The New Yorker Radio Hour - Sarah Longwell, a Former Republican, on “How to Eat an Elephant”

Episode Date: September 4, 2026

The political consultant Sarah Longwell runs focus groups of voters, and she has a lot of advice for Democrats seeking to wrest control of the government from MAGA. Longwell, a former Republican disaffected from Donald Trump’s party, presents her playbook to the New Yorker staff writer Evan Osnos: go on the offensive talking about corruption; make a positive case for immigration; and adapt to a podcast-driven media environment. “You can go on ‘Joe Rogan’ or not go on ‘Joe Rogan,’ ” she says. “The question is: can you sit for a long period of time and talk to someone who doesn’t know that much about politics and have an engaging conversation? . . . This is how trust is built now, in this screen-to-screen environment.” Longwell’s new book is called “How to Eat an Elephant: One Voter at a Time.” Further listening: “Can Trump Voters Still Change Their Minds?,” an episode of The New Yorker Radio Hour“A G.O.P. Strategist on the Republican Voters Who Could Abandon Trump,” an episode of The Political Scene 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. 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 Evan Osnows. I'm a staff writer at The Magazine, and I'm sitting in this week for David Remnick. We've entered the final, brutal season of political campaigns before the November election. The stakes, I don't need to tell you, are enormous. Both the House and the Senate could be up for grabs. And the president's approval rating is on the floor.

When one poll put Donald Trump at 32% approval recently, there were headlines saying that he had crossed something called the Bush line. Now, the Bush line is a piece of analysis that comes from the political consultant Sarah Longwell. Longwell, as some of you will know, is a never-Trump Republican of longstanding. And for her political research, she's been running focus groups of voters for many years. So more than almost anyone I talk to about politics, she has a very good sense of what voters really think, not what she wishes they would think. Longwell has recently written a book about how to beat President Trump and MAGA-style politics. And it's called How to Eat an Elephant. I spoke with Sarah Longwell this past week. Sarah Longwell, welcome to the show. Hey, thanks for having me. Sarah, a few weeks ago,

as you probably saw, there was a poll that was published by Quinepea, fairly mainstream outfit, that showed that Donald Trump's approval rating has now dropped to 32%. This number, 32%, is actually one that you'd been talking about even before this happened. You've referred to this as the Bush line. And I want to understand what you mean. Why is that a significant number? Because Donald Trump has had some pretty low approval rating for most of his time in politics. So why does this matter?

And when George W. Bush left office, with an unpopular war and a lousy economy, he was down at 32 percent. And the reason that it matters so much is not just because George W. Bush was unpopular. The party was so weak in the wake of George W. Bush that it was ripe for, in my opinion, a very dangerous reimagining, but a reimagining nonetheless. And so I think that it is very important that Donald Trump leave office as low as possible for a variety of reasons. One is, I need his presidency, and I think America needs his presidency to be viewed historically and in real time as a failure. Number two, I want it to hang like an albatross around the necks of anyone in his administration who might try to run again.

And so every point that we can take off Donald Trump weakens the ability for what we have gone through this last decade to happen again or to continue to happen. One of the things that you are known for that people have really come to expect from you over the last decade is that you spend a lot of time talking to voters and trying to, or should I say actually, and this is a meaningful difference, listening to voters, doing these focus groups, hundreds of them, if not more by now. Every week I do one or two focus groups. And it also just, it allows you, it's like cheat code for politics because people, I've been hearing about data centers now for a couple of years. And so there's a lot of people right now who are saying, oh, these data centers, this is really impacting our politics. And I said, you know, back in 2025 when Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spamberg were running for governor, the data centers were all over those races from voters. And so you hear things much earlier if you're listening to voters and they won't catch you off guard politically. I just don't think we're not getting out of this unless we understand what's happening with voters. And so when I listen to them, I key in on, all right, where are they persuadable? What are the things that they want. And then all of a sudden, if you kind of strip away a lot of the ephemera of politics and you listen to what voters want, things sort of clarify and get simple.

