even though I would say we warned about this here on Pod Save America, fell into this trap. And maybe Trump led us into the trap. Maybe he got there by pure Twitter instinct. I don't know. But we set the bar, no pun intended, so high for what would constitute presidential wrongdoing that anything short of that was then treated as complete and total absolution. This idea that we had to find essentially a recorded phone call between Trump and Putin two years ago, sending out a plan that involved hacking disinformation campaigns on Facebook followed by sanctions relief. Anything short of that would mean that Trump did nothing wrong.

And everyone is – like we all saw it coming. The entire political people who engineer the political media conversation in this country just saw it coming and then just drove right off the cliff. And you're right. There is evidence of obstruction of justice. person would be convicted or a president would be impeached is a question we don't yet know the answer to because they are hiding the evidence from us, which should also cause people's spidey sense to go off a little bit. And certainly before we have to, I mean, just it's so crazy that we are all doing this without having read the report. It is a four-page summary of a report that is somewhere between 300 to 999 pages. We don't know how much. And we're just like, well,

Bill Barr, who didn't believe that a president could be charged with obstruction of justice, said this president shouldn't be charged with obstruction of justice. So let's all move on. Let's pivot, everyone. Self-flagellate and pivot. And again, in addition to the potential obstruction of justice, here is what we know for a fact. And we know this because Robert Mueller has told us through various indictments, through various court filings, we know that the Russian government interfered in our election in 2016, that it stole documents from the Democratic Party and disseminated them, that it conducted a social media campaign with the purpose of trying to elect Donald Trump. We know that the Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself knew about these activities.

We knew that Donald Trump was briefed about them by intelligence services in August of 2016. And with the knowledge that this was going on, that this attack was happening, August of 2016. And with the knowledge that this was going on, that this attack was happening, we now also know that the Trump campaign was approached by multiple people related to the Russian government, Russian government officials themselves, offering dirt in the form of emails on Hillary Clinton. We also know that no one in the Trump campaign went to the FBI about this. We also know that the Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself specifically stood to gain if Vladimir Putin and his government approved Trump Tower Moscow, which would have given Donald Trump up to $300 million, his biggest real estate project ever.

And Donald Trump lied about that the entire time. He had a financial stake in making sure that he didn't piss Vladimir Putin off by maybe telling the FBI that Russians were approaching them with dirt on Hillary Clinton. He also had a stake in potentially winning the election by not telling the FBI that the Russians were hacking our elections. The Russians were offering them dirt. And he didn't do that. And he lied about it. And various people covered it up. And his campaign manager committed a crime. And his deputy campaign manager committed a crime. And his national security advisor committed a crime. And his lawyer committed a crime. And Donald Trump was implicated in campaign finance violations.

We know all of this to be true. This is maybe one of the biggest scandals in American political history. And people are running around saying, what a great day it is for Donald Trump. Well, how exonerated he is. He's feeling so great. It is. What a hoax.

It was a hoax. It is beyond all comprehension. We are through the fucking looking glass. Everyone has lost their minds. We are through the fucking looking glass. Everyone has lost their minds. I have one just thought or message for reporters and pundits out there. I don't pretend to know what happens after someone dies, but I'm pretty sure there's no both sides heaven.

Where when you die, you go to the gates of heaven and you have to present your articles to show that you were willing to appease your bad faith critics on the right. It's just like, oh, look, I wrote this piece also attacking Democrats even though Republicans are 100% in the wrong. St. Peter, please let me in. Like it's just – I don't – we make the same mistakes over and over and over again. And it's like, I think that we'll talk about this, but it is highly likely that a lot of people are going to have a lot of egg on their face after we read the report. Yeah. And once again, all we're saying is let's see the report because we don't know. Perhaps, perhaps even though Mueller said, even though the only because we don't know perhaps perhaps even though muller said even though the only words we've seen from robert muller include the phrase the president is not exonerated of a crime perhaps there's zero evidence of any kind of collusion with russians perhaps we don't know

we haven't seen the fucking report um but we've certainly seen a lot of links between trump and uh and uh the russians that the Trump campaign lied about. We know that, not from the media necessarily, although they've reported that. We know that from Robert Mueller's indictments and his filings. We already know this. Anyway. And we know the president had incentive

to obstruct the investigation because he was guilty of other crimes different from collusion that we also know about. Right. Anyway. Man, it's a lot it's a lot really a lot of stupid happening we still don't know when the public or congress will have access to muller's report democrats have been pushing to see the full report by april 2nd but house judiciary chairman gerald nadler who spoke with the attorney general on wednesday

told us that bar said it would be quote weeks, weeks, not months before Congress could see Mueller's report, which, according to The New York Times, is more than 300 pages long. Nadler also said that Barr would not promise that, quote, an unredacted full report with the underlying documents and evidence would be provided to Congress and the American people. Barr is set to testify before Congress on April 9th, and Nadler said they may want Mueller to testify after Barr. Dan, how legitimate is this delay, and could this all be done faster? If we were to be as generous as humanly possible to Bill Barr. The People's Justice Department. It seems very likely there is classified information in this report that originates from the counterintelligence investigation that began this whole probe. Yeah. And there must be a process to go through and ensure that you are not publicly releasing classified information that could reveal sources and methods for how the intelligence community received that information. reveal sources and methods for how the intelligence community received that information.

However, this could be resolved much faster than the timeline that they are on. And I promise you, if this was a report about democratic wrongdoing, they could get it done by Sean Hannity's airtime tomorrow. And so, yes, there should be a process to go through and do this, but it is incredibly slow, and it seems intentionally slow to do what is a pretty clever PR ploy, which is get the headline you want on the front page and then get the details on the 17th page three weeks from now when we've all moved on from this topic to worry about whatever the latest and probably legitimate outrage of the day is. Yeah. I mean, how suspicious of Barr should we be? I mean, not at all suspicious, John. I don't know what you're talking about. He is a card-carrying member of the Republican establishment that has supplicated itself to Donald Trump. He wears very charming, very preppy zip-up sweaters that are in vogue with lots of Republicans. Yes, we should be suspicious of him. He decided to work for Donald Trump in the middle of a

web of criminal investigations. He auditioned for that job by writing a memo saying that Donald Trump could not be guilty of the crimes in which he was by mere fact that he was president. So yes, we should be suspicious of him on the surface. And then his actions since then are very suspicious. Now, maybe I don't want to head into crazy conspiracy theory world here, but the Trump administration has lied about everything. And so we have every reason to want to see the document and see it as soon as possible before we take their word for it. So there is a reason to be suspicious here. And Barr's behavior since this report landed on his

desk on Friday afternoon have given us more reason to be suspicious. Yeah. I mean, let's remember that before he took the job, Barr, who I assume had another job or at least other things to do with his life, decided to sit down and write a 19-page memo to the White House in which he called Mueller's inquiry into potential obstructions of justice, quote, fatally misconceived and, quote, grossly irresponsible. conceived and, quote, grossly irresponsible. That's what he said about Mueller's investigation into obstruction of justice before he took the job in a 19-page memo. I don't know about you, I don't usually have time to write 19-page memos about just anything and send them off. So clearly, the guy felt pretty strongly about Mueller's probe and then suddenly finds himself the guy in charge of that probe and wrote a letter saying, you know what? Mueller couldn't make a conclusion one way or the other on obstruction of justice.

So I will make a conclusion. And my conclusion is that we should not charge him. Oh, what a surprise after your 19 page memo. is that we should not charge him. Oh, what a surprise after your 19-page memo. Yeah. And it's not... The thing that is so... My mind is actually boggled by what is happening here because it is the position of the Justice Department that a president can't be indicted, and that it is the responsibility of Congress to come to the conclusion, based on the evidence, as to whether their actions warranted a high crime or misdemeanor as outlined in the Constitution. So why do we care what Bill Barr has to say about this?

