The NPR Politics Podcast - Weekly Roundup: April 17th, 2020

Episode Date: April 17, 2020

The White House has now issued guidance about when communities can begin to reopen, a phased plan based on downward trends in positive cases. But for that plan to be safely executed, testing will have to become far more widespread than it is now. Also, what role did gender play in the Democratic primary?This episode: campaign correspondent Asma Khalid, science correspondent Allison Aubrey, White House reporter Ayesha Rascoe, political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben, and congressional correspondent Susan Davis.Email the show at [e-mail] Join the Facebook group at n.pr/politicsgroup Subscribe to our newsletter at npr.org/politicsnewsletter Find and support your local public radio station at donate.npr.orgLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Kia ora, this is Mary and Mark from Arlington, Virginia. We're just sitting down for a nice cup of tea. Growing up in New Zealand, the entire workday grinds to a halt for morning and afternoon tea. Now that the entire world has ground to a halt, we are reviving the tradition and meet each other halfway each day on the first floor of our house for elevenses and threeses. This podcast was recorded at 1.08pm on Friday, April 17th Things may have changed by the time you hear it Here's the show

That sounds like The Hobbit I'm just impressed that we have listeners in New Zealand Can I just say thank you? I thought they were in America but they're from New Zealand They're from New Zealand But it sounded like The Hobbit like threeses and whatever. That sounds so cute. It sounds like the Hobbit. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast.

I'm Asma Khalid. I'm covering the presidential campaign. I'm Ayesha Roscoe. I cover the White House. And today we've got a special guest with us. That's NPR's Allison Arbery. Hey, Allison. Hi there. Thanks for having me. So, Allison, you are quickly becoming our resident expert on all things science related to the coronavirus. So thank you for coming back on. Sure. You know, last week we talked with you

about when it would be safe to relax the social distancing guidance. The White House did announce its new plan at a press conference last night, and NPR has obtained a copy of that. So Aisha, let's begin there. What is in this plan? Yes, so what they announced is that they have this criteria that they want states to look at, and there are three things that they want to look at as they move through this phased reopening. So the three things they want them to look at is symptoms have to be going down, diagnosed cases cases people who are tested and are confirmed to have the coronavirus that has to be going down and hospitals treating patients the hospital cases have to be going down so all of that is has to be going down for about 14 days once you see things going down for that amount of time, these three separate kind of tiers, then you can go to phase one.

And phase one is basically almost kind of like where we're at now. But you could do sit down restaurants, movie theaters, things like that could open up and things continue to go down for the next 14 days or however long. You could then move to the second phase where you could then start having gatherings of like 50 people and schools could reopen. And then in the last phase, it's the new normal. So you could have bigger gatherings, but obviously you would have to still keep in mind that there's this virus out there. So Allison, what does or how does what Aisha has been laying out about the government's thinking on all of this line up with what medical experts have been recommending?

Sure. Well, I mean, I would say there's really broad support for this phased-in approach that was outlined. And it's a good, solid way for thinking about a gradual reopening. But here is a big challenge. One trigger, as Aisha just mentioned, for moving into this phase one is a sustained decline in cases. And how does a city or state determine that if they don't have sufficient testing in place to truly know how many people are sick, to know if the virus is spreading. This is still a concern. So, yeah, I'm sorry, Allison, you are giving really important points. Because we're not in phase one or phase two where schools are reopened, you may hear children in the background. I told them I was potting.

They don't care. I completely understand. We are all in the same boat. My teenagers are in the other room video gaming. And I've got a one-year-old who can't yet talk, but periodically will make himself known. So Allison, you mentioned that one of the difficult things is just figuring out how many cases you have. And presumably, that would be an issue of testing. And I feel like for weeks and weeks now, we have been hearing about the need to up testing, and the government seems to be saying that we are doing more testing.

But walk me through, you know, what's the issue in terms of being able to test on the scale that it seems like you're saying scientific experts say we need to be doing? Yeah, well, for starters, there just remain major backlogs at the commercial labs with a lack of things needed to run the tests. Things like reagents, swabs, compounds needed just simply to perform the test. So this certainly slows things down. So, you know, there are now companies that are offering these quick point of care tests. So these are tests done, say, in a doctor's office or hospital. They run on the same platform as a quick flu or strep test. You get the results in

minutes or hours as opposed to days. And these are very important going forward to be able to diagnose somebody quickly so that that person can be isolated and their contacts can be traced. I mean, if you can't effectively isolate sick people, if it takes days to get a test result, you're not going to be able to do that. Are there any places that are even getting close to being able to say they have enough testing or surveillance? You know what? Right now, states are scrambling. What they're trying to do is they're trying to hire people, form partnerships to do this contact tracing that we hear so much about. And this is going to be really critical to preventing a second or third wave. So, you know,