Because what they want are their material well-being to improve. They want to be safe. That's not a revelation, right? But then if you think about safety, personal safety, in regard to how people talk about crime and how people talk about immigration, you suddenly realize that so much of that discourse is about people feeling under threat. It's very difficult to find your compassion if you feel under threat. And so voters start to say, I like immigration. I think we should have immigration, but I just want people to come the right way. They don't know what the right way means. They have no

idea what that process looks like. They're Americans. They've never gone through it. But they're saying, come the right way so that they know who's in the country because they otherwise feel scared. And Trump amps that up, right? Makes you feel afraid. And that changes how people then view that policy issue. What is a way that a Democrat can have an effective message on immigration that might appeal to these coveted swing voters that you're always thinking about without sacrificing the principles that they care about? What is the way that a Democrat could form a message on that? Saying that the border should be closed probably is table ante for where the immigration conversation needs.

needs to be. Like, we need to have a secure border. This is something I talk about with Trump a lot, because I think Democrats try to pin Trump down on the idea that he said he was going to build a wall. He didn't build a wall. The wall is stupid. The wall isn't getting anywhere. But voters didn't hear the construction of a wall. What they heard was this is someone who is going to take immigration seriously. And I think that Democrats also need to say, we want to keep you and your family safe. We need to know who's in the country. We should have a secure border. But I think once you say, a secure border as a sort of a base level proposition, then you can say, but we want more immigrants to come here. The point of America, the thing that is great about America is that people want to come here.

I grew up thinking this. American greatness can be expressed in our— Ronald Reagan did this, in our excitement over people wanting to come here and how they can add value to America. Like, there is a pro-immigrant way to be that still is very consistent with a border being secure. Democrats seem to have just abdicated the idea that we could talk about immigration reform or a better immigration system. And they shouldn't. They should they should pitch it. One of the things that I think is hardest for us, anybody who's trying to interpret politics, is trying to separate out what we're hearing from what we might want to hear. I mean, how do you guard against that temptation to succumb to wishful thinking rather than rely entirely on analysis? Yeah, that's a great question. When I first started doing focus groups, really, it was around Trump. It was why did these Republican voters, and I had been a Republican my whole career. And I was like, why would they vote for this guy? So immediately, my first foray into focus groups was hearing a lot of stuff I did not like. It was learning that Republican voters with whom I sort of associated myself did not care about. limited government, American leadership in the world.

I was hearing all of these things that I was like, oh my gosh. Like it really blew me away why they liked Donald Trump. And also, though, my background was in, I sort of cut my teeth in the gay rights movement around marriage, equality,

and don't ask, don't tell. And so I have a deep level of optimism. I mean, you wouldn't believe the terrible things I heard listening to people during that fight, right? Things that we're going to impact me directly, like why I shouldn't be allowed to get married. And so I built up a real tolerance for being, for listening to people with a kind of fascination and then thinking, okay,

here's the thing that I heard that I think we can work with. You were, as some people may know, the first woman to serve as the national board chair of the log cabin Republicans, which, of course, is an organization for LGBT Republicans. And recently, that group removed the T for trans in order to, I think, as they put it, concentrate specifically on issues of sexual orientation and conservative values. What do you make of that decision? Yeah, so I've got a non-charitable take, and then I've got a charitable take. So my non- We'll take both takes.

You know, I was there on the board. I'll talk about this as much because those conversations are more or less private, but when I got there, there were no women. And I tried to bring on more women. I was around when we added the T. I resigned ultimately because they desperately wanted to endorse Donald Trump. I kept them, I fought hard. I didn't say it wasn't just me, but there was a group of us. We fought hard.

We voted not to endorse Donald Trump going into the 2016 election. And, you know, a couple years in, they really wanted to retroactively endorse him. And I was like, I'm out of here if we do this. And that was kind of the end of that. And I think that they are supposed to be there to influence. Republican administrations to the benefit of the LGBT community. But it is going the opposite way, as it has with a lot of advocacy organizations in the Trump years, where in their desperation to be at the table in the Trump administration, who

obviously is on the attack against trans people all the time, they have decided to abdicate and drop the tea. So Trump is more influential on them than they certainly are in the Trump administration. On the other, do you want my charitable take, though? Sure. It is hard, I think, for sometimes lesbians and gay men to sort of speak to the politics of trans issues because we don't know really anything more than anybody else. What I think Log Cabin could do is they could, I think they should continue to advocate for the basic civil rights of every minority group. And I think they shouldn't leave trans people behind.

