Pod Save America - "Same shitburger, different bun."

Episode Date: June 22, 2017

Guest host Alyssa Mastromonaco joins Dan to discuss the Secret Senate Health care bill that is no longer secret, the aftermath of the the Democrats' loss in Georgia-06, and a ray of hope in Wisconsin. Then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi talks to Lovett and Tommy about health care and next steps for the Democrats.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. And I'm Alyssa Mastromonaco. Whoa, what's up with that? Hey. Special Favreau honeymoon edition with guest host Alyssa Mastromonaco. Best friend of the pod. Best friend of the pod. First four-time pod guest. Do I get a jacket like on SNL? Yes, you get a jacket. It'll be sweet. It says repeal and go fuck yourself on

the back. Well, I actually ordered a t-shirt and it's been back ordered for four weeks. So hopefully that'll come someday. Tweet it, love it. He's in charge of that. So very big podcast today. Later on, Tommy and Love It are going to interview House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Later on, Tommy and Lovett are going to interview House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, my own congresswoman. And while folks are at it, download all the pods this week. Pod Save the People, Love It or Leave It with friends like these. And Alyssa, you'll appreciate this. Tommy has our old friend Liz Sherwood Randall on Pod Save the World this week.

LSR, way to go. And Dan, it's Lovett here. I on Pod Save the World this week. LSR, way to go. And Dan, it's Love It Here. I'm not actually here for this episode. I'm here to interview Nancy Pelosi, but we have a very big Love It or Leave It. Yeah, why don't you give me the download? Can I just say, hold on a second, Love It or Leave It, that for many years,

I have always wanted to do roller derby. And if I had ever had the chutzpah to do it, my name would have been Nasty Pelosi because that's how bad she is. Badass. Badass. Badass. Sorry. This week on Love It or Leave It, we have Paul Scheer, Rory Scavell, and Jessica Chafin. Just like a really good panel. And that's all I have to say. I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys have to say to each other.

All right. So a couple things. First, I want you to know that this is my popular request of all the friends of the pod out there. when I announced that Favreau, unlike me, was not going to podcast from his honeymoon, I said we'd have a special guest host, and everyone said, I hope it's Alyssa Mastro 44. Well, here I am. They're going to get a lot today. Yeah, tweet, and you will get responses from us. 100%.

All right, so we're going to dig into the health care bill in a minute, but first, let's talk a little about the Favreau wedding because we were there together. I mean, I'll tell you, it's the first time I ever, you know, could have dreamed that you and Plouffe and I would have a platonic sleepover. So that was great. That's right. We were in a house. We stayed in a house. You, me, Hallie, David Plouffe. It was an Obama reunion, old school Obama reunion.

I mean, Plouffe did not deviate from his protein bars, but he did have a couple beers. That's right. Hallie wants me to point out that we introduced Plouffe to a thing called bagel bites late in the evening after the wedding. He ate them all. He like bogarted the bites. All right. So I've got a couple of thoughts on the wedding. First, congratulations to John and Emily.

It was a beautiful wedding. Second, after my wedding last year, Hallie and I wrote our own vows, put a lot of time and energy into it, a lot of pressure with historically great American speechwriters like John Favreau, Ben Rhodes, and Cody Keenan in attendance. One of the first people I saw after our photos was Favreau, who had just gotten engaged. And I said to him, boy, he said, great vows or something nice like that. And I said, well, the pressure's really on you. And I will say he delivered. But here's the thing. His vows were great. Emily's might be better. Emily's were incredible. And let me say, like, listening to people who write their own vows

just, like, deeply moves me because I have to say I'm sorry to my husband because when we got married, I asked Justice Kagan for the shortest vows possible. And he looked a little appalled and I realized it was sort of appalling after listening to you guys. So thanks, DK. During the reception, after maybe a signature Maine cocktail or two, I tweeted a photo of myself, Hallie, John, and Emily with the subject line, Wives of the Pod, which is basically an idea I've had since the day John and Emily got engaged. You've been keeping it in your iPhone notes. That's right. So the one takeaway I'd have is for those of you who know John and I via the podcast or other ways but don't know Emily and Hallie, someone asked me the other day, are the wives of the pod as quote unquote spicy as the pod hosts? I was like, one thing you have to understand is the wives of the pod have 10x the personality that John and I have. That's true.

All right. Enough of that. Let's get to some real I have. That's true. All right. Enough of that. Let's get to some real business here. Oh, man. So as we were getting ready to record, the Senate health care bill came out, which is a break from tradition where I was pretty sure they were going to wait until after we were done recording to put out the bill. So let's do a quick summary of what we know right now is in the bill. Okay?

Go for it. All right. Here's the top line. It's a shit burger. If you can call it that. So that's a legislative policy term, if you will. Since the day I met you. But here's what you need to know.

It's a shit burger. It gives a massive tax cut to the wealthy, paid for by cutting health care for the Americans who need it most. But here are some of the details. It reduces tax credits to help people in the middle class afford their health care. It allows insurance companies to charge up to five times as much for people over 50, lets insurance companies deny coverage for maternity care, mental health care, and substance abuse treatment, dramatically cuts treatments for people with opioid disorders, and from what we can tell, defunds Planned Parenthood,

which 2.4 million people depend on for care. So this is, it is essentially the House bill with a couple of changes that are actually worse. Because as you know, Trump said he thought the House care bill was, quote, too mean, which is fucking rich, if you ask me. But this bill is actually meaner because it makes more dramatic cuts to Medicare over time. It just phases them out to give sort of cover for people who are senators who serve in the Medicaid expansion states who may want to create some sort of bullshit excuse to vote for the bill. What do you think? So, buddy, I got some things to say here. Go for it. some things to say here. First, for anyone, any friend of the pod who has watched The Handmaid's Tale, in that first episode when you're sitting there and you're like, shit, how did this happen?

