The New Yorker Radio Hour - Jon Lovett Answers Your Questions

Episode Date: August 21, 2026

In the 2026 midterm elections, close finishes in crucial swing states have put a spotlight on the divide between the Democratic Party’s moderate and progressive wings. Jon Lovett straddles that divide. He was a longtime speechwriter for Hillary Clinton and then for Barack Obama, but, as a host of the podcasts “Pod Save America” and “Lovett or Leave It,” he’s been critical of the Party’s establishment. Lovett sat down with David Remnick to answer listeners’ questions about the midterms and what they suggest about the 2028 Presidential election. In a “broad trend,” Lovett says, centrist Democrats “put up candidates, and they say, ‘Vote for us, or else.’ And [voters] just keep picking ‘or else.’ . . . Across the board, I don’t know what this establishment of the Democratic Party stands for, and neither does the country.” Further listening:  “ ‘Pod Save America’ ’s Jon Lovett on Trump: ‘The Threat of Jail Time Sharpens the Mind,’ ” an episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour   New episodes of The New Yorker Radio Hour drop every Tuesday and Friday. Join host David Remnick as he discusses the latest in politics, news, and current events in conversation with political leaders, newsmakers, innovators, New Yorker staff writers, authors, actors, and musicians. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC and The New Yorker. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC and The New Yorker. Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. The 26 midterm elections, and we're through most of the primaries at long last, has been a bruising process for many Democrats. On the one hand, the turnout was strong, and that's always good, but very close finishes in crucial swing states have put a spotlight on the divide between the party's moderate and progressive wings, and there's rancor over support of Israel and many other issues.

John Lovett straddles that divide. Lovett was a longtime speechwriter for Hillary Clinton and then Barack Obama, so he's tightly linked to the Democratic establishment. But as a commentator on the podcast, Pod Save America, and Love It or Leave It, he's also been very critical of the party's orthodoxies. That's put him at odds with defenders of President Biden, Biden and made him a little harder to pin down ideologically. So I wanted to get John Lovett's read on the

midterms, which are just around the corner, and what they might suggest for 2028. Now, you might remember, the other day I asked you for your questions about all these issues, and we heard from a lot of you by email, voicemail, and Instagram. So I'm going to pitch John Lovett some of your questions as well. John, let's start with the most basic thing in the world. Are you absolutely sure that? that Democrats are going to take the House, and what are the odds of the Senate? No, and I don't think anybody should be sure. Republicans have done a lot to draw maps to give them an advantage. We see that in Texas and elsewhere.

Also, the Democratic Party is incredibly unpopular. If people vote for Democrats in this election, and I hope they will, I ultimately believe they will. It will not be because there's some love for what Democrats are offering. It is because of a revulsion of what Trump has done and the Republicans in Congress who have gone along with it or outright embraced it. We have to really pull an inside straight. Did I use a sports analogy correctly to take the Senate? You did. And I'm hopeful.

I'm hopeful we have a great candidate in Iowa that puts that in play. We have a great candidate in Texas that puts that in play. We've hopefully gotten to the other side. of the primary mess in Maine. But no, I think... You're leaving out Michigan conspicuously. Abdul-El-Saya just won a big primary victory there. So one thing that's happened over and over,

and I'm not comparing these races or these candidates specifically. I'm talking about just a broad trend. And this has been true for a long time, which is establishment figures or organizations put up candidates and they say, vote for us or else. And people just keep picking or else. And there are a lot of people who lament, they say, these are candidates that are too far to the left, and that's going to make it harder for us to win these seats.

But then across the board, I don't know what this establishment of the Democratic Party stands for, and neither does the country. And so then people say, you know, we want an alternative where we know what people are going to fight for. We know what drives them. We know what they care about. And if you're not offering that from the center or the center left, you can keep running into this problem. No one's going to give you these primary victories anymore. John, I can't quite make out how the kind of remaining Obama wing of the party really feels about the DSA. In some instances, people appreciate the energy, the freshness, the talent, certainly in Mamdani and some others,

but are made nervous by some of the ideas or impulses in the DSA. And I wonder if one of the voices of Pod Save America, which is so associated for obvious reasons with the Obama wing of the party, how do you feel about the DSA and its influence on the midterms? I think you have to separate some of the politicians and the organization, which is, first of all, there are many different branches and groups that I honestly have trouble keeping track of. And within this organization, there's tons of disagreements and disputes, right? But you see what Mamdani has done to galvanize people. And you see him manage to adjust, make compromises in ways that are very political without being tagged as being political, which is the work of a great politician.

