The Daily Beast Podcast - Trump Jr.-Bongino 2024??

Episode Date: May 28, 2021

In this episode of TNA, Molly Jong-Fast and JD Durkin discuss who would be sent to Gitmo in a Donald Trump Jr. White House, Jessica Huseman sends chills down voting spines when she reveals voting bills that are way, way worse than Georgia’s. And Tom Nichols shits on Democrats, Republicans, and teenagers. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Molly Jong-Fast and welcome to The Daily Beast, The New Abnormal. I'm a left-wing pundit and an editor at large at The Daily Beast. We're here to have fun, sharp conversations with some of the smartest people in media, politics, and science that help make what's happening in the country and the world clearer. Our world has been turned up day down. On The New Abnormal, we'll talk about the people who got us into this mess and figure out how to get ourselves out of it. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon. I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails.

What a show we have today. Jessica Huesman, a vote beat, is going to tell us all about what's going on with voting rights in America. Then Tom Nichols, professor and author of our own worst enemy, is going to talk to us about the horrible state of our democracy. But first, we're going to talk to Cheddar's J.D. Durkin, who is the cable news show, none of the above with J.D. Durkan. Welcome to the new abnormal J.D. Durkan. Wonderful to be here.

Thank you for having me. I love the word abnormal because it reminds me of my favorite joke from Young Frankenstein. Oh, now you have to tell it. Oh, it's this old Marty Feldman bit about he got the brain from the wrong, the wrong dead body. And he thought the name was Abby Normal. So whenever I hear the name of your podcast, this always classic joke from Young Frankenstein plays in my head. So I doubly appreciate being here. Oh, well, we're so happy to have you and it's very exciting. And also, So more importantly, will you explain to me where you were this morning because it sounds like very exciting? Oh, very exciting. Yeah, well, I was on Capitol Hill, Senator Shelleymore Capital. Senator is too many. I mean, the GOP led effort here to try and, I guess try and meet the Biden White House, certainly not halfway, but meet them at some point on the road on this infrastructure bill.

So at least a willingness to come higher on their price tag, early 9 a.m. press conference. over in the Senate side, taking a few questions about kind of where negotiations go from here. But obviously, the price tag difference is so, so big between the two sides. I did speak with Senator Blunt, Roy Blunt, a little bit. And he kind of told me with the senses that, you know, maybe President Biden is a little more willing to play ball himself than other White House officials. And that's a dynamic I'm really interested with. Yeah, that is a bit interesting.

Can you explain, like, who are the other White House officials who are less willing to play ball? Yeah, I kind of get the census. Might be like the White House chief of staff a little bit, maybe some members of the cabinet that, you know, I don't know if people at the White House are totally resigned to just using budget reconciliation at this point and saying, hey, go big or go home. But, no, a lot of these Republican senators, obviously, they've had relationships with Joe Biden personally that go back so many decades. And I think the president probably understands the power of being able to say, you know, as he gets closer to the midterms or 2024, whatever it is, hey, we actually got an infrastructure deal done. See, he's trying to blunt the argument that Republicans will use that he's been unwilling to compromise. And, you know, seeing even Senate Republicans this morning come out with more than a $900 billion price tag is a lot of money. So we'll see kind of where the White House goes from here. It seems to me that infrastructure, I understand what Biden's doing, right? Biden wants to go to the midterms and say, look, I got you infrastructure. And besides, like, there is some practicality to it.

Our roads and bridges are crumbling, right? Like, building three miles of a wall did not help us with our crumbling roads and bridges. And there are all these rural communities that don't have broadband. And our country is kind of a mess. But don't you think that it's, like, insane that Democrats are trying to, like, work on infrastructure when like the very fabric of democracy seems like it's in a perilous position? I think that Congressman Tim Ryan said it really, really well in that fiery floor speech a while ago. Yeah.

It's tough to imagine that one of the two political parties largely is not operating with a full deck as it pertains to just basic truth. And it absolutely is. I just, you know, I know that I, you know, this is a week where the House is out of session, so lawmakers are home. And I don't think Republicans are hearing from their voters or their constituents a lot about what happened on January 6th. They don't want to talk about the insurrection. And those are still going to be people that vote. And so I completely agree. But I think the sense I've heard from some Democratic staffers is, well, we can't bring the whole town to a grinding halt. We could try and force the January 6th commission or maybe Speaker Pelosi goes the option of a select, like a Benghazi style select committee, which would make things more difficult. but I think they need to try and at least try and get some work done.

And infrastructure, I guess, is that topic, at least it is for now. We talk about this deck that they show it. I mean, Mitch McConnell has already showed his hand saying that they're going to oppose everything and that he had to walk that back. But isn't it all just the year that Biden has to try to show that he's pretending that he can get some sort of bipartisanship, but that he's just going to have to force the hand? Yeah, absolutely, Jesse. I mean, look, perception drives the reality, right?

So anything to Biden that's going to give President Biden the opportunity to say, well, at least I tried. At least we tried to lower our price point. We tried to go to Republicans where they are. We tried to work in good faith. I don't think that's necessarily going to do very much in terms of the Fox News, right wing, conservative media ecosystem, because they'll spend whatever they want and try and convince their viewers that Joe Biden's not acting in good faith here. Right. But at least giving him that opportunity to say, well, you know, at least we tried is. And I think that's kind of core to who Biden has been his whole career in Washington. So, J.D., when you and I are in Gitmo as enemies of the state for Donald Trump Jr.'s second term or however this plays out and our country becomes a banana republic, will we look back on Biden's infrastructure push as like the road to hell is paved with like normal governance? Good intentions. Ah, yes.

The last, the last will and the final good intention. of the Democratic Party before the Democratic Republic itself descended into permanent chaos. We absolutely could. They're absolutely good. I know that that's part of the frustration for, you know, some Democratic staffers or kind of strategists I talked to around town who just kind of say, why would you even remotely try and work with these people? Even if you are dealing with some good faith players, I think there's a lot of, you know, plenty good faith Republicans who serve in Congress, you know, by association, you are still working with leadership and coming. still working with someone like McCarthy, who still voted against certifying Biden's election twice.