This is how it happened. What's happening right now is the prequel to The Handmaid's Tale. And I spent some time this morning on my drive over here in LA, getting some details on exactly who's going to be affected by the Medicaid cuts. Are you ready? I want to hear. 49% of all births, 64% of all nursing home residents, 30% of all adults with disabilities, 40% of all poor adults, 39% of children, 76% of all poor children, and 60% of all children with disabilities. Way to go, Republicans. Like literally attacking the weakest among us, which like, if you actually want to find a purpose for government, it should be protecting the weakest among us, right? So way to go, guys. Yeah, great job. You would think that anyone with a heart would want to help these people. Instead, they want to hurt them. And why do they want to hurt

them? Why do they want to hurt one-fifth of all Americans? To pay for a tax cut to benefit billionaires. The top 1% of all Americans. Yeah, it's a bummer. Yeah, it's really, it's not good. I mean, it is, let's a bummer. quote unquote discussion. The text was just released publicly. The CBO is expected to release its official score of the bill, which will tell us how much it costs, how many people lose health care, who's impacted. That's either going to happen Friday, tomorrow or Monday. Senate leadership, evil vampire Mitch McConnell, are still pushing for a vote before the 4th of July recess, which is next week. And if there are real questions about what sort of how much debate there will be on this bill, whether there will be amendments. Senator Schumer, who was on the podcast on

Monday, was that he confronted Senator McConnell and asked him whether he would commit to more than 10 hours of debate on the bill, and McConnell would not do that. So we're going to do something that's going to affect one-fifth of the economy with no hearings, no debate, no real discussion or analysis, no real amendments. We're just going to try to jam it through before the American people realize what a shitburger this is. Yeah. And so what do we do? Right. I mean, this is so effectively the American people, the grassroots have a weekend to have their voices be heard. What would you tell people out there who are reading this today for the first time

and are afraid for themselves, their family, their community, and frankly, for the country? Well, a couple things. So Families USA did a call this morning and they listed all of the fence-sitting senators. And they are as follows. Collins, Murkowski, Cassidy, Flake, Gardner, Portman, Cruz, Paul, Lee, and Sass. The one thing that people can do is call them, flood their offices with calls today, over the weekend, Monday, and all of next week. I mean, it sounds so easy, but it's something. But I think that, you know, the Senate Democrats are going to have a challenge, right? Because they're going to have to combine their procedural outrage with substantive outrage. And so we'll see if they can do that. But for our people, I mean, I think everyone's just got to take to the streets this

weekend. I think that, you know, they're trying to hide the ball and the people have to say, you know, show us debate. We want to see you defend Republicans out in front of us on television, in town halls, defend what you're about to vote for. And I wonder if they can do it. I wonder if they can actually say how they can justify cutting Medicare and any benefits from Planned Parenthood. I mean, for God's sake. There's sort of a debate about this, right? What is the better – there's two arguments to make here. One is on the substance of the bill, what the bill would do. And we know that is unpopular because the House bill, which is essentially the same bill. Right. Same shit burger, different bun, is – polls at like 18 percent.

It's the least popular piece of legislation that I have ever seen in my political career. So there's a substance, but there's also the process, right? Done in secret with 13 men, no debate, meeting with lobbyists, you know, Senator Murkowski today was asked what she thought about the bill. And she said she hadn't seen it because she wasn't a lobbyist. So Mitch McConnell was talking to the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, all the big corporate districts who will benefit and not even his own colleagues. So how do you think you should balance the process for a substance argument? Well, and Pfeiffer, here's an interesting thing, and you are probably better at this than I am, but it's actually the way that they're going about this

is really unusual. I mean, doing this, this budget process through reconciliation, right, so that they need a simple majority to pass it. And so the Republicans can lose up to two senators. And because Mike Pence is the tiebreaker still pass this bill. And that's, that is the part that's almost the most offensive to me, that this is something that should require a greater majority than losing two Republicans. I mean, even for, like, I think in the process for substance argument, we should, the process argument was the right argument for Senate Democrats to make over the last month because we didn't know what the substance was, right? So there was nothing to do, which was by design for Mitch McConnell, who is not a good person, at least publicly, but he is a

smart person. And it was a fairly evil plan. I have often referred to Paul Ryan as an incompetent fuckstick. But Mitch McConnell is not that. He is dangerously competent. But now that we know what the bill is, we have to argue how it impacts people and how it particularly impacts the senators, the specific senators who we are targeting, who we may have a shot at flipping. So let's take Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia, for instance. Sure. She has also not seen the bill until this morning. West Virginia is a state that depends a lot on Medicaid. It's a state that has suffered tragically through the opioid epidemic. Her state would be devastated. Her constituents would be devastated by these Medicaid cuts. This is not a theoretical exercise. There

are people in West Virginia who have voted for Shelley Moore Capito, whose taxpayers, who have voted for Shelley Moore Capito, whose taxpayers, whose tax dollars pay her salary, will die if this bill passes. I mean, that sounds hyperbolic and dramatic, but it is a actual fact. And for her or Rob Portman, similar situation, for those people to vote for this so that they will because they were afraid of Trump's Twitter account or some Breitbart headlines or the wrath of insane Sean Hannity rant is deeply worrying for democracy. Absolutely. I mean, I saw something the other day that in southwest Ohio, 10,000 people will die this year from opioid overdose. How, I mean, on the one hand, I think that, you know, those senators have to actually reveal how bad their states are. They have to be really honest and say, we can't vote for this bill because your neighbors are going to die. You know, everyone on this street is going to lose any sort of support or, you know, rehab or anything that they get from Medicaid and the hospitals

and all that. And so I don't, I mean, if you were them, what would you do? What would you say? How would you, if you knew in your heart, how can Portman not know in his heart that he can't vote for this? How do you thread that needle with your supporters who voted for Trump and thought that they were going to help him? This bill does not help them. And so, you know, the really sort of like dark side of me, I was talking to some of my girlfriends yesterday. I'm like, let the Republicans walk off a cliff. Let Americans see exactly what the fuck they voted for. And but that's I mean, that's so awful because so many people are going to be hurt. People who voted for Trump and people who didn't vote for Trump because they actually voted for someone who gave no material details during his campaign of what he was actually going to do, except make America great again.

