Pod Save America - The GOP Meltdown Over Hunter's Conviction

Episode Date: June 12, 2024

Dan and The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell break down the chaotic Republican response to the Hunter Biden news and what the conviction might mean for the Biden campaign, which of Donald Trump’s rumored VP picks scare them the most, and the latest from Tuesday’s primaries. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. And I'm Sarah Longwell. On today's show, we're going to talk about Hunter Biden's conviction and what it might mean for the president and the campaign. We're going to go through the results of last night's primaries, and we're going to talk about where we see the presidential race just two weeks after Trump's conviction. With me to discuss all of this is the incredible Sarah Longwell, host of the amazing Focus Group podcast, publisher of The Bulwark.

Sarah is going to share with us some of what she's seeing in our Focus Groups with Trump voters. Sarah, welcome back to Pod Save America. Hey, thanks for having me. I love doing this. It's so good to have you. This is going to be, we have a lot to talk about today. Just another episode, another conviction. So that's sort of where we are in 2024. Yeah, lots of people getting convicted these days. That's right. Okay. Yesterday, a jury in Delaware found Hunter Biden guilty of lying about his drug use when purchasing a gun and possessing a gun while using illegal drugs. Both are felonies. He could theoretically face up to 25 years in prison, but sentencing guidelines suggest he's

likely to get much less. In fact, maybe no prison at all. Hunter still faces another federal trial in California for allegedly failing to pay taxes. President Biden released a statement saying, I am the president, but I am also a dad. Jill and I love our son and we're so proud of the man he is today. The statement also said Biden will quote, accept the outcome of the case and will continue to respect the judicial process. Look, in normal times, the first child of a sitting president being convicted of a crime would be a seismic event. But in a campaign where the other guy just happens to be the first former president convicted of a crime, the Hunter verdict may not make much of a splash. Sarah,

first of all, what's your reaction to the verdict? I mean, my first reaction is Hunter's probably guilty of these crimes. He also probably wouldn't have been prosecuted for them were he not the sitting president's son. And I think from a political standpoint, just a political optical standpoint, it's probably good because I think that it makes it a lot harder for Republicans to argue that this is a two tier justice system. You know, I hear this from voters a lot where they say, why are they going after Trump? Why don't they do something about Hunter Biden? Why, you know, do they deny that the laptop was real? Like, you know, especially on the right, people are very invested in the Hunter Biden saga. are very invested in the Hunter Biden saga. And so I think the conviction probably for,

look, there's still, and I just did a focus group yesterday with two-time Trump voters in Utah. So I know that not everybody's taking this and saying, oh boy, now I really believe in the justice system. Many of them are saying, boy, Hunter must have been really guilty in order to have our crooked legal system still convict him. But I think for swing voters, for people for whom they're just getting a whiff of the Hunter stuff, the fact that he was convicted sort of puts to rest the idea that Joe Biden is running some big conspiracy to convict Donald Trump and like, you know, use the DOJ to just wield it for his own political purposes. Yeah, you know, it's the first reaction is sadness, right? This is a sad story. This is someone who's who has battled addiction their

whole life. It's a story that's very familiar to a lot of Americans. I 100% agree with you that not only is that, were he not Joe Biden's son, he may not have been prosecuted at all, but certainly would not have been brought to trial and probably would have had some sort of plea agreement that would have resulted in a fine community service, something like that, and not be facing potentially some time in prison. And the reason that he is unlikely to get up to the 25 years in prison is because he's a first-time offender and, most importantly, I think, because he did not use the gun in a crime or in any sort of violent way. But still, he could face some time in prison. And it is going to just, I can already see the Twitter explosion among people on the left if Hunter Biden gets sent to prison for this crime and Donald Trump does not get sent to prison for his crime. But I think it is, you know,

I'm going to be curious to hear a little more of your thoughts on how people process, how voters are processing it. But I just don't know that this, people are going to think a lot about what this says about Joe Biden. Because it is one, and this is an important point to make. For all of what I find largely to be the bullshit, you know, subject of all the Hunt and Bider investigations, the Burisma payments and China and all these other things that may have to do on the right. This has nothing to do with any of those things. Right? That's right. This is simply the story of someone going through addiction who purchased a gun.

And the jury found that he was, contrary to what Hunter and his attorneys argued, that he was on drugs when he did so. So, therefore, he lied on a form. It does not suggest any sort of broader corruption or any other of the stuff you hear from the right, but it's sort of a sad story. I ask about Hunter a lot in the groups. And in swing voter groups and certainly in Democratic groups, as long as you're not kind of in the MAGA cinematic universe, the way that people interpret Hunter is as a sad story. They actually show a a lot of compassion and everybody says things like, you know, there's one in every family. We all know what it's like to deal with somebody in our family that has addiction problems.

And so people tend to be very charitable around issues like this. And they also say like, if Joe Biden, there's a connection with Joe Biden, I will hold that against Joe Biden, but I'm not holding this Hunter stuff against Joe Biden. Yeah, I think that gets to sort of my next question, which is, let's leave Trump out of it for a second. And there has been this, it really dating back to, you know, we're on like six years now of the right going after Hunter. Once the right sort of identified Joe Biden correctly as the biggest threat to Donald Trump in the 2020 Democratic field, you know, Hunter Biden was the subject of the blackmail phone call to Zelensky. There has been this effort to use Hunter as a way to portray Joe Biden as corrupt, right? So put aside Hunter and the gun stuff.

But do you see any evidence from persuadable voters that sort of this Biden crime family stuff is sticking to the president? You know, here's where I think it works. It's not that they think that Biden is the head of a major crime family. It is, though, that they think all politicians are corrupt, right? Like, it plays into that. And so the ability of the Trump operation to just sort of besmirch Joe Biden, like muck him up a little bit with this. That was only, that was their goal all along. Like that's why there's an impeachment trial, despite the fact that they clearly don't have any evidence and they are finding themselves now up against a wall sort of without having evidence, but they're willing to embarrass themselves on that front in order to just kick up enough smoke around Hunter Biden and Biden to try to offset Trump's obvious criminality with

what I think is a pre-existing thing in voters where they're kind of like, yeah, all these guys are corrupt. And that way it like negates Trump's or at least ameliorates Trump's obvious criminal deficiencies. Yeah. I mean, obviously, he's been rerunning the play he ran with great success in 2016, the, you know, crooked Hillary. Now, there was much more, not that I think that Hillary Clinton is crooked or corrupt, but, you know, Trump was surfing 20 years of right-wing investigations and attacks on Hillary and a series of mistakes that she had made that were not corrupt, but were things voters don't like, like giving speeches to Wall Street for pay, right? Stuff like that.

