Pod Save America - “Trump’s Coup de Nah.”

Episode Date: September 24, 2020

Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, Democrats fight to overcome mail-in voting shenanigans, and Republicans make appeals to QAnon supporters. Then Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talks to Jon about the Democratic strategy around the coming Supreme Court battle.

This is a life-changing election. This will determine what America is going to look like for a long, long time. This is the most important election in the history of our country. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Later in the pod, I'll talk with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer about how the Senate Democrats will handle the Supreme Court nomination fight. We'll also cover Donald Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, the latest issues around mail-in voting,

and why Republicans are now running ads that appeal to supporters of the dangerous QAnon conspiracy. Another bright and cheery day here at Pod Save America, Dan. Democracy is healthy and thriving. We do want to start with some good news about what you all accomplished on National Voter Registration Day. You helped contact over 1.2 million young people who were either unregistered or needed to update their registration. And you helped raise over $1 million for Register to Vote, which has sent over 360,000 registration forms and other materials to people who aren't yet registered in key battleground states. Just incredible work. Keep it up. Registration deadlines start coming next weekend. You can check yours on

votesaveamerica.com. I believe we had 40-something thousand people use the two-line Votes Save America on National Registration Day to either update their registration or verify it. So that's very exciting. Quick programming note, With Friends Like These is back with a new season about good intentions, where Annamarie Cox will dig into what makes us want to do good and what doing good does to our brains. The first episode is out tomorrow, so make sure to check it out and subscribe to With Friends Like These wherever you get your podcasts. Finally, before we get started with the rest of today's news, our colleagues over at What A Day did an outstanding job this morning covering Wednesday's announcement that no officers will be charged directly in the death of Breonna Taylor,

who was killed by Louisville police officers earlier this year in a botched drug raid on her home. A grand jury instead indicted just one of the officers connected to the case with wanton endangerment for firing shots that went through Taylor's apartment and into a neighboring home. What a day spoke with Kentucky State Representative Charles Booker about the case this morning. And here is a clip. It hurts. It's another example of how justice fails us. And, you know, the reality is that justice has been failing us for generations. And so as hurtful as this moment is in a lot of different ways,

especially for the family that Ms. Palmer, they're dealing with a lot of trauma. And this is really just another devastating chapter in what's going to be a lifetime of pain and distress for them. In the midst of all of that, I feel a very heavy sense of resolve that this is why we fight. This is why we lead. This is why we show up. And I feel our community as a whole is clinging to that sense of urgency and responsibility right now.

It's a horrific and infuriating outcome. But it's, you know, Charles Brooker was excellent in that interview. So really encourage everyone to listen to the interview. And for more on the Breonna Taylor case, check out the rest of today's What A Day. And be sure to subscribe to the show. It is outstanding. Always. Akilah and Gideon are fantastic. All right, let's get to the rest of the news. Over the last several weeks, Donald Trump has become increasingly transparent about his desire to cheat in an election that he is currently losing. On Tuesday, the president said that he wants his Supreme Court nominee confirmed before the election because, quote, with the unsolicited millions of ballots that they're sending, you're going to need nine justices. On Wednesday, The Atlantic reported that a Trump legal advisor said that mail-in ballots counted after election night will be challenged as, quote,

fraudulent. And at least in Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign has discussed, quote, contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. And on Wednesday night, when Trump was asked at a press conference whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power, here's what he said. Mr. President, real quickly, win, lose, or draw in this election. Will you commit here today for a peaceful transfer of power after the election? There has been rioting in Louisville, there's been rioting in many cities across this country, red and your so-called red and blue states.

Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferal of power after the election? Well, we're going to have to see what happens. You know that I've been complaining very strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster But people are rioting do you commit to making sure that there's a peaceful? We want to have get rid of the ballots and you'll have a very transfer. We'll have a very peaceful There won't be a transfer frankly. There'll be a continuation The ballots are out of control, you know it and you know who knows it better than anybody else

the democrats know it better than anybody else go ahead now of course what he's saying there is you get rid of all the mail-in ballots and you won't need a peaceful transfer of power because he will win so there will be a continuation of course he is talking about getting rid of mail-in ballots which by the way right before we started recording he is talking about getting rid of mail-in ballots, which by the way, right before we started recording, he just tweeted, Florida, get your mail-in ballots today and send them in. Vote for Trump. First question, what powers does Trump have to carry out any of these threats? Can he, for example, get Republican legislatures to appoint loyal electors? Can he, for example, get Republican legislatures to appoint loyal electors?

Look, Trump is full of shit, right? I'm not going to tell people not to worry about things because as we say, you worry about everything. But Trump has, I've said this before, but Trump is not particularly smart man. He's not particularly disciplined. He has a pretty short attention span. He has basically zero strategic sense. He's not particularly disciplined. He has a pretty short attention span.

He has basically zero strategic sense. So the idea that he is going to be able to engage in a coup in America is a pretty far-fetched, right? Does it mean we should not monitor things? I mean, we should be vigilant. We might have to push back. But I do think as Americans, we have to manage our worries and we don't have to worry about all outcomes with the same amount of worry. Right. So I kind of want to separate three things because this election is being stolen,

but it's being stolen through more traditional means, which is Joe Biden is going to get more votes and he may not win the presidency, which is, that's a structural problem. Yeah, sure. That is our system. And that, which is a particularly stupid system. But the way I'm trying to separate my own personal worries is into three buckets. One is worrying about the things that are happening right now. So what is that? That is the voter suppression laws on the books. That is efforts to delay mail ballots. That is Trump trying to sow questions about the legitimacy of the election. That is happening. questions about the legitimacy of the election. That is happening. Things that have not happened yet, but could happen, right? That is a situation like we're going to talk about a little bit later about Pennsylvania and the naked ballots, and then a Republican Supreme Court putting their thumb on the scale in favor of Trump. Like that is something that is possible. We know it's possible because that's what happened in 2000. And then there are the things that are possible but unlikely, right? And that is this example that has been going around ever since Bart Gelman, who's a very smart guy, wrote an article in The Atlantic that says the Trump

campaign is thinking about Republican legislatures appointing loyal electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College, even if the results of the election suggest they should vote for Biden. And there are a number of, and people panicked about that, but we shouldn't, we should worry but not panic. But what I think that article was missing was that that is a very, very hard thing to do and a very complicated thing to do. And it would require them to upend state laws in a number of battleground states that have democratic governors, which make that virtually impossible. And so as we're moderating our worries here, that is one that I am worried least about. And we should focus more on the things that are