accept. Make America great again. You know, I'm very wary of people. There's sort of two threads of sort of discussion among progressives, among people on Twitter that I find disturbing. One is Trump's voters who are the ones who will be most affected by these cuts. That Trump's voters deserve this because they voted for Trump. That is, in my view, a horrendous and deeply hurtful way to think about life. No one deserves this. I don't care who you voted for. I don't care what you've done in your life. You do not deserve to lose health care. Totally. Full stop. Second is politically, if we let them do this, we'll be able to take back the House and maybe the Senate. That may actually be true. But the whole point of having the House and the Senate is so you can do things like pass health care for

every American. And so what's the point of doing any of this if we're willing to let people get hurt so that we gain political advantage? And I don't think, I do not, you know, Senator Schumer was very clear on this. Other Democrats want to do everything they can to stop this, and that's right. But there is no silver lining to this passing. It's just bad. It is just bad. And, you know, part of me, I look at, you know, you're already getting emails from the DCCC and the DNC about this. I almost wish that everyone would just like give the reins to Cecile Richards because I think that she is the most effective messenger. And like she is deeply compassionate in the way she talks about what this bill is going to do.

I just think that she, that Planned Parenthood is really sort of the most, you know, honest messenger on this, even though, of course, you say the word Planned Parenthood and people recoil. But one thing that I heard this morning, and I don't know if you heard it, is that this weekend is going to be do or die weekend. That's what Democrats are planning. I don't know what that means yet, but I saw it on Twitter on my way here. Well, then it must be true. It must be true. I mean, do or die. That's like, I mean, that's bold messaging. Well, it was interesting in

listening to Senator Schumer on the Monday podcast where he, you know, Tommy and Lovett sort of pushed him on whether they would do this idea that's being floated by Indivisible, a group that Pod Save America works closely with. It's called filibuster by amendment, where they would put up essentially like 10,000 amendments to slow this down. Because we got to take this in stages, right? We have to, goal one should be to get to the July 4th recess. We need to allow there to be some time for the American people and the constituents of these senators to understand what's about to happen because people are busy. They're not reading Twitter every two seconds like us or watching cable news all day long.

I mean they are downloading two podcasts a week. But other than that, they don't have time for these things. And so the question was would you – Senator Schumer was would you do this filibuster amendment? And he said – he did not commit to it. But he did say Senate Democrats would do everything they possibly could. And the reason he did not commit is it was not clear whether McConnell could just change the rules and just after the First Amendment, just change the rules and force it to vote, which is where this is where we get into your handmaid's tale analogy, which is like, this is not how the process is supposed to work.

And what you sort of realize in watching how Trump has conducted himself, how Mitch McConnell has conducted himself, is that the functioning democratic process as we know it is not embodied in law or in the Constitution. It depends upon both parties who may fiercely disagree with each other, but both of them believing in a set of democratic norms about the way, about the value of public input, about the value of transparency, about allowing the public to have a say in what's happening. And if one of those parties, in this case, Republican Party decides to disavow all those norms, we get to a place where it doesn't feel like like, I mean, it's technically democracy in the sense that these people were elected, but they're not this is not American democracy.

These people were elected, but they're not this is not American democracy. It is we basically we have an election and then we live in a quasi authoritarian state for until the next election. And I mean, that is what is it like there? There's so much at stake here, I think, beyond just health care, which is critically important, is if this is allowed to happen, this is how every piece of legislation will be passed going forward. And that's not good. No. And the thing that I would say, and I think I might have even said this on the pod before, so forgive me. But there is something so unkind. It's almost like it's like Donald Trump never ended the campaign and became president of all Americans.

You know what I mean? And so when Barack Obama became president, we didn't roll into the White House and just like start skeet shooting and just kill everything George Bush did on principle. There was like thoughtful discussion. And I just don't understand how I mean, and based on the fact that this came out this morning, and Donald Trump had like 10 tweets that were just utterly fucking insane, almost none of which had anything to do with health care. Like, could you imagine, you know, 10, 8 years ago, whenever it was that we were doing the ACA, there were meetings and POTUS gave speeches and we did town halls and we heard from people. And this is like, this is like some sort of like fight club poker game, where they're all in the basement, just like whittling stuff and smoking cigars and like throwing darts at a wall and being like, yeah, this is gonna work. I mean, it's, it's, it's just really sad. It's very sad. And, you know, I think and fight for you may remember this better than I

do. But didn't the Affordable Care Act have something like 200 amendments? Yes. And took in the markup process more than two dozen amendments from Republicans were included in the bill. And we had two live on camera. In addition to all the hearings, all the debate, it passing the House and the Senate twice with debate around both times. The president also went to the House Republican retreat. Oh, right. Yes, yes, yes. And had a live on television debate with House Republicans about the health care bill. I would note that he wiped the floor with them, but, you know, let the history work show that. And then we had an all-day broadcast live on C-SPAN Healthcare Summit with the president, the Democratic leadership, the Republican leadership to debate healthcare.