It's not up to Bill Barr. No. He can like his opinion is interesting, but it is not instructive for what should happen here. it should happen here. And it's just like everyone is so in a hurry for reasons I don't fully understand to get this behind themselves that we are rushing to close the door without having the information. I mean, again, like just imagine, imagine if this was Loretta Lynch, Obama's attorney general, saying that even though James Comey in his investigation said he couldn't make a determination about Hillary, that Loretta Lynch said, I'm going to make a determination. She's fine. Except in reality, what James Comey said is no reasonable prosecutor would ever bring a

case against Hillary Clinton. That's what he said. And she got in trouble because he also called her reckless. Her actions reckless. So this one was, I can't exonerate Donald Trump. I can't exonerate him. There's evidence on both sides. And then Trump's attorney general says, I exonerate him. I do it. It's just, and in that same way, Loretta Lynch was like, yes, Jim Comey sent me hundreds of pages of information on said investigation, but I will not release this. Can you imagine? I mean the House Republicans would be fucking burning down the White House right now. The bar determination here is really like inappropriately putting his thumb on the scale. Like I was listening to your very excellent conversation with Preet from the Monday pod. And everyone makes the point that in a high-profile case brought by being investigated by the FBI or U.S. attorney or whatever else, it will ultimately be the decision of the attorney general as to whether to pursue that case.

It would go up that high in a very high profile, complicated endeavor. Except, yes, that is true if we're talking about a decision to charge Facebook or some high profile individual. But in this case, it is the policy of the Department of Justice. They can't charge that individual. They cannot do it. It is not their job. They do not have purview for that. So he is simply trying to influence the jury here to not take up the case.

In this case, the jury is Congress. And we're all like, well, this makes sense, except it makes zero sense. It is a totally inappropriate determination for him to make. He doesn't get to make that determination. Frankly, shouldn't make that determination, regardless of what the evidence says. So last time I checked, we do have one House of Congress, Democrats. They currently control the House. No, actually, we don't anymore because some people talked about collusion. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker. That's right. That's true. That's true. It's over. What can Democrats do to get the memo here? What should we be doing? Because I have to confess,

my mind is even more boggled by the fact that like, you know, Jerry Nadler just said, I talked to Barr. He said, oh, it's going to go past April 2nd. That's unacceptable to me. We need to get this memo. I'm like, dude, dude you gotta haul out your subpoena cannon man like what are they doing what are they what should the democrats be doing i i honestly don't know we are adhering to these norms of behavior that made sense before one party decided to engage in a massive inappropriate criminal power grab of everything. I mean, is this even a norm? What they should do is say, Bill Barr, you are going to testify by X date.

Yeah. Or we're going to subpoena you. You're going to release the report by this date or we're going to file a subpoena. And we've already filled out the paperwork. We are – all we have to do is have someone drop it off at your office. Yeah. Like we – like this is Congress's responsibility. Put aside the politics, how much Democratic voters wish some people would go to jail for some set

of crimes or whatever. Your actual job here is oversight. It is to be checks and balances against an executive branch. And they are abusing their power here by trying to cover up evidence of potential crimes. And so every weapon or tool at our disposal, we should be using. And like just having friendly conversations with Bill Barr, because he is the part of the jurisdiction of your committee is not the way to do it. We have to, we should be more aggressive here because if everyone thinks, where everyone feels like Democrats are just acting overly political here, They were given the responsibility by the voters to do a better job than the Republicans of holding the Trump administration accountable for their misdeeds.

And that involves investigating those misdeeds and simply just being like, well, they said he wouldn't get it, so I'm going to ask again, this time stronger, is not good enough in my opinion. And they should subpoena Mueller too, right? Like issue the subpoenas like let's schedule a hearing say we're gonna have the hearing on this day right and muller's either gonna agree or he's gonna be subpoenaed right subpoena you know get bar to testify get muller to testify by subpoena if necessary subpoena the report and then if the department of justice

refuses then you know fight it out in court but i do think the longer that we wait here the more the political media as they have done so far is just going to say oh sour grapes democrats just hanging on to this thing let's move on blah blah blah blah like just do it now you know i don't understand the weight um yeah no time like. And then, even though it's been less than a week since Barr's letter, and we don't even know what we'll see in the Mueller's report, some Democratic leaders have suggested it's time to pivot to other issues like health care. The number three Democrat in the House, Majority Whip James Clyburn, said this week, quote, I believe that the Mueller report has been done. That's a chapter that's closed.

Health care is the number one thing on people's minds. Deep breaths. Dan, why are Democrats so anxious to move on to other issues like health care so soon? I really like Jim Clyburn, and he has done a lot of good over a lot of years in Congress. But I feel like in this case, he read the stage direction out loud. Like, yes, we're yes. Democrats want to talk about health care and other issues in the 2020 election. Because in the middle, prior to the complete and total exoneration of all of Trump's crimes, Democrats ran an entire election entirely on health care and other issues.

And so obviously we want to do that. And any time we get a chance to talk about health care is for the good of our electoral chances. But to be just so blatant about it is a mistake because you can do two things at once. You can investigate corruption and criminality in Trump's administration and legislate progressive priorities at the same time. And voters get that. And I worry when we do things like this that are so obvious that voters have a good bullshit detector. And so they see this and they say, is that voters have a good bullshit detector. And so they see this and they say, oh, Democrats are being political.

Right. Right. And so it is, you're actually doing yourself more damage in the getting to the issues you care about than you would if you were able to do it in a smart strategic, at a smart strategic tempo, I guess. We were among many people who,

all through the 2018 election, told Democrats, let's focus on health care. Let's talk about health care all the time. The Democratic candidates, to their credit, they did that. Their campaign strategists told them to do that. The American people wanted them to do that. They did it. We are currently a year and eight months away from the November election in 2020. A year and eight months.

I think that out of that year and eight months, we can take a couple of fucking weeks right now to demand this report that will tell us about an investigation that has gone on for a couple years into one of the biggest scandals in American political history. that has gone on for a couple years into one of the biggest scandals in American political history. Like, this is such evidence of the fucking short-term thinking that just pervades Washington, D.C., where all the people who work there can think of is what happens in the next news cycle, who's winning or losing that day, I can't deal with any political pressure that's happening right now. I can't see beyond the next month, the next year. Like, it is crazy. They all work each other up. They're all the staffers and the representatives and the reporters and the pundits.

They're all talking to each other. And so they all decided within 24 hours that the narrative is bad for Democrats, good for Republicans. Democrats would benefit from talking about health care. Republicans want to keep talking about how this was a witch hunt. And then the narrative is set. And so they all respond based on that. It's so silly. We are sitting here in March of 2019. We have plenty of time to talk about health care. Once we get to 2020, yeah, maybe we should talk about health care every fucking day. We just saw a four-page summary of a 300-page report that has not been released that could show unbelievable presidential misconduct. We don't want to know about that? We want to pivot to healthcare now?