right before us, if that makes sense. It does make sense. There's this effort among a lot of people who come from a very good place and are rightly concerned to make sure that everyone is as alarmed as possible by this. My view on this is, like, of course Trump is trying to cheat to win the election. Like, this should not be news to anyone. Of course we're in a national emergency where Donald Trump is an extremely dangerous president to have. Like, we know all this. The question is, like, we're all sufficiently alarmed. The question is, what are you going to do about it? What can you control versus what do you have to just like game out for, you know, some, you know, disaster scenario that you have to like, what can you change? Right. And I think what we can change, what we can control right now, there's a couple of things. who's been on the show and a bunch of other Democratic lawyers in court every day challenging all of the shenanigans from the Trump campaign. So that's there's a legal strategy. There is

a public education campaign about mail in voting that we're going to talk about, about when we're going to know the results of the election, that it's not just going to be necessarily on election night, that it could be election week or could be election month. It's important to educate voters about that. And then, of course, there is the most basic thing we can do, which is organize our asses off and register enough voters so that Joe Biden wins by a large enough margin that these things aren't, it doesn't get to the kind of close margins where Trump can pull all of his shit, right? Like these are the things we can control. So there's this like back and forth,

whether you should be alarmed or not alarmed, but it's not a fucking barometer here of like your level of alarm. Like that doesn't help anyone, whether you're very alarmed or medium alarmed or not alarmed at all. What helps is what you can control, which is to go out and talk to some fucking voters and register voters so we can win by a big enough margin. That's the only thing we can do. That is the only thing we can do. That's right. And I think how we talk about this matters because the polling is pretty clear and it can change, right? I'm not saying things can't change. We've got some pretty big debates coming up. But right now, if you were to say, what is a more likely way for Trump to win? Is it to persuade people who are currently supporting Joe Biden to vote for him

or is it to persuade people who are currently supporting Joe Biden to vote for him? Or is it to persuade people who are currently supporting Joe Biden to not vote? It is clearly the latter, right? And there is a lot of political science research and polling, and we talked about this with Anat Shankar-Osorio in last week's podcast, that people are less likely to vote if they think their vote won't count, which is what undergirds so much of what Trump is saying about the mail-in ballots. It's why he's screaming with one side of his mouth, mail-in balloting is illegal. It doesn't count. It's a mess. And then the other side, he's saying, hey, Republicans, send in your mail-in ballots, right? He's trying to convince people who are skeptical of the political process, who are more likely to be Democratic voters than Republican voters, that their vote won't matter. And voting is an expression of political

power. And if you think your political power does not count, doesn't matter, you're less likely to do it. And that's true in every election, let alone one where going to the polls could put you at risk of contracting a deadly virus. And so what I think we have to do here is not talk about this in the context of Trump's strength, his authoritarian instincts. We know that that actually helps him with some voters. Just to point out that Trump is trying to cheat because he is a weak loser. He is losing the election. He has failed at almost everything in his life other than stumbling ass backwards into the presidency in 2016. And he's likely to fail at this too. But that's up to us.

We have the power to stop that. There are more people who oppose Trump than support him. And if we turn out and vote, we can send him home. And talking about this in the context of our power to stop Trump, not Trump's power to stop us is absolutely essential. And look, there's a lot of qualitative research about this that Anant has done, that other pollsters and researchers have done. And again, it's not, you know, Democratic partisans are going to vote, Republican partisans are going to vote. We're talking about a universe of people who are the infrequent voters that we talked about last time in our change research survey. But aside from the research, it's sort of just common sense. If you're someone who doesn't pay a lot of attention to politics and

you're someone who is not sure if you're going to vote and you hear that Donald Trump is a scary authoritarian who's not going to leave office anyway, why would you think that your vote matters? Why would you think it matters? It's just, it's common fucking sense. So like, you know, Anat had some good advice on this and I know you guys talked about it last time, but just to reiterate, you know, she, she like in terms of phrasing to use in language, we should talk about swearing in new leaders versus electing new leaders, because we're going to talk about it's going to go all the way to swearing. And we're not going to have any discrepancies where we elect someone and then they don't leave and they're not going to get sworn in. So we talk about swearing in people. Like you said, Trump is trying to cheat because he knows he's losing as opposed to saying he's stealing it. He's an authoritarian. He's already rigged it. People need to have confidence that voting is an act worth taking. And then it also helps to say

that the United States has always held elections and upheld the results, even in the midst of war and depression, to give people confidence that we've been through tough challenges before and overcome them. And we can do that again if we turn out. Julie Oliver, who's running for Congress in the Texas 25th, she's a very inspiring candidate. She's running for the House. She tweeted yesterday, Donald Trump doesn't decide whether or not he leaves office. We do. That is the exact right way to talk about this. Empower people. Let them know that if we turn out, if we organize, we can make sure he leaves office. It is up to us. It is not up to him. You've got to empower

people about it. Let's talk about some of the obstacles to overcome with regard to mail-in voting, because there are many. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court has ruled that mail-in ballots can be thrown out if they aren't placed in what's called a secrecy envelope, which is then placed in a larger postmarked envelope that the voter signs and puts in the mail. Philadelphia's top election official has warned that this could lead to an estimated 100,000 votes being thrown out. In this year's primaries alone, 534,000 mail-in ballots were rejected across 23 states for various reasons. And an additional problem is that they're not rejected uniformly across demographic groups. Young voters and voters of color have their ballots rejected

at higher rates than older and whiter voters. So I want to talk about what we can do about this. But first, I want to get your reaction to a tweet from Politico's Tim Alberta yesterday, who wrote, given all we know about this president delegitimizing the electoral process, historians are going to look back and wonder why the hell Dems invested so heavily in the one thing, mail voting, that could cause delays, mass qualifications, and mass chaos. I also saw a story in Axios this morning that Democrats are now pivoting to urging people to vote in person away from mail-in voting. Is this the tweet that Tim Alberta deleted

after everyone pointed out that he was excusing Republican voter suppression? That's the one, Dan. Yeah. OK. But I have heard a number. There's been a, you know, not to just pick on Tim. There have been a number of people on Twitter the last couple of days questioning the Democratic strategy of pushing mail-in voting. Per usual, it's always just a little more nuanced and complicated than comes through