For all the world to see. I will say that if you recall watching that, it did look sort of like the least fun time that ever happened, but at least we did it. It was basically a nine-hour awkward Thanksgiving dinner for people who didn't like each other that much. It's true. And, you know, now I guess I just, you know, for the Republicans who actually endured that whole process, I guess I don't know how they can abide by this process. Do you know what I mean? Like how they think that it is patriotic or actually the best for their constituents. I mean, the things in this bill are crazy.

Yeah, it's so disturbing because I am – I may come off as quite cynical, but – and I may be. I may come off as quite cynical, and I may be, but I do believe or I want to believe that down deep that most of the people involved in politics, not all, not Donald Trump, perhaps not Steve Bannon and certainly not Mitch McConnell, but most genuinely want to do the right thing. They're under a lot of political pressure. There is – we have huge disagreements on what the right thing is. But you basically want to do the right thing. They're under a lot of political pressure. We have huge disagreements on what the right thing is. But you basically want to do the right thing for people. This really makes you question that about the Republicans. Because even if you believe, and it is a totally legitimate position to believe, that Obamacare should be changed dramatically, right? Like, I think we all agree it should be improved. But if your position is to be changed dramatically, right? Like, I think we all agree it should be improved, but if your position is to be changed dramatically and that we should take a different approach

to healthcare in this country, there is a way to do that that is thoughtful and respectful and compassionate to people. Now, you and I may fundamentally disagree with the policy outcomes they come with, but it would be a process not dissimilar from the one we went with Obamacare. You would have hearings.

You would talk to people. You would meet with the people affected by Obamacare. You would have town halls of your constituents, ask them what they think. You would allow there to be a public debate. Maybe you didn't even have a day-long summit at the Blair House. But this is not that process. This is a legislative carjacking that is happening right before us. And the only thing we can do is the thing that you brought up, which is you gave the list of the senators. We will tweet those out again, our targets. If you live in those states, call them, email them, tweet at them, go peacefully protest in their office. On the off chance they will allow themselves to be seen in public this weekend. Show up at their events.

This is it. This is perhaps I mean, this is this may be the most important point of the Trump presidency for however long it is. Absolutely. This is the thing that will have the most impact on the most Americans. And we have seven days to try to defeat it. And that's, I mean, that's the ballgame right there. I guess, you know, and some of my favorite town halls have been the ones where people aren't screaming and yelling.

They just hold up signs that say disagree. I mean, anything basically at this point, like I really just can't imagine that this is going to happen next week. And that so many people, like you said, I mean, we're like hyper alert. You know, we were sitting here waiting this morning. You know, I got the, between you and my hubs, I got like, you know, the breaking news that it was coming, the bill that it was happening. I opened up the 142 page document and tried reading it and then realized I bill that it was happening. I opened up the 142-page document and tried reading it and then realized I wasn't a lawyer. And I would just put that to

the side for now. But there are so many people who are busy with their everyday jobs. And they're the very people who this bill would impact who might not know about it until too late. And so I hope that the DNC and every organization out there takes the time to not send, you know, crazy fundraising emails, but to just send people the bullet points of this bill that they need to know. And, you know, that's I guess that's the best that we can hope for that and some good, honest protesting this weekend. The next week will either be the darkest week of the Trump presidency to date or the most hopeful week. And what happens between now and then, we'll decide that. That sounded very earnest of me, but I actually mean it. Don't you feel like we have to take all of next week off from work and just like hit the ground?

Many of the people who I work with listen to this podcast and I will be fighting in my off hours. After four. This is Pod Save America. Stick around. There's this great stuff coming. Lots of great stuff. All right. Moving from one dark topic to the next.

This is a real hopeful podcast today. Georgia Six. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. Did you watch the results come in or were you off being a celebrity bestselling author? So if I'm being honest, I was off being a celebrity bestselling author. Chelsea Handler and I were at the last bookstore in LA doing an, and we got the text right before we went on that he had lost and sort of like, you know, it was in the landslide, but he had sort of lost handily. Yeah, I did not watch the results on television.

I did what I normally do, which is watch normal person's television and then just mainline political Twitter. So I was watching Casual on Hulu. Is that good? And paying no attention to what was happening and just getting darker and darker. And I have gotten my hopes up a couple times, most notably the 2016 presidential election. the 2016 presidential election. And so I went into this with very low expectations, just sort of watching the atmospherics around the race suggested that if the election had been 10 days ago, Ossoff might have won. But it clearly Republicans were coming home at the end, and it was in a Republican district. And, you know, the thing that I mean, this is a it's a tough loss.

So there are a couple of things about this. Do you mean because it cost 50 million dollars? Yes, it was a tough and very expensive loss. Two hundred dollars per vote. That's kind of a bargain, right? I guess so. Two takes that people have on this one tough loss. Two takes that people have on this one tough loss, but there's 70 some districts that are more Democratic than Georgia six and Democrats are performing.