I don't understand, man. I think the best way to understand what congressional leaders say is not the macro politics of what the polls say or what consultants are telling them. It's really about what members of Congress are saying to them at the weekly congressional lunch. lunch. And so my assumption, based on some of the reporting you read, is that there is a – Clyburn, Pelosi, et cetera, are cross-pressured every day between a set of Democrats, probably in safer districts, who aggressively want to pursue something that leads to impeachment. You have Rashida Tlaib introducing, I think, a resolution this week about that. Brad Sherman and others introducing articles of impeachment like a year ago or months ago or whatever else. And then you have a whole set of members who are very politically afraid of what that process

would do to their electoral chances. process would do to their electoral chances. And so that is where you – like their reactions are driven by that. And the idea of they could put that argument behind themselves and move on to what they believe to be more fertile ground, that would be good. But what resolves problems within the caucus lunch is not the same thing that resolves larger political problems. the caucus lunch is not the same thing that resolves larger political problems. And this abrupt pivot to healthcare is, I think it does a disservice to the voters. And actually, it treats them as pretty stupid because they do care about this. And they do think that you can care about this and healthcare at the same time. Right. And also, there's some things that are just beyond political consideration, right? We deserve the same time. Right. And also, there's some things that are just beyond political consideration, right? Like, we deserve the truth about what happened. Like, our election, our democracy was attacked by the Russian government. And there were a whole bunch of links between

the government and the Trump campaign. And there were a whole bunch of other potential crimes that Trump and his, the members of his campaign committed. Like we deserve to know the truth about that. Taxpayers paid for this investigation. Although Paul Manafort's, uh, assets refunded us. Um, but like, but we, we, can he do that for Medicare for all? No shit. Um, but we, we just deserve to know about it. And at some point you just have to say politics be damned, right? Like I want to know the truth about this. And it is, like I said, it is March of 2019. We have plenty of time to talk about healthcare. And also we can do two things at once. Yes, of course, we should also be talking about healthcare. I imagine and hope that every Democratic candidate

running for president in 2020 is out there talking about health care every day. And they should be. We're going to do that on this pod right now. Here we go. So a big reason Democrats should also be talking about health care, not pivoting to health care, but also talking about health care, is that Trump's Justice Department submitted a filing to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that basically says it is now the position of the Trump administration that the Affordable Care Act should be dismantled entirely and that the Department of Justice will no longer defend the law in court.

White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney reportedly pushed for this approach over the objections of the attorney general and other legal and political advisors, and he convinced Trump to take this position. political advisors and he convinced Trump to take this position. So, Dan, before we get to the politics of this, how big of a deal is this decision by the Justice Department legally and substantively? I'm not sure it is. The legal and policy substance is as important as the political importance, I guess would be the right way to say it. I wasn't expecting the Bill Barr Justice Department to put on a very vociferous defense of the Affordable Care Act as it were to wind its way through the court. It sort of says what we've always known, which is that Trump and his party want to repeal the law and they don't care what comes next. And so it adds more of a political argument than the substance. We had a conversation this morning over text about how much we should

worry about the lawsuit working its way through the system. And I'm very worried about it. And that's based on nothing other than the fact that we seem to be in a world in which terrible things happen all the time. But whether Donald Trump's Justice Department defends the law or not, I think is only quasi-related to how much we should fear that lawsuit. Yeah. I mean, look, the idea that there's a couple different problems here and a couple different issues to sort out. So the standard is that the Justice Department defends laws that are on the books that Congress has passed, regardless of, you know, whether a Democrat or Republican is in charge. It's supposed to be apolitical. So the fact that they're not doing that, you know, is worrying

from a norm perspective. But what people should know is, so, you know, is worrying from a norm perspective. But what people should know is, so, you know, who's going to defend the ACA in this lawsuit, right? Well, you know, state's attorneys general will step up and defend the Affordable Care Act in these cases. So yeah, they won't have the Justice Department in court with them, but the law will still be defended by some people. So you're right, like, we should be as worried as we were before that a judge in Texas, a federal judge in Texas, struck down the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. that as it goes through the appeal system, that perhaps other judges agree with that Texas judge. But the federal government deciding to defend or not defend that law in terms of what the outcome is probably should not be incredibly alarming, but it's pretty alarming in the case of this is a norm that people follow. But let's talk about the politics of this.

It seems like nearly everyone agrees that this is a monumentally stupid move, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who reportedly called Trump to voice his displeasure. So I guess no yellow starburst for him this week. yellow starburst for him this week. Dan, how big of a political problem is this for Republicans? Or will they just lie about health care in 2020 like they did in 2018? Trump tweeted on Wednesday, quote, the Republican Party will become the party of health care. They, yes, they will lie as they did in 2018, and it's still a big problem. My favorite reaction to this was Liz Cheney, who has some leadership position in the Republican minority, who said, why now? Because implicit in that is just the most mind-boggling cynicism, which is, yes, of course we want to get rid of it, but we shouldn't tell

anyone until after we've tricked all the voters and then we're going to repeal it. And it is sort of it's just it's a reminder that Trump is such an accidental president that his response to what is theoretically the best day of his presidency is to immediately pivot in the most aggressive way possible to the issue that everyone agrees cost him the midterm elections. So yes, it's a big deal. We should definitely take advantage of it. Healthcare can and should be the driving issue of the 2020 election because it is one that has the dual effect of motivating, quote, Democratic base voters and persuading, you know, what we refer to as up for grabs voters who can shift key battleground states into the Democratic column.

And it's just, you know, them declining to defend the law in court is just one proof point here. Like we also, you know, they have Trump has proposed budgets and the Republicans have proposed budgets that basically eliminate the Affordable Care Act as well that make huge cuts to Medicaid, that make cuts to Medicare. Right. So it's not like it's not like this is just one thing that we got them on. Like it is very clear now that the Trump administration does not want the Affordable Care Act to exist. And despite the fact that, you know, Trump's like, oh, we're going to have a great health care plan. He's been saying that since he was elected

president and we haven't seen anything. So I don't expect anything now. But it is clear that Democrats should make health care and whether or not we keep the Affordable Care Act a huge issue in 2020. Right. Like that just seems like a no-brainer. John, noted truth teller and Mulan critic Mike Pence said yesterday that Trump was going to send a plan to the Hill, at which point I think Democrats volunteered to drive said plan to the Hill. That's funny. Whether they do it or not, I think what is interesting about this is voters care passion about healthcare. It is really hard to get health care in the news, to shift the conversation away from Trump's outrageous behavior, very legitimate discussion around the investigation into Russia and obstruction of justice, other issues that dominate the headlines to health care. And Trump did that for the Democrats. And so it's good to take advantage of it.

And we should look for every opportunity to do so, as you point out, between now and 2020. So in other 2020 healthcare news, there also happens to be brand new polling out on Medicare for all this week uh quinnipiac asked the question quote do you think that removing the current health care system and replacing it with a single-payer system in which the federal government would expand medicare to cover the medical expenses of every american citizen is a good idea or a bad idea. 43% said good idea, 45% said bad idea. In August of 2017, the margin was

51% good idea, 38% bad idea. I should also note here that Democrats in this current poll think it's a good idea by a margin of 69% to 19%. The poll then asked the following question. Do you think that keeping the current health care system but allowing all adults the option of buying into Medicare is a good idea or a bad idea? Good idea, 51 percent. Bad idea, 30 percent, with even Republicans saying it's a good idea by a narrow margin. Dan, what do you think of these numbers and what do you think has caused the dip in support for Medicare for All? And what do you think has caused the dip in support for Medicare for All? The history of the politics around health care policy is pretty consistent, which is the the current system and their fear of what a new system would look like. And then when you add on top of that this – the fact that there's been sort of a pretty one-way discussion in the media about Medicare for all, describing it as socialism. you know, describing it as socialism. And by Medicare for all in this case, I mean a single payer system similar to the one that Bernie Sanders proposed in the Senate and

essentially all of his presidential opponents who were in the Senate sponsored that, you know, it's being hammered. And so you when it becomes polarized around party lines, you're going to lose some of that support. I think the question here is that if you say – and there's also another like choice is a huge variable in the healthcare – in the politics of healthcare in that people always say they want choice. And it's why Republicans use it as an argument against the ACA. It's – it was a big part of the argument for ACA. And so when you have a system that offers you more choice than the other one, that one is likely to be more popular on the surface. Understand that no one's gotten into the details of any of this yet.