in the tweets of reporters paying one third attention to what's happening. For example, this Axios story you talk about says John Hickenlooper is pivoting away from mail balloting. John Hickenlooper is running for Senate in Colorado. Colorado has an all-mail election. The only way to pivot away from mail balloting is to not vote. And it has run, Colorado has run all-mail elections since 2014. All John Hickenlooper suggested was because Donald Trump is trying to politicize the postal services, you should turn in your mail ballot in person in a dropbox if you can, which has nothing to do with the broader issue of mail-in votes not being counted because

of signature matching and other things. It's still counted the same way as one that arrives in the mail. It's just ensuring it arrives there on time. The Biden campaign and the Democrats have encouraged people to vote by mail, but they've also encouraged people where it is possible, where it is healthy for them to vote in person. So it is still true that the likelihood of your vote not being counted is slightly greater if you vote by mail than if you vote in person. That is true. But like on a state by state basis, and this is all talked about in Votes of America and some other places, there are ways to ensure that you do it right. And it is incumbent upon us, the Biden campaign, Democrats, people with platforms,

volunteers to give people the information they need to do it correctly. But the idea that Republicans are suppressing the vote and trying to prevent people from voting and Democrats are at fault because Republicans are doing that is just an absurd proposition where you've already bought the premise of the argument that democracies are things that are supposed to be game for partisan edge. I will also say that as soon as the pandemic began and it became clear that this might be an issue, Democrats, Democrats in Congress, Mark Elias, who, you know, does a lot of this Democratic legal stuff, us, like we made pretty clear that said safe options because we wanted to preserve in-person voting locations for people who could safely vote in person. And by the way, what we really wanted to emphasize was early voting options. Because again, one way to avoid crowds at a polling place is to have a week or two of early voting where people can go to voting locations and not have be a lot of crowds. And so it's less dangerous. And so you're less like. So again, if there are many options for you to vote, you can vote in person on Election Day. You can vote early, which is the preferred option. You can either vote early in person or you can take your mail-in ballot to a drop-off location or you can send in your ballot by mail. If you do that, you have to be extra careful that you follow everything to the letter of the law and every rule so that your ballot is counted

and you send it in early send it and send it in early and but there are many options for people to vote and if you feel like you're really worried about the mail and all that kind of stuff then go in person if you if you're young and healthy and you feel like that's okay then go in person try to go early look look you know, all of this is on Vote Save America. You can find all of the deadlines, all of the states where they have early voting locations, when early voting begins, where there are drop boxes for your ballot. All that's on the website, so go check it out. To talk just purely about the naked ballot issue in Pennsylvania, what can we do about that? Educate people, right? I think that the fact that we are having this big conversation,

and it's getting a lot of coverage in Pennsylvania itself, which is where it truly matters, this far from the election is incredibly important. Because where you run into problems is when people discover a problem with how votes are counted or how ballots are designed on election day, right? That's what happened in Florida in 2000. That's what happened in Florida in 2018 that led to an undercount in the Senate race that was very detrimental to Bill Nelson's chances of getting reelected. And so knowing this now gives us an opportunity to make sure that people are aware of it and educate people. And there's plenty of time to do that. So this is another thing. Don't panic. Just go about the work of educating people. And there's plenty of time to do that. So this is another thing.

Don't panic. Just go about the work of educating people. And there's a very good video out today that I saw one of the DNC staffers tweet out that is from the DNC or the Pennsylvania Democratic Party teaching people how to do it. I'm sure there are going to be lots of videos and lots of other instructional efforts from influencers and put organizations to ensure that people do it. Now, it is a stupid fucking ruling from the state Supreme Court. It makes zero sense. It is just another example of how fucked up elections are in America, where we try to put as many hurdles as

possible as if this, we were trying to, this was a steeplechase, not a way to pick our elected officials. But we can teach people how to do this. And this is why vote by mail is still good in this situation, is now we have six weeks to do it, or however many weeks are left. How many weeks are left? Six? A hundred? I think it's six. Yeah.

Either way. A billion, I don't know. Yeah, it's every day's a month, so forever. Three years. But the naked ballot issue relates to the question of whether mail balloting is good or bad. Yes, mail ballots are rejected at a higher rate than regular votes. That is a fact. But what that doesn't take into account is you have a

chance in many states to correct a rejected mail ballot. And it doesn't take into account all the complications that come with voting on election day with your own life, like within the context of your life, let alone getting a virus, because we make voting so hard in this country where you are registered to vote at a precinct near your home, but election day is not a holiday. So you have to go to work, which is often far away. And there are all kinds of things that prevent people from having the time and capacity to vote because of life. And so having this longer period of time is very good.

And it gives us the opportunity to educate people on this naked ballot issue, which is a great name, I guess, because it'd be very, naked ballot is something that people will fucking remember. Yeah, I know. But you know, like if that's the content to share, right? The Pennsylvania Democratic Party has created a video.

I tweeted it, you tweeted it, everyone's been tweeting it. Then it's problem solved. We have tweeted. We tweeted it. You tweeted it. Everyone's been tweeting it. Then it's problem solved. We have tweeted. We tweeted it. That's good. But, you know, put it on fucking Facebook

where all your relatives are. Send it to your friends in Pennsylvania. Everyone knows someone in Pennsylvania. Go send it to them, right? Like, sharing content about how people can deal

with the naked ballot issue is going to increase the chances that Donald Trump loses more than just screaming that Donald Trump is trying to steal the chances that Donald Trump loses more than just screaming that Donald Trump is trying to steal the election. We know that. We all know he's trying to cheat. But like, let's help people figure out these very annoying and very unfair ballot issues, but we can overcome them if everyone is careful and everyone is educated. So that's what we should be focused on. All right, let's talk about the Supreme Court.

Donald Trump will be announcing his nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 5 p.m. Eastern on Saturday. And Mitch McConnell already got more than 50 Republican senators to say that they're willing to vote on the nomination before the next president takes office, including Senators Mitt Romney, Lamar Alexander, Cory Gardner, and others who were considered potential no votes. Dan, at this point, can you game out a possible scenario where four of these Republican senators vote against Trump's nominee? That's a hard question, John. I'm asking you because I know you have a lot of faith in Republican senators sticking to their principles and just listening to their conscience. Well, look, there. Yeah. Are there are there bad apples in the bunch? Of course. But on the whole, these are people who care about America. They're patriots, institutionalists. They prize norms. I mean, it is sad. I went through all the roster of