But I see it in some of the polling, which is people think Donald Trump is more corrupt than Joe Biden, but a very unfair number of voters think Joe Biden is corrupt, someone who has conducted himself not just better than Donald Trump, but with decorum and ethics. There are not real investigations into his presidency. There have not been scandals in his presidency. He was part of the Obama administration, which was, as we always like to say, very famously scandal-free, if you don't count the I would say very famously scandal-free, if you don't count the tan suit situation. But Joe Biden has been in politics a long time.

He sort of is a walking, talking avatar for a political—you know, this is one of his challenges—a walking, talking avatar for a political system that voters inherently find corrupt. And so I totally understand what the Trump folks are doing. Now, I will get that there is some cognitive dissonance between Joe Biden, head of crime family, and Joe Biden, dementia kid. You know, it's like, you can't be both. And I've never seen them really pay a real price for that sort of logical inconsistency, but it's not really the Hunter stuff,

I think it's the Republican, just this idea that people think that politicians are corrupt, people who have been in politics for a long time are inherently corrupt. Like, how could you not be? It's a dirty system. And that does give Trump some advantage, right? This is why he is, you know, I think he announced with some fanfare a few weeks ago that he was shifting to calling him Crooked Joe. And so I think that's probably why. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. I mean, this is just about trying to even the playing field to a low information populace that is not plugged into the difference in all these things.

And that low information populace are the ones often most likely to just assume that all politicians are correct, right? Low information and low trust are kind of the two overlapping circles on the Venn diagram. Now, you might think the right-wing media machine that's been going after Donald Trump's Manhattan conviction as a kangaroo court would hold up the Hunter verdict as the epitome of equal justice. Well, CNN put together an excellent side-by-side of how Fox News personalities reacted to each verdict. So let's listen. This is a new era in America, and I think it goes against the ilk of who we are as Americans and our faith in the criminal justice system. In the end, this jury of ordinary people from Delaware were not intimidated by that family. And they recognized that this was a clear-cut case and that clearly no one's above the law.

This is a very political exercise. And you have to say that it accomplished what it set out to accomplish. But I would say this about Judge Nureka. I think she ran a very fair courtroom. She ran a very fair trial. Now, there's also an emerging consensus that the verdict could actually be helpful to Joe Biden in the sense that Joe Biden's own DOJ going after his son shows that Biden is, in fact, not weaponizing the justice system.

And I was really struck by how all over the map Republicans were in the response to the verdict. The Trump camp put out a statement calling the verdict a distraction from the real crimes of the Biden family. Trump advisor Stephen Miller tweeted, DOJ is running election interference for Joe Biden, apparently by trying to send his own son to prison. And Oversight Chairman James Comer, he of the famously and laughably unsuccessful impeachment effort, called on DOJ to investigate the whole Biden family and said if they don't, they're quote unquote covering for the big guy. All right, Sarah, let's unpack this. What do you make of the Republican response? Could they

really have been caught off guard by a guilty verdict? So I think sometimes they are. And here's why. Like, they are so good at creating their own reality and their own echo chambers that sometimes they end up living in that reality. And then when they realize, like, oh, wait, the system's not actually corrupt. The Department of Justice did prosecute and Hunter Biden was found guilty. Whoops. Now we need a new talking point. And so you could see them sort of, because you could

see how different it was from Trump's conviction, right? Where they were incredibly locked up, had the exact same talking points. Here, they're scrambling a little bit, but they do seem to be settling on the idea that what is happening is that Joe Biden is hanging out his son to dry on this conviction or on this case in order to distract people from the bigger crimes so that they don't get prosecuted. That's where people seem to be landing. legal analyst or a deep consumer of the news or listen to the strict scrutiny podcast here at Crooked Media to know that the overwhelmingly most likely scenario would be that Hunter was convicted, right? The evidence was clear. That's what everyone watching it said. And it is interesting. It reminds me a lot of the Republican response to Joe Biden's State of the Union, right? Where they went in, you know,

the morning of the State of the Union, the Trump campaign, or one of his super PACs, I can't remember which, put out an ad. They ran in on Morning Joe to try to get in Joe Biden's head with, you know, basically alleging he had dementia and a bunch of out-of-context clips.

And then Joe Biden goes out there and gives a very good speech. And they're just like flabbergasted. Like they can't even imagine that Joe Biden could give such a speech so much so that they then reverse engineer the story that he must have been on drugs, potentially cocaine when he gave the speech. It is something is hard for Democrats to understand is just like how much, particularly in the Trump era of the professional Republican political class has moved fully inside of the hermetically sealed MAGA media bubble, right? It's just, they're not getting, you know, it wasn't like that when I worked in the White House, right? There were people who,

there certainly were members of Congress like that and far-right people like that, but, you know, the leadership on the Hill and certainly people who made the ads and wrote the emails and stuff, they were, you know, they might have watched a lot of Fox and maybe they didn't, they probably didn't watch Rachel Maddow, but they also read the news, right? They watched, they read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. And so they wouldn't be caught so off guard. They weren't so detached from reality that they couldn't be ready for such an obvious and easy eventuality like this guilty verdict. Like you would have been planning ahead, right? You would have been like, we know Trump's verdict is today. We know Hunter's trial starts this day. We know

that Trump, there's at least a 50% chance that Hunter will be found guilty. And how are we going to craft a narrative arc to account for both of those things? And they just appeared to not do that. Yeah, this is what happens when you get high on your own supply, right? Like you just, you find yourself totally caught off guard when reality sets in. And Republicans, they really are. And look, I have now spent years listening to voters where and you said something before about linear thinking like there is no it is not linear. Like Joe Biden is on drugs and they can hold these thoughts in their heads like he's on drugs and he also needs to be spoon fed oatmeal in the morning by somebody else because he can't, you know, get out of bed. He's running a crime family, but also he's being puppeteered by Kamala Harris and the radical left. And it was like this, too, with the election being stolen. Right. Like they have now it's like the election was definitely stolen in 2020. Everything is rigged. And then in races that they win,

it's not rigged. This is just how it works now. So there's some interesting New York Times reporting on how the Trump campaign was thinking about this conviction. And reportedly, the Trump campaign and other Republicans were rooting for Hunter to be acquitted. They had even had meetings about what the fundraising emails would say if Hunter were acquitted. I mean, can you imagine anything more cynical? But also, are they right? It would have been better for them if he was acquitted? had been acquitted while Trump had been convicted. The right is very committed in their bubble to the idea that there is a rigged two-tier justice system. And I am sort of dying to get at a lot more of these Trump voters to hear how they internalize the Hunter stuff. Although we did do this group last night. And like I said, there was a little bit of, you know, well, uh, yeah, with how skewed things are, you know, Hunter must just be very guilty and, um, you know, they're still not, uh, it's not like they're caught up short entirely.