if public health officials can identify a sick person quickly, get to all of their close contacts, those people quarantine as well. This moving into a next phase can work, but these systems have got to be in place. And again, this is all predicated on the ability to do testing quickly and safely. So to your question about is anybody ready to move into this next phase? Well, according to a lot of public health folks, including Bill Hannan, she's an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. He says right now nobody is really there. The state of testing is such that we're not really ready to be moving into this kind of stage one anywhere. And that even if we were to do so, I would be quite careful of those people who are going to be most vulnerable to the worst consequences of this if

they do get infected. So there you go. He's basically saying, you know what, we're, you know, there's glimmers of hope here and we're moving in the right direction, but we're just not set up right now to move to this next phase. So it sounds like there's a big concern around a timeline. But we should point out that, you know, part of the reason that we are hearing so much of a conversation about all of this is because people are anxious to restart their lives and go back to work. We are now in a situation where there are more than 20 million people who are unemployed. I mean, these are just astronomical figures. And you're talking about people who don't have paychecks necessarily. And so, I mean, I feel like I understand the public health concerns, but it seems like mayors and governors have to weigh that with the very dire economic

situation that many people are in right now. And that's what President Trump has been saying and what others is that there's there and there is a real cost to keeping the economy closed down for long periods of time. But there is this issue, this kind of push and pull of if you go back too soon and then the virus comes rearing back, then that could hurt the economy as well. Right, Allison? So it's like this kind of push and pull on. That's exactly what I hear as well, Aisha. I mean, it's this really tough balancing act. And I would say it is very clear in the scientific literature that poverty

and economic hard times, they take their toll on people's health too, right? I mean, economic hardship can exacerbate chronic conditions, get in the way of access to care, can lead to stress, mental health problems. So this is really the challenge of the day. It's a tough balancing act. Well, Allison, thank you so much for coming back to hang out on the show with us. And I am sure that we will talk again very soon. Great. Thanks so much, guys. Take care. And Ayesha, we're going to let you go for now too, but please don't go too far away because we're going to need your help for our Can't Let It Go segment at the end of the podcast. Can't wait. I'll be back and I'll try to quiet those kids down.

No worries. All right. We are going to take a quick break. And when we get back, we'll talk about how gender shaped the 2020 Democratic primary race. In the United States, Black people as a whole have less access to good health care, to education and job opportunities than other groups. But who do we even mean when we say black people? Who counts as black? It's a question this country has been trying to answer from the very beginning. Listen on NPR's Code Switch podcast.

And we're back, and we're joined now by an entirely new cast. Danielle Kurtzleben, hey there. Hello. And Susan Davis, how are you? Hey, hey there. Hello. And Susan Davis, how are you? Hey, Asma. So this week, Danielle, you wrote a story with the headline, Did Gender Keep the Democratic Women from Winning the Primary? And it reminded me of something one of the candidates who was in that race, Elizabeth Warren, said when she was asked about sexism at an interview she did when she exited the race. That is the trap question for every woman.

If you say, yeah, there was sexism in this race, everyone says, whiner. And if you say, no, there was no sexism, about a bazillion women think, what planet do you live on? I promise you this, I'll have a lot more to say on that subject later on. That thing that Elizabeth Warren said right there struck a chord with a lot of voters. I don't think I need to tell you that, especially a lot of women voters. I think that what Warren is saying there is reflected in the larger difficulty in tackling this question of, yes, gender, of course, played a role in this race, played a role, some role in the outcome.

But the question is, how much of a decisive factor was it? That is very difficult. Let me spoil my article for our listeners and say, of course, I don't have an exact answer of how much it led someone to lose or win. But there are so many ways you can see that it did play a role. The question that I always have about this is that, especially when you look at the 2018 elections and the way that elections across states play out, there's women everywhere. There's women governors. There's women senators. There's historic levels of women in Congress.

There's black women. There's Hispanic women. There's gay women. It doesn't seem like voters are intrinsically against voting and supporting women for offices. So why is it fundamentally different for the presidency? That's an excellent question. There's so much at work here. And what you're saying is absolutely right. There's a thing that researchers of women in politics, women's success in politics often say, when women run, they win, and therefore that the issue is just getting them to run.