Right. Right. I mean, these things cannot be normalized. And I absolutely think that's part of a challenge. And, you know, to this hypothetical future where you and I are in Gitmo and Don Jr's president. I mean, my goodness, I wonder, who would Don Jr.'s vice president be, do you think? Who would he choose? This is like a terrifying thought exercise, but likely, I don't know, Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz. Yeah, he goes, I think it's Charlie Kirk. Oh, Jesus Christ. If Charlie Kirk is vice president, we are all going to get Mo. It's like not even going to be a question.

Yeah, I was going with the Dan Bongino route myself. But Charlie Kirk, that is going to be a tough, a Trump-Bongino tickets for the future world. No, no. I bow down your take JD. That's the right one. That's the worst thing I've ever heard. I mean, it's literally, it's disturbing. Yeah.

And then the Giuliani kid will be leading New York at the same time. for all we know. Or secretary. I feel like he's secretary of state, Andrew Giuliani. Yeah. Right. For his, his, his, his, his, his, his, his, multiple, his five decades or however he was. Five decades of public service and 35. Fail sons, 2028. Yeah. I'm really excited to go and live in New Zealand. Can we just talk about Shelleymore Capito? Because I feel like this is the first time. She's such a sort of unsexy senator and she's kind of become like the star of infrastructure. How did that happen? Yeah, absolutely. I think she's someone who just kind of found herself in this position after the Georgia elections

where maybe she had considered, you know, kind of a committee route that would have looked far different had she been in the majority. I think that's the case for a lot of these Republicans, right? Because I think, hey, we were, I was surprised. I really was that Democrats won both of those races on the fifth. And I think a lot of people in D.C. had expected, all right, we can see Democrats taking one. They probably won't take both. and the GOP will hold, et cetera, et cetera. And I think just as the chips kind of fell,

and we were all kind of dealt with a post-January 6th world in both in terms of the obviously what happened at the Capitol, but also with the political reality, I just think that Senator Capitol perhaps sort of found this lane and said, okay, in the spirit of negotiating, in the spirit of trying to allow some cooler heads to prevail, that she kind of saw a bit of a leadership position. And I'll tell you, being at the press conference today,

you know, whether you're Roy Blund or San, Sanders Barrasso or Toomey, they repeatedly refer to her. She is the de facto leader of these negotiations and they're very appreciative for the work and how she's been able to negotiate to this point. So it certainly would appear to me as if she has the confidence of her conference to see this through. Again, I don't know if the White House will play ball, but that's the position she finds herself. You know what's interesting to me about this is that she is really like, we have a situation where we have, like, Mitch McConnell acting like he's still the majority leader. And then, I mean, it does seem like that, right? And, you know, he's sort of making these plans. I mean,

I remember when Schumer was the minority leader. You didn't have him being like, this is what we're going to let Republicans do. Have you noticed this dynamic? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I think the, if you're a leader McConnell right now, and I think similarly, if you're Kevin McCarthy, you're sort operating under the assumption that you're not very far away from retaining the majority again. And I think they're very kind of forward-focused. And there's a little bit of a sense from some staffers I've talked to in the Senate who just say, you know, we just kind of are going to kind of like buy our time here a little bit. We're just going to kind of ride this out a little bit and hope that Democrats don't, you know, blunt against our interest too much. Right. Yeah. But you're

absolutely right. There's definitely a different tone that we're hearing from McConnell now. But at the same time, from time to time, I think McConnell has surprised a lot of people in town when suddenly he is willing to to some degree condemn former President Trump or express some kind of willingness, right? He has this weird way of kind of making headlines with people like, oh, maybe I didn't quite expect him to say that. And you can really sense that because former President Trump, for whatever this is worth, and it might not be a lot at all, but he is far more critical of McConnell than he is McCarthy. They're not the same to him. He just did this in his Newsmax interview the other day. He was really being pushed about McCarthy. And he refuses to say anything about

anything bad about Kevin, about Kevin McCarthy. And that's very telling to me. They've, they've had each other's backs, it seems like. And I think the bet is they still will for quite some time. But it's interesting to me. Here are Democrats. I know they don't have a huge majority, but they do have the majority in the House, in the Senate, and with the presidency. And yet Mitch McConnell is still acting like he's the majority leader. Like, I just don't understand why Democrats refuse to use the power they're given. Yeah, that's absolutely true. I mean, look, hey, we've said for quite some time, the two parties don't necessarily play by the same set of rules. And oftentimes, I think, whereas the Democrats, you know, frequently want to be on

either the right side of history or they kind of want to play by the rules a little bit, they trust that the facts are on their side. Republicans play a fundamentally different game oftentimes. And you're absolutely right. Mitch McConnell is, we call him minority leader Mitch McConnell now for the first time in many years for a reason. But he also understands to say, you know, outside of budget reconciliation, he's going to hold a pretty significant sway over whoever those 10 votes are that need to pass, you know, infrastructure or a commission bill or whatever it is. So he's going to be more inclined, I think, to flex those muscles than leader Schumer was when we called him minority leader. But if the jobs were reversed, there is no question in my mind, right, that there would be, you know, do you think that Schumer would be like, we're going to let you do this and not that?

No. No, right. I mean, like, it just shocks me that, like, I feel like Democrats are not aggressive enough. Like, if this is their last chance to cement voting rights and certain things, which Republicans are working really hard to undermine, like, shouldn't they be pushing themselves harder here? And this really gets, obviously, and you both know it so well, but, you know, why is a Joe Manchin? Why is it a Kirsten Cinema? Why are certain Senate Democratic senators as important as they are? It's the idea being your caucus is only going to be as stronger as willing as your, quote, unquote, weakest link, and I only say weakest

in terms of, I guess, you know, traditional liberal values. And if you've got those Democrats, one or two of them, we're willing to say, well, I actually kind of agree with the GOP on this issue, that's it. Those are the numbers for Schumer, whereas Republicans have been able to enjoy a bit more cushioning in years past.