They find a way to back themselves into walk themselves into a rationalization that comports with their long held belief of grievance or that whatever institution is rigged against them. But yeah, no, if they if Hunter had been acquitted, they would have been able to send out a ton of fundraising emails and and also sort of really played into the narrative that they've set. That's the thing. This disrupts the narrative that they were hoping to set.

The voters you were talking to, were these the same sort of two time Trump voters who have soured on Trump? So these were potentially persuadable for Biden? No. So these were – this was a different group. So we do a lot now. We're doing almost two groups a week. So yesterday we were doing a group of two-time Trump voters in Utah, not specifically Mormon.

So we had done recently a Mormon group of two-time Trump voters and then just like Republican two time Trump voters in Utah. And these voters were tough, man. They did not like Spencer Cox. They you know, they were very Biden crime family. They had sort of already it had filtered down to them. Some of these talking points around this is a distraction to distract from Joe Biden and his more serious crimes. And so, no, this is this, these ones are deep, deep in the Madagascar cinematic universe. The other thing that Time said that I thought was interesting was that Trump himself had sort of indicated in some meeting or somewhere that he was worried

about going after Hunter on the addiction stuff and had cautioned other Republicans and himself that he did not want to do that because he thought it would make Joe Biden look relatable and seem normal to people, seem like a good dad, which is exactly right. I was always struck when the Republicans using the laptop and great fanfare would go on Sean Hannity and release the loving voicemail that Joe Biden left his son son just wrought with emotion, hoping his son can get through recovery or make a right choice in his life. I mean, this is a very, very sad story. I don't worry about any of this, particularly from a political perspective for Biden. I worry about it more from the personal toll this takes on him. This is incredibly hard. This is his son.

He's worried about his son for decades now. And so this takes a caution on him. I will be very curious to see what Trump does in the debate about this. You know, he really tried in 2020. He went after Hunter very hard and tried to use it to knock Joe Biden off of his game and to try to rattle him. And I think he's probably going to do that again.

But I guess it just really says how bizarre a world we're living in where I always do this thing where I, you know, it's like the poli-sci 101 test where you just like take Trump out of it, you write a question down, and you kind of see what grade you would get if this question was on a midterm for political science 101. And it's like, would the president's son being convicted of gun charges five months before the election be good or bad for the incumbent? And the fact that the conviction is good for the president and the acquittal is bad for the, his opponent just, just does seem wild, right? Like if you had written that down as your answer in college,

you would have gotten an F on the test, right? But that is how, that's where we are right now. True. But if you'd also said like, could a candidate win his party's primary after inciting an insurrection, being indicted for inciting that insurrection, for mishandling classified documents, for sleeping with a porn star, you'd be like, no. But what if that person was running against Ron DeSantis? Then maybe. Yeah, then maybe. That's right. Well, then definitely. Yeah. On the political science thing. That's a that's a good look. I think that it'll be Joe. Joe Biden should expect that from Trump. I'm sure. Yeah. But and so there's no way that Joe. I mean, this is actually the reason that that the counterfactual doesn't work and it can actually be good for Joe Biden is this is where Joe Biden shines, right, as a decent person.

And when he is able to remind people that he is a good person and also it's not just that his DOJ indicted Hunter. It's also he says, will he pardon Hunter? No. You know, he is following the rule of law. He is respecting the jury. He is doing everything Donald Trump is not. And so it is presenting a contrast that in this bizarre world works for Joe Biden. And he should expect that and he should not get rattled. And he should use it as an opportunity to say, I love my son. Families understand, like many millions of people in this country understand what it's like to battle addiction.

And, you know, but I will not get in the way of the justice system. And I think that'll provide a good contrast. One of the big takes away and sort of almost a point of pride among Democrats is that obviously Trump is convicted. Everyone screams, you know, corrupt, rigged justice system, corrupt judge and lies about it. And Joe Biden says, you know, I'm not going to pardon my son and I will abide by the verdict of the judicial system. I'm going to stand by the judicial system. That's obviously the differences between the two people. But do you worry, as I do a bit, that Biden and Democrats are setting themselves up a little bit as the defenders of a system that most voters don't trust, right? We're sort of becoming the defenders of the FBI, the defenders of judges, the defenders

of juries, and whether that is problematic given historically high levels of cynicism and distrust. Yeah, this is where you being a Democrat and me being a lapsed Republican comes through, which is like, I'm gung-ho about new institutional support for the FBI and the courts and think that it's good. Look, I think that there's a reason that right now in this moment of political realignment, the Democrats find themselves able to bring over a lot of these college educated suburban voters who do not want to burn the whole system down, who find value in our in our system. And so I think that Democrats look at this and they worry about traditionally Democratic voters who are skeptical of these systems. But the fact is, like Donald Trump and Republicans have now, the way that they undermine any institution that tries to seek accountability on Donald Trump, right? If it's the courts, they're rigged. If it's the FBI, it's the deep state. If it's an election, it's rigged. If it's cops who prosecute on January 6th, they're corrupt. And these institutions, ultimately, that is what liberal democracy is. These institutions make up

liberal democracy. And so to the extent that Democrats have now become the keepers of democracy, the keepers of liberal democracy, they find themselves defending our institutions and norms in ways that they might not have otherwise, because they felt like those institutions often applied themselves unequally to certain types of people. But I think in this particular moment, a lot of Democrats and part of the center-right coalition agrees that the defense of these institutions, however imperfect, is better than not having them at all. Yeah, I think that's right. I don't think that we should suggest that Joe Biden or any Democrat should want to burn these institutions down.

There's probably an argument for not just being the defenders but the people who are going to fix them, right? You know, where there is – you know, Donald Trump wants to burn them down and we're going to defend them and fix them, right? You know, where there is, you know, Donald Trump wants to burn them down, and we're going to defend them and fix them, right? Which is like, I always get very uncomfortable when Democrats say this election is about saving democracy as opposed to fixing democracy, is sort of a better way. And the interesting thing is just about how different people view the verdicts. I heard from someone who was doing focus groups with Black voters after the verdict, I heard from someone who was doing focus groups with Black voters after the verdict. And one of the things they heard is sort of the inverse of what you heard about how Hunter Biden could be convicted in a rigged justice system is sort of the equivalent of, man, Donald Trump must be really guilty if a rich, white, politically connected man got convicted

on 34 felonies, right? The system should be rigged in his favor, and he's such a blatant bad criminal that he got convicted anyway, right? And so I think there is this, like we do in this conversation, particularly Democrats, with some of the very voters that we are losing, have to, I don't buy the, you know, Donald Trump can make common cause with black voters because he was indicted. I think that's a bunch of bullshit. You don't hear a lot of, you know, I haven't heard a lot of that from voters. But I think there is that we just have to be very careful about how we talk about the systems in a way that can thread the needle between defending them,

which is important, and becoming the defenders of the status quo, right? And that's the challenge. defending them, which is important, and becoming the defenders of the status quo, right? And that's the challenge. Okay, let's talk about the results from yesterday's primaries. In Nevada, Sam Brown, a former Army captain, won the Senate nomination. He'll take on Senator Jackie Rosen, which will almost undoubtedly be a very close race that could determine Senate control. Rosen immediately released an ad attacking Brown as a carpetbagger and an extremist on abortion. Let's listen. I was excited to learn that I was going to have a boy, but I got devastating news. The baby would not survive.