I would – it's just one important point on the choice thing is that choice in healthcare is largely bullshit, right? Right. Because most people exist within the employer based system. It's not your choice. It's your employer's choice. And so your ability to have the plan you like is dependent on your employer's willingness to give you the plan you like, whether we are existing in the current system, whether we're existing in the pre-ACA system, or whether we're existing in a Medicare for America system where people could move back and forth between Medicare and the private insurance system. And so we're really sort of debating around the edges

here, but you can see sort of the contours of where this is headed. And you made an important point at the outset too. Two things can be true here. A lot of people can say, look, I fucking hate my insurance company. I hate dealing with insurance companies. I think all they do is want to profit off sick people. I think that the paperwork they make me do, the 50 calls I have to do every time I want to get a simple procedure paid for that should be covered is garbage. They can believe all of that and they can still think, but if we're going to the single payer system, what's that going to mean? Could that even be worse than the situation that I'm dealing with? And so, you know, single payer proponents will say, but the single payer, you know, enrolling in Medicare is so much better, right?

Like you're going to get free coverage. You're not going to have co-pays. You're not going to have deductibles. You're not going to have to worry about these things. coverage. You're not going to have co-pays. You're not going to have deductibles. You're not going to worry about these things. And so it is then incumbent upon proponents of Medicare for all and single-payer systems to not just argue, but prove that the shift from a private insurance system to a single-payer system would benefit every single American. And that, you know, you're not going to have to pay more. Maybe you'll have to pay more in taxes. But, you know, you're also not going to be paying co-pays, premiums and deductibles

anymore. So you're going to it's going to come out as a wash. Right. But yet there's still that fear that exists among people that even if they hate the current system, they fear the unknown. And that's sort of the dynamic that's always been at play with health care. So Bernie Sanders then made some interesting news on this issue the other day. In an interview with Chris Hayes, he called for eliminating the insurance industry, which he's done before. That part wasn't news. But then he was asked whether he'd support Democratic legislation introduced by Nancy Pelosi to improve the Affordable Care Act by expanding federal subsidies and undoing some of the damage that Trump has already inflicted on the law. and undoing some of the damage that Trump has already inflicted on the law.

And Bernie said he does not support the bill. And this is notable because Sanders in the past has supported and voted for incremental reforms. And even progressive Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez support Pelosi's position. Dan, what do you think Bernie's strategy here is? Why do you think he gave that answer? Well, Bernie Sanders basically won the policy primary of 2020 back in 2016. And one of his huge differentiations with Hillary Clinton was he had these very progressive, very bold, very popular among Democratic voter policy ideas, including single payer. very popular among Democratic voter policy ideas, including single payer. And since then, basically, the problem is everyone has started to agree with him on all these things. And so it's harder for him to go out there and say, I'm for a single payer, I'm for a free college,

I'm for X, because now every candidate either supports his plan. I would note that all of his Senate opponents immediately endorsed his Medicare for All legislation when he introduced it in the Senate a few years ago. And so he needs to find some sort of – I don't know if he needs to find. He's doing quite well otherwise. But he wants to – apparently he wants to find some sort of policy differentiation between him and Elizabeth Warren, him and Cory Booker, him and Kamala Harris, whoever else. And he's doing that by trying to go further left in being more pure on single payer. I think that is totally appropriate. If I personally could wave a wand and make something happen, the plan that I would pick would be Bernie Sanders' plan. I think the best way to do it would be if you could put all people in Medicare, everyone has the same plan. You remove the power

that not just insurance companies, but employers have over individual people by controlling their healthcare. That would be the best thing. And there's a very legitimate argument that that is the best plan to start with heading into a presidency because you know that there's going to be efforts to try to move it closer to the middle. And so the further to the left you start, the further to the left the middle is. What I worry about is the other part of the Chris Hayes interview where he opposes improving the Affordable Care Act, because that, I think, is a dangerous level of purity, which is you can be – because by doing that, you're saying, well, I am willing to hurt people in the current system to aspire to a better system down the line.

And I think that that is a mistake. I'll say this about this whole debate. that what we are having in the Democratic primary right now is a debate over how fast and in what way we transition to a single-payer system in this country. I think, like you said, if, and Barack Obama used to say this, if we were starting from scratch in this country, it would make most sense to build a single-payer system. It would be more efficient. It would be more just. It would be more equitable. It would produce better health outcomes. It would just be the best way to go. That is not the reality we have. We have an insurance industry in this country. That insurance industry employs half a million people in this country. We also have 250 million

people that get their insurance from their employers. And so the question is, how do we make that transition from this insurance, this private insurance based system to the single payer system in a way that causes people the least harm? That is the most efficient, that is the most cost effective and that, you know, that works for everyone and that actually builds political support. Not like trying to get Republicans to vote for it, but actually builds broad popular support within the country. And that is the debate we're having. Bernie Sanders plan. And by the way, the fact that we're having that debate is a credit to Bernie Sanders and not just to Bernie Sanders, but to all the activists and all the people in this country who have pushed us to this moment. It is a credit to all of them. But now we are having that debate. And the question is, Bernie's plan, that has a transition period as well. I think it's like four years. And the way that Bernie's plan works is first, you know, everyone up to a certain

age is enrolled in Medicare, and then the age goes down lower. And then, you know, you start from the bottom end of the spectrum, and then, you know, 20 year olds, 30 year olds get enrolled. And basically you start enrolling people, more and more people every year until everyone's enrolled in Medicare. That's the transition that Bernie's plan envisions. There are other options, right? On one end, there's, you know, Sherrod Brown, when he was thinking about running, he was talking about, all right, let's lower the age of enrollment in Medicare to 50. Let's start there. Let's have all 50-year-olds plus be able to enroll in Medicare. Then there's people like Senator Brian Schatz, who have proposed a Medicare buy-in. That basically is, that's like a public option. That's saying, all right, there's all these choices of private insurance. You can choose a

private insurance plan, or you can buy into Medicare if you'd like. That's a choice. Then, as you go up the spectrum, then there's Medicare for America. This is the plan that Center for American Progress has come up with. Rosa DeLauro and Jan Tchaikovsky in the House have came up with this plan. That plan says, all right,

let's take every uninsured person in America and everyone who buys their insurance on the individual market and let's automatically enroll them in Medicare. Let's also automatically enroll every newborn child in Medicare. And then let's say to every American and every business, you have the choice to move from your insurance that you have now into Medicare. Not a buy-in, just you can enroll if you'd like. And that basically says, the idea behind that is,

you know, if you build it, they will come. If you're worried about Medicare, we will show you how good Medicare is and you have a choice to get into this program right now. So these are all different ways of transitioning to a single payer system. And look, some of them may leave private insurance out there as a viable option. But the idea is, you know, we will show you that Medicare is better than private insurance instead of saying, all right, everyone has to enroll immediately. And it's important to understand that that's the actual debate we're having. about, you know, at least in the Democratic Party, at least mostly in the Democratic Party, about whether we should have a private insurance industry where no one else enrolls in Medicare or Medicare for all. That's not really the debate. The debate is what does the transition look like? How fast is it? What does it cost? What is the financing plan? All that kind of stuff.

And I think there's, like you said, there's a lot, you know, I don't know that there are any right answers right now. And I think it's a healthy debate to have. But I think there's, like you said, there's a lot, you know, I don't know that there are any right answers right now. And I think it's a healthy debate to have. But I think we have to be mindful that, you know, like it's not just insurance company fucking executives and Republicans worried about. Who cares about them? But there's doctors to consider. There are patients. There are nurses. There are people who get their insurance from their employers.

There are all kinds of things to consider. We have been through this with the Affordable Care Act. It is not easy. And it is not just about insurance companies and Republicans trying to kill our plans, though that is certainly part of it. It is about people's genuine fear and anxiety about how to transfer into a system that we know will be better for them. And it's tough, right?