So, but I absolutely agree with you. I know that Texas's theme is don't mess with Texas, but it seems like Texas is a fucking mess. They have this voting rights bill that's going through today that's going to be just awful. It seems that Abbott may have been covering up some numbers from the deaths that happened during the cold snap blackout down in Texas. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think first on the

voting rights bill, this is just going to be the latest and it's not going to be the last, right? I mean, Georgia had its moments. These other states will continue to kind of go one on one. And, you know, whether you believe the sort of Liz Cheney argument, which as well, it's completely separate from the big lie. This is just about voting integrity, which I think most people think is admittedly a lot of nonsense, you know, or you sort of believe they're like, well, we need to tighten up and ensure up our election integrity or voting rights because of what happened in 2020. You know, the fact is, you know, I think for all the success of Molly's last point in our last conversation, you know, yeah, Democrats do control the federal government,

but elections, short of HR1 ever passing, you know, are still at the state level. And Republicans do so well in local state government. I mean, it's just state legislature after state legislature and Democrats have really, really struggled with candidacies down ballot. And yeah, they're absolutely going to have their political spin and they're going to do whatever they can do to further solidify that they are in the advantage for the 2022 midterms. And that's going to make things so much more difficult for Democrats. And then with regards to the death toll capacity or especially the energy crisis that they had, of course, we know Republicans are going to look at the the energy crisis from earlier this year in Texas and largely blame for some reason things like

the green new field and clean air and windmills and yeah you know Donald Trump has been on his anti-windmill crusade since his golf days in Scotland I really think that's what it goes back to because you're this long dispute way before he ever ran for president that they were installing these things he thought they were so ugly he thought they like diminished the real estate value of his golf course and still as recently as his newsmax interview two nights ago, Donald Trump still sits there and will just go off for 90 seconds about how much he doesn't like these windmills. And, you know, that's how Texas Republicans are framing this. They're somehow going after the AOCs of the world because of what happened in Texas without really addressing the problem. Well, so this morning, I was on an airplane

flying to Washington, D.C. And in the airport lounge, they had, you know, CNBC, the finance station on. And there was a guy talking about how sad it is for oil companies that they're being held accountable a tiny, tiny bit for the ruining the environment. He was saying it's really unfair and these activist investors. It was a pretty impressive show. But at one point he said, you know, and everyone knows what happened in Texas was because of clean energy. And I was like, nobody knows that. But you know, that's why Republicans are so good at this, right? Because it's like that was something that the governor Abbott tried, right? He said, like, this was windmills.

And he said it on Fox News. Nobody believed it. He said it on the local news. I mean, there was actually an interesting story about this. On the local news, he sort of copped to like, actually, it's the grid. You know, we deregulated the grid, right? Like, this is really a testament to why you don't deregulate large companies like this that people rely on because when you do, it falls apart. So, like, this had nothing to do with green energy. And the fact that this has, like, continued,

this lie has continued the way January 6th has, is this kind of amazing testament to Republican messaging. Oh, I think, I mean, I've been saying, and Democrats will tell you this off the record for sure and in hush conversations that the GOP's relentless messaging is oftentimes so much more effective than what Democrats can do. And I think on a lot of issues, you know, Democrats, like we were saying a moment ago, Democrats, you know, we really do have. like the science and the facts more on their side. But it's not about being right oftentimes. It's about saying the wrong shit more loudly. And that is then what happened. So now you've got the O-A-Ns and the newsmaxes and the Fox News and they will pick up that Ted Cruz or Governor Abbott inspired live like, you know, this is, you know, this is really, let's now go after the Green New Deal because of what happened down in Texas. And I promise you on that campaign trail

next September, October, November, as we get closer to the mid-term. All Republicans down in Texas will repeat that, and Texas Republican voters will applaud and not along in support because they have been conditioned after what will then be about a year and a half of hearing it over and over again to think, yeah, this is because of progressive Democrats that Texas got itself into trouble, of course. And meanwhile, like, Texas, you know, the energy in Texas is like 20% green and 80% fuel. I mean, it's just completely an insane thing. And it's funny because, you know, I'll have Democratic.

senators on here and I'll say like, you guys, you're bringing a, you know, a stuffed animal to a knife fight. And they're like, if we pass good legislation, people will know it and then they'll love us. And I'm like, yeah, you know, meanwhile, you have Republicans take, you know, Republicans being like, we just passed a stimulus, which none of them voted for, right? Like, you like that enhanced unemployment. That was us, right? Which it was. Right. I mean, it's just sort of like, I don't know how we get Democrats to like get more like Republicans when it comes to messaging? First of all, stuffed animal to a knife fight is a phrase that I just wrote down because that's about the funniest thing I heard all morning. So thank you so much for introducing that to my world. I love that phrase. And you're exactly right. Listen to you. I think there's been something I have

spoken with so many Democratic strategists and people who, you know, we're with the party, our former Capitol Hill staffers. And they express this sort of frustration when they say, you know, the Republicans don't ostracize their best fighters, even if they are some of their worst members. You know, Democrats will hold to account Anthony Wiener's not the best example off the time. I have an Al Franken or something. Right. And some of these tremendous kind of social media or, yeah, media and kind of social fighters. But Democrats are going to say, you know, you do not have a place in the party right now. We are going to put our values first. And I've heard from a lot of people, the Al Franken example is something I hear pretty, like more than you would think from people who look back and say,

where do Democrats get the messaging wrong? It's because we have benched some of our best fighters. Right. Because of values and he may have deserved it at the time. And maybe that's up for debate. And maybe time will pass and they'll view his particular example differently. Whereas Republicans are not going to take someone like a Matt Gates, who's facing this world of trouble right now.

And I'll show him because he's such a prolific fundraiser. He can go out and do these nonsense events with the Andy Biggs's and Marjorie. retailer greens of the world and still be a productive member of the GOP. There's absolutely a difference between how the two parties fight. Yeah, it's amazing to me. And I have to say, like, the Matt Gates stuff, do you think Matt Gates ends up in jail? Or do you think this is like liberal fan fiction? Maybe somewhere in the middle. I don't know about as far as jail. I'd have to imagine, you know, his lead, he's definitely not out of the, out of the weeds by any means. But I also, I don't, you know, I take, I take what the lawyer of, of his colleague down there in Florida said with a grain of salt.