Before Sam Brown ran for office in Nevada, he ran in Texas, where he pushed one of the most extreme abortion bans. Because of the law Sam Brown pushed for, I had to leave Texas to get the care I needed. Now I live in Nevada, and I cannot watch Sam Brown take away our rights here too. I'm Jackie Rosen, and I approve this message. Now, Brown has tried to get ahead of this by sitting for an interview with his wife and sharing her story of having an abortion earlier in her life. Brown told NBC News that he is,

quote, personally pro-life and that he supports the state law, which allows abortion for up to 24 weeks. Sarah, what do you think about this approach from Rosen? Do you think opening the general election on abortion is smart for her? I do. I think it's fine. I think that, you know, when it comes to abortion, I talk about abortion in the focus groups a lot. And my main takeaway has been over the years now of talking about abortion so when you ask voters in any group you know how do you think things are going in the country what matters to you nobody says abortion they talk about the economy inflation crime immigration but they don't talk about abortion um swing voters and republicans especially but even a lot of democrats uh now when you ask them about abortion, though, they get incredibly

animated. And it is one of those issues that unites people immediately and I think centers their focus on something that Republicans have taken away from them. And many of the folks that are swing voters identify themselves the way that Brown does, which is that they are personally pro-life, but they still believe in a woman's right to choose. And so I think that when you raise the salience of abortion, like this happened in 2022 very effectively. The first way that Gretchen Whitmer tagged Tudor Dixon was an extremist on abortion. Tudor Dixon was in fact a tremendous extremist on abortion. Like the only thing that anybody remembered about Tudor Dixon was that she thought a 14 year old or a 12 year old who was raped should have to carry the baby

to term. And like, that was it. Whitmer's going to win by 10 points. It worked the same for Laxalt, for Unabomber guy, you know. It's Blake Masters. Yeah, Blake Masters. Right. Like people viewed them as extreme on abortion and that coupled together with their extremism on election denialism and just other issues like liking the Unabomber kind of fused together into a picture of a candidate that was too extreme to vote for. So I think this is a perfectly fine opening salvo. My only advice to Democrats is that abortion is not all. It cannot be everything. And so fine for an opener, but can't be the only thing. Well, let me just ask you, what are the other the other things I take it would be

would be the economy slash inflation and immigration? Well, look, I do think that I don't know if you and I've talked about this, but I got in a big fight with Axelrod and Gibbs about it on Hacks on Tap. Oh, good. This is fun. I do want Democrats to go on offense on the economy. We're in a vibe session, not a recession. And I think that, you know, if there was a if you could flood the zone with surrogates talking not about the economy being amazing and why doesn't everybody appreciate how amazing it is, but saying, hey, Donald Trump cratered this economy by mishandling the pandemic and causing, you know, all that

supply chain disruption. That was all from Donald Trump's mishandling of covid. And Joe Biden has been putting this thing back together to the point where we are recovering better than every industrialized country on the planet. It is not done yet. It's still too painful on rent, still too painful at the grocery store, but we have made a ton of headway. Inflation is cooling. I just think there is an offense message that helps. If you told me that the economy was in the toilet, I'd be like, well, there's not much to do about that. But when you tell me voters just don't appreciate it, then I'm like, okay, well, that's a narrative problem. Narrative problems can be solved and they can be solved with intensity and with volume and with a push forward. And Democrats seem,

I think, I think, I think you guys, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I just think there's like a consensus among a lot of you that you got to be really careful and you got to say, no, no, no, we feel your pain. And I'm not sure, to me, basically, I come from a Republican school of communications, which is, and you're watching it right now, where they create their own reality. And so when Donald Trump gets his economy, he's like, best economy for women, best economy for black people. How's your 401k, buddy? And it is energetic and it is something that everybody repeats. And it becomes, I mean, he was given, the reason that he has such, it's so sticky that Trump had such a good economy is because they hammered it so hard that it was a great economy, much better than an ultimate. I mean, he was

running the economy hot. He was racking up the debt. But this is why they have a good impression. And I'm sorry, I just think Democrats would really benefit from, yeah, taking some going on offense a little bit here. Yeah, I don't want to put words in Axelrod and Gibbs' mouth. I mean, my take on it is this election is actually pretty simple, right? For all of my PoliSci 101 bullshit, it's actually pretty simple, which is three quarters of voters say they're unhappy with the economy. Those numbers are even higher among the Democrats that Joe Biden is losing.

Most voters say that the economy slash inflation is their number one issue. And very specifically, when you ask them, what's the issue most likely to decide your vote, three times as many people say the economy inflation as immigration or abortion, at least in the New York Times poll in May. And Donald Trump has a 20-point advantage on that issue, right? It's like, that's the whole thing. And you're 100% right, particularly for Senate Democrats, they have to keep abortion front of mind. And it's very critical for Jackie Rosen to do it because unlike some of the other Republican Senate candidates, Sam Brown here has gone on offense a little bit and is trying to avoid falling into the exact same trap that countless Republicans have fallen into by just endorsing a 15-week ban or having been for this or that unpopular. So she's got to go on offense and define him before she can define herself. So that makes sense to me. More broadly on the

economy, I think the story is, I do think we have to be careful, right? I think that's probably where the disagreement with Axne and Gibbs came in is we can't oversell it, but we shouldn't undersell it either, right? Is Donald Trump messed this thing up. Joe Biden's been putting it together. He's done a lot of really good things. And you tell people what those things are. And there's a lot more work to do.