Something Bill Clinton was good at, something Barack Obama was good at, something Bernie Sanders is good at. You see AOC and how she has navigated being part of the DSA while trying to have a version of progressivism that is more welcoming and open. And I think you even see in AOC's language over the years how she's moved away, I think, from some of the more academic or kind of online way of talking about politics to something that's a little bit broader. And then I think you see people that tend to be more online. and that... John, online means what? More emotionally charged, more ideological? What does online mean in this context?

I just mean the people that are fighting the fights online day after day what it does to their brains. I think some of those are people that are in the world. By the way, this is true of moderates, center left, everybody. If you're in the online content minds, it is clear that there are people that are much more animated and excited about defeating Democrats. in a factional battle, then coming together at the end of a difficult primary and taking on

the Republicans. And I understand that, right? I'm not like judging that. You're a left-wing organization that's trying to shift the broad left side of our politics towards what you believe is a better version of the country. But then if that's what animates you, if that's what excites you, but that same energy and enthusiasm doesn't continue into the general. You have people that don't embrace the Democrat in the end and act as if the responsibility we all have, which is just to measure the due candidates and choose who's going to do either the better job or the less worst job, something we all have to do as citizens, that that doesn't apply to you. I think it's very frustrating. It is.

So we're here to answer questions, especially from listeners. And here's a question from Krenna from Larksper, California. And she asks this, how can Democrats take back the narrative that they and not the Republicans are the fiscally responsible party. You know, I'm smiling broadly. I'm smiling because there's something about our side where we love to have debates about how to talk about politics. And, like, I think about how these debates resolve on the Republican side, right? A politician wouldn't say, we need to be the party of fiscal responsibility.

But they might. But they would also say, Democrats are prophilies. wasteers who are going to raise taxes on the on you the middle class and use it to pay for their pet projects, undocumented transgender affirming care, whatever they want to say. And I think sometimes there's a lot of on the pro-democracy broad coalition on the left that doesn't like to take off the velvet gloves and just do politics and just make the argument. They want to talk about the argument we should be talking about. It's sort of part of our nature.

And I think sometimes we have to do a little bit more showing and a little less telling. I was listening to POSA of America just recently. And I forget which one of you said this, but the fastest way to get booed, apparently, for candidates, is to mention Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries. And we hear that a lot. Is it time for Democrats to replace their leaders in the House and the Senate? So I want to be nuanced about it, because I think, Chuck Schumer has been a terrible communicator, right? If you're looking for a spokesperson for the Democratic Party, brutal.

I also think there are plenty of times. What makes him so brutal? I think he's just a person of another era. Yeah. He just is. And his style of politics built around kind of press conferences outside of gas stations and messaging bills to drive attention and sound bites. It's just of another era.

I remember when I first started in politics writing speeches. What was the goal of a speech or an announcement of some kind? It was to get the journalists and television stations there to cover it, to take a salient quote from it, use that to inform their coverage, and that would be disseminated to people. And Schumer was good at that. He knew how to do that. And maybe it would be a little splashy in some fun way. Maybe there'd be a pun. Maybe it'd be silly. Good for local TV news. That's just not how it works anymore.

Trump, I think, by being so extreme and saying things that are so outlandish, kind of ironically, brings that style of politics back. But for everybody else, it just doesn't work that way. It's more about moments and emotion and authenticity. And it's just not what he's geared toward. Is authenticity just another kind of performance? Oh, yes. Of course. Yeah.

And this is the thing, right, which is people, they crave authenticity, David Reyes. They crave it. Who exemplifies that in your mind? Bernie Sanders is excellent at that, right? He is authentically repeating his message as he's done for a very long time. I think politicians that are adroit at social media and just filming something to camera and having a conversation is, I think, the best version, the most generous version of what the kind of authenticity is that people are looking for. AOC does that really well. Chris Murphy.