But, you know, when you dig into that, that's a little more complicated than it seems, because even at the congressional level or lower than congressional level, state level, etc., there is some evidence that women have what researchers have called a performance premium, that in order to win, once they do run, those women have to be more qualified, have a longer and better resume. So that's one thing that may be at work. And aside from that, what one Democratic pollster, Celinda Lake, told me earlier on in this primary cycle was that there is also reason to believe, she believes, that the presidency is different from legislation, that you are electing one person to be the leader and also the commander in chief, all sorts of things, and that therefore voters might be treating that office differently, especially in a cycle like this year when voters are thinking about electability. If you're thinking who's electable, well, who has been electable?

Tell you what, it's been men. How much do you think the sort of familiarity factor weighs into all of this? And I wonder about that in part, because, you know, Sue, you were talking about the historic numbers of women in Congress, and a lot of those women are in the House. And so it's a local district, people might have some sense of familiarity with their local Congresswoman. And I guess I wonder about this, because I did some sense of familiarity with their local congresswoman. And I guess I wonder about this because I did some reporting during the midterms and how hard it is for a black woman to become governor, that there hasn't been a black woman ever who's been elected governor. And what I would hear is that often it's just much more difficult for people to win on a statewide level even than it is for them to win, you know, a seat in their local district, whether

it's a state level or a national level there. I'm honestly not sure how it plays out in the presidential field. But if a black woman has never been governor, well, what is the bench that the presidency draws from? Often governors and or often the Senate. And so if women have had trouble reaching those levels, especially women of color, then it is going to be that much harder for those women to reach the presidency because that's where people who become president come from. So there are multiple steps that feed into this and multiple places that feed into this. Is there a sense that the women of 2020 in somehow were negatively affected by the loss of Hillary Clinton, that when Clinton lost in 2016, there has been this

pervasive sense, and we all talked to voters in the course of that primary campaign, that seemed to doubt that a woman could win because of Clinton's recent failure? Yeah, that's an excellent question. I put it to a Democratic strategist yesterday. Her name is Karine Jean-Pierre. She also worked in the Obama White House. She has some experience with this. And she told me there are two ways to look at it. That, yeah, on the one hand, Hillary Clinton put a giant crack in the glass ceiling, as she often put it or people often put it, and that she did pave the way for people to be used to, if only in an unconscious way, women being on the debate stage in these races, on the ballot, blah, blah, blah, and made it perhaps more possible, arguably more possible for six women to do it this time around. But I mean, the thing that I know you guys have probably heard me say this, but I'm going to repeat myself, is that Hillary Clinton losing, what's hard to disaggregate from how much that scared voters, and yeah, it did, what's hard to disaggregate from how much that scared voters, and yeah, it did,

what's hard to disaggregate from that is the fact that she lost to Donald Trump, right? A person that Democrats viscerally dislike, and also a man who has been accused of many counts of sexual misconduct, several counts of sexual assault, all of which we should say he has denied, and a man who has objectified and insulted women habitually. So that's another thing that plays into this. And I don't know if we will ever be able to pull those two apart. One thing that has interested me a lot in where the conversation is at this point is that Joe Biden, who's now the presumptive Democratic nominee, has made it very clear that he will select a woman as his vice presidential pick.

And I know that, you know, this is the second position here in command. But what's interesting to me is how much just making it very clear that he's going to select a woman has changed the conversation around the woman's ambition for that job. You know, so in the last few days, we've seen some of the potential names, whether it's Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Stacey Abrams, be very upfront about the fact that they would be, yes, interested in this job. And so they're just seeing the women's desired ambition out there so clearly to me is such a different role reversal than what I feel like we've seen of women's ambition for sometimes higher office. Yeah, I agree.

I wonder sometimes about whether the sexism comes from a negative or a positive place. And in that, I mean, I think about, and Danielle, we talked about this a lot, and you had a great radio piece many months ago where you were at an Elizabeth Warren event, and you talked to people there, women there, who loved her, who thought she was brilliant, who thought she would be an amazing president, and then told you they weren't going to vote for her because they didn't think she could win. So that's sexism, right? Like that is a form of sexism and thinking she can't win because of her gender. But they still loved her because of her gender. And that is one of the more sort of complicated ways that voters played a role here. It's not all because they didn't like the women. They just didn't think they could win. It went back to that thing we've talked about a

million times in this podcast, electability. Yes. And I think a thing that is lost in talking about electability is what nuances there are when a voter says, I don't think a woman could defeat Donald Trump. Now, on the first level, there is just the basics of thinking, well, for whatever reason, I think my fellow voters are sexist or what have you. Therefore, I'm going to vote for a man. That is built upon the fact that the presidency has always been male. It's built upon sexism, structural sexism. But I mean, aside from that, as one person pointed out to me, that could also be for some voters, a sort of post hoc rationalization, a sort of cover for your own sexist beliefs. Maybe you really don't think a woman can win,