It's a tough debate. Two things that I think are important here. One, if you were a candidate and you were running around saying you're for Medicare for all, you have to very specifically detail what that means, right? Bernie has done that. Beto O'Rourke has at least, he hasn't detailed a specific plan, but he has expressed a very specific piece of legislation that he supports, the Medicare for America plan that you mentioned. So I think you have to say where you are on the spectrum of Sanders to some other version of Medicare for All. And it's not enough just to do the hashtag and move on. And I think that's true of every candidate. It doesn't mean you can't be open

to other ideas, which is my ideal plan is Sanders, but I would certainly sign a bill like Medicare for America. You can have a range of options. And then second, if you are for Medicare for America or the CAT plan or some other form with a longer transition period as opposed to Sanders, you are not a corporate shill. Right. Moses Sanders, you are not a corporate shill, right? We should just take a step back and recognize we were having a debate within the Democratic Party about how quickly to move to single payer. And 10 years ago, back in the 2008 campaign when we worked with Obama, the fact that we were having a conversation about a market-based path to universal healthcare was seen as nigh on to political suicide. And so it is like, take the win here, people.

It is to the credit of the organizers who push so hard and keep pushing, of course, that we're having this debate, as you said. And the answer that I gave and the one that you just gave, too, is basically Elizabeth Warren's answer on this, which is she sponsored Bernie's bill. But when she's been asked about it, she said, look, there's a lot of pathways to get there. You can lower ages. You can have buy-ins you can automatically enroll people and you know i'm for whatever pathway gets us there i've obviously signed on to bernie's bill but i'm open to whatever path gets us there i think elizabeth warren has given great answers on this um okay

so that's that speaking of 2020 strategy uh Axios is reporting that President Trump has won. One former Trump campaign official said they plan to one former Trump campaign official said they plan to, quote, make whoever the nominee is radioactive well before they get the nomination by making them look like a far left extremist. Quote, the plan is stay at 45, 46 percent in the polls. That's Trump. And just make the other guy radioactive. They plan to do so by highlighting Democratic positions on Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, court packing, abolishing the electoral college, and reparations. This comes as Mitch McConnell this week forced a vote on the Green New Deal resolution purely as a political stunt, where 43 Democrats voted present

and everyone else voted no. So just to start, isn't the typical incumbent reelection strategy to disqualify their opponent by making them look extreme? Isn't that what usually happens? Yes. This story, and no disrespect to the reporters who wrote it, but this story is equivalent to someone reporting out like scoop, multiple siren emojis. We have a secret inside look at Duke strategy to win the NCAA tournament. Duke is going to try to score as many points as possible while holding their opponents to as few points as possible. Yes, it's very Captain Obvious. I'm not really sure what the news is here. I've worked on a lot of campaigns and quote unquote, former campaign officials are generally not good windows into the current campaign strategy.

So yes, this is pretty obvious. We all knew this is what was going to happen, but someone got some clicks out of it. So how can Democrats counter this? Because obviously, you know, whether it's an obvious strategy or not, which we think it is, and whether the former campaign officials knew whatever the fuck they were talking about or not, it is pretty clear from Donald Trump's actions, his words from Mitch McConnell doing this with the Green New Deal, that they feel like what they're going to do is paint all of these Democrats as extreme radical leftists who've gone over the edge, embraced socialism, and look at all these crazy things they embrace. How do Democrats counter that? I think, you know, we've talked about this before,

but it's sort of the Wayne Gretzky rule of politics, which is you lose 100% of the arguments you don't make. And which is why I found the Democratic strategy on the Green New Deal legislation to be somewhat troubling. Like, how is that going to play itself out on the campaign trial when Republicans are like, you support this socialist Green New Deal? And they're like, no, I voted present. We have to go out and make an argument for the policies we care about and engage that argument nonstop for the next few years. What we can't do is before something, see a bad poll and run away because they're going to tar us with the Green New Deal as they depict it from now until Election Day. And so you have to make the argument.

The second point here is, and this goes to the obviousness of the strategy, but is the battle in a re-election campaign is between the opponent's intention to turn it into a referendum on the incumbent and the incumbent's attempt to turn it into a referendum on the incumbent and the incumbent's attempt to turn it into a choice between the incumbent and the challenger. And typically what that would mean is that it should be the job of the Democrats to only talk about Trump. We have to make this all about Trump. And that strategy has worked many times in the past.

I do not think it'll work this time. I think we actually have to swerve out of that lane and we actually have to paint very specifically and clearly and concisely and persuasively the alternative to Trump because there's going to be no, it's not going to be hard to make things about Trump. Everything's about Trump. Trump makes everything about Trump. So the Democrat, instead of only talking about Trump, should spend much more time talking about themselves and let Trump talk about Trump because he does as good a job indicting his own presidency as anyone else could possibly do. And so the typical strategy of just make it all about the incumbent, the one that Romney used against Obama, I think is a mistake

here. And even more so than before, we should be talking about what the kind of, what a democratic presidency mean, what define the change that we are arguing for, because Trump will do a fine job defining the status quo that currently exists. See, I think we have to make it, I think Democrats have to make it a choice as well. And I think so, I would like split the difference. I think that it's a mistake to only talk about Trump. I also think it's a mistake to only talk about our own alternative. Like, I think we need to, people are going to the ballot box. They're going to choose between Donald Trump and a Democrat. And I think you have to lay out here is what happens if you vote for Donald Trump. And you don't talk about like, you know,

here's what happens. He says more crazy shit. He has bad tweets. He's mean to people. Right. Like, you know, that that's not part of it. These are the policy consequences of voting for Donald Trump. This is what's going to happen in your life. There will be 20 million people who will lose health care. Anyone who has a preexisting condition can be denied by their insurance company. More people will be ripped away from their families at the border right we will make no progress on climate change when we only have 10 years left here's what will happen if you vote for the democrat we will more people will get health care right we will start combating climate change we will have gun control right like i do think that you can make the choice on policy terms and also on like how it affects people's lives. And I totally agree that we cannot run away from these positions, which is something that Democrats have done in the past. I'm sort of okay with the present votes on the Green New Deal, because I think Democrats can say this was a stunt by Mitch McConnell. And the Green New Deal resolution right now is just

that it's a resolution. There's no policy, there's no legislation. And once we get to an actual green deal and we have legislation and we have details, you know, I'm going to be for it. I'm for an actual bill that could combat climate change. I'm not, you know, some resolution that Mitch McConnell's putting there just to fuck us. Like that's just a stunt. But I don't think that any kind of bad polls or Republican ads or anything like that should force Democrats to run away from this. I think, like you said, you have to make the argument. You have to make the argument. And we should feel confident, by the way, that there is popular political support for enrolling more people in Medicare, for many of the planks of the Green New Deal. You know, Sean McAwee just had a piece

in the New York Times yesterday, Wednesday. Data for Progress, his organization, and Civis, which is run by former Obama folks, did some polling. They asked the question, you know, the Green New Deal would phase out the use of fossil fuels with the government providing clean energy jobs for people who can't find employment in the private sector. All jobs would pay at least $15 an hour, include health care benefits and collective bargaining rights. To pay for it, we'd raise taxes on incomes over $200,000 by 15%. 46% were in favor, 34% were opposed. So, you know, some of this stuff is popular, has popular support, and we shouldn't run away from it. is popular, has popular support, and we shouldn't run away from it.

It's also, and I'll say in defense of Democrats, there isn't any indication yet the Democrats are running away from these things. Right. That's true. So this is more just like a cautionary note based on past history, not behavior we've seen in the context of this current election. But also the thing about politics, it isn't to find popular things and make yourself care about them. It is to find the things you care about and make them popular. And literally the planet is at stake over whether we can make people care about climate change enough that they will vote people out for opposing it. And so that is the task at hand here. And that's why it's so important that people not run away from the Green New Deal, but also that presidential candidates lay out what their version of the Green New Deal looks like.