But I also think that, you know, which in effect they are doing now. They totally are. But I also think that if they didn't just drop the tea, I do have slight sympathy for the fact that they are being asked constantly now, not about issues that they understand, but about things like transports and transitioning minors. And like me, I think I bet they like don't know that much about that stuff, right? These are very complicated issues that people are opining a lot about with a very small understanding of a complicated issue. And to put that in political terms, you have a chapter in the book called Transamerica. And I'm curious how you think these issues will figure into this election this year and then also over the next two years. Are they going to be as significant as sort of as potent an issue as they were in 2024? I think so in large part because Republicans don't have a lot going for them, period. Like you can always tell when Republicans are really failing. You got an unpopular war, you got a bad economy.

What are we going to do? We're going to talk about trans athletes because that is their 70, 30 issue where they're on the right side of things. And best about everything else, they're on the wrong side of things. And so they're going to try to go to these places where they still have public support. And I think that Democrats, much like on immigration, have to find a way to balance compassion and political pragmatism. Republicans are going to try to pin Democrats down on this issue. because it's just like the wall wasn't really about the wall. Trans issues are often simply about people saying, like, are you going to operate with what they see as common sense? And this is when

people say Democrats seem too far left or they seem out of touch, these are the issues that do define them on that. And so one of the lessons that I took from advocacy on the gay marriage issue was you sort of have to separate the advocacy and the political. Like Barack Obama was not in favor of gay marriage when he ran in 2008. And then that's the same thing. And, you sort of have to separate the advocacy and the political. Like, Barack Obama was not in favor of gay marriage when he ran in 2008. And the entire gay marriage movement, more or less understood why, because public opinion wasn't there yet. And so the movement sort of understood our job is to get the public opinion there, and then the politicians

will follow. And it seems to be doing the reverse with the trans issue. Everybody's like, politicians must lead on this. I think that the question of trans athletes, like, Democrats are going to have to find an answer. but I do think that that answer should be true for each person. Like, my biggest pitch overall, especially for politicians, is say the thing that you think is true and also feel comfortable saying, this is a complicated issue. I don't know everything about it. I'm working through it like the rest of the country is.

But I also know that, like, raising kids to feel safe, I want that. Every parent is trying that. So, like, we don't need to demonize each other in the process. And then go on offense about the horrible way that Republicans are demonizing. and using this as a wedge issue, because I think people will recognize the compassion in that. And I just think Democrats have to get a little more comfortable saying what they actually think of being comfortable saying they're not sure what they think. Sarah Longwell is a political consultant. I'm Evan Osnows, and we'll continue on the New Yorker Radio Hour in just a moment.

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm Evan Osnose, a staff writer at the magazine, and I co-host the New Yorker's podcast, The Political Scene. I've been speaking today with Sarah Longwell, who publishes the bulwark. It's a political news and opinion site. Longwell has just written a book called How to Eat an Elephant, and it's a prescription for defeating the MAGA movement that has consumed the Republican Party she once loved. You've talked about AOC and Zoran Mamdani as effective political communicators on the Democratic side. Set aside for a moment, and we'll talk about it, you know, what they're advocating for in. in policy terms and how that's perceived among the people you're hearing from in focus groups.

But what is it about their messaging that seems to be resonating with voters now? I'll actually bring it to the 2024 race. The number one thing I heard about Kamala Harris was not she's too liberal or she's too moderate. When you talk to people who didn't vote in the 2024 election, you ask them like, why didn't you vote? even though they're Democrats, they would be like, I don't know what she stood for. I didn't know her. I didn't know, you know, she didn't, I didn't connect with her. I didn't know where she stood.

And I think that this ability to say to people, this is where I stand. And when you do that a lot, you can also then, they'll give you grace when you say, I'm still figuring this one out. Like, because the environment has changed in terms of, again, I'm going to go back to the communications environment or the information environment, people sit every day, just like you are now. Are you developing a parissocial relationship with us as we talk? Are you used to seeing somebody sit and talk for a long period of time? You are because that's how you're consuming things now.