Senate Republicans to see who could possibly do it. And it is like, once you get past cynical weather veins trying to hold on to their election, like Susan Collins, who would have, who would definitely have voted for this Supreme Court nominee were it to come in a year in which she was not up for ree-election, just to be very clear, and someone who could possibly have maybe considered a Mitt Romney and maybe Lamar Alexander, there is no one. It's just hack central, right? It's just a party of hacks. We don't know what's going to happen. Nothing is impossible. There could be hiccups along the way. There could be problems we don't know about in the record of this nominee, whoever she may be. But, you know, obviously Republicans

in a situation where you're depending on the good faith of Republicans to do the right thing, it's never a situation you feel pretty good about. Yeah. The problems in the nominee's record for Republicans would be like, oh, she once said that maybe a woman should have the right to choose or that she thinks that health care is good. Like those, those are the kind of problems in the records for these Republicans. Like, I don't, I don't know what other problems they're going to find unless it is again, like, you know, we went back through Kavanaugh, if there's like a scandal sort of thing. Um, but even then that won't matter. Like, I was going to say, yeah, I'm just trying, but yeah, I don't think so. The only thing that could possibly matter is if something in this nominee's record gave them reason to believe this person would vote for women's right to choose, the Affordable Care Act, voting rights, or saving the planet.

All the other stuff, right? Those are the real deal breakers. Any cheating in law school, impersonation, supporting QAnon, any of those things would be totally fine. Because Kavanaugh violated every stricture of how you think a nominee should. The temperament, questions about personal conduct, all lying. Kavanaugh lied under oath in front of everyone, and the Republicans supported him the next day. Like Kavanaugh lied under oath in front of everyone and the Republicans supported him the next day. And so we know what like and we also know that Trump is going to ask this person for a loyalty pledge on all of these issues. Like he's not going to leave it to chance.

Right. So, you know, we kind of we kind of know where this is likely to end up. And there and there are things Democrats could do here that are very important. I think we'll talk about. But ultimately, this is why having control of the Senate matters, because Republicans decide whether this nominee is confirmed. In terms of timing, Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said he's looking at scheduling a confirmation hearing for the week of October 12th, a committee vote near the end of the following week and a final floor vote right before Halloween, which is just a few days before the election. floor vote right before Halloween, which is just a few days before the election.

This entire fight seems like it's clearly set up to give Trump a giant win and a bunch of really good headlines just days before the election. So if Republicans have the votes to push this nomination through, how should Democrats handle the nomination process? Is there anything we can do to push the vote until after the election? That we have some limited tools at our disposal, right? There are some procedural things we can do to slow down. Limited tools, the story of the Democratic Party. Well, it's limited tools, the story of the Senate minority, right? Like, I cannot wait for Mitch McConnell and these people to have limited tools next year, right? As we just start passing $15 minimum wage.

Yeah. They're just whining on the Senate floor the whole time about norms and procedures and process. Yes, it's going to be quite enjoyable. Yes. I will love if, yeah, let's hope. Yes. Give to get Mitch to make sure that we get Mitch.

Give to get Mitch so we make sure that we get Mitch those limited tools. Cool. But ultimately they can change the rules. They can, by brute force, push this through. The timing is interesting, I think, because I think that they want this to be as close to the election as possible. Because one of the hardest periods in a political campaign is maintaining momentum from the last debate to election day. And that's where, think about how devastating that period was to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Now, that was more had more a lot more to do with Jim Comey's bizarre desire to unburden himself on fairly trivial matters in that period. But like, you can see a world in which the Republicans try to frame this as a gigantic win in a boost of momentum to Trump as he heads into election day.

And, you know, you see the coverage, a devastating blow to Democrats whose last-ditch efforts to stop this nomination failed. What does this mean for Joe Biden, who's not even in the Senate, right? And so, like, that is where this is headed. The good news is we know that's where this is headed, so we have some time to figure out what to do about it and to mitigate the effects of that if they were able to push this nomination through in that time period. So one of the tactics I've heard being proposed is that Democrats should perhaps boycott the hearings. And the argument there goes, if Democrats are saying that this nomination is illegitimate, then it doesn't really matter who Trump chooses as the nominee or what their record is, because what we're saying is you shouldn't be able to rush through a nomination while people are voting in a presidential election. And if that's what we believe, shouldn't we boycott the hearings? And if we boycott the hearings,

And if that's what we believe, shouldn't we boycott the hearings? And if we boycott the hearings, then perhaps a couple of things will happen. One, they won't get as much press coverage because there won't be as much drama in the hearings because you'll have the opening statement from the nominee. And then Republicans will basically lob softball questions for a couple of days. And that'll be that. The other thing that will happen is there won't be any drama around. days and that'll be that. The other thing that will happen is there won't be any drama around. Could Democrats possibly win this fight? And then when the hearings are over and the Democrats lose because the Republicans have the votes, it'll seem like a bigger loss for Democrats at that point. What do you think about the potential to boycott the hearings. This sounds like a cop-out, but I don't really care. Interesting.

I can see the arguments for it. I observed an argument about this topic between you and one of our other friends who also hosts a podcast on Crooked Media. Arguments, not even the right term. A debate about the merits of this proposal. I don't think it matters that much either way. I don't think it's particularly consequential. What's really going to matter is how everyone from Joe Biden on down helps manage

the expectations about this and how it frames it. I'll make the case against, I guess, which I think I probably slightly lean towards. What is it that AOC said about the convention? Not every disagreement's a fight. I think something like that. Yeah, that's how I feel about this. They're like, yeah, I kind of disagree, but I don't care that much. The argument against is the polling is pretty clear that the best arguments against the Supreme Court actually buttress the best arguments we have against Trump, which is that, and Senate Republicans writ large, including a lot of Senate Republicans who are going to be intimately involved in this process who are up for re-election. You know, one is that the Republicans are trying to jam through this nominee to help overturn the