You know, he's kind of like, you know, Gates might be in more trouble than you think. That struck me as a little bit more of a media ploy. But I definitely think he's in far more trouble than like any member of Congress ever should be for sure. I think if you're going to like, have members of Congress, he is probably the, one who's the most likely to go to jail. Right. Yeah. I have anything that at least we know of.

Imminently. Then again, you never, right, imminently. But you never know when an indictment will be handed down on someone. I feel like you're on to something here with this most likely to thing. Every time we get a freshman class of congressman, we should do things like have like most likely to go to jail at a sex trafficking rig, back gates, most likely to have received traumatic brain injury, which would explain a lot, Marjorie Taylor Green. But you know what's striking to me with all.

of these people, you know, sort of like calling for Marjorie Taylor Green to be expelled. Marjorie Taylor Green is not the worst Republican in Congress. I mean, think about Mo Brooks. I had a feeling you're going to say either Mo Brooks or Paul Gosar. I was like, one of those two is Molly's going for next. Right. But I mean, like those two, Ali Alexander claims that they were involved in organizing Stop the Steel. I am so, and I've heard you talk about Ali Alexander on this podcast before. Yeah. That to me is still one of the biggest unspoken mysteries of what happened on the 6th. The relationship between Ali Alexander, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs.

The fact that Congressman Paul Gosar's... You're leaving out my favorite congressman, who's also young Louis Gomer from Texas's first distress. Hey folks, if you haven't heard every single week, we do a special bonus episode for Beast Inside, the Daily Beast Membership Program. Sometimes we interview senators like Corey Brue. Booker or the folks who explain what's happening behind the scenes in media like Jim Acosta or Soledadad O'Brien. Sometimes we just have fun and talk to our favorite comedians and actors like Busy Phillips or Billy Eichner.

And sometimes we just have friends around to analyze what's happening in the news. You can get all of our episodes in your favorite podcast app of choice by becoming a beast inside member where you'll support the beast fearless journalism as well as getting full access to podcasts and articles. To become a member, head to New Abnormal. That's New Abnormal.com. That's New Abnormal. That's The DailyBeast.com.

Jessica Hussman is the editorial director of Votebeat, a pop-up newsroom dedicated to covering election administration and voting access. Welcome, Jessica Hussman, to the new abnormal. Thank you. I am so excited to have you, and like, honestly, what you do is what we need. I wish everyone felt that way, but I'm flattered. Well, they're going to feel that way soon. So will you explain to us your, just quickly, your move from ProPublica to what you're doing now, because I think that's very relevant.

Yeah. So I had been at ProPublica for just over five years covering elections and election administration and running our election land project, which gave real-time data on problems at the polls to hundreds of newsrooms across the country. and it was awesome and I loved it, but Votebeat came to me before even I had thought about leaving ProPublica to see if they should start VoteVe. It was Elizabeth Green, who is the CEO of Chalkbeat, which is a nonprofit newsroom covering education.

And she called me in the late summer to say, you know, we're thinking about starting a three-month pop-up newsroom that will cover the election. Like, can election land help us support those journalists. And I was like, well, sure. If you can raise a million dollars in a week, then like more power to you. And then she did. And they were just fantastic. And so after the election was over and she asked me to come help make vote beat a permanent newsroom, I sort of jumped at the chance. It's like not that frequent that someone says, here's the keys to a newsroom,

drive it. And I'm excited to do it. So explain to me what the goal of vote beat is. And let's just tell our listeners who may not completely know, ProPublica is a non-profit newsroom. Yes. And Votebeat is as well. So Votebeat is going to be, I say that because right now we have two employees, well, three, we have a development director now. Fantastic.

We have three employees, but by the end of the year, we will be in eight states. And we will have hopefully two reporters in each of those states to start. And the idea is to sort of take journalism, about elections and make it bottom up rather than top down. And I say that because I was a reporter covering elections for ProPublica for five years. And it's really difficult to cover elections in a national context because we don't really have one type of election in the United States. It's like 10,000 elections happening on the same day, all run in very different ways. And so if you're not covering it from a local perspective, then you're missing most of the detail that's relevant

to understanding how to vote. And so our idea is that if we can empower local journalists to cover only this, then it will be covered better. And I think the bonus here is that all of our content is Creative Commons licensed, so anyone can republish it. And we've had a lot of success with that, even in the three-month pilot that we did around the election. You know, we were publishing lots of pieces,

and they were getting republished by dozens of different local news organizations who would like to cover voting. just don't have the expertise or the staff capacity to do it. I am concerned, as are all people paying attention, about what's happening with voting. Yeah, you should be. What is happening with voting? I think we're going through a little bit of an adjustment period. I think, one, that people are way more plugged in to the mechanics of election administration

than they ever have been in recent history. And that's creating a lot of strange changes. On one hand, it's led to Republicans being suddenly alarmed that vote by mail exists, which it has since forever. And then Democrats being suddenly concerned that elections aren't being funded adequately, which they haven't since forever. And so, you know, I think that we're trying to grapple with both of the concerns that are diametrically opposed from both parties. And it's leading to a bit of confusion. Because I don't think anybody has a good historical grasp of what they're talking about. and then they try to solve the problems.

And regardless of what party or what problem we're talking about, they are not involving election administrators in the solution to those problems. And so the solution tends to be just as bad as the existing problem. We on the left are in a panic. This makes me think you're saying we shouldn't be as panicked as we are. You know, I think that we should be panic. Okay, good.