So we shouldn't be dark. The other one is when are we going to fucking win a race? Where are you? So here's the thing. I'm going to be really real right now. I didn't really ever think he was going to win. I think that for me on election night in 2016, watching, you know, my alma mater, you know, Dane County, Madison, Wisconsin, watching Hillary, you know, underperform by like 30 percent of what Barack Obama had done. really got to like bunker down on those battleground states and the expansion states are just there. We shouldn't be too hopeful. We should we should just bring our own chickens back home to roost. And, you know, and also, I guess, you know, if you were looking at that horrible woman that he ran

against, I mean, if you didn't listen to her talk, but you just saw her picture, she kind of looked like Mrs. Garrett from the facts of life. And you're like, she's not that repulsive. You know, she doesn't look mean. But no, I mean, I would love for the Democrats to win. But I don't really I'm not super disappointed. I don't really know that this was our moment. This wasn't the bellwether. I'm concerned about the fact that we haven't won in a long time, even though I know in my head that this was a very tough race. And that if you go back to when Ossoff did not get to 50 in the runoff, everyone said it was going to be almost impossible for him to win a runoff because of the nature of the

district. And then Trump self-immolated 100 times and the House repassed a horrendous health care bill and then they thought he had a chance. But it sort of reverted to the mean of the best a Democrat can do in that district may be, at least in the current environment, maybe 48 points because that was the end result. It was essentially 52-48. Can I ask you a question? Of course.

Did you see – I didn't see Bernie anywhere. Did you see Bernie? Did he endorse him or did they not want Bernie's endorsement? He – they did not campaign with him. Originally, there was a bit of a kerfuffle because Bernie was asked if this was months ago, if Asaf was a progressive. And he said, I don't know. And many people took that as Bernie sort of dissing Asaf. I took that as Bernie legitimately not knowing the answer

and not wanting to say someone's progressive who definitely was not. I think I got the sense that it was not an intentional dig. But the Bernie thing raises a question, which is perhaps one of the more dismaying parts or annoying parts of the election, other than losing an important House seat, was seeing that the immediate reaction from Democrats was just a rehash of the 2016 primary, with the Bernie people having a very strong opinion that this is all about the DNC and the quote unquote management class and not being willing to be progressive. And the Clinton operatives arguing back against the Bernie people about how you have to win in these more Republican districts. And it's just like we have bigger problems, people.

Just get over it. It's like I kind of – if you go back however many years, I mean people – it goes back to the fact that we don't really have a leader of the party right now. I mean it's POTUS. I mean POTUS Obama, 44, I would guess. But he's you know, he's living his best life and people aren't really so hot necessarily to be with Hillary. And Bernie's bar is apparently very high. He's going to do. So it's like it really, when you think about it, there's no real celebrity. There is no, there is no savior, right? Who's going to come in and just pull it all together. And that's why I am, I was talking to my ladies at the Women's March this morning,

and this really, the next two years and specifically the next seven days are a hundred percent about the grassroots and like self-organizing. Yeah, that's exactly right. And, you know, what is frustrating about the rehashing of the 2016 primary is both sides are right and both sides are also wrong. It's not an either or, right? There is, I think the Bernie people are right that a strong economic populist candidate can do very well in some of these Republican districts, right? That can separate, you know, can get back some of the Obama-Trump voters. So that is true. But it is also true that we need to have strategies that are specific to the districts. And like one of the arguments was,

well, if you just had a more progressive candidate, you would have had a higher turnout. That is not why we lost Georgia 6. Georgia 6 is a Republican district and everyone turned out. Turnout was through the roof. The problem was there were more Republicans than Democrats. And the Democrats turned out, the Republicans turned out. And if we are going to take back the House, take back a gerrymandered House, right? This is not just about who's going to get more votes across the country. In a gerrymandered House, we need Obama voters who went for Trump to vote for congressional Democrats. We need Romney voters who voted for Clinton because they don't like Trump to vote for a congressional Democrat. And if we dig through the numbers, my guess is in Georgia six, the Romney,

some of the Romney Clinton voters voted for Handel over Ossoff, right? And we're going to need Democrats who sat out 2016 to vote in 2018. We have to do all of those things in the mix is going to be different by district. And so like there is a narrow path to taking back the House. It is achievable. We're going to have to get better at all elements of it. And I think it is fair to say that the Republicans from a data and field perspective have narrowed the gap significantly with Democrats from where we were in 2012. Can we talk about something that's a little happy for a minute? Yeah, absolutely. Well, this is my new boyfriend, Randy Bryce,

aka at Iron Stash in Wisconsin, who is running against Paul Ryan. Yes. He, if you are not following him on Twitter, follow him. He needs to be on the pod like ASAP. But I was sitting in bed reading Twitter and it was like two nights ago and I found his ad and it was the most emotional, like beautifully done ad. And he is exactly, I want everyone to watch his ads because he and follow him and see what he has to say, because he is exactly what you're talking about. He is a different candidate for a different race, you know, in Wisconsin. And he's probably, you know, he may not be so liberal that, you know, like Bernie would endorse him. But that doesn't mean that he is not a phenomenal candidate that could really do great things for that that district. So anyway, he gave me hope because I was like, if people like this are

going to run, maybe we'll be okay. I cannot remember who wrote this, but I saw it on Twitter. It was from, I think, a New York Magazine story. So I apologize to whoever actually did it. It said that he was the physical embodiment of Bruce Springsteen's discography. Yes, every single one. Darlington County, born to run. I mean, it is like the whole the whole thing. He's everything. He's a reason to believe. There you go. All right. Coming up next, we have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Dan, I'm here. I was here for the end of the conversation. Yeah, I love it. He showed up for this, but not for my book event. What book event? Yeah, you missed it.

It's fine. What book event? It's fine. It was two nights ago and I tagged you in my Instagram post. Is that how I was invited? Was I invited through

a tag in Instagram posts? And I told you at the wedding we were both at this weekend. I'm sorry. So my invitation to an event was a off-the-cuff remark at a wedding

and a fucking Instagram tag? I was not invited to this book event. Didn't know, Commander, that you needed a hand-engraved invitation. Don't go anywhere. This is Pod Save America, and there's more on the way. On the pod today, we have leader Nancy Pelosi. Thank you for joining us.