And then you get to Donald Trump will make it worse. Donald Trump's going to cut taxes for rich people. And he's just going to run up the debt. And yeah, no, it's exactly right. And he's going to cut taxes for rich people and he's just going to run up the debt. And yeah, no, it's exactly right. And he's going to cut taxes for rich people. He is going to, you know, I think his, no one really knows about what tariffs are, but when you explain to people that Donald Trump can raise tariffs on his first day in office without Congress, and if he does, that is going to lead to an average $1,500 a year increase for the average American family, right? Like that is a big deal. And how

is he going to pay for that tax cut? He's going to cut Social Security, Medicare, and repeal the Affordable Care Act. Like that's the off, I think we should be on offense on the economy. I'm confident that Rosen, I'm sort of hopeful Rosen will get there. I think it's particularly important in Nevada, given what the electorate looks like there, right? It's obviously a very diverse state. It's a state with a large working class population. And those voters have tended to tell pollsters that the economy is even more important for them than others. But I think that's right. But let's go back to Nevada for a sec. Could you envision Brown, because I think his strategy is interesting here, right? He is trying to be the first Republican not to just let a Democrat beat

him over the head on their abortion position. Could you envision him cutting an ad sharing his wife's story, or is that a bridge too far for a Republican candidate? No, I think he could do it. I mean, I got to tell you, I think that it depends on sort of where you're running. If you're kind of running in the red state Bible belt, it can be you're walking a line. But you just pointed this out. Nevada is a place where you have a lot of these white working class voters who are pretty secular about this stuff. And there have been a number of things that still surprise me about voters as I talk to them. And one of them has been how often in a two-time Trump voting group, the majority of the group is pro-choice. And in fact, when you get

voters criticizing the Republican Party, like they're more Trump voters over the Republican Party, one of the main reasons they give is that they don't like the social positions of the Republican Party, by which I think they mean gay marriage and abortion. Like they just don't like the Mike Pence of it all, you know, the judginess. They like Trump's secular approach to these social issues. Trump's secular approach to these social issues. And I think that in a state like Nevada, you can get away with, and in fact, because it's his biggest liability and because they do have a personal story to tell, I think that they could do that without suffering too much from like the far right pro-life flank of the party there. Yeah, I hope he doesn't cut in on with this because I think it would get a lot of attention because one interview, no voter,

I'd be interested to see a poll, but an NBC News interview is not going to reach any of the voters he needs to reach. It's just not how you communicate anymore. So if you want to, you have to go mass communication if you want people to actually know this. And so if he doesn't put it in an ad, it's not going to be known.

I hope he doesn't. And there will certainly be blowback, like there will be noise, you know, maybe from this group or that group. But are there going to be a lot of voters who are going to turn out for Trump and then not vote for Sam Brown because he ran this ad? No, right? Like, that's not how it works, right? Like, any candidate in a presidential year has more wiggle room than in a midterm because the main reason that voters are turning out is not them. It's the top of the ticket. And so he could do it. I hope he doesn't. And if there's noise and division about it, I hope Democrats exploit it.

But I could certainly see him running this ad. The Republicans want the Senate, right? That is very clear in how they got Trump to kind of sort of endorse Sam Brown the day before the primary, as opposed to like the more MAGA, his own ambassador to Finland or wherever that guy was from. And so, you know, I think they will, after losing a bunch of Senate races in a row, that there tends to be a little less orthodoxy and a little more focus on winning. Yeah, you know, this is I think underappreciated right now is the fact that you've got Sam Brown in Nevada, you've got Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania, you've got Tim Sheehy in Montana. Like they've kind of locked up the, you know, even Larry Hogan running in Maryland, right? Even though they're now yelling at him because he said that one should respect jury verdicts. But they have, the Republicans this time around have done a much better job with their Senate candidates. Yes, in an attempt to actually win than they did in, say, 2022. But I also just want to point out something you just said about that I think is important for people to remember.

Trump being on the ballot versus not being on the ballot is a big problem for like in 2022. Trump wasn't on the ballot like he sort sort of spiritually was, uh, because he had a bunch of these super MAGA candidates that a lot of these swing voters rejected, but he wasn't literally on the ballot in the way that people who turn out just for Trump help Republicans in a general election. And so like these voters this time around, these Senate candidates will have the benefit of Trump actually being on the ballot, uh, which is where I think you see a much bigger juice and turnout because there just really is now a set of voters who are not Republicans. They're just Trump voters.

Yeah. It'd be very alarming for the DSCC. Okay. There wasn't much earth-shattering news out of the primaries in the other states. Nancy Mace easily survived her primary challenge from a candidate backed by former speakers, Kevin McCarthy, whom she had helped depose. But there was an interesting and unexpected result in Ohio. There was a special election in eastern Ohio in a district Trump won by 29 points in 2020. Last night, the Republican beat the Democrat by only 10 points. Dems are, of course, seizing on this as a sign that there is momentum for Democrats that the polls aren't showing, similar to the 2022 midterms. Sarah, do you buy that? Do you think these special elections tell us anything about November? No. I mean, I do believe broadly as a new political point that Democrats are overperforming

in a lot of special elections because they benefit from the political realignment, right? The voters that they have picked up are these college-educated suburban voters who are super, super reliable. I think that helped them with the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. I think that helped them in lots of other special elections, including in 2022. I just don't think that's what happened in this race. I don't think Democrats can read anything good into this race. In fact, I think it's the reason that I just said before. Because where the Republican did better in the Youngstown area actually than in the rural areas. Right. So why is that? To me, that reads that this is the area where Trump does the best. Right. Trump won that by some insane margin and then Vance won it by a less but still quite large margin.

And then this replacement level Republican wins it by a much narrower margin. And I think that is a lack of turnout in the rural areas for people who are MAGA first and just don't really care to show up for Republicans. I'll also say I don't know this for a fact. This is new, really new. But I do wonder if because Trump has become the entire Republican Party, that the local Republican apparatus, like the turnout, whatever, that it's all getting pretty sclerotic because now it's also Trump dependent. And so I'm not sure they're doing the like nuts and bolts turnout work in a lot of these places that they used to do just because like Trump sucks up all the money, all the attention,

all the energy. And like the state parties are starting to wither and just they're run by cranks and sycophants and not anybody who knows how to win an election. Yeah. I started, my take on this is now if the Republican had won by 40 points and outperformed Trump by 11 points, there would have been a thousand stories saying that this was doomed for Democrats, right? It just would have been like it would have led playbook. There would have been a panic attack on MSNBC. We'd have another round of conversations about Joe Biden dropping out. It would have been seen as a bad news. And so it's obviously very frustrating for Democrats when bad news is bad news and good news is no news, right? Like that's not awesome. I 100% agree. This doesn't tell us

a lot. This doesn't tell me that Ohio is going to be competitive or that Sherrod Brown is going to cruise the reelection. It basically tells me that two things. One, your point about the shift in who our base is, that we now just have more high-frequency voters who make up our base. It also tells me that our campaign machinery is up and running. race that there was a ton of investment in, but just in general, at the local level, this is one of the byproducts of all of the organizing mobilization after Trump won in 2016, is that we just have people on the ground everywhere who can do these things. And that is helpful on the margins in a close race. And so it's not decisive, but to me, it's kind of interesting. One quick thing before we go to break, we are two weeks out from the release of Democracy or Else, quick thing before we go to break. We are two weeks out from the release of Democracy or Else, John, John, and Tommy's incredibly useful, funny, timely book. And let me tell you how this works, because as many people have listened to me pitch my own books on this podcast for years now,

the most important thing you can do to ensure the success of a book is to pre-order it, right? If you order it now, right, you will get it the day it comes out. Whether it's crooked.com slash books, whether it's your local bookstore, bookshop.org, Amazon, wherever you get your books, make sure you go pre-order it right now. And the reason why that matters is every order you have now goes immediately into the metric by which New York Times calculates their bestseller list.