Just tell me how anxious is the right amount of anxious to be. I think the amount of anxiety is not inappropriate. I think that the way that the anxiety is being channeled is very inappropriate. I think that Democrats have an adequate reason to be concerned about the rollback of voting rights across the United States. But they are not approaching a solution to that in a realistic way, right? They only have half of the Senate, right? They don't have a super majority. And instead of working with Republicans to get the small incremental changes that would benefit voters,

they are going for the whole shebang and probably will get voters nothing because they have focused entirely on HR1. And so, you know, I just feel like, I feel like they have channeled their anxiety into sort of a politically untenable position that will result in no improvements. And all of the, you know, the bad things that Republicans are doing right now to limit voting rights are basically going to go unaddressed because there's no way to address them under the, the current framework that Democrats seem to not really be organized around changing. Yeah, that's what I'm worried about too. It seems to me that the biggest, worst, scariest, most glaring thing that's going on with voting that's fuckery is what's happening in Arizona. Oh, geez.

I've spent a lot of my time explaining to people what's going on in Arizona in the last few weeks It's just fine. But yeah, no, I think that this is a hugely problematic. I mean, the audit that's happening right now in Arizona led by Republicans, and if your readers pay attention to the news at all, they'll be aware of this. But it's not only just a bad audit in the sense that this company Cyber Ninjas has. You mean Cyber Ninjas is not a trusted auditor of elections? Isn't that shocking? I'm just, I'm totally shocked by that news. Now, I mean, like, no one knows what Cyber Ninjas is, except for that their CEO is a conspiracy theorist. And they've been hired to, like, do a very complicated task.

I don't think that people realize how difficult it is to audit 2.1 million pieces of paper and how bad humans are at things like counting to 10 in repetitive fashion, which is sort of the process. And also bamboo. Yeah, and like sniffing out bamboo and random ballots and shit. It's an absurd process. But I'm not even necessarily concerned about the process because it may be that this never finishes. I mean, they're currently on a hiatus so that high school graduations can be held in the stadium.

The auditing firm that they had subcontracted quit, so then now they have another one. They might quit too. I mean, they're facing huge public pressure. There are lawsuits. I mean, this could be litigated into oblivion and never end. What I am concerned about is that this becomes another tool in the toolkit for voter suppression. where, you know, we've got the laws that prevents you from voting. We've got the laws that make voting difficult to do.

We've got the laws that make it so that if your signature doesn't match, we don't even call you to see why that could be the case, and then we throw out your ballot. And now, after the election is over, if we don't like the results, then we'll just force people to be doubtful of the end result, and we will audit it into oblivion. And, like, I just think that this is incredibly, damaging. This does not happen in a healthy democracy. And we're watching it happen. It's truly

crazy. Yeah, I'm shocked. Didn't they move the Cyber Ninjas audit to the Crazy Town Carnival? Oh, so the Crazy Town Carnival is happening in the parking lot of the stadium that they're using for this. I mean, if this were a Tom Wolfe novel, like imagine, no one would be, the people would be like, Crazy Town Carnival, that can't be a thing. Oh, yes, that's a thing. It's a thing. And And I think that what people overlook is, you know, this company has made it seem like cybersecurity is hugely important and it is, right? Like, I mean, the way that they're going about measuring that is stupid. But, like, they're focused entirely on cybersecurity and the tally of the votes. But equally important, right? Like, this is a three-legged stool. Like, equally important to those two things is physical security. Like, you can't audit ballots or effectively test the cybersecurity of your voting machines.

if you're not physically securing them. And like, this process is absolutely insane. It's being managed by volunteers who have no idea what they're doing and already have decided that they believe Donald Trump won the election. Yes. The ballots of the machines are being guarded by eight foot tall chain link fencing that has no roof. And so anyone who is like basically physically able and had the gumption could absolutely just like climb that chain link fence.

And that becomes a risky proposition when you've got to, a carnival in the parking lot and thousands of teenagers walking through this space to graduate from high school. Like, how can they guarantee that a high schooler hopped up on adrenaline from graduating from high school and probably some weed isn't going to, like, steal some ballots? Well, I mean, the fact that they're all wearing different colored shirts, so as I've seen the video, there are like, there's a red team and a blue team, and it. Like, it does feel like it's got many of the elements of summer camp.

Oh, yeah. I mean, it's like a big get-together for Arizona's conspiracy theorists. I'm sure that they'll build lasting relationships with one another. And they're being sued now, right? Yes. They're just admired in litigation and challenges before the legislature and bad press. I mean, again, I don't think, I mean, this audit could come out and say, yep, Donald Trump won, 100% of the votes in Arizona, and it's not going to change anything. You know what I mean?

Like, no court is going to find that these results are valid. It's just like that that it is happening at all is troubling and a sign of a democracy in need of a checkup. Yeah. And where are you seeing other, what other states are you seeing, like, worrying stuff? You know, I think these states get ignored because no one lives there. Right. But, but, Wyoming and Montana have done some truly banana stuff as it relates to voting. And so has Florida and so has Texas. I mean, Texas is currently trying to pass this pretty draconian piece of legislation that was basically authored by the Heritage Foundation. I mean, like, it's not looking good out there.

And I think all of this legislation has been able to sort of fly under the radar a bit because everyone's been so focused on Georgia. for reasons that are clear in terms of media interest, but also like the Georgia law wasn't as bad, like merely as some of these other laws that are being passed and receiving half the attention. You know, I wrote a piece about this this week for The Beast. So I, you know, Texas has a, you know, in September, they're going to have a six-week abortion law

and a every man-woman child should have a gun law and a lot of crazy shit coming down the pike. It seems to me Texas is a responsible. to like a rapidly shifting electorate? I mean, I think Texas has been pulling this shit for a really long time. Like I live in Texas. I was raised in Texas. It's just a fascinating little, it's a fascinating state. I mean, our legislature only meets once every other year and not even for the full year. It's not a very powerful body. And they don't get a lot of stuff done because they only meet for six months every other year. And the things that they do get done,

they tend to sort of like breathlessly talk about because they're just not going to do that much. And this year has been particularly insane. And I think that that part of it is right that like they're kind of grasping at straws because they realize that the electorate is changing. I still don't think Texas is going to go blue until 2036. I'm shocked if it does before. Yeah. So they've still got a little while. And I think that they are, they intend to use that time to the best effect. Do you think what's happening in Texas, is there a chance for people to stop it? Yeah. Part of the benefit of the legislature only being in session for six months once every other year is that, like, you know, litigation in Texas can be very effective. It can play out because the legislature isn't going to come back and like pass the bill again in a year after it's over, like, stricken down by a court.