My pleasure. So let's get into it. The Senate bill is finally loose. It is in the wild. Obviously, it had been under the protection of lobbyists and Mitch McConnell until this morning, but it is free. What is your reaction to the bill? Well, it's not a bill. It's a working draft or some expression, some euphemism for, It's a working draft or some expression, some euphemism for let's throw this up against the wall and see what happens. But it is cruel to children and other living things. And I'm seeing my friend, Chuck Schumer, now with some of the leaders in the Senate, having a press conference about it right now. They have a big sign that says mean.

And that was just quoting the president on the House bill. The president said he hopes this bill has heart. And we'll see what that is. So far, the working draft is heartless. It still does make people pay more for fewer benefits, has an age tax. If you're 50 to 64, you pay almost five times more. It undermines Medicare. It throws millions of people off of care. And it takes away essential benefits and leaves it up to the states, Pontius Pilate style.

But nonetheless, just a fact is no guarantee. Just a fact is no guarantee. Yeah, I mean, it looks like they kind of ran headlong into the math problem of the one thing that was sacrosanct between the House bill and the Senate bill was the elimination of taxes on the rich. And once you decide that you need to make those cuts in the bill, then you're left with figuring out just how exactly to distribute benefit cuts to the poor and the middle class. Well, first of all, though, understand, whatever they do will be a tax bill disguised as a health care bill. And ultimately, you know, this is, as I said, they put it out, try to get as good a score as they can from the CBO. We're talking too much process. They try to get it evaluated in the way that is the most benign, as the leader Schumer said, a wolf in sheep's clothing, or a Trojan horse, or if vote. And we think they go further to the right.

So while it may have some little appeal, like they throw a few crumbs to Medicaid in the beginning, they kill the state's ability to meet the needs of people in the longer term. I don't want to say anything that profane in your presence, but I will let you know that we're referring to it as same shit burger, different bun. I like it. I like it. Everybody understands that very well. Yeah, we can workshop that with the caucus.

And you had it poll tested. We polled it with Bill, our producer, in real time. He's nodding. Yeah, we pulled it with Bill, our producer. In real time, he's nodding. Obviously, this bill will go through a bunch of changes, but the arm-twisting that Speaker Ryan, in a bumbling fashion, went through to get the House bill passed in the first place ended up with a lot of changes.

Do you think the plan in this form could get through the House? Should we be worried about a swift passage? We should be worried about it, but as a possibility. A likelihood, well, it remains to be seen the next couple of days. What we're hearing is there are many senators who are not going to be for this bill. Now, what changes they make between this week and next week, you know, obviously remains to be seen. But they could pass it Wednesday, Thursday, and then send it over to us, and that's what we're preparing for, the worst-case scenario. Let's just say this. If they pass the bill and it becomes law, it's a killer for them.

That's what it does to the American people. And some people say to us, you should just let it happen. It assures the winning of the Senate and the House. But we don't want to do that to the American people. We'd rather have the Affordable Care Act in effect than have that damage done to the American people for an electoral benefit. Having said that, they'd have to be on an accelerated path. Now, what I'm hearing is that Mitch McConnell, he's a pro. He's not going to take up a bill that he doesn't have to vote,

unless he doesn't care if he has to vote. They might just want to get this off the table, so they can do what is their life's work, that is in their DNA, that is their North Star, give tax breaks to the rich as they move on to the tax bill. The tax bill is their purpose. The rest of this is campaign stuff. Leader Pelosi, what should people listening right now do if they are worried about this

bill passing, if they are worried about tens of millions of people losing health care? How can they get involved today and stop this monstrosity from happening? Thank you very much for asking. What they can do is call a friend who lives in a Republican state represented by a Republican senator. If they live in California, New York or something, if you have one call to make, the traditional one call, call your friend to call a Republican senator. It's really important that they hear from their bosses, which are the electorate. It's very important that they hear from their bosses, which are the electorate. It's very important that they, nothing is more eloquent to a senator or a member of

Congress than the voice of his or her own constituent. And that's what's happening massively by the outside groups, social media, and the rest around the country calling in to those senators. They have to hear the drumbeat. So if you live in one of those states, call in. If you don't, call a friend in one of the... represented by a Republican to call the Republican.

Now, at the same time, the grassroots groups, the social media, they're calling members of the House, too, because of what you brought up earlier. This baby, this thing, this, shall we say, hamburger by another name could come back over. We've already lost the message.

I normally don't engage in hypotheticals. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Right, right. We all reject hypotheticals generally here, but let's just say that Mitch McConnell, in the most prolific evil leader uh in senate history gets this thing through what do we do how can democrats ensure that this is the defining issue of the 2018 elections because trump ran on repealing obamacare this was entirely predictable but the election was about hillary's emails and whatever frivolous nonsense was in the newspaper that day how do we help democrats and everyone voting understand the stakes of what's happening

here or what happened? Well, one of the things I think we have to do is focus on it and what it means in the lives of people and not focus on him. Because anytime we're focusing on him, we're not focusing on what this means in the lives of people. And that's really what his victory was in November is he had people talking about him the whole time and then about her emails about his comments on that. And it was about him.

And I think now, I mean, some of his people are still, you know, do you ever have a friend who is dating a jerk? Yeah, oh yeah. Most of them. And you just couldn't tell them that they were dating a jerk? Yeah. You just had a show somewhere along the way, you know, somebody who was in a jerk wouldn't act this way. Well, I think that some people just bless their hearts,

and with all due respect for their concerns and how they see their interests, and I respect that, they still want to give him a chance. And so it's not about him. It's about them. It's about this health care bill, and it's very damaging to them, and it's hard to exaggerate. But if you understand that it's only about the biggest transfer of wealth in our country's history, Robin Hood in reverse, hundreds of billions of dollars going from the middle class and those who aspire to it to the wealthiest people in our country, it's just an excuse.