All the publishers are watching that. The people who make decisions about what kind of press coverage a book is going to get watch those pre-order numbers. And so if you want to get this book on the list and you want to help John and John Tommy, you want to make sure as many people read this book as possible, because that's what we need. We need as many people to read Democracy or Else and then go take those lessons and go help beat Donald Trump. Then we got to get this book on the bestseller list so that people see it, people know about it. Books on the bestseller list get put in the front of bookstores,

right? More of them get sold. It is a virtuous cycle. So put aside all of that. You cannot possibly let John John Tomey live in a world where I made the bestseller list and they did not. Like that would be cruel and unusual punishment. So let's not do that. And if that's not enough for you, all of Crooked's profits from the book are going to support Vote Save America in 2024 campaigns. So each book is actually helping save democracy. And you get a funny, smart, illustrated guide to get you through this election year. Head to crooked.com slash books now to grab your copy. We are now less than five months from the election, which makes me want to puke. And we're just about two weeks from the first scheduled debate on June 27th in Atlanta,

which also makes me want to puke. And since you talk to actual voters more often than just about anyone, I thought it would make sense to take a step back and have a broader conversation about where we stand. I want to start with how voters are reacting to Trump's conviction. You recently conducted a focus group of two-time Trump voters who have soured on the former president. Let's take a listen. I don't believe I would stand up and sell a Bible for $60 when they put me all over the news for exactly what we saw on the news yesterday. So I can't vote for him. I think nothing's moving the needle for me. Trump is unfit for office. I thought the trial highly politicized, but in the hands of the jury, both sides had the chance to present their case. And that's ultimately how it should have been done.

I am happy that the jury found him guilty. And I think also now that he is a convicted felon, he's completely unfit. He can't pass a basic security clearance at this point. I'm not sure if he can vote in Florida. He may not be allowed to go to different countries as a felon. This is not appropriate. Knock it off, Republicans. Find somebody else. Were you surprised by this reaction, given what you normally hear from these sorts of

former Trump voters? No. So this is this group that we screened specifically because they were two time Trump voters, but who don't want to vote for him again. Like they're kind of out there. They're not all the way out. They're not like never. But they're they don't want to vote for him again. And we often screen for this type of voter in order to understand our persuadable universe. Right. Because we run Republican voters against Trump. These are the kinds of people that we want to get not just to not vote for Trump, but to affirmatively vote for Biden. And so we talked to them a lot trying to understand them. And so it didn't surprise me to hear them say things like, I'm already out on this guy because and this is this is there are a lot of

voters, like a meaningful number of voters who held their nose and voted for Trump both times because they were tribally Republican. But they didn't like him who January 6th. They were like, I am out now. There's a bunch of those voters who like slowly found their way back and rationalized it over time. But there are plenty of people who are still out. We hear from them all the time. rationalized it over time. But there are plenty of people who are still out. We hear from them all the time. They are part of our campaign now, which is all made up of people who previously voted for Trump, explaining why they won't vote for him again. And it's like the election lies,

the whining. And a lot of these people were DeSantis people, right? They were the move-on from Trumpers. They're not never Trumpers. They're move-on from Trumpers. I want somebody else. And they just won't vote for the dude again. The thing that surprised me was not how they sounded. The thing that surprised me was that five out of nine of them said that they would affirmatively vote for Biden. And I think that this is where the conviction makes a bit of a difference, is that to win this election, people, when we talk about double haters, one of the things I always try to make clear to people is that double haters are just people who don't want to vote for either person, but it's a little bit of a misnomer

because they don't hate Biden. They don't want to vote for him, but they don't hate him. They do hate Trump. The feeling is stronger. And so what happens is, is you get something like a conviction and also when Trump is more central to the conversation, when Biden's central to the conversation, these voters that are center right, they think about what they don't like about Joe Biden. When Donald Trump is central to the conversation, they think about what they don't like about Trump and they start to be like, I'll vote for whatever, the tomato can that is going to stand between Trump and the White House. I'm not calling Joe Biden a tomato can. I'm just saying like, it doesn't matter who it is. They just are like, you can't let this guy back in the White House. And that is how you get people, right? When they start to focus on Trump and when they start to think about how

unfit he is, that's when they make the transition to like, well, I'll vote for the other guy, even though I don't want to. Yeah. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that 509 number. And it's not often. I listen to your podcast every weekend. It's one of the first things I do on Saturdays. And I don't often leave it feeling super awesome after listening to voters. This is one where I did leave quite optimistic and told my wife she should listen to it because she even more would like me to filter out bad political news. So that was great to hear. I was sort of struck listening to them because it feels like there are two main groups within the Biden persuadable universe. There are the more traditional members of the Democratic coalition, Black voters, Hispanic voters, younger voters that

have soured on Biden. And then there are the more right-leaning folks who have soured on Trump. They're either two-time Trump voters or they are Trump-Biden voters who may vote for a Republican in the congressional race who aren't sold on Biden. Do you think it's possible that Trump's criminality in his conviction is a better argument with the right-leaning voters? The argument for those people is that Trump is bad, and the argument for our people is Biden is better than you think. Does that make sense? It totally makes sense. And I got to say, I don't want to depress you, but I am often more optimistic about our folks, the center-right voters, because they do move over abortion. They do move over January 6th. They do move actually over issues of democracy, like Trump's threat. Like these are

older white voters who came to the party to vote for Ronald Reagan. They voted for Mitt Romney. They voted for John McCain. And they don't hate those votes. Like they were happy to vote for those people, unlike the new Trump voters who found those who held their nose and voted for those people. And so, like, I feel encouraged that as Trump comes into the picture, these sort of center right voters who really hate Trump vote for other Republicans who aren't Trump, if they're sort of in the vein of normal, that they will get there on Biden out of their sheer hatred of Trump. I worry because I listen. I do focus groups with the young progressive voters. I do them with the Democrat.