So, yeah, I mean, I think that there is a lot of opportunity for judicial action here. Activist groups have already said that they are kind of hot on that trail. So I expect that to be an interesting thing to watch. And I also think that we need to pay really close attention to the redistricting process that's about to begin in Texas. Yeah, that's going to, there's going to be a lot of fuckery there too. What else are you seeing that is like, you know, just something you think people, need to know about. You know, I think that I'm really sort of concerned about the politicization of vote by mail states that I'll use Florida as an example. Florida has had a very robust vote by mail

public system in place for decades. Like this was not something that they like came up with in response to the pandemic. Like anyone has been able to vote by mail in Florida for any reason for a number of years. And they have just rolled that back in response to an election in which nothing went wrong. And in fact, Florida was one of the better managed states exclusively because they were prepared to deal with the amount of mail that they received while other states weren't. And so Florida really moved backwards. And that's troubling to me, especially given how easy it is to vote by mail and how, you know, political science research after political science research article have said that there's really not a partisan advantage to vote by mail in states that have been doing it well for a long time. And

so I think that this is all just a show for Trump and we're losing our rights because the person that they preferred for president didn't win. Like all of this is insane to me. And I think the second thing that I am concerned about is that states are, have even after everything that happened in 2020, the states are not dedicated to adequately funding elections. And they are not giving the elections offices the money and resources that they need. And that blows my mind. I mean, we see the direct result of poor funding of these elections every single time we vote. But legislators who are currently in office, you know, say to themselves, well, the system

elected me. It must be working fine and have no real incentive to move it. I mean, that clearly is one. of the biggest issues going is that we haven't adequately funded elections. I'm not entirely sure why, but that seems to be like a nonpartisan thing, which is that both sides have been like, and it does seem to me like some of what's been good about our elections is that they're decentralized, right? So you couldn't necessarily hack into them, but what's bad about them is they're decentralized. Yeah. And so it makes it difficult to

fund elections at the federal level because the, you know, I mean, and we can and we have, right? Like the vast majority of funding that comes that, like, from outside the states comes from the federal government. But the way that the federal government funds elections is always really bizarre. Like, there's never been a system by which, like, elections are guaranteed a certain amount of funding every year. They just sort of flood funding in when, after a disaster happens or a disaster is about to happen. So we gave billions of dollars to local elections offices after the calamitous 2000 election. We did the same after 2016 when we realized how, you know, terrible our cybersecurity was. And we did the same in the run up to 2020 when

we realized that elections couldn't be effectively run in a pandemic. And that's just like not a way to do long-term planning. Like imagine if your salary was paid. Like this year you get a million dollars and then we don't know when we'll pay you next, but the next time we pay you, maybe you'll only get $150,000 and the next year you'll get $10. Like that's the way that election administrators have been forced to plan. And you can't make plans that way. Like you buy millions of dollars of election equipment and then you've got to replace that equipment in 10 years.

But who knows what your budget will be in 10 years? So how do you choose what voting machine to buy? because you don't know how much money you're going to have to maintain it or replace it in the future. So should you go with this cheap thing that probably isn't going to work really well, but we'll probably be able to be cheaply maintained for a long time? Or should you go with the best option? Because you know that in 10 years there's going to be this amount of money sitting in your pot and you can replace them. Like we can't make those decisions right now.

We are working with voting machines that are ancient and bad. It's an unsustainable funding structure. Oh, good. I feel much better. Thank you so much. No, I'm just kidding. What's crazier than QAnon, more outlandish than Pizza Gate, and scarier than a Mexican getaway with Ted Cruz?

The answer is what the American right wing has planned next. Be one of the first to listen to Fever Dreams, the new podcast from The Daily Beast, tracking the conspiracy slingers, orange acolytes, and straight-up grifters pushing to retake power. Every Wednesday hosts Swin Subisang and Will Summer, checking in on the, the movement of the radical right.

Head to the DailyBeast.com slash podcasts or your favorite podcast player to catch the first episode and get subscribed. That's Fever Dreams, which you can subscribe to wherever you get your podcasts. Tom Nichols is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and at the Harvard Extension School, an author of our own worst enemy. Welcome to the new abnormal Tom Nichols. Thank you, Molly. It's good to be with you finally.

I'm curious to know, I am in like a panic about what Republicans are doing to democracy. Are you? Well, panic. Do I ever panic? Not really, but I am somewhere between full-blown panic and Susan Collins' brow furrowing concern. Because, you know, they are up to no good. I mean, they have decided to become a minority ruling party with. no principle other than to simply stay in power and to keep being returned to the Emerald City. That's it. There is no plan here. There is nothing else. I mean, it is stay in power at all costs, take care of our donors, take care of, you know, the few interests that provide us money and keep us here. And, you know, the hell with the Constitution and the rule of law and American democracy. They're just not about that. So yeah, I'm pretty worried. Yeah, I mean, it feels like the lesson Republicans have gotten from Trump is,

not let us go back and really have a platform and work on policy. They don't care about policy. It's funny that we're talking about this today because I'm actually writing something up about the Republican collapse of confidence in their own ideas. You can hate what the Republicans stood for 40 years ago, but it tells you something that Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who I don't think anybody's going to say it's anything but a liberal New Yorker, right? Yeah. At the time, you know, Daniel Patrick said he's like, they've become. the party of ideas, which is not to say that, you know, Ed Brooke and Strom Thurmond were always on the same page, but they shared this kind of big set of ideas about things like human nature and the