Affordable Care Act in the middle of a pandemic. The Republicans are jamming through this nominee when they are not focused on helping us deal with the coronavirus and passing economic relief. They are focusing on what helps them politically instead of what helps the country. They would rather protect the Republican Party than protect America. These are all, we know that these are very powerful messages. And you could deliver those messages in a hearing, right? And it may matter less for how Trump does, how that plays itself out, than how it does for some of the Republican senators who are up for reelection who are going to have to participate in those hearings. Yeah, I, you know, I had this debate with, I'll just say Tommy. Tommy took the other side. But

again, I was more just making the argument for the other side. I'm not sure where I am actually, because I do think if they boycotted the hearings, I would like do events with people who are about to lose their health care because a Supreme Court nominee could strike down the Affordable Care Act. Right. Because this nominee could strike down the Affordable Care Act. So you still get coverage of the health care message, which I think is incredibly important. I do get that if Democrats decide to boycott, like the press universally will be like they're whiny, they're taking their toys and going home. It's an extreme move. Republicans break the institution and now Democrats are breaking the institution too. There will be a lot of both sides. And you may lose the opportunity to get the nominee under questioning

to admit that she would be likely to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Particularly, that she would be likely to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Particularly, Amy Coney Barrett has said that she believes that the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act was wrongly decided and that it's unconstitutional. Now, nominees are also trained to say nothing interesting and to give no good answers at these hearings. So the idea that you're going to have some gotcha question that nails Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa or whoever it may be and then changes the whole thing, I think is is unlikely. I almost I'm having a little PTSD to the impeachment hearings where like, you know, we saw it. I certainly saw it as a messaging opportunity for Democrats to move the needle. I think Adam Schiff and all the Democrats did a fantastic job during the impeachment

hearings. It did not move the needle. It did not change any Republican minds. None of us remember it anymore. You know, so like I might end up sort of with you where I don't really care either way, but I don't know. I think it's an interesting idea to boycott it. Yeah, like it should be further explored. I wouldn't be angry if they did it. I don't think, like I said, I don't think it's of, this is a minor tactical consideration in a much broader strategic conversation. If they don't boycott the hearings, what should Democrats' strategy be at the hearings, do you think? I think it is basically to say over and over again that they are doing this to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Like that, like healthcare. And choice. I would put choice

in there. Yeah, of course. Of course. Yes. Yeah. I mean, there's a set of things. There is choice. Basically everything that a majority of Americans care about is at stake here. And that this person is being nominated by a president who got a minority of votes being confirmed by a Senate majority that represents a minority of votes to oppose policy positions supported by a majority of Americans. That is healthcare. That is choice. That is climate workers' rights, climate, a whole majority of Americans. That is health care. That is choice. That is climate, workers' rights, climate, a whole host of things. And framing it in the context of that minority opinion with some issues, with some specific issues that we know move different groups of voters is, I think, the best way to use that limited tool, if you will, that we have in a

hearing. So the ultimate political ramifications of the nomination fight are still unclear. But let's talk about where things stand right now. Our friends at Data for Progress released a poll on Monday that voters think Ginsburg's seat should be filled by whoever wins the presidency by a margin of 53 to 39 percent. And that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the Supreme Court increases their motivation. They also released, with our friends at Indivisible, a brand new set of Senate polls today that showed Democratic Senate candidates in positions to win in states that weren't even on the map last year. In Georgia, John Ossoff is tied and Reverend Warnock is leading. In Kansas, Barbara Boyer is tied.

In Kentucky, Amy McGrath has cut her deficit with Mitch McConnell to seven points. They also show that Gary Peters continues to lead outside the margin of error in Michigan. You can read full results in an op-ed by Charlotte Swayze and Marie Urbina at Crooked.com. Dan, we also had some new New York Times Siena polls in Georgia, Texas, and Iowa today that also showed sort of the Democratic Senate candidates very much in the hunt, also showed basically no difference before RBG had died and after in the polling. The poll was taken both before and after. What's your reaction to how the politics of the nomination fight is playing out so far? Well, you know, like we always say, that is

something we're going to control in the long run. Like we don't know who's going to fare better in the politics. Republicans obviously have the upper hand when it comes to deciding whether the justice is confirmed. But Democrats start this process, according to the polling, with the upper hand politically in a couple of ways. As you mentioned in that initial Data for Progress poll, people side with the Democrats on the idea that we should wait and the voters should have a voice, that they are, for the

first time in American history, agreeing with Mitch McConnell on something Mitch McConnell previously said four years ago. on the idea that we should wait and the voters should have a voice, that they are, for the first time in American history, agreeing with Mitch McConnell on something Mitch McConnell previously said four years ago. And there's a whole bunch of polling, including a Marquette University poll that was conducted right before the death of Justice Ginsburg that shows that Democratic voters are actually much more concerned about and focused on the Supreme Court than they were previously and are now more, it is more of a central concern to Democratic voters and Republican voters, which is a 15 point reversal from what was found in the 2016 exit polls. And so the idea that this is somehow a boon for Trump, this is going to

help him win this election and all of that, that is conventional wisdom that actually flies in the face of the limited data we have. Now that can change as the process plays itself out and how both problems of Democrats play their hands. But right now, Democrats start in a very strong position. As we say, how we talk about it matters. The polling I referenced about the Affordable Care Act also shows that the least effective arguments Democrats make about this are process arguments, right? Mitch McConnell's hypocrisy, all of that does not really move voters because voters are pretty, process arguments rarely work, particularly with the voters we most need to persuade, which is why the policy ones do. But like Trump may or may not confirm this justice, like I said, we have limited control over that, but this could end up

being a Pyrrhic victory for him politically because it's going to, it can hurt him at the polls if we make the right arguments at the right time to the right voters. Yeah, and I think the challenge is, we all know that the overturning the Affordable Care Act overturning row, like these are the most popular arguments. The question is, can we be all disciplined enough to make sure that those are the arguments and the messages that break through during a nomination fight, right? Like, again, you know, Trump is going to celebrate this person's character, this nominee's character on Saturday, whether it's Barrett or Lagoa or potentially someone else, but it seems like it could be those two women, one of those two women. They will try to bait us into attacking the

person's character, attacking all kinds of different parts of the person's record. And perhaps there will be many things in the person's record to attack, right? There'll be many objectionable things. But we have to sort of pull this out of the drama of the nominee herself and into the realm of what does this person taking a seat on the Supreme Court mean for the lives of most Americans? That is the question that we have to make sure we ask over and over and over again. And that's the message we have to get out. Biden's speech, which you guys talked about on Monday, hits all of these points exactly right. Yeah, he focused primarily on the Affordable Care Act, which is a very good sign.

Democrats are doing the right or saying the right things right now. But it's also what are all of us going to say, right? What are we going to tweet about? I wrote up a little strategy guide in my newsletter with the message box yesterday, which has the very specific language that people can use to talk about the Affordable Care Act and Republican priorities here that is poll tested and we know works. So as you were tweeting about this, talking about it, talking to your arguing with your MAGA uncle or your persuadable cousin, like there are specific words to use that are right there for us. All right.