And that's why they have to do it first before they do the tax bill, It's just an excuse, and that's why they have to do it first before they do the tax bill because they need that nearly a trillion dollars out of the health care bill in order to do their tax breaks for the rich. So focus on the bill. It's going to cost you more to get less. If you're 50 to 64, you're going to pay almost five times more for your health care. It's going to undermine Medicare. I don't know how many it'll be, but millions and millions of

people will lose their health care and the essential benefits will be gone, including, including no matter what they say, including pre-existing coverage for pre-existing conditions. Switching gears. So we have this, we had this election in Georgia and obviously there's been a lot of conversation about it. What lessons do you learn from our failure to win both in Georgia, and obviously there's been a lot of conversation about it. What lessons do you learn from our failure to win both in Georgia and in South Carolina in these special elections? Well, I don't see it that way. I think we made enormous progress. We, of course, wanted to win in Georgia. That caught fire throughout the country, and small donors all over the country were sending in support for John Ossoff, and he was a wonderful candidate.

He had a great campaign. It's a very difficult district. Same thing in South Carolina, a great run, but a very, the numbers in the district defy gravity. None of these districts, not only these two, but the other four, Kansas and Montana, would have been on our priority list of districts to go into to win the 24 that we need to take back to Congress. They were districts elected by the president as sure winners for the Republicans when he appointed his cabinet officers. He wouldn't be selecting people from districts that they couldn't win.

selecting people from districts that they couldn't win. But it's important to note that in those four districts, there was a change of over 70%, 25 points difference in Kansas, 20 points here, 15 points there, over 70%. That translates into many seats. These members, they may celebrate that victory, and all four of them, but they see the truth there, which is they're all in trouble because if somebody with a 25-point lead or a 31-point lead can be reduced down to a six-point lead, then these districts now are in play. But what Wasserman said today,

that this means there are like 80 seats in play in light of how we reduce their margins in these districts. So, no, we're in it to win it. No question about that. But the fact is that the campaigns were good. They utilized the resources available to them. If there's a lesson, it's not even a new lesson, but it's that we have to address the redistricting challenge, and we're doing that with Eric Holder, Terry McAuliffe, Nancy Pelosi,

working together with Chuck Schumer to address voter suppression and redistricting so that we can win some of these cases before 18, but certainly for 2020, all of which relate to redistricting in terms of winning not only the Congress and the Senate, but the state house governorships and state legislative. I think that's really fair. The conversation on cable, on Twitter about these elections in this zero-sum way is very frustrating. And we agree that redistricting is so important. We've been trying to get Eric Holder on the pod to talk about it. So if he's listening or if his team is listening,

we'd still love to have you, sir. Well, I'm listening. Thank you very much, Rita Pelosi. And I'll certainly convey your message. Thank you so much. I won't tell them about the hamburger, but I'll tell them about the rest. I think you're right. Georgia, Montana, South Carolina, Kansas, these are not places that are- Well, Montana's not a redistricting. Right. I'm sorry. Right. But these are tough, tough races for us. And the answer of how and why we lost is complicated. I think a fair assessment of the Georgia 6, despite the money, is that it's a serious uphill battle with the partisan breakdown. Ossoff is an imperfect candidate for the district,

a great guy, smart, impressive, bright future, but it's hard when you don't live in there. But there are some Democrats who think, like, after after 2016 we have a tarnished brand tim ryan said it was worse than trump do you think that's fair do you think democrats we need to do something to fix our brand or or refocus on economic issues or or i don't know what do you think we should be doing well when hillary clinton was talking about the economic message her numbers were solid right or solid when when it started talking about other things him and you know i'm not talking about the economic message. Her numbers were solid. Right. They were solid. When it started talking about other things, him, and I'm not talking about her,

but I mean just the conversation became more about him than her economic message, and that's when things kind of changed. And other things, you know, we know Comey, this, that, the other. But in terms of us, this is our turn. You know, it's in 2005 and 2006, Harry Reid and I made a plan when they told us, you can't possibly win. It's a permanent Republican majority. In spite of the war in Iraq, the president is at 58% in January of 2005.

We didn't accept that. We made a plan. We took his numbers down to 38, making the differentiation, fighting him on privatizing Social Security and the rest of that, and we won. Now with this, we have the president already in the high 30s. So he's already self-immolating. But not to take anything for granted, it's hard. History's on our side.

They won when Clinton won. We won with Bush in the White House. They won with Obama in the White House. So we have that opportunity. But it takes strategic, well-planned. And what we're going through now in our caucus with our Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, Hakeem Jeffries, Jerry Bustos, and David Cicilline, they are listening to members, putting together the priorities of the message working with the senate to do so if i just wrote down what i think the economic message should be

and said let's roll with this two or three months ago that wouldn't be a real reflection of what the members have as priorities from their district right you know i could have done that people say oh they have a message we always had a message It was a question of how well we conveyed it and how we convinced people. But our message has always been about differentiating between us and them on working families in our country. And the polls are showing 57 to

41 who cares about the middle class. The Democrats. But we walk the walk. We didn't talk the talk enough. But we know who we are. It's just a question of prioritizing the walk. We didn't talk the talk enough. But we know who we are. It's just a question of prioritizing. We have many, shall we say, priorities, but you have to narrow them, and you have to agree on how you present them.