Wasn't that the downfall of Hillary in a way that she was seen as inauthent. in her self-presentation in 2016? I think it's part of it. It's funny, though, right? Because what does that actually mean? I worked for Hillary Clinton as her speechwriter, not on the presidential in 2016, but on her Senate campaign to 2006,

presidential in 2007 and 2008. And the... If you go back and listen to Hillary Clinton's commencement that she gave in 1969, where she spoke when she graduated from Wellesley. It's a beautiful speech, but you'll hear her speak and you'll just think, wow, I don't, that's not how she sounds. Like that's so interesting. We've had lots of empathy. We've had lots of sympathy.

But we feel that for too long, our leaders have viewed politics as the art of the possible. And the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. There's a vulnerability to it and an openness to it. And 40 years of being Hillary Clinton, being absolutely ripped to shreds when you get a little too mad, when you dance, when you smile, when you wear something interesting, when your husband has a relationship in his office and you are the butt of jokes because of it for years after. I think it's so natural to kind of close off and feeling like you're always under siege, I think had a real impact on how she communicates. Sophie on Instagram put it this way. How, quite eloquent, how cooked are we? Is there a chance of the midterms being canceled? No. Let's let no. Okay. We're not there, we're, let's, we're not imagining the unimaginable.

We should all imagine the worst case scenarios. I get it. However, I do sometimes think that because we were so caught off guard by Trump's rise and his re-election, frankly, that there's this fear of just saying emphatically what Trump can and cannot do, right? And I think sometimes we allow a little bit of the rights embrace of Trump magic to kind of start to kind of insourcele us a little bit. It's a big fractious country with thousands of municipalities running election. There's no canceling of elections. There's a lot of shenanigans Trump can get up to. There's a lot of damage he can do. There's a lot of intimidation he can do. There's a lot of ways he can

manipulate the Department of Justice. Forget shutting down the vote, just using it to kind of try to tar candidates. There's a lot at Trump's disposal. But I think sometimes we allow ourselves to be afraid of Trump in a way that gives him more power than he has, and he already has a lot of power. A listener named Dante from Brooklyn, New York asks, if candidates win on an extreme anti-Israel pro-Palestine stance as they have in New York, we can see where Dante is coming from, does the messaging change the Democrats at a federal level in in 2028? Or can Democrats strike a more middle ground the way, say, Brad Lander did,

and persuade voters that his version of liberal Zionism, which is, I think, his description for himself, is a path forward. Brad Lander's position is a progressive left position. I can see how that is not always the case inside of these debates, but that's what it is. And so do I think the Bradlander position is ultimately kind of where the consensus is probably, right? Which is, I think, not embracing some of the more extreme rhetoric, but sending military aid to Israel, having a much tougher stance on the policy that we put towards Israel, I think is probably would be where we'd end up. I know we're going to have a big primary about it. and there's going to be a bunch of different points of view.

And the person that emerges from that primary is going to set the agenda of what the Democratic Party will stand for in 2028. I do think it is incumbent upon those who are worried about anti-Semitism in the country and concerned about what has happened to the bipartisan consensus on Israel face just how much damage Israel has done.

done to its own reputation and how much of responsibility Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu has for what has happened. People are persuaded by what they have seen and to fail to appreciate that. Meaning the flattening of Gaza. The destruction of Gaza, the killing of civilians, the war crimes, the campaign of ethnic cleansing, the embrace of settlements in the West Bank. All of this has made Israel a pariah nation and undone a consensus. in American politics that has been central to Israel's kind of place in the world since its founding. And if you want to stop being asked, is it a genocide, but you don't want to say it's a genocide, ask yourself why this term and this question carries such meaning, it is because it is a stand-in

for understanding what you believe, right? And you have sort of mealy-mouth criticisms of Israel, and it feels as though you're kind of repeating, kind of talking points from 20 years that don't reflect the reality on the ground right now, then you're going to be hammered by this over and over again. I'm speaking with Pod Save America's John Levin. We'll continue our conversation in just a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick, and I'm talking today with John Lovett. After working as a speechwriter in the Obama administration, Lovett, co-founded, crooked media, along with two other White House veterans. John Favreau and Tommy Vitor. They're the host of Crooked Media's flagship program Pod Save America, along with Dan Pfeiffer.