Last thing that we unfortunately need to talk about today is the fact that the Republican Party is trying to appeal to supporters of the QAnon conspiracy, a dangerous cult that believes there's a global Satan-worshiping cabal of deep state operatives and Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden,

who are working with sex traffickers and pedophiles to sabotage Donald Trump's presidency. That is real. According to Media Matters, there are now 22 Republican candidates on the ballot in November who publicly support QAnon, including a few House candidates embraced by the National Republican Campaign Committee, which has recently released multiple ads trying to tie Democratic candidates to pedophiles and sex offenders. One ad says that New Jersey Congressman Tom Malinowski, quote, tried to make it easier for predators to hide in the shadows. Another says Michigan Democratic congressional candidate John Hoadley is a, quote, pedo sex poet. And another accuses Missouri Democratic candidate Jill Schupp of, quote, letting sex offenders on playgrounds.

Of course, none of these ads are true at all. Dan, I realize that accusing your opponent of being soft on sex predators is a tried and true tactic of Republican candidates. But it does seem fairly obvious what's going on here, right? The NRCC dropped the ad against Malinowski the day he announced a forum on QAnon and after he introduced a bipartisan resolution condemning QAnon. Yeah, you don't need to be a master detective to figure this out, right? The clues are all there. And they probably, the smoking gun is when Donald Trump and Kevin McCarthy, the leader of the House, endorsed the QAnon supporting congressional nominee in Georgia. And when Donald Trump, under repeated questioning last month, refused to disavow the QAnon movement. And there is a political logic for why they are doing this. Republicans depend on a rapidly shrinking base of voters. In every election, that base gets smaller,

and they need to get more, a higher percentage of that shrinking base out. And so there are no voters in which they can turn away. And so the idea that they're going to turn away this growing conspiracy movement flies in the face of the strategic decision they've made to not appeal broadly, but to appeal narrowly to this base of voters. And so they are hamstrung by their incredibly high dependence on this base of shrinking white voters. There's another reason, too. Like the Republicans and Donald Trump have not been able to make Joe Biden the kind of enemy that inspires passion against him, right? And like they did to Hillary. And we saw it pop up in our change research poll.

We've had volunteers say this has popped up when they've done text banking or phone calls. The number of Trump supporters who are calling Joe Biden a pedophile is growing and it is out there. It is not in the news cycle. It is in Facebook. It is on WhatsApps sent to the Latino community in Florida. We're seeing all of these dark conspiracies all over the place. And they think that it can sort of drive this anger against him. It's like under the place. And they think that it can sort of drive this anger against him. It's like under the radar. And I think the question is like, how do Democrats handle this, right?

Like it's easy to knock down stuff that gets reported every day that's in the media cycle. What about sort of this QAnon stuff that's like in the shadows, on WhatsApp chains and Facebook posts, like kind of underground? I think you have to take it broader and you have to call out the association between the Republican Party and this movement. Otherwise, you're just going to play conspiracy theory whack-a-mole the whole time. And a lot of times where this is happening is, you know, among a group of voters who are not available to Democrats to begin with. But if we try to do it at a micro level, we are going to fail. We need to talk, have a bigger,

broader conversation about the fact that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are embracing a conspiracy theory movement that, as you point out, the FBI considers a domestic terror threat. And if you have that conversation writ large, and you force Republicans to make a choice between disavowing this movement or facing the political consequences for embracing a group that is considered a domestic terror threat, it's going to be easier to do than trying to do it on the sly. about this everywhere, too. Like there's Ivanka doing human trafficking events. And, you know, Donald Trump in some of his speeches keeps talking about child abuse, but it's in like it's in reference to keeping kids out of schools and stuff like that. Like there is you can tell that they are sort of nodding to this in addition to just inviting QAnon supporters to the White House, which is much more than a dog whistle and more of a bullhorn. But I do think you need to call it the motivation behind it. Right. Because that is the best way to to to attack a conspiracy that like they are aligned with a movement that is a violent movement,

a violent and dangerous movement. And they're doing it because they want the votes, because they're losing. And that's why you're hearing this stuff about Joe Biden or this candidate. And by the way, if you want to donate to Malinowski or Hoadley or Shupp, like, please do that. Help some of these candidates who are getting beat up by the NRCC with these just disgusting ads. I mean, it is for like some people, they are wrong, but some people will say this is unfair, you know, because there are there are some there are some exceptions. Prove the rule here. You know, Mike Pence canceled that fundraiser that was being hosted by a QAnon couple. But if you you know, if you're one of these these political pundits or reporters who insist on believing that the Republican Party would never beyond Donald Trump.

Right. That beyond Trump, the Republican Party would never fully embrace this. Or if the Trump was not around, they would not do this. It's worth remembering that birtherism was the QAnon of last decade, and Trump being president is the equivalent of Q becoming president. The Republicans went through the same political exercise where after Barack Obama had kicked their ass in 2008, they saw that the demographics of the country were changing much faster than they imagined. It would have been so easy to get rid of Trump. He was a clown. He didn't really agree with most of the things that they believed in. They could have easily just said, shut up, Donald Trump. We disagree with that. We disagree with

Obama on lots of things, but he was born in America. But they couldn't do it because they didn't want to lose members of the birther conspiracy theory. And because they were silent, and it's not just a bunch of your typically worse Republicans like John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, they all made a political calculation that even though they at the time believed Donald Trump was a clown, it was better to be quiet and get the votes of birthers than to stand up and do the right thing. And they're making the exact same mistake now. And this is only going to get worse if passed as any precedent at all. Yep.

Got to call it out. All right. When we come back, I will talk to Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York and the minority leader of the Senate. Welcome back to Pod Save America. Good to be back. Good to be back. And thank you for all you're doing. Of course, of course. So Mitch seems to have more than the 50 votes he needs to move forward with the Supreme Court nomination. Do you have any expectation that anything will change the minds of at least two Republican senators? Or is the Democratic strategy sort

of all about delay at this point? No, I think, look, I think, John, that we are going to keep fighting. We have the arguments on our side. And the best argument to make is the following. And that is that this Supreme Court will take away your rights, that it affects average people. At the top of the list is health care. The bottom line is very simple. There's a Supreme Court suit on November 14th that could eliminate the ACA. What does that mean? It means 10 million people would fall off healthcare altogether, tens of millions of senior citizens would pay more on their drugs for Medicare, and worst of all, 130 million Americans who have pre-existing conditions and now they are protected could have their insurance ripped away from them. And so this matters to the American people, and now they are protected, could have their insurance ripped away

from them. And so this matters to the American people. And we are reaching out over the next few weeks, as we have been, and letting people know this matters to them. But it's not just health care. Women's health, a woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade could be at risk. And I was glad I met with a group of younger women, 20-year- you know, 20, 30 year olds. They never existed. They weren't alive when Roe v. Wade didn't exist. I was, I remember the back alleys and the hangers and all that horrible stuff, but they knew it and they cared about it. Other things, LGBTQ rights. We learned, this is how it affects people. We learned of Ginsburg's passing, unfortunate, terrible passing, what a great lady, at our Russia-shunted dinner. And my daughter was

there with her wife. And immediately they started talking. They wondered if their right to be married would be taken away or curtailed. Labor union rights, this court, this right-wing court, would, I think, based on the Janus case, would try to make America a right-to-work country. No unions. What about climate? This court will eviscerate the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act. So what we're doing here, and I've been on the phone with all the groups from the environmental community and the labor community in the women's community and pro-choice. We are going to have, we want millions and millions of phone calls, emails, picketing these senators over the next few weeks, because this court will actually affect your life. This is not just a little fight between