structure of the economy and the basics about how government should work. And that's all gone. They don't believe in it themselves. They know they can't sell what's left of it to anybody else. And I hate how completely woke I sound even talking this way. But they really are a party that has basically decided on white minority rule. That's it. I'm about to sound conservative. So, like, I hate how conservative I sound, but, like, some of the old Republican values, and look, I I pride myself on my total disdain for Bush one and two, and Reagan, even when I was three, I knew he was bad. But you miss him now. Well, that was what I was going to say was, like, some of those values, like immigration and capitalism, not crony capitalism, but,

like real capitalism, which, you know, those values are useful if you're going to run a democracy. You could listen to some of those ideas and say, wow, that's really terrible. And government isn't the problem. Capitalism and markets don't solve everything. You know, conservatives are really crazy with that. But it was at least something you could argue with. You could at least have this discussion. It wasn't, you know, after the 60s, for example, the Republicans never really were serious about turning. back the welfare state, they were serious about limiting the size of the welfare state. And anybody who really worked in politics knew that what we were really arguing about was how big a welfare state, which sectors would it go into, how much public support, you know,

how much medical care should the government pay for? And that's all gone now because it's like talking to people who are psychotic because they don't hold any consistent thought in their head at all. We're the party of small government, except unless we're going to pass a law to create a Ministry of Truth in Florida that doesn't let you say bad things about Donald Trump unless you're Disney World. Right. You know, I mean, the Republicans have become this insane paternalistic, big state, you know, enemy of everything they ever believed in. And when you call them on it, they say, yeah, but drag queens. Right. It's interesting because it's like they're anti-immigration, they're anti-taxes, right? But they're pro taxes on blue states, right? Like,

they raise the assault deduction. They're populist, but they're not really, but they're only populist for white men. I mean, it just, like, I don't even know what you could say about them that would even... The populism is something that really inflames me because it is such towering bullshit. The Republicans are not populists. They are faux populists. And I think that, I think George Will, you know, who has been just a real, on this, just a beacon of clarity when he said, look, they don't like their own voters. They fear them. They want to be far away from them. That is not what populism is about.

Populism is we are the champions of the ordinary person against whoever it is, right? We're the champions of the real people against the elite, against the eggheads, against the military officers, the bureaucrats, the professors, whoever it is. these guys aren't on anybody's side. They don't care about any of this stuff. They don't want any of these people anywhere near them. It shows you what a weird world we live in where you can quote Howard Stern and George Will to the same point. Where Howard Stern said he hates his own voters.

Trump hates his own voters. He wants nothing to do with them. He doesn't want them touching his car. And so the populism point especially, the idea that Mitch McConnell is a populist is so laughable on its face that the Republican attempt to portray itself as, you know, the friend of the, I mean, Mitch McConnell's been representing Kentucky for 40 years. How's that going? Right. Exactly. No. I mean, it's a good point. But it is this fundamental thing. They know that their agenda is not popular enough. Well, they don't have an agenda. They know that their agenda is stay in power, past tax breaks, enrich themselves, cozy up to people who will give them money.

maintain white minority rule and fire up the rubs about stuff that they don't really care about. I mean, I've gotten a lot of flack about this for, you know, some of the Republicans who have become, you know, hardcore pro-lifers. But 20 years ago, when Thomas Frank was writing about this in Kansas, where activists in Kansas were saying, hey, we admit it. We use abortion to rile people up. It's how we get them to pay attention to politics and put us in office. And it's the same thing with wokeism and race and critical race theory and all this other stuff. It's just a way of saying all of these strange, scary bohemians and hipsters and gays and black people and women are out to get you. And the only thing that stands between you and the abyss are Mitch McConnell and

Kevin McCarthy. And again, such a laughable thing. I mean, I would laugh saying that if it weren't so tragic. Yeah. No, I mean, it seems to me like exactly, that's exactly the problem. So, I mean, what can Democrats do? Part of the reason I am so disheartened about the future of democracy is that the Republicans have become, and with an unapologetically authoritarian party, and they are up against the Democrats who cannot fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It's really fucking true. Like, Republicans are like, we want to take away your right to vote.

And Democrats are like, let's build you guys bridges. because that will make everyone happy. Or conversely, I mean, on the one hand, you know, and I think Joe Biden is doing the best he can. I think Joe Biden has actually turned out to be a really good president. You know, and he's this very, you notice that a lot of the crazy stuff they keep dumping on his desk has been, you know, politely swept into the wastebasket. No, we won't be forgiving $50,000 worth of student loans.

You know, no, we won't be doing all this other stuff. No, yes, we are going to try and, you know, compromise with Republicans as best we can. But why? But on the other side, well, and I think because he at least has to make the effort to do that at first so that when they finally give up on it, they can say, okay, you know, we gave it a shot. I think the collapse of the 1-6 commission is going to be the beginning of the end of a lot of that. But on the other side, you have a Democratic Party of activists who don't understand that they can win all the things. They can win all these elections. they could run the country, they could win at every level if they would stop scaring normal.

And David Shore in particular, there was a piece in political called the cult of David Shore, and I am now going to say I'm a founding member. We had him on the pod. Yeah. Sure is a self-described socialist, a man of the left, somebody who was working for a company working for Obama. And basically, in a very nice, gentle way, he's like, look, you know, if you're in a D plus 55 district. I don't want to name names Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but if you're in a D-plus-50 district, stop blowing up the chances of the people who have to win in an R-plus-1 district. And they just don't get it. It's like talking to an unruly classroom of children about this, about basic

messaging, and I'll get off this soapbox now, because Democrats drive me crazy about their inability to do this. But the problem here is not in the AOCs, right? The problem here is in the the Joe Biden's, like, and the mansions and the cinemas, right? I mean, why are Democrats not focused on the only game in town, which is protecting voting rights? I disagree with you, Molly. I think that, first of all, future elections are not going to be one. The real key here is the next two or three elections, and the Republicans know this. And those elections are not going to be one on policy. They are not going to be one on good government. You know what the most important thing about Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema is, is that they are not letting Mitch McConnell be Senate

majority leader. Right. No, I agree. The people are saying, hey, we have to primary Joe Manchin. Okay, you want to get rid of Joe Manchin? No, I know. You can't primary. Then you have a Republican. It's West Virginia. Exactly. I understand if you're a Democrat, Manchin drives you crazy, but you know? I mean, but don't you think safeguarding the election should be job one? I mean, if you don't have voting rights. I think the problem is the Democrats are trying to legislate a solution. to 40 years of not showing up for elections at the state and local level. And I think that, yes, I hope they pass. You know, I think, you know, I defended the filibuster for a long time because I think there

are things in this country that should only pass with a supermajority. But now that it is clear that it is just an object of Republican obstruction that, you know, even I have come to the conclusion that, okay, if you've got to get rid of the filibuster to do this, then do it. But, you know, passing all this stuff, Molly, is not going to matter if Democrats don't show up. And this has been, after 2008 and 2010 in particular, you know, why are the Republicans running all these things at the state level? Because Democrats think the only elections that matter are the elections for president. Right. And that's always been a problem for Democrats.