Let me ask you an Obama question. I came to interview him the morning after he had met with Trump in the White House. We had a long interview. Some of it had to do with his absolute insistence of continuing to talk about the arc of history. It bends, but it moves in one direction. The other was his real hesitation to or inability to talk about democratic successors. Is that just because he doesn't think he should or he doesn't find anybody capable of inheriting that mantle and going all the way? What do you think Obama's proper role is?

And do you and your heart of hearts want him to do more? So in terms of successor, right, I think like runs. counter to his view of politics for him to sort of step out on the stage and say, this is the person, these are the people, right? Great candidates aren't chosen. They have to be revealed and made on the campaign trail. Like, John Ossoff has been really impressing everybody, myself included, with speeches that are smart and to the point and make an argument and excite people.

That's how you prove who follows Obama, right? In terms of him being more involved, I do think it's a double-edged sword. Of course, you want Barack Obama campaigning for Democrats in the home stretch. He also, I think at times— That's what he does do. And he has done it. Yes. Yeah.

I think the better question is when he is campaigning, when he is having these moments of, like, reflection, what is he doing that is unavailable to other mainstream democratic politicians, right? Like, it's— How do you mean? Why is it so much more effective to our mind that we're wondering, why this one man won't do more in his ex-presidency. Obviously, he's well-known, right? That's of value. He's still pretty popular. Why? Right? Why? The Barack Obama's style of politics was optimistic, it was hopeful, and it was thoughtful about persuasion, about the people you don't have on board yet, and really thinking about what it is to try to make an agenda that is, on the one hand, big,

and inspiring to the broad left coalition, but also on the merits of the policy and in how you talk about it, sympathetic to the concerns and criticisms that come from independence and sort of the intellectually honest portion of the center rights, say, right? I just think we just don't do that like we used to. And I think that's what people really are missing. Joe Biden was elected to restore politics post-pandemic, post-Trump, and having two years of a person who was not able really to effectively communicate. And then because we were denied a primary where we could really hash out our difference is. We just haven't had a moment in which a bunch of Democrats put their talents on display. We just, we're missing the talent show. We need the swimsuit portion. We need the, you know,

we need the whole thing. Get out there. And the talent portion. Let's see. Spin the batons. Do the juggling. Let's go. What is Rahm Emanuel up to? Is he in the race to win? Is he in the race to make a point? You're slightly lifted your eyebrows there. No, you know, I got in trouble because they, not in trouble. I said that I thought Rom being in the primaries would be a good thing and then John and Tommy jokingly

said, let's cut that and get that out there. But because actually, I think he understands this, right? Which is you can't just lament that people like the left. You can't just lament that people are embracing positions to the left of where you are.

Right. You have to offer an alternative. And so a campaign in which Rom is defiantly trying to have a debate in which we hash out some of these questions, I think will be valuable, in part because I think he's smart about finding interesting ways and kind of newsmaking ways to talk about policy, but not from the law. I got into it with him here on this show because if his use of transgender rights, the

implication that it's somehow a trivial thing, and that we should be, you know, enough already with bathrooms, let's be talking about schoolrooms. And I get this as a rhetorical device. But it seems to me innately cruel. And we have a question from Linda from Buffalo, and she asks, how could we incorporate education about transgender people so that we reduce the fear and the ignorance?

And I would continue that. Why is it impossible to have both? Why can't we be discussing education and not just throwing transgender rights out the window? So let me just say that. I'm married to a trans person. Everything about this debate to me is about what is between us and a world in which trans people aren't afraid to go to the bathroom at the airport, where trans people can live openly, be themselves, and trust that they'll be protected by the law, trust that they can get a job, that they can have a flourishing life. And what stands between us and that?

we've just lost ground on this issue. We have, right? Why did we backslide? Like, did people forget what they had learned about trans people? No, there was just a bunch of debates on the topics where the pro-trans side is on the losing end of public opinion. Why did Democratic politicians in the 2020 primary raise their hands on a bunch of 30-70 issues? Right? Why, right?