Democrats and Republicans in Washington. And if we lambaste them, you never know, things could change. You remember this, I think, John, the ACA, when they tried to repeal it. Everyone said, forget it, you'll never have the votes. But we kept fighting and fighting and fighting, and we won. We beat them. And one other thing, inspiration. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she fought against all odds. When she first fought to end gender discrimination, it went in this male-dominated legal profession that thought women didn't even belong in the profession, so many of them. She didn't stop. She never let herself be deterred. Well, that's the determination of our caucus and of me. We're going to keep

fighting, fighting, fighting, because this is so. And, you know, sometimes you win and that's what we're fighting to do. Let's talk tactics. How do you feel about denying unanimous consent agreements to slow down Senate business or forcing Republicans to come up with quorums on their own? Yeah, look, we're going to use every tool in the toolbox to slow things down. Some of those that we already Tuesday Tuesday night, stopped committees from being meeting. Tuesday, we stopped committees from being meeting. We occupied the Senate floor till late at night talking about the issues I'm talking about. And there are other tools in our toolkit that we are going to use. I don't want to disclose them all. I don't want to let the other side know

what's coming. But we are going to use every tool available. Now, admittedly, since McConnell's changed the rules, the number of tools is less. They're less sharp. But whenever it makes sense to slow things down, we are going to do it. Have you and other Democratic senators had any discussions about possibly boycotting the confirmation hearings altogether? If you believe the nomination itself is illegitimate, why participate in the nomination here? No, this is something we will discuss. So we're going to wait for a nominee. And, you know, we have great unity in our caucus. That's how we were able to, you know, beat back so many of these bad things. That's how we were able to force the Republicans to do the CARES bill, you know, which had $600 for unemployment, PPP. They didn't want to do any of that. Their original bill was just corporate oriented. How do we do it? I'll sit down with the Judiciary Committee members. It's a great committee. We have brilliant people

on it, including Kamala Harris, I guess, who will be participating. And then I sit down, I have a leadership team, and it covers the whole gamut of our caucus. We meet every Monday night, and we discuss how we can come together and achieve things. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warner on it, and so are Joe Manchin and Mark Warner and people in between. So this is an issue we will sit down and discuss and make a decision about once there's a nominee. Speaking of the Judiciary Committee, three Democratic senators went on background to Politico questioning Dianne Feinstein's ability to manage the nomination hearings as ranking member. Do you have confidence that Senator Feinstein is the right person for the job?

Let me say this. You know what I'm worried about? I'm not worried about Dianne Feinstein the way I am worried about Lindsey Graham. He is just a liar. He is. That's true. Says he says whatever pops into he's a little like trump whatever he says and pops into his head and he thinks sounds good he can reverse himself the next day this is the

guy in 2016 said even if there's a republican president uh you know this was before the election of 2016 even if there's a republican president in the last year of his term i will never be for choosing a new Supreme Court justice. Use my words against me if you do. Well, I have a feeling, getting to the political side, that Jamie Harrison will, that's the guy, hence Lindsey Graham, who'll do just that. And he does it on everything.

He just did it on offshore drilling. He was all for the oil industry, took a lot of money from him to do offshore drilling. All of a sudden, a month before the election, he's reversing himself. Lindsey Graham is the guy to focus on and be worried about. So you so so so Senator Feinstein will be leading the hearings as the ranking member then? Well, you know, again, yes, I believe she will. I believe she will.

Do the final pieces of the debate around a continuing resolution to fund the government, does that give you any leverage either on the court fight or on the fight to pass more COVID relief? Well, the fight to pass more COVID relief, it absolutely does. And we are fighting very hard to get more COVID relief. I think this is one of the big strikes against the Republican senators. They came up with this bill. They called it skinny. I called it emaciated. How much? Nothing in it. No money for state and local governments. No money to feed kids who need food. No money to prevent people from getting kicked out of their houses. No money to help the restaurants and others from opening up who are closing. And on and on and on. No frontline pay. No state and local. No mass transit. transit. And so we said, no, we're not voting for that, but we are willing to meet them in the middle and they are feeling the heat. They go home to their state, some of these senators say, oh, I want to get a bill. And so I think the fact that the CR is now done gives us a real pathway to push hard for a big, strong COVID bill. the heroes bill that the House passed, which we collaborated on,

is a great bill and would solve a load of the problems. We also believe in keeping the $600 for unemployment insurance, which has kept 10 million people out of poverty. You've said that if Republicans jam through this nomination, nothing's off the table next year. I know you're not going to get ahead of yourself on the filibuster or the court expansion right now, but let me ask you a broader question about the future of the Senate next year. I know you're not going to get ahead of yourself on the filibuster or the court expansion right now. But let me ask you a broader question about the future of the Senate. Yes. Like over the next decade or so, you know, you're going to have Senate maps that are good for Democrats, Senate maps that are less good for Democrats. But you won't have a map. Very likely, you won't have a map that gets you to 60 seats again, even if we start doing well in places like

Texas and Georgia. It's very hard to get all the way to 60. You know, I'm more of an optimist than you. Well, how do you think, I mean, like, how do you think long term, how can Democrats pass any significant legislation when the Senate is as rigged as it is right now towards white, rural, Republican voters? It's always obviously been a split, but it seems like with polarization in the country, it's worse. Things are changing. For instance, let me give you an example.