And so a politician that thinks they can talk in sound bites now is wrong. You cannot live in a soundbite world. You cannot live in a press release world. You have to be able to sit with people. And this is like, again, go on Joe Rogan is a stand-in. You can go on Joe Rogan or not go on Joe Rogan. The question is, can you say, sit for a long period of time and talk to someone who knows not that much about politics

and have an engaging conversation because you're so comfortable and confident in your position on things. And this is what Mubdani does and AOC and Pete Buttigieg. And I think, you know, we're sort of getting a John Ossoff. But the people who are really good are people who know themselves and then are comfortable giving you the whole spread. And I think that's what people are looking for now because this is how trust is building. now in this sort of screen-to-screen environment. Personalities of the candidates have always mattered. It matters more now than ever.

You mentioned John Ossoff a moment ago, and he caused sort of a surprisingly big uproar recently with his remark about Trump's aide, Natalie Harp. See, he doesn't want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar. Yeah, I think this caught people by surprise because by now, look, we know Donald Trump committed sexual abuse, according to a jury trial. We know that he paid off a porn star. Why did the insinuation about his aid break through in this way? This is my favorite scandal that's happened recently. You have a lot to choose from, but tell me more. Well, because it's a communication scandal, right? This is, they strisanded this. The MAGA, the MAGA. The MAGA. The MAGA. The

MAGA people strysanded the Natalie Arpa. Meaning they took something that was going to be ignored by most people. Yeah, it was a throwaway line. Alsop didn't say anything. Alsop just said travels with Natalie. And it was just a little bit of a line toward Donald Trump needs this binky. Donald Trump needs to be comfortable. But because Donald Trump is a sexual predator and because it's out in the ether that

Natalie Harp has a very strange obsession with Donald Trump, MAGA, like, filled in the, this is an attack saying that they're asleep. together. Like mega filled that in. That was where their brains went. And so they melted down over what was a relatively innocuous statement. And to me, I just want to say this is where I sort of think that Gavin Newsom is playing checkers and Ossoff is playing chess. Like Gavin Newsom's doing a kind of performance art imitating Donald Trump. And voters get a little, some voters or people who are hyper online, get a kick out of that. That's not what they want from a serious politician. Ossoff is doing a good job. of using Trump as a contrast point for what he believes in, right?

He's saying they do this and that's bad, which is why what I think is good. And I think that a lot of people forget the contrast in their communications work. They forget to draw the specific thing that you are against and then you're four. You can't just do one or the other. A question about the left wing of the Democratic Party. It is, in all kinds of measures, having a big moment right now. people like Abdul al-Syad in Michigan, many others, how do you think they will fare in November? And how do you explain what they've been able to do so far?

I don't think that the vast majority of the country or these voters are getting, like, wildly more socialist. Actually think what's happening is there is a combination right now of an affordability crisis that people are desperate for somebody to focus on, which gives somebody like a Maldani who comes in talking about rent. And again, they're not thinking about Momdani's solutions, exactly. They're not saying, I'm obsessed with the idea of, you know, subsidizing some grocery stores. It's not the policy solution. It's that he's talking relentlessly about affordability. Now, here's the thing, though.

The fact is, they're very excited that as the far left, they have beaten more moderate candidates, and then most of them are in safe Democratic seats where they never have to go face a Republican. Al-Sayed is in the process right now of realizing that just beating the center left isn't enough. And the things that you did to win your primary are suddenly very much under scrutiny by swing voters. So like Al-Sayed could squeeze through. We'll see. We'll see what kind of race he runs. I do think Al-Said is he's apologizing for some things.

He's distancing himself from some things. So like, we'll see if he can get there. But he's one of the only people who's in a real test now from the far left because he actually has to run against. and win in a swing of your place. Should Democrats retake the House? What do you think their agenda for the next two years should be? And if I can drive the point home here, just to be more specific, do you think they should pursue impeachment? Or do you think they should look elsewhere?

Some people I respect very much believe that they should pursue impeachment. I do not think that they should pursue impeachment. because if there's one thing that I have seen out of voters during the Trump years, it is that when Democrats do impeachment, the rally around Trump effect is so potent, right? Because now they've got somebody to fight against. Right now, Republicans, they're mad at Trump. And if I were Democrats, instead of impeaching Trump the man, go after the tariffs, go after the war, go after ICE.

Do not do anything that raises his approval ratings. Like keep going on offense and sinking him lower. Impeachment won't do that. There are lots of the things that well. Focus on the issues that bring you to the dance in this case, essentially. We can't go too long here in this conversation without talking about corruption. We sometimes hear that corruption should be the biggest thing that voters care about with Donald Trump. Is that true?