Is it because they truly believed it? No. Of course not. Why? Because they didn't trust themselves to be able to make an argument to the base of the Democratic Party to prove who they were enough that they could have a disagreement. Right. Right. Americans have questions about trans youth and what happens if a child, you know, early teens, whatever, wants to transition. They're confused about it. They're like they're worried about it, whatever. Now, you can just concede and maybe, and I think on sports we basically have. Or you can say, you know what? I believe trans people deserve to be their. themselves to avoid discrimination at work, to be treated with respect and dignity. I believe these decisions should be left up to doctors and parents. And it just isn't something the national

government should be coming down from on high and deciding on behalf of states, communities, and families. And you may not agree with me on trans issues. Maybe we have a different point of view. I hope you understand that we're not always going to see eye to eye. We're not always going to have the same point of view. But here's what I really want to talk about. I want to talk about what we're going to do to take on the corruption. I want to talk about what we're going to do to make the health care system fair, to make the tax code fair, whatever it might be, building an authentic connection with people on the issues they care about most, and they do not care about these issues the most, gives you space to disagree.

Mitch McConnell is not running for re-election, but Jasper, asking on Instagram, says, is McConnell's extended absence going to have an impact on the Kentucky Senate race? How will that all turn out? So, look, a lot of conspiracy theories about what's going to. on with Mitch McConnell, whether or not he's just holding out so that there can't be a special election. My cynicism goes so far as to say, I would absolutely believe that they are hiding how severe his ailments are so as to avoid the inevitable resignation having to come before the deadline. I believe that. I would find it hard to believe that Elaine Chao would allow a photo next to

her deceased husband. But you know what? People find new lows and politics these days that are stunning. What will the effect be? I don't know. I don't think much. Kentucky is a very, very red state. It is hard to imagine a Democrat winning. If there were a special because the seat was open, you could have somebody a thorn in Trump side like Thomas Massey get in. That might throw off some of the math if there's any lame duck nominations, right? Like, that's where I think the conspiracy theories have a little bit of purchase, but beyond that, I think Mitch McConnell's going out the way he wants by clinging to pay. power with his last bit of strength.

Who would have thunk it? One person we haven't talked about is Kamala Harris. She was the nominee last time. What does she have to do to be a credible candidate this time around? I've thought about this. And she was trying to mark a real break from Biden. But there was a real fear about allowing daylight between her and the administration. Now, whether or not she took that.

too much to heart or bought into the argument that there wasn't a lot of value to running away from Biden when she'd be tagged with Biden anyway. I don't know. But one lesson I take away from that period is the more clear your worldview, the easier every question becomes. It just is. The less clear your worldview, the closer you to get to every single question becomes a gotcha. Kamala Harris was asked in an interview recently, who do you think in history the most effective president's work? three most effective presidents in American history. Oh, Mark, don't make me do that.

And the one thing that just stood out at me, and it's like, wait a second. I read the point where who's your favorite president has become something of a gotcha. I do think it speaks to a problem. And some of it is not on her, but some of it is, obviously. You have enthusiasm for her in 28?

The person who emerges from this primary, the person who dukes it out and fights out and wins is the person I'm excited about. I am excited for the process and I'm excited for the people. I'm really, like, truly. So you're getting on, you're getting on no one's train here early on? No, absolutely not. Absolutely, absolutely not. It is, first of all, it's way too early. I don't care about what the polls say. We got to see, first of all, we're about to have an election. We're going to learn a lot, right? My main feeling now, though, is I'm really not interested in anybody sort of riding in a white horse in 2027. If you weren't here in 2025 and 2026, it's going to be pretty tough to get me, about you in 2027. I want the person who's so angry and upset about what they're seeing that they can't help but be out there fighting what they're seeing every single day.

It does sound like you're a little bit excited about John Ossoff to the exclusion of others. I'm annoyed about being enthusiastic. First of all, it's sort of, we're about to head into the first presidential race where there's a very legitimate chance that the next president is younger than me. Yeah. Get used to it. That's upset. That's upset. It keeps getting worse. It keeps getting worse. First, the athletes are all younger, and the rock star, that's fine. Now the fucking senators are younger, this sucks.

This sucks. It keeps getting worse. And we live in a gerontocracy. I know. I know. There's some good parts to it. I always feel young. Thanks for all your time, John. Thanks for having me. John Lovett is one of the hosts of POS Save America. And he also hosts Love It or Leave It.

And thanks to all of you who wrote in with your questions. I'm David Remnick, and that's the New Yorker Radio Hour for today. Thanks for joining us. See you next time. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Arts, with additional music by Louis Mitchell and Jared Paul. This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, and Ursula Summer, with guidance from Emily Boutin.

We had help this week from Erica Huang. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.