That's how we won in the fight on health care. We just tested our language. We didn't change our priorities. We just tested what language worked best. We didn't change our priorities. We just tested what language worked best. You pay more, get less, age tax, Medicare, and 23 million people off of it. And it was a killer message, and such a killer message that Republicans who opposed the bill were using our talking point. First of all, I don't think that members of a party should pick up the criticism of the party leadership of the other side.

Everybody who's in the leadership knows you become a target. As I said at my press conference this morning, I have had over $100 million spent against demonizing me and my city, which I love because I'm an early supporter of my evolution took place very early in terms of marriage equality and the rest, and they've always labeled me that way and tried to use that. But, you know, be that as it may,

they've spent over $100 against me. Hundreds of millions were spent for Paul Ryan when he ran with Mitt Romney, the candidate for vice president, all that exposure and introduction to the public, and his numbers are no better than mine. Right.

Let's call that a Pyrrhic victory. In terms of differentiating from Republicans, it's not just about what we're against, it's what we're for. I think there's just been this really important and lively debate about health care inside of the Democratic Party, and you've seen a range of views. There's been a new push for Democrats to embrace single payer. And we've seen some potential 2020 candidates talking about that. We had Senator Chris Murphy on the podcast, and he talked about believing that Medicare for all should be accessible, that people should be able to buy into it at some form of a public option.

Then we've seen kind of people more cautious, simply talking about defending the gains of Obamacare. Where do you fall in that debate? Well, I think they're consistent with each other. As I say in my own state of California, which is voted for single payer, you can't get there from here without the Affordable Care Act. You can't get there. That's an horizon that we're always reaching for. But you can't get there because you know what?

It costs money. And there's money in the Affordable Care Act for care. In California, it's estimated it costs $400 billion a year to do the single payer. You get over $200 million of that, billion of that from the Affordable Care Act.

So where do you get the rest? But you have to. You can't, if I just may borrow, resort to your level, you can't tinkle all over those, all over the Affordable Care Act, and then say we want single-payer. No, you've got to advance and protect the Affordable Care Act, and that's a path. Now, actually, I'm glad to hear what Chris Murphy said,

because we had, you know, one of the proposals in the Affordable Care Act was Medicare 55 and over, that you could buy into it. It lost, by one vote, a senator from Connecticut. You do not need to remind us here at Pod Save America about what Joe Lieberman did to that bill. I honestly can't waste your time with me ranting about this again. Okay, we agree. Too late. Yeah, but the other part of that is that to hold, you know, to say, oh, John Ossoff wasn't enough of a progressive because we're trying to win.

We don't all represent the same district. Even other people whom we love and admire have their thinking evolve on subjects. Let's just let them win, see what the possibilities are. But it is, you know, if we were starting tabula rasa, no health care system, we'd do single payer. It saves the most money. No administrative costs. You don't have to prove anything.

All you have to do is show up. We had a public option. We do have it in the Affordable Care Act. It was stronger in the House. You know, that's how it got in. The public option now, if states would adopt public options all over the country, this could lead, and the states of the laboratories, for something this big,

then it could lead to single-payer in their states and also, again, laboratories for what we could do at the national level. I was carrying signs for single-payer long before I was in Congress. And so, you know, I'm with the program. I co-sponsored that bill for years and years. But the fact is the reality was the bill we got, I think our House bill was better, but nonetheless the bill that we have is great. It's great.

About 20, over 20 million people have access to care. No longer are you being a woman as a preexisting medical condition. No lifetime limits or even annual limits on the coverage that you have. Kids can stay on your program until they're 20, your policy until they're 26 years old if you wish and they wish. And the issue of preexisting medical conditions, which affect over 120 million people in our country. All families are affected by preexisting medical conditions.

And so for them to make it optional to the states, and then to say, oh, no, we're protecting it, is just a complete misrepresentation. But again, to take it to your point, this is the path to whatever people want to do next. We had a fundamentally, over 125, 150 million people in the country have health care through their employer, and that still is. But all of those people have better benefits because of the Affordable Care Act.

Right. Leader Pelosi, you will always be speaker to us. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for all you did for President Obama, for the country. So you made that description of the bill on the phone with the speaker? We did, we did. And listen, as a former... Oh, the first woman speaker? The greatest speaker. You reverted to that language? John Lovett did. I want to flag that. And look, as a former... Trump is president. I can say whatever we want now. I won't spill on you if you don't say. I don't want people tinkling all over the floor. That's right. Kristen, as a former constituent, thank you for all you did for San Francisco. And I think maybe we should consider annexing Sausalito. Just think about it and get back to me. Well, it's warmer.ent, thank you for all you did for San Francisco. And I think maybe we should consider annexing Sausalito.

Just think about it and get back to me. Well, it's warmer. Yes, it's a thought. Okay, well, to be continued. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I'll tell Eric of our conversation. Okay, great.

Thank you all. Okay, bye-bye. Bye-bye. Thank you to leader slash speaker Nancy Pelosi for joining us on the podcast today. That's it. Also, thanks to Alyssa Mastromonaco for joining us on the podcast today. That's it. Also, thanks to Alyssa Mastromonaco for jumping in as a guest host. We love Alyssa. Positive America's mark on politics is bringing profanity to senior leadership so far.

I don't know. We should really think about this. Honestly, I think it's fine. We have problems. I don't give a shit. And again, no one can stop the outro because John's not here to be like, let's get out of here. John's overeating.

Oh, wait. Fettuccine Alfredo. Chuck Bella. But one thing, you know, we made a little joke about tweeting at John. Let's tweet something else at John. Let's make it nicer because he's on his honeymoon. How about we tweet at John today? We were just kidding.

They actually do need you. It's a mess. Perfect. And that's it. Bye, guys. Bye.