Or are you finding in your own work that that's not having as big effect as one might assume? there are times to listen and treasure what the voters are telling you. And then there are times to understand that what the voters are telling you shouldn't necessarily guide how you think about your offense. For example, a lot of people who do qualitative work or even polling will say, corruption's not a great message because everybody thinks both parties are corrupt. However, that's where you have to listen a little deeper. Corruption at the scale that Donald Trump is doing it is extremely.

extraordinary. People should be all over corruption. This is one of those times when you have to build the narrative yourself. Donald Trump has persuaded people on a great many issues through his own kind of narrative dominance. If Democrats all talked about the scale of corruption all the time, that is how you get people. And you do it with the contrast of saying, you are getting poorer. Trump is in a war getting rich off of oil. He's doing insider trainings for his tacoing. on tariffs and Iran, like, seize that, push that, be outraged by it, tell people how it's harming them. And just because you listen to voters and they're like, well, everyone's corrupt, that's the kind of thing that you ignore for the broader narrative opportunity.

I'm curious, you are at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, not a Democrat, but you hang out with Democrats. You know, is there a point at which you say to yourself? And are you doing that basically because you are still imagining that there is a future in which the Republican Party can become recognizable to you again and it can be a home to you again? Is there a point at which you say no and the Democratic Party is your future? The Republican Party is absolutely not my future. There is no person who has supported Trump throughout the Trump era that I would ever trust in American politics. Like if you ask me my personal politics, me and Mom Donnie share very, very little personal politics.

But I don't think Momdani's a bad person who wants bad things for people. What I look for in politicians is do they seem like they want to help people? I want people whose strategy for governing is a uniting strategy for governing. We can have policy debates all day long. Will this policy improve people's lives better than this policy? I'm game for those. Those are good. But right now in this moment, I'm like, does this person want America to succeed or fail?

They want its people to thrive or to be consumed by hatred and anger. Because I think Trump has taught a lesson to the Republican Party. It's extraordinarily dangerous and pernicious. And it's going to take a long time to sort of get them out of that. As soon as we get through these midterms, the 2028 election season is upon us. How do you see the nomination fight inside the Republican world shaping up? Donald Trump is going to try to exert control over the. the Republican primary. He is going to try to pick who the next person is. Again, going back to where

we started, which is why I want to see Trump leave with the lowest approval rating imaginable. What I always wanted was Joe Biden to win by like 10 points. Like I needed in that in 2020, right? You needed to demonstrate that Trump was done a thorough rejection of it. And we didn't get that. And I think that the only way to get that and to move forward. And I think we're uniquely positioned now. to have somebody sort of come on to the political scene who says, we don't have to live like this, guys. Do you see anybody like that? I look at both John Ossoff and Pete Buttigieg, and I think, run together.

People are going to say you're not going to elect a gay person, and he doesn't do well with black people, and we can have all of those conversations. But they are both making an affirmative pitch for a new generation of leadership, a new way of approaching the world that does have, like, has lots of offense in it. but also has an affirmative vision. And they look like they are trying to make things better.

But I have a few mini theories. One is I think that one of the ways that Democrats deal with the fact that they have a wedge issue on between Israel and Palestine right now, like within their own ranks on this issue, is to nominate a Jewish guy, John Ossoff, who is quite critical of Israel and how our current relationship is. I think that is a good, healthy, I mean, it's not all identity, but. There's something there that I think can be healing for the party. And whoever comes, man, do they have a big task in front of them? Because first they have to unite their party and then they have to unite this country. Sarah, you've helped to make us smarter in the process of understanding our present and I think also perhaps figuring out where it goes from here. Thank you so much for joining us.

Hey, thanks for having me. This is great. Sarah Longwell's new book is called How to Eat an Elephant. I'm Evan Osnos. You can read my work and all of my colleagues' coverage of the midterm elections at New Yorker.com. And you can subscribe to the New Yorker there as well, New Yorker.com. Thanks for joining me today. David Remnick will be back next week.

We hope you have a terrific holiday. 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 Yards, with additional music by Louis Mitchell. 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,

and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Elliot Wright, Erica Huang, and Alejandra Deccan. Special thanks this week and farewell to our colleague and friend Alex Barish. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.