Part of the country that was never democratic, you know, 15 years ago, you take the Rockies and West, okay? There will be, if God willing, we win in Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. And in three of those seats, we're way ahead. And in Montana, we're a tiny little bit ahead. But if we win those four seats, there will be, I think it is, nine states from the Rockies West that have two Democratic senators. Two. That never happened before. The South is changing. We have a good chance to win in North Carolina, but we also have a good chance to win in Georgia. We have a good chance to win in South Carolina. This map is changing. You know, there are places we lost at one point, to show you how things change. We had amazingly, I don't remember, about 10 years ago, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska had six Democratic senators. Now they have six Republican. My prediction is if

you look at the West and the South, particularly if we can do strong things on voting rights and making sure poor people, African American people of color are allowed to vote, I think you're going to find that map changing. North Arizona, look at Arizona. It was a Republican state. It's now likely to be Democratic. A lot of movement, a lot of people from California, younger, more democratic, more liberal, are moving to Arizona because it's expensive in California. Same with North Carolina. North Carolina, the center used to, you know, the rural population used to be the largest vote. Now, the Raleigh-Durham area is 35% bigger than the Charlotte area, which is not as progressive

as Raleigh-Durham. So it's all changing. I'm not sure we would ever get to 60. But the Charlotte area, which is not as progressive as Raleigh-Durham. So it's all changing. I'm not sure we would ever get to 60. But the bottom line, let me just give you the bottom line. And it's more immediate. We have to bring real change. We have to bring real change. We cannot get this majority and not bring the kind of change that's needed. The three big areas we focus on are climate, economic inequality, that wealth and income are driven to the top, and democracy broadly defined, meaning, you know, making it easier to vote, getting rid of Citizens United, getting rid of the Shelby decision, and stuff like that. And we are going to figure out the best way to get all that done. We are going to figure out

the best way to get all that done, because doing, not doing things, not getting things done is not an option. That's the worst way to lose. Yeah. Would you consider statehood for DC and Puerto Rico in that democracy agenda? I would consider it. It's in HR1. That's right. What's your favorite under-the-radar...

Just to let your viewers know. Oh, yeah. That's the democracy bill that has lots of these things I mentioned that passed the House What's your favorite under the radar? Just to let your viewers know. Oh, yeah. That's the democracy bill that has lots of these things I mentioned that pass the House, and we Democrats are committed if we get the majority to try and pass in the Senate. As you know, Mitch McConnell, anything good the House passes, whether it's helping working people, dealing with poverty, dealing with climate, dealing with rights, voting rights, women's rights, gay rights. All of that gets dumped into the File 13 garbage pail by McConnell.

We'll have a lot of things to do if we get back the majority. And that's why I want to thank you for doing what you've done. Your Pod Save America broadcast, wait, I have the numbers here, America broadcast, wait, I have the numbers here, has raised $24 million in your ditch Mitch. Get Mitch or die trying. Get Mitch or die trying. There you go. That is so helpful to us. And it's raising money.

And I would ask your viewers, if I'm allowed to, I'm here, I'm not in official territory. A, send those dollars in. Our candidates are doing great. The candidates in states we have to win, like Iowa and Montana and North Carolina and Texas, are getting a lot of money. And second, make sure, I just want to say this, make sure you vote. Don't let Donald Trump, with all his BS, oh, the mail ballots won't count, oh, I'm not going to let the election go forward. The best way to deal with this guy, who thinks he's a dictator, I don't think America will allow him to be a dictator. I'm certain of that. And we're fighting him in court to make it harder for him to do the things he wants to do right now.

But the best way, the best, best, best way to prevent Donald Trump from his evil schemes is vote heavily. If we win by a lot, none of his BS will ever matter. And so let's get out there and vote. I was going to ask you about that. Obviously, you know, voting is the most important way to prevent him from trying to hold on to power. Obviously, there's a legal strategy. Is there anything else that you and the Senate Democrats and House Democrats are doing to prevent some of the scenarios? You know, there's that big Atlantic piece I'm sure you saw about, you know, the Trump campaigns talking about legislatures sending elect slates of electors into Congress. Like what's the plan to sort of avoid?

There's lots of different aspects to the plan. As I said, the best thing is win by a lot and then all this won't matter. So vote, vote, vote. But right now, Mark Elias, who works for our Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, I think he's in court in 27 states. He just won a big case in North Carolina that's going to allow many more younger people, people of color's votes, they won't allow them to be discriminated. Won a big case in Pennsylvania so they can count afterwards. And here's the good news on that, John. Many of the states have Democratic governors that he's contesting. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan has Democratic governor. Arizona doesn't have a Democratic governor, but it has a system that the governor can't interfere

with. And to a large extent, Florida has the same system. So there are lots of states, and North Carolina has Democratic governor. So there are lots of states that he can't mess around with. And our legal team is working with those friendly governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general, to try and prevent all of this stuff from happening. So I know this is like asking you to pick between all of your children, but do you have a favorite under the radar Senate race where you're feeling good about the Democrats' chances? You're a bad boy. But let me just say there are a number of states that people didn't think we could win that we're getting real close in. OK. And they are Montana, Iowa.

We've been ahead in North Carolina, but we've got to stay there. Georgia, South Carolina, Texas. We're doing real well in those states. And those states are probably the ones, certain states are getting a whole lot of money. Because, you know, Amy McGrath is raising a ton of money in Kentucky, Sarah Gideon's raising a ton of money in Maine, Jamie Harrison, South Carolina, because of the notoriety of the people they're running against, McConnell, Graham Collins. But some of these other states are less well-known. So the other ones I mentioned, don't forget them. I'm not saying don't give to the ones that are doing well,

but give these. And a little plug where we're getting closer, but we need some dollars is Texas, where MJ Hagar, a war hero, a veteran, and the woman who helped lead the charge to allow women into combat is running and has a good chance to win, decent chance. Yeah, and pull woman who helped lead the charge to allow women into combat is running and has a good chance to win. Decent chance. Yeah, and pull out this morning from the New York Times

showing that's a pretty close race, so everyone should give. Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senator from New York, thank you so much for joining us on Pod Save America. We always love having you, and keep up the good fight. We have no choice if we love America. Thanks to Chuck Schumer for joining us today. Everyone have a good weekend and we'll see you next week.

We will have a pod on Monday and then we will be doing a debate group thread Tuesday night. So check out YouTube.com slash Crooked Media. We'll all be on the group thread throughout the debate. So check out youtube.com slash crooked media. We'll all be on the group thread throughout the debate. And then on Wednesday, we will have a pod that's all four of us doing post-debate analysis. Big debate on Tuesday, Dan. Debate week.

Big, big debate. Bye, everyone. Bye. Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our associate producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer.

Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou, Quinn Lewis, Brian Semel, Caroline Reston, and Elisa Gutierrez for production support. Thank you.