Yeah, but isn't this an apple and an orange though, Tom? Like, yes, they don't show up. But Republicans also go in and move polls the day before election day. They make all these things more legal to obstruct. That doesn't have to do with the Democrats not showing up. And if they were going to, you know, not cry over spilled milk, we do have to legislate away through this now. Well, two things. First of all, if we're talking about, you know, in the past three years, maybe, but part of the reason Republicans control all these offices is because they show up for every election right down to dog catcher. And they have been. Right. Since 1980. Right. That's true. I mean, you know, as a Republican, first of all, in state government, I worked for a Democrat.

And I remember I was just a young kid, so I wasn't like a Republican movement. I was just a registered Republican in Massachusetts in part because it was, you know, I had to be. A Republican in Massachusetts is a little different than a Republican in Texas. Exactly. I used to sit in on these kind of, you know, meetings. And they're like, well, I mean, this issue of turnout at this local and state level used to drive these guys crazy. And the other thing I would say is, you know, well, the Republicans have put all these structural barriers in. And yet the Democrats overcome them in 2008.

Then they don't in 2010. And yet somehow they do again in 2012, but they don't in 2016. And yet they did in 2018. Hey, maybe, you know, if it's a structural barrier, it would always look the same. But apparently by showing up, Democrats can actually overcome these things. And it is maddening to me to have this discretion with Democrats when they say, well, we just can't win these things because of these structural impediments. Well, unless it's 2018 and unless it's 2020 and unless it's 208.

But the rest of the time, we absolutely can't do it, unless we can. What about the idea that, you know, democracy, the whole thing is that it's supposed to be representative. And like when we have, like, for example, in Ohio with the way the gerrymandering works, Democrats have to get 60% to get a majority like they actually win there at times. And it's like, it seems like, you know, if we're talking about defending the more perfect union, this is a thing. And we keep going on about, like, yes, well, they can get around it. But we're supposed to be perfecting this union all the time.

Well, first, remember, I'm from Massachusetts. We invented gerrymandering. We literally invented it. The idea that gerrymandering is some kind of a Republican invention is nuts. And let's also remember that on a lot of the VRA gerrymanders in, you know, back in the 80s, Republicans were more than happy to work with Democrats and vice versa, because they would create a safe Democratic seat, which would create three safe Republican seats around it. And so, you know, this idea that somehow, oh, you know, the Democrats were helpless in the face of this diabolically clever Republican gerrymandering, again, is, you know, this has become a kind of urban legend we tell ourselves as an explanation of why Democrats are so loose about showing up. And for one thing, if you could pump the youth turnout by 10 points, we wouldn't be having any of these conversations. So let's just cut the crap about this.

Okay? I mean, and I don't mean like in the past three years, the youth turnout has been a dismal since the moment it was legalized. So let's just, you know, let us just come to reality here. You get an extra five or ten points out of the youth turnout. All your problems pretty much go away. It's, well, you know, I couldn't vote in college because I'm registered at home, but they wouldn't blah, blah, blah.

There's always a story and an excuse. I mean, Republicans are trying to gerrymander and engage in vote suppression. because it works on the margin. It doesn't work in the face of major turnout. Why do you hate young people, Tom? I don't hate young people. We can talk about that. We think you're wrong, but we love you anyway,

because we're your friends. Is that fair, Jesse? Just accept that I'm right, and the internet and the world would be a better place. Everybody just listen to Dad. Hi, Jesse. Hi, Molly Jungfaster. So, what in the hell is going on?

So much stuff, a lot of resentment and hostility towards a lot of fucking assholes. But our asshole of the day, the worst person in the world, the man who tried to throw the election to Trump by messing up the mail, postmaster to joy is going to be gone if we can just put in those other USPS board of governors. Yes, it seems that his executioners have been confirmed today. So it looks like Postmaster DeJoy, you villainous looking freak, your days are numbered. Happy to see him go. You know, when I think of all the wolves Trump put in the hen house, it's hard to choose a worse one, but I think it is him. I have to say, I've been really impressed with what a shithead he is. And that smirkity grin is really just atrocious.

so he can go fuck himself. I can't wait for him to be fired. It cannot come a moment too soon. Agreed. Well, my fuck that guy, who I can't believe has never been my fuck that guy before, is one Sean Hannity.

Tell me more. Last night, one of his shitty segments on his shitty show, he was celebrated Governor Kim Reynolds for her great pandemic response. Oh, she killed all those people. Where she killed all those people of those meat packing facilities, you know,

just ignored all the data, just kept saying, whatever, we got to keep moving on, making the meat. And all these people died. He sat around applauding her response and talking about how stupid New York was for shutting down and trying to not to kill people.

And for that, I say, fuck you, Sean Hannity, fuck your smirk, and fuck your revisionist history. Yes. Yes. On that note, we'll wrap this episode of the new abnormal from The Daily Beast. In future episodes, we'll be talking to smart folks from The Daily Beast and beyond from media, culture, politics, and science.

We'll help us understand what's happening to our country and the world. We hope you'll subscribe to us on your favorite podcast app and share the show on social media. Thanks so much for listening, and we'll see you again on the next episode. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast. slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.