And when they say like Genocide Joe and there's no difference between Trump and Biden, I'm like, that I don't know what to do about. Yeah. It's the younger voters who, you know, there's this fascinating blueprint poll that asked younger voters like what they remembered about Trump, what they knew about Trump, what they knew about Trump. And if you're under 30, Trump has not been a huge part of your life, right? If you're under 25, and they asked them if they remembered, find people on both sides and all these other things,

and they didn't. And so there is an education effort on Trump. It is a real challenge. All right, let's pivot to the debate. According to reports, the Biden campaign is already in the process of preparing the president and they're game planning how to deal with all of Trump's insanity. My first question is, do you think Trump is really going to show up? I do. I know a lot of people think that he's not. I mean, those who buy Bulwark family think that, you know, Trump's looking for a reason to get out of it. But this is another one where I would just say high on our own supply. Like the Republicans think that Joe Biden is going to like fall asleep at the podium and that Trump where Trump really has Biden is on his big lunatic energy coming off

as like much stronger or whatever. And so I think he wants the opportunity to dominate Biden. But so I don't I don't know why he wouldn't show up, but maybe, why do you think he wouldn't show up? If I had to bet money, I would bet that he would show up. I have been struck by the, I know this is an old riff of his, but he really is hammering the drug test thing, which I think maybe it's probably that's just a line that gets applause, but this idea that Joe Biden must take a drug test because he's going to be on whatever his State of the Union stash was that's going to make him seem energetic and smart. And he's been really hammering Jake, you know, in his words, fake tapper and Dana Bash, who I think he calls Dana all the time. And so he is at least so he's doing one of two things. And I think the most likely is the former, which he's just trying to like set up expectations,

right? Where it's just like, I went in there, these guys, all the press was against me. Joe Biden was on drugs and I still did pretty well or explained away any failures. Or the other one is to get out of it. I think he would probably show up. I mean, his, he thinks he's winning by a lot and his in the primaries was, if you're winning, you shouldn't debate. So that's the only thing that kind of gives me pause. So I don't really know. But either way, what advice would you give the Biden folks about how to conduct the debate? Anything he should say or do that would work with

the voters that you talk to all the time? He should take whatever drugs he took during the State of the Union, because that's the guy that needs to show up. I mean, this is this debate is all about how does Joe Biden like come off? Does he seem like he can do it? And what he says, I mean, it's going to be important what he says. I do think, you know, he's got to be able to make an affirmative case that Donald Trump is a lunatic who's going to be surrounded by other lunatics in his next four years and that Joe Biden is going to be surrounded by good people. Donald Trump is in this for himself. He's only doing it to stay out of jail and to get people's money to support his, you know, keeping him out of jail. And I think that he should go on offense on those things. But like none of that is going

to be as important as voters being like, remember how you felt after the State of the Union? Just remember how you felt after being like, look at that guy. We need that. That moment has to happen. People just have to feel like Joe Biden stood in there with Trump, gave as good as he got, seems like he could do the job, and that's the bar he's got to clear. Yeah. I mean, it's kind of wild, right? I hear a lot from people like, you know, I'm having conversations with voters and Biden's age comes up and it's like, well, what should I tell him? And it's like, well, I've seen all the polling and nothing you tell them really helps, right? There's no verbal message that comes from another person that says Joe Biden is up to the job. But it really, you know, and you spend, they're going to spend all this time as they should, you know, like, here are the words you can say, here's the moments, right? He's going to practice lines in a mirror. He's going to do it. And that 90% of it's going to be how he says the line, right? 99% of it, really. And that's just sort of a wild thing. And it's, you know, and it's, it, it'll be interesting to see like what the threshold is, right? Because

the State of the Union was Joe Biden being judged against the character of Joe Biden. And the debate is being judged against Donald Trump. Yes. Which comes with good and bad, right? Good because he might seem sane and rational and like a normal human being worthy of being a president while Trump is acting like – like his energy during debates dating back to 2016 is quite crazy. Yes. is quite crazy. Yes.

And Trump could be in his sort of feral state reminding some voters of what they don't like about the guy and why they were concerned about him in 2020. But he, so he doesn't, and this is important, that he doesn't have to out energy Trump. He just has to beat his own threshold. And that's a hard thing, particularly for someone who's as competitive as Biden, right? I'm just gonna be fascinated to see,

and I'm gonna, I certainly hope to watch some dial groups as it's happening, of how voters are interpreting it in real time, right? And then afterwards, at how voters are going to interpret the clips they see, right? And that's going to matter a ton. It's going to matter a ton, more than anything. I'd be interested to see what viewership is, right?

It was 70 million in 2020 when everyone was locked in their homes. What's it going to be in the summer of 2024 when we can go to baseball games and other things? Is it going to be 40 million, 50 million? But the vast majority of people in all the, and the thing is that we always have to remind ourselves is that of that 50 million, if let's say it's 50, 85% of it are decided voters, 90% of it are decided voters, and the rest of it is going to be what will be the clips people see. And that benefited Biden a lot in the State of the Union, and we'll see what happens in the debate, whether people try to push out less favorable clips. Yeah.

Can I just push back on this idea about people being decided? Or I don't know if I'm pushing back, but maybe I'm pushing back on the percentage, in part because when you – the thing about people who don't like either candidate is that like they're still going to vote lots of them. And my theory of the case for Biden has always been that the people who dislike both break late for Biden. But like some things have to happen for them to break late for Biden. And part of that is it's sort of like the way Angela also Brooks. Like we just saw this happen with her. Right. She got a bunch of endorsements. She was running way behind Trone. He had all the name idea, whatever. Like we just saw this happen with her. Right. She got a bunch of endorsements. She was running way behind Trone. He had all the name idea, whatever. But like when push came to shove, people broke for her, I think because of endorsements, because of other things and also because they just didn't like him that much.

And so the late breaking thing is real. And I think if the double haters, if Biden can clear certain thresholds of like he's up to the job, he seems good, he seems normal. I believe he wants to do the right thing for the country. And I think Donald Trump wants to burn it all down. Like, I think that you can get there. I just think these moments for Biden, the like pressure so high, like he can't have a, he can't crater in this debate. He just can't. Michael, my more on the 85% was who would watch the debate live? Do you think that some of those double haters will tune in for the debate? Yeah, although you're right. I also hear a lot of people in the group say, like, oh, I can't watch. Like, it's just, you know, that is how a lot of people feel.

I know a lot of Biden voters who cannot watch, right? My mom is not gonna be able to watch the debate. Yeah, but that's because I hear voters, the poor Democratic voters, they're always like, I just get so nervous. They all do this thing where they put their hands out like they're going to help Joe Biden, like an invisible Joe Biden somewhere, like they're going to steady him with their hands. Yeah, this is the side you're trying to help. A bunch of nervous Nellies just trying to save democracy. Finally, a bunch of outlets, including ABC and NBC, are reporting that Trump's vice presidential search has moved into a new stage and they've asked the top contenders to fill out vetting paperwork.