They do not have to agree with the exact version that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey put out. They can have a different version of it, or it could be more aggressive or less aggressive or reallocate some of the aggressiveness among various different initiatives. But the key is to define what you care about, persuade people that's right, and then turn it into policy. That's why we're in politics to begin with. Hard agree. Okay. When we come back, we will have Dan's interview with Andrew Gillum. We are now pleased to be joined by Andrew Gillum, the former mayor of Tallahassee and Florida's Democratic gubernatorial nominee in 2018. And I will say an all-time favorite of Pots of America. Andrew, thanks for joining us. You know what?

I think the only favorite part is that video you played of me cutting a tree and then slamming me. That was all in good fun. That was fun. I enjoyed it, man. I wish I could have been with you. Yeah, I know. You had more important things to do that day, and we understand that. So you announced last week that you're all in on making sure Donald Trump doesn't win Florida in 2020. But you won't be leading that effort as a candidate. Tell us about Bring It Home Florida and what it's going to be doing over the next two years. Yeah. I mean, listen, the road to the White House runs through the state of Florida for Donald Trump. Now, I realize that there are a lot of ways for Democrats to get there. But if you want to deny the White House to Donald Trump,

it goes through Florida. And so, and Daniel, you'll know this from your time with Obama, through Florida. And so, and Daniel, you'll know this from your time with Obama, but in 2008, Democrats had a voter registration advantage in Florida of over 700,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. When I was on the ballot this last November, that advantage had shrank to fewer than 250,000, a precipitous decline in registration. And quite frankly, what that has meant is elections that based on migration trends of 65 and older white voters that are attending more conservative as they locate in our state, connected with the fact that we are not keeping pace with our registration, could really signal something bad for Democrats if we don't get this under control. And so we've made a pledge along with a number of groups on the ground. And I'm out here every day hustling since that announcement to try to get the resources pulled together so that we can get a million new voters on the voter rolls. But it doesn't stop there. We also, once we get them there, want to engage with them on a regular, ongoing basis so that the last time they hear from us isn't when

we registered them and then came back around and asked them for their vote in the last couple of weeks. We want to build a real enduring relationship with voters. And as you know, with Florida being a 1% state where decisions, where elections are decided by a few to 100,000 votes, a million votes can make a big, big difference. And even if you can't get everybody out, an appreciable increase there in a state where elections are determined by the margins could be very, very significant to the overall outcome of the election, not just for Florida, but obviously for the country. I'm curious about the essentially half million registration advantage that Democrats lost over the last decade.

Is that primarily from migration trends or has there also been a failure to – have we been outworked and outorganized, I guess, is the question I'd ask. Yeah. I mean, obviously, there are purges that we have to contend with without a doubt. But after Obama's election, the elections, the Republicans in the legislature criminalized voter registration. So you had to now, instead of groups who went out there and registered voters in mass church organizations and otherwise who did it and turned those forms in, the legislature said, if you want to register voters in mass, you've got to get registered with the state. You've got to be assigned a particular ID number. You've got to return that form in a number of hours after collecting it. And if you don't, you can be criminally prosecuted. So that had a chilling effect

on registration writ large. So that coupled with the fact that we've got migration trends that have helped to close those margins. And quite frankly, we haven't done the best job we can at registration. All of that has co-conspired to create an electoral climate in our state, which is very, very challenging for Democrats to win statewide races and now can potentially impact our ability to elect Democrats nationally. We can't let that happen. There are four million people in my state who are voting eligible and are not registered. All we're saying is we want to go out there and surgically get a million new ones between now and November 2020 election. And in so doing, work with those people to turn out that vote. And I believe if we do it, we can flip our state. So we got to get back to the basics, man. I mean, I think, Dan, that's what we're trying to, that's what we're talking about. Republicans have out-organized us. They keep

continuously winning election day. I can't remember the last time where Democrats on election day actually won the state. Well, we got to get back to our basics, communicate to our folks, get them registered, get them engaged, and then turn them out. And that is not work that you can do in the final weeks of an election. That is the kind of work that we have to start now if we want to have impact on 2020. When you're out there talking to unregistered voting age Floridians, what do you think is the best message to get them off the sidelines, registered, and eventually into the ballot box? Is there a narrative to tell? Are there specific issues that you think work? And do you think that whatever that formula is could

apply nationally or is it just in Florida? Well, I tell you, first of all, we cannot wait to the very last minute to engage our voters. We can't wait to the very end and let them, you know, and then try to communicate to them that the sky is falling and that everything is the house is on fire. And if you don't vote, this is the most important election of your lifetimes. And and and and and by the way, this is my candidate who's going to solve all those problems for you, because the truth is, is that many of these voters and they're not all young, by the way. Many of them are working class folks. Many of them have been obviously around these things. They've been inside and outside elections, and they've been repeatedly disappointed by the fact that their neighborhoods don't change, the conditions in their children's schools don't change, health care doesn't become any more

affordable or accessible to them. And so what I think we have to do is try to reinstill a little bit of faith in the system and, quite frankly, level with our voters. You know what? Change doesn't happen overnight. By this election by itself, everything won't change. But somebody is going to win this thing. And if we can put our shoulder to the wheel and start advocating not just for the candidate of our choice, but after that person gets elected, do the hard work of keeping them accountable to that work and pulling up our sleeves and working in our own communities. That's how we start to change things for the long term. But if we fail to do that, then by the way, our conditions are

never going to change in our neighborhoods. The future trajectory of our kids will never be bright if we don't decide to get involved in the process. My guess is, is that Donald Trump might be the best stimulus we've seen, not because, you know, he's wholly, you know, unqualified for the job that he holds. But moreover, people are getting a gut check here. Is this guy representing me? Is he, you know, is my life better off as a result of him having been elected? And if some of the stories that I've heard from people are true, people cutting bigger checks to the federal government this year and paying taxes than they ever have before, working people still not feeling any relief when it comes to health care and prescription drugs and so on and so forth, we've got to remind those folks that those decisions get made at that level. And if you choose not to engage, then you're not a factor. Frederick Douglass was right.

He said, power sees nothing without a demand. And the best way to make good, in my opinion, on that demand is to show up and let an elected official know that you've got the power to put them in office and you've got the power to take them out of office. We've got to get agency again over ourselves. And I think leveling with people honestly about what it takes to create that kind of change is how we do it. People are smart. You don't have to short circuit them. You can speak directly and plainly and let them know that you need their help. And by the way, everything in our community won't change in one election, but we got to show up the next day and the day after that and the day after that and keep pushing for the kind of change that we want to see. There's no panacea here. So I think that message

is exactly right. And I hope people all around the country use that as we try to expand the voting pool, not just in Florida, but everywhere. You know, obviously, Election Day in Florida was tough, you know, for those of us who very much wanted you to win and wanted Senator Nelson to win. But we were excited by the passage of the ballot measure that that began restoring voting rights to a number of felons. Yeah, Amendment 4, right. But now we have the Florida State House contemplating legislation that's going to make it incredibly hard to realize the promise of that amendment. What is your reaction to that effort? Is there anything that Floridians, people around the country can do to stop it? Floridians, people around the country can do to stop it?