and therefore you are wrapping it in a nicer package. And of course, it is so rare you're going to get a voter to actually tell you that, or that voters even realize they're thinking that. So much of this is so complicated, but I think a big takeaway from this whole election and from 2016 is that gender bias, any sort of bias, doesn't just pop up when a voter says, I will not vote for a woman, I will not vote for so-and-so. Like, that's rare. It comes up in such subtler ways, but incredibly meaningful ways. So, I mean, it's worth remembering, though, that while, you know, gender is a big part of the story, there's other reasons why these individual candidates weren't always successful. You know, whether we're talking about Kamala Harris, you know, there were questions about her record as a prosecutor, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, Danielle, that was a part of the story, though, right?

Yes. Oh, absolutely. there were any of these women in the race, and by the way, any candidates in this race, woman or man, who you could point to and say, there are real reasons voters have questions about this person. This is what makes all of this so hard, is how do you know how much gender and our expectations of gender play into this? And by the way, it applies to men too. Gender is still a factor in this race with Biden and Trump in this. I mean, they are both guys that like to come off as tough, as straightforward. They like to come off as, quote unquote, men. So gender is still going to be playing a role here. All right, Danielle, you have given us plenty to think about. We're going to leave it there. But

thank you for coming on and hanging out with us. Of course. And so stick around. We're going to take a quick break. And when we get back, we'll have Can't Let It Go. If you're spending more time at home, NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour is here to help. From family-friendly favorites to stream to recommendations that will calm your nerves, we've got ideas.

What to watch, what to read, what to listen to for both old favorites and new arrivals. Pop Culture Happy Hour from NPR. Listen and share with your friends. And we're back. And this is the part of the show where we talk about the one thing that we cannot stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. Aisha, how about you start things off?

Yes. So the thing that I cannot let go of this week and that a lot of people, a lot of people that listen to the podcast apparently also could not let go of this week and that a lot of people a lot of people that listen to the podcast apparently also could not let go of and it's not that surprising coming from me but it's cardi b and bernie sanders once again but they of course they did a an instagram live or whatever Uncle Bernie! People, we got Uncle Bernie in my life. But the best part was when Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and former presidential candidate, was like, you know, how are my nails looking, Gertie? And she was like, a little quarantine. Uncle Bernie, how you doing? I'm good, Connie.

I want you to take a look at my nails. How are they looking? They're looking very quarantine. I can tell you've been on quarantine for a while now with your nails. But you know what? It's okay, Uncle Bernie. Okay. So she couldn't even act like they were looking okay she she just kept it real

and said they was looking a little quarantine which i thought was really funny i do like how bernie sanders plays a lot yes he knows his role and he fulfills it the the weirdest most wonderful pairing to come out of the 2020 election season is the friendship between Bernie Sanders and Cardi B. Like never, never would have anticipated that in the beginning of this election cycle that she would have become such a force in our political conversation. There you have it. So how about you, Sue? So the thing I can't let go this week actually involves politics this time. And I will say I apologize now my lawnmower man has arrived at my house just in

time for our weekly Can't Let It Go. So if you hear it, that's what it is. This is real life. This is real life. The thing I can't let go this week was a story that Bloomberg did that I just thought was really funny in which they interviewed a bunch of pollsters, including people like John Anzalone, who's Joe Biden's pollster. And it was about how one of the effects of this pandemic moment is that pollsters are having a really easy time getting people on the phone. And people want to stay on the phone and they're like, I want to keep talking. Yes. Well, they said that one of the hard things about polling, right, is not only that you have to get people on the phone, but then you have to get them to participate.

You have to get them to answer. You have to get them to say they'll do it. And then you have to get them to stay on the phone for the duration of the questions in order for it to count. So it can take a while to do a poll because if you want to get 1,500 people that have to meet the certain demographic data. But now they're able to go into the field and get this data really fast because everybody's answering their phone and people are really happy to talk. Like they're not busy. They're like, usually like I'm running out the door. I got to go get my kids. I'm at work. I can't talk. And a lot of the old rules of phone polling, things like they wouldn't call people

on Friday nights or they wouldn't call during cell phones during the day because they presume you're at work is really kind of skewing how they think about polling. Though the thing that's fascinating about this too is they're saying like there is some risks where they're getting really quick turnaround, they're getting the data. It is kind of messing with who your voters are. Like they're saying that if you're reaching people, the people that are working from home right now are versus the people that still have to go to work are are more likely to be college educated, or have the ability to work from home. It also is skewing who a likely voter could be, because it's not really entirely sure,

depending on how mail-in ballots go. So the thing that's fascinating about it is they're not entirely sure, even though they're getting these great responses, and they're hearing from all these people, and people are engaging in with polls, they're not entirely sure it's making the polls more accurate.