Anonymous sources say the shortlist is some combination of Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, Doug Burgum, and maybe Tim Scott. There's also a second tier that may include Tom Cotton, Elise Stefanik, and Byron Donalds. Do any of these folks scare you more than others? Is there someone that you secretly hope Trump will pick? Oh, that I hope? But I know who scares me the most. I mean, so anything that I think. I'm going to be curious.

I bet I can guess who you think scares you the most, but I want to hear. OK, well, do you want to write it down and then show me later or show me after I said? I'll just tell you, I think it's I think you're going to say Rubio. I am going to say Rubio. So Rubio and Rubio. Rubio scares me the most. Scott scares me second most. And the reason is that, number one, I think that what and I think it's going to be one of those two,

because I think that the Republicans really want to or Trump wants to lean into the fact that they're doing well with both Hispanics and with potentially black men. And so they seem like ways to sort of signal that they want to do more of that. Number one. But the thing about Marco Rubio that freaks me out, and Tim Scott to a slightly lesser degree, is that the Republican establishment that hates Trump will wet their pants over Marco Rubio. They will be like, see, it was a weird, circuitous route, but we got our Marco Rubio that we always wanted, and Trump's going to eat a cheeseburger and die, and we're going to get Rubio, and we're all back, baby.

Wall Street Journal editorial page, we're back to get Rubio and we're all back, baby. Wall Street Journal editorial page, we're back. And I do not want that for them. And I have a Tim Miller, my colleague at the Bulwark, has a little, he disagrees with me where he's sort of like, wouldn't it be, don't you kind of want there to be like a semi-normy behind Trump that like, if it is Trump that, you know, and I'm like, forget, no, Marco Rubio. And this is a weird one because I'm usually kind of the institutionalist. But there is no part of me that wants to give either Marco Rubio or the Republican establishment that's accommodated Trump an inch on this. I don't want them to get this. I want him to do his true itself and bring Carrie Lake or Marjorie Taylor Greene with him and lose the election on all their crazy.

Not another, not this. this would be a major calibration and it would help him a lot because man, these guys are old. Their VPs are gonna matter more than they ever have before, which still is not a lot, but still like more than ever. Rubio worries me the most by far for many of the reasons you just said. I think it would create, there were

going to be some people, some of the kind you talked to, not just the National Review Republicans who are still trying to wrestle with Trump, but actual voters who were trying to decide between the two and are like, Rubio just will speak to some sort of previous Republican normalcy that could be a tiebreaker, right? That's kind of how I see the vice presidential race for Trump is it's like, at most, it's a tiebreaker for some voters, which is why I can hope he picks Doug Burgum, because I think no one makes a decision for Doug Burgum. I don't think it helps. And I could really see him picking Rubio because it's complicated. Rubio would have to renounce his Florida residency, which I could see Trump enjoying

doing. He gets to make Rubio move out of his state and he gets to make him VP. And so he would worry me a lot. I am much more worried. I'm worried about everything, but much more worried about Biden's performance among Hispanic voters than Black voters. Although I would just note again, I'm worried about both.

Tim Scott, I am less worried about. I think Tim Scott just is bad. He just comes off. I think the lesson of Tim Scott's miserable failure of a Republican primary campaign is not that he can't relate to the Trump mega base. It's that he can't relate to humans. If Tim Scott is chosen, he will give a very good convention speech because he has a powerful story. He gave the same speech in 2020. I just don't see him really relating to a lot of voters in a way that is helpful. Let me make my case on Tim Scott.

Well, I think it could be him. When you talk about Trump, I totally agree with you. Trump would love to make Marco Rubio have to move out of Florida. You know what else he likes doing? Making Tim Scott get married. That's true. And so like Tim Scott clearly thinks he's in it because he's gone ahead and been like, I'm going to reconstruct my whole life to live this fantasy that Donald Trump's supposed to do.

Also, Tim Scott has a real weakness to him. Like if I were Trump, my concern about Marco Rubio is that inside Marco Rubio lives a guy who always wanted to be president, who thinks he should have been president, who secretly hates Donald Trump, who Trump can't quite trust. Whereas Tim Scott is like, let me do whatever you say. And like, and he's wimpy on TV, right? He's not good. You're right. He's not good. But in a way that Trump is kind of like, I just need him for optics and I'm running this show. And so there's a part of me, I don't know. I still can see the case for Tim Scott.

I know. I can see for why Trump would pick Tim Scott, for sure. I just, from a political perspective, am less worried about Tim, much less worried about Tim Scott than Mark Ruhle. This is going to sound like a crazy thing to say. I'm really workshopping this right here in front of you and all of our listeners is, if you told me who I'd be to be more worried about Tim Scott or

Byron Donalds, I would say Byron Donalds. Oh, wow. Yeah. I think he just, he has more of a, he has a story. He has energy. He, I mean, he obviously is crazy, right? I mean, he's been running around defending himself for saying black people were better off during Jim Crow. So, but I think he, Tim Scott is just boring as all get out. And Byron Donalds, I think would have energy and I could see Byron Donalds going on to the Breakfast Club and like mixing it up in a way that Tim Scott would never be able to do. Right? Just Tim Scott just has weird politician energy. And that's sort of how he is. And Byron Reynolds has full MAGA energy, but he's just better. He's much better on TV and in the press than Scott is.

I think you also nailed why Trump would not pick Rubio. Like, he'd have to be really convinced that Rubio was necessary for victory. Yeah. Because he hates Marco Rubio and thinks he's a loser to reward him. And I think he would also be worried that Rubio would be like the people he has pledged not to hire, right? The John Boltons, the Gary Cohns, you know, the Rex Tillerson's, the sort of the former establishment people who didn't go along with all of his crimes. But it's gonna be fascinating to watch. I think it's pretty interesting that Trump is going to, or at least

is suggesting he's going to announce during the convention. Who his VP is, which is probably pretty smart. It is. I will tell you, I am I'm nervous about the VP selection because I think there are a lot of people he could choose that your point. I'm going to steal this now like it's mine because the tiebreaker point is just right on. Because when you got the double haters. Right. And this is I think of the conviction is like a log on the fire that burns like against trump you give them a good vp that like takes those double haters and gives them something to be like okay this is my thing that gets me over the

hump yeah it is uh i think the vp is gonna as you said it's gonna usually that my take is the vp will only cost you the election won't win it for you and this time they could actually win it for you and there are people on this list who I think would cost it to him, right? I think these are all fine, right? I mean, Doug Burgum's a nothing burger. J.D. Vance is kind of a nothing burger to most people. Tom Cotton, kind of a nothing burger, but maybe some upside for some of them.

Sarah, thanks for doing this. Yeah, that was so fun. If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. And if you're already doom-scrolling, don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production.

Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farah Safari. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kiril Pallaviv, and Molly Lobel.