Yeah, I mean, I'll tell you, if you are a Floridian, I would encourage you to call in right into your state representative, your state senator, the voters of my state by 63% passed Amendment 4, which basically said that we believe that we are a second chance state. We believe that you shouldn't be judged forever by your worst day, that once you have paid your debt to society, you reintroduce yourself to the community, you ought to have your constitutional right to vote. That passed our state, Republicans voted for it, Democrats and independents alike voted for it. And now the Florida legislature has decided that it wants to fiddle with that law. In fact, they want to essentially nullify that law. And I'll tell you how. Even though it wasn't included in the ballot initiative itself, they want to add on top of

restitution and completeness of sentence, the fact that they want you to have to now take up the cost for court fees. Well, the Brennan Center put out a study that showed when those kinds of fees are added, that only 3% of returning citizens actually pay those. If that is true, if that stat holds true and consistent in the state of Florida, you're talking about 97% of those folks not even being able to participate in the process. That's practical nullification of the law. And it equates, in my opinion, to a poll tax. We reject the poll tax. That is not where the voters of the state of Florida decided. And now we got to hold these folks accountable and make sure that we do everything that we can to see that the spirit and the actual constitutional amendment that was passed is what ends up being enforced in the state of Florida.

And if they actually try to upend the decision of the voters of the state of Florida, then we need to get to the courts and litigate this thing to make sure that we protect Amendment 4. You know, your race in 2018 was in some ways maybe the testing ground for a lot of the strategies that will be used both by Trump's campaign and potentially for Democrats in the sense that your opponent was essentially running as mini-Trump. What advice would you give to the Democrats running for president about how to win Florida in 2018 if they're running against someone like Donald Trump? against someone like Donald Trump?

Well, I'll tell you, first of all, I mean, I don't think that the way you're going to defeat him in our state is by getting in the gutter with him. I think you have to be agile and able to respond when necessary to his attacks. But you got to keep this thing as centered as you possibly can on the voters, on the people of our state who are going to benefit by your policies. Elections are about the future. And whether we, you know, agree or disagree, and I, by the way, wholeheartedly disagree, but Trump in his own election presented a vision for where he wanted to take the country. It happened to be a version of a country that I disagree with. He wanted to go back. He wanted to blame black and brown people for every ill that working class white people have suffered. I disagree with that. But the idea of making America great and winning so much that we can't stand it appealed to some people. And I

think what we have to do is get out there and present a bolder and a brighter and a more inclusive vision for what we're going to do for this country, but more specifically, how we're going to improve the lives of everyday working people. If we can stay focused on that kind of message, a message about the future and how we improve this country and level with people honestly about the road to doing that and the difficulty in that process, but be optimistic about what role we believe the next president of the United States is going to play in doing that. I think we can beat this guy at his own game. But I don't think that is going to be by wallowing in the mud with him. My grandmother used to say, never,

ever, ever wrestle with a pig because you both get dirty, but the pig likes it. Right. Well, in this case, Donald Trump is the pig. He wants to wallow. And what we got to do is make sure that we hit him, but that we take it high immediately. And when I say high, I don't mean being polite. I mean high as in getting back to the issues that matter to everyday people. the Democratic presidential primary. But is there an issue or a set of issues that you think should get more attention or more discussion in the context of this primary as Democrats are figuring out who their standard bearer is going to be against Trump? I mean, obviously, I think we got to get a little bit more crystallized on what it is that we mean by health care. There are still states like mine, like the state of Florida, where our refusal to expand Medicaid is keeping over 800,000 people without access to insurance. And by the way, for those of us with insurance, we're still seeing our premiums rise without

prediction because of the fact that we got to pay for indigent who are still getting access at the most efficient and least effective form, which is in emergency rooms. I do think that we have to have messages that are customized to some of our states where these problems are really pronounced in those places. I would love to hear Democrats talk about in the in the in the effort to concentrate attention on the environment and global warming and climate change to lift up the economic elements of this, like what kind of jobs get created when we save our environment? What kind of accessible new green economy can we create while also protecting our environment, protecting our communities? In a state like mine, where we're surrounded by water on all three sides, you know, on three of the four sides, this is a real issue to many people and, quite frankly, has crossover appeal to people.

But we've got to be able to talk about that in layman's and accessible enough terms that people recognize that this isn't just about, you know, melting icebergs and polar bears and, to some extent, even storms, but that this has a really lived impact on your lives. And the fact that if we do something about this, not only can we save, you know, our states and my state in particular, but we can also put some green dollars in people's pockets where they can go to work doing jobs that pay them wages that are meaningful and at the same time are leading a new green revolution. Mostly, I would just suggest that across the whole range of issues that our nominee focus on putting the people at the center of it, helping people see themselves in those issues, and not just as abstract talking points. You brought up healthcare, and Florida is obviously a state that is very sensitive to

You brought up health care, and Florida is obviously a state that is very sensitive to demagoguery around Medicare. How would you tell Democratic candidates they can win the argument around Medicare for all with Florida voters, many of whom are over the age of 65? Well, first of all, make sure you know or that seniors know that they're part of this system, too, right? I mean, Republicans are threatening and have budgets that threaten Social Security as well as Medicaid. One, don't let that message get away from you in the state of Florida. Get a hold of it early and beat it into the ground. And then for working people, including working class white people that have become, you know, part of this conversation of whether you choose to double down on your base or talk to working class white people. I resent and I reject the fact that that's a choice. I think we do both. Again, my state is a 1% state. Decisions or election outcomes are decided

by, you know, fewer, in my case, 0.4% of the electorate. But traditionally, we're a 1% state. We don't have to win everybody. We don't even have to win, you know, these red counties necessarily, but we do have to lose them less. And so if there is a message that you can provide to those voters who, again, are struggling to make ends meet, who are struggling with their healthcare costs, who are struggling and are terrified of getting sick because if they get sick, they don't go to work, they can't pay their bills, something gets turned off. You got to figure out a way to talk to those folks in a way that says, listen, we're not talking about giving anybody anything for free or losing choice necessarily.

What we're talking about is that you ought to be able to live a life of dignity. And it doesn't make sense that big corporate entities are being able to get over on you, profit from your pain and from your demise, that there's a way to do this thing, to do it with respect for humanity and respect for the labor that you produce, the way in which you contribute to our economy and our society. And if you elect us and you work with us, that's the kind of health care system that we can produce for you. Getting into all of the numbers and the, you know, the lofty arguments around how many billions this is that and a third can be saved. Again, I think our struggle and our opportunity is to be able to communicate with voters at a very commonsensical level where, again, they get

to see themselves reflected in the policies that you're talking about. Don't let these folks get us wrapped off in some, you know, word, you know, soup that doesn't produce something that a voter, again, can connect to. Before I let you go, can you tell our listeners how they could help support your efforts with Bring It Home Florida? Absolutely. So I would strongly encourage folks, and by the way, there are remote ways in which you can help us as well, but visit us at forwardfla.com where you'll be able to engage in the work that we're doing. You'll be able to indicate whether or not you want to volunteer for what we're attempting to do. If you forget that name, look up Forward Florida, which is the committee we've organized to basically be the umbrella

group under which we'll run this effort. Give us your volunteer hours. Make a contribution. This is going to be an insanely expensive effort, but it is smidgens when you compare the billion or so dollars that are going to be spent over the course of this presidential election. This is money well spent, effort well made, and the swingiest swing state that there is, the third largest state in all of America, the state that has 29 electoral votes, and the state that if we flip it blue, we absolutely deny Donald Trump a second term in the White House. Andrew Gillum, we are so excited about what you're doing. We're going to be watching very

carefully. I hope to talk to you again soon. Thank you for joining us on Pod Save America. Absolutely, man. Keep doing great work, guys. As promised, I am here with Priyanka Arabindi of What A Day and of our Pod Save America live Q&A that we do every week. Hey, good to be here. Yeah, I mean, what we do every week is a bunch of people on the internet, they ask us questions, and then you ask us the questions that they ask. It's great. It's a good time.