Huh. That's interesting. But it is like a pretty good snapshot. It seems like a public opinion. Maybe not like voters, but like actually giving us a sense of what public, the public thinks in this moment, which I always think is kind of interesting. Totally. And they can do it faster.

So if you want quick pulse checks on where the public are going or daily polls, you don't ever have to worry that you're going to be able to reach people. And right now, America, real happy to talk. Asma, what can't you let go this week? So you all might have seen this snapshot from the Late Late Show. Nancy Pelosi was on there recently this week, and she apparently divulged what her freezer looks like, which at the moment is pretty much just an entire stash of ice cream. Now, she was like torn apart on some corners of the online world. Some people mocked her as being Nancy Antoinette because apparently some of the ice cream that she had was very like high-end expensive ice cream. I noticed some of it.

It was Jenny's ice cream, which if you've ever had Jenny's ice cream. Which is delicious. Jenny's is. It's delicious. It's pricey. I will acknowledge that. How is's, it's pricey. I will acknowledge that. How is pricey? How pricey? So people were saying it's $13 a pint. I will say that is maybe if you go to Jenny's, I don't know. I, on the other hand, have found a great deal

sometimes at Harris Teeter. I think it's Harris Teeter, a giant around us. You can get it for as cheap as like seven bucks. So you can get it on sale. So who's to say that maybe her entire freezer is stashed because she found a good sale deal and then just bought like 20 of them. Also, we're all stress eating right now. You can eat whatever you want during the pandemic. Pandemic calories don't count. They don't. They don't. And as I always say, it's a pandemic. What do you want from people? Delicious. Well, this week we wanted to try something new, and we asked you all who listen to the podcast to submit some ideas for I Can't Let It Go, what it was that you could not stop thinking about.

And we should mention that we had a ton of great submissions, and we don't have time to listen to them all. So we'll get to some more next week, but we wanted to share one that we really enjoyed in particular. This one comes from a listener across the pond, meaning the great Atlantic Ocean. His name is Andy. He's from the United Kingdom, and he shared this really heartwarming story, but I want him to tell it first, and then we can take a listen. Hello, NPR Politics. This is Andy Corning from the United Kingdom, and my Can't Let It Go This Week is the story of Captain Tom Moore, who is a 99-year-old World War II veteran,

who set himself the goal of walking 100 lengths of his garden to try and raise £1,000 for the NHS before he turns 100 at the end of this month. He completed his challenge this morning live on BBC Breakfast TV, and as I record this, he's managed to raise £ 12.7 million pounds which is just under 16 million dollars. The story is one that's brought the UK together and it's a really heartwarming story which we all need right now and it's given us all a boost. There is now talk of the Queen giving Captain Tom a knighthood once lockdown has been lifted. Thank you Captain Tom and a massive thank you to all the health workers in the UK, the United States, and all over the world who are fighting to keep us safe. Thank you very much. Take care. So there you have it. There's nothing World War II veterans can't do

that doesn't just seem like awesome and inspiring and wonderful. I saw this clip, I think it was in the BBC about, you know, how he felt after all this. And he basically was like, I feel fine! You know, after doing all these 100 laughs. He's 99 years old. And I'm like, man, I need to exercise and walk a little more. Yes. And he has to become a knight now. You have to do that.

Yeah, what are you not going to do that now? You're not going to do it? You're going to do it. Like, you have to do that. Alright, well that is a wrap for today. Our executive producer is Shirley Henry. Our editors are Muthoni Mathuri and Eric McDaniel. Our producers are Barton Girdwood and Chloe Weiner. Thanks to Lexi Shapiro and Brandon Carter.

And we want to give a huge shout out to our interns, Maya Gandhi and Meredith Roten. Today is their last day with us. And it's a bummer that we can't actually have a real happy hour and meet up in person, but we could not have made this podcast without their hard work over the past few months. So thank you to both you all. A round of applause for them. Yay! Ta-da!

I'm Asma Khalid. I'm covering the presidential campaign. I'm Ayesha Roscoe. I cover the White House. And I'm Susan Davis. I cover Congress. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. That's a wrap.