Sometimes you give us tough follow-ups. Sometimes. And then sometimes I ask what you order at Dunkin' Donuts. Which you're about to find out. We're not going to give anything away. Anything away. No spoilers. But if you want to get in on the fun, you can ask us questions on Twitter or Instagram

on Wednesday morning. And then we take them every day at around 1 on youtube.com slash crooked media. Go there, subscribe. Smash that subscribe button. There you go. You got it. And then you can follow along. And here are a few questions from this week. This next question, Elijah and I both really like, so I'm really interested to see what you guys have to say. Christina is asking, what policy proposal from the 2020 candidates do you think is the most innovative and unique?

And then which policy proposal do you think is the most necessary or would do the most good? interesting is Elizabeth Warren's proposal to allow workers to elect 40% of the seats on any company's corporate board. Because I think if you're going to give a voice to workers and make sure that they have a say in making decisions from outsourcing to CEO pay to compensation to benefits, then actually having a board that's comprised of representatives of people who work in the company as opposed to some rich people that the CEO knows, that's going to make a huge difference. And it's a fairly radical proposal, but it also seems very democratic. Yeah, that's my that's my vote for the most unique. I would say that's smart. I would say, again, look, we've said it before, but Elizabeth Warren is leading the policy discussion. I would say the most necessary and I

think the most important right now are the candidates that are thinking about systemic power imbalance in our economy. And to that end, again, it's Elizabeth Warren talking about corporate consolidation and monopoly amongst tech companies and elsewhere. Cory Booker has also talked about this. So a lot of them have. But I look, my personal view is, you know, I think there's a lot of hand wringing about economic inequality and a lot of policymaking that's downriver of the problem. the problem. You know, trying to raise them in wages, the right thing to do, trying to rebalance our tax code so that it reflects the fact that wealthy people are doing far better than everybody else is the right thing to do. But both of those are ways of addressing the outcome of what our

economy produces and who it produces for. And I think policies that get at the entrenched and growing power of corporations and how they've been abusing, I mean, how they've been using and abusing that power in our political system against workers and against consumers is the most important question for any candidate and what they'll do to take on that power to me is the most important question. And, and again, to that end,

it's been Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but, but in terms of new policies, I think it's Elizabeth Warren. I would say that the most necessary, like if if i were president the first bill that i would put on the floor um is a package of reforms and this is basically what the house passed first that the democratic house passed first and i think warren's

talked about doing this first as well and i think almost every candidate has talked about being for this but um automatic voter registration uh a new voting rights act ending gerrymandering giving dc voting rights um and letting the people of puerto rico decide what they want to do and they better pick fucking statehood yeah but um it's time to it's time to it's time to pick i think that uh statehood i think we if we once we have power right there's only so many priorities that you can pass right away before you get to the next midterms. And I think expanding and strengthening voting rights and democratic power is going to be most small. The democratic power is going to be most important for for democracy and for our party.

Like, I just think we need to make sure that the more people that can vote, the better split California in half. That's for Democratic senators. Merge some of those. So merge some states. Yeah. Got to get those mergers going. That too. Get some state consolidation. This next question comes from Diana. She says, I think a lot of people are feeling a little helpless right now with the Parkland suicides, the awful new budget, Republicans trying to gut Obamacare. There's a bunch of bad things going on. The release, non-release of the Mueller report. How do we keep up momentum and keep moving forward without losing hope? Where and how should we focus our energy right now?

You know, it's a it's a good question. I also think it's partially it's a timing thing. You know, like we just the 2018 midterms, one of the most consequential elections we've ever had were four and a half months ago, five and a half months ago. They just happened years ago, 10 years ago. We just had one of the most important victories. I would say in our lifetimes, taking the House back, you know, winning some of these Senate seats that people thought we would lose, winning a bunch of state legislative seats. So I would say I think it's fair to feel beaten down by the news recently. But I'd keep in mind that this is a long game. Like it is early 2019. We were the beginning of a Democratic primary in which we have Democrats out there talking about in a really big substantive policy debate about the future of the party that's been genuinely quite positive in terms of the level of

debate and the way the candidates are engaging with one another or not engaging with one another. Yeah, like I think it's fair to say that if you were hoping for more from the Mueller report, you might be disappointed, especially with the way Barr framed it. But again, you know, we won in 2018. We didn't have a Mueller report then. So and then, you know, on issues like guns, it's really tragic what's happening. Right. And and it's a reminder, too, that even beyond the deaths that are caused by gun violence, gun suicides, gun murders, these mass shootings is the ricochet and the ripple effect they have for communities. But another sign is just that things can change. We're having the first gun hearings in a decade because Democrats won the

House. We're starting to have the conversation. We're starting to take power back. So yes, I think that this is a particularly grueling period because the election is far away. And Trump seems to once again be acting as though he is skating without consequence. But this was always going to be a long fight. And this is a period of time where I think we're furthest away from where we have our strength as voters. And that's OK. But, you know, go for a walk outside. Check out. I'm going to go see. I want to see us. I want to see what happens with this Chris Evans movie. What's it called? Avengers. And, you know, that's it called? Avengers. And,

you know, that's my advice. Yeah, I think take a step back from the news. If you want to donate, there's plenty of options. You can go to votesaveamerica.com slash unify and donate to the eventual Democratic nominee. Or if you've picked your favorite already, donate to that person's campaign. There are House candidates. We need to protect the House. And there are probably, and I said this on the pod the other day, there's probably 16 House Democrats who are in a toss-up category right now who could use your support because Republicans are going to be coming after them. We're going to have elections in 2019. We might be able to flip the Virginia legislature. There's going to be some other elections. Also, check out what your friends at Indivisible are doing. Check out what our friends

at MoveOn are doing. Check out our friends at Flippable, right? There's all these organizations that are both trying to elect people on local and state levels and are also trying to influence policy and legislation. Go to a march. Go to, you know, like there's plenty of activities and organizing that we can do right now and i would say like focus on that and focus on that energy because spending too much time watching the news on twitter on cable and and with all the bad news there you know it can wear you down and this is also a marathon not a sprint right like it is we have a long time until the 2020 elections. And so

everyone should sort of save up a lot of their energy. And there's going to be 50 million new cycles between now and then. So whatever seems bad now, it's probably won't seem as bad 48 hours from now. You know, sometimes I think about the fact that the Tyrannosaurus Rex lived closer to us in time than the Tyrannosaurus Rex lived to the Triceratops. Oh. Think about that. That's so crazy. Think about that. Taking edibles before the life cycle.

I didn't. No. No. No. The edible I'm taking is called life itself. All right. John, this one. Next one's for you.

Sure. In honor of going to Boston in a few weeks, the world wants to know, what's your regular Dunkin' Donuts order? And will you be getting it there? I'm just going to feed all the tweets. It is a large French vanilla. What am I?

Hey, where are we going? Paris? I can't do the accent. Paris? Large French vanilla skim milk. That's it. No donut? No sweetener, though, because that would be too much.

Well, the French vanilla is sweet. The French vanilla is sweet. I know. That was a joke. Skim milk is disgusting. Shame on you for getting skim milk. Skim milk is a problem now? Skim milk is terrible.

It is terrible. It is not good for you. It's not healthier. It doesn't taste better. It is stupid. It is not good for you. It's not healthier. It doesn't taste better.

It is stupid. Skim milk is a vengeful scam from the low-fat era of the fucking food pyramid. It's got to go. It's got to go. Stop putting skim milk in your coffee. It's not a diet food. All right? It's basically just carb water.

Get it out of there. Ham, egg, and cheese in an English muffin, too. That's a breakfast. Ooh. From Dunkin' Donuts. That part's fine. What's it like sharing an office? I'm just wondering. It's,

every day is a new joy. Thanks to Andrew Gillum for joining us today and we'll talk to you next week. Thanks for listening to us rant today, people. Peak stupid, Dan. Peak stupid.

All right. Bye. Bye. Bye. peak stupid Dan bye Bye.