The Press Box - Astead Herndon on Kamala Harris’s Closing Argument, Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden Rally, and The Washington Post’s Non-endorsement

Episode Date: October 31, 2024

Hello, media consumers! As we are five days from the election, Bryan welcomes back Astead Herndon of The New York Times to discuss the following: How the Democrats feel with five days left (1:14) Donald Trump’s MSG rally (8:48) The number of vibes stories during this election (12:20) The Washington Post's decision not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris (36:57)   Plus, David Shoemaker Guesses the Strained-Pun Headline. Host: Bryan Curtis Guest: Astead Herndon Producer: Brian H. Waters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey there, humanoids. It's the Maskman David Shoemaker. It's a new era in professional wrestling, and that means a new era here at the Ringer Wrestling show. Kaz here, every Monday and Thursday hang out with me and my guys' shoes on the Masked Man show. And Ben Cruz here. Come kick it with me, Cal, and Brian on Tuesdays for Ringer Wrestling worldwide, where we hit on the most interesting headlines and even react to some of Maskedans and even your hottest takes. Don't tap out, tap in to the Ringer Wrestling Show feed now on Spotify. or wherever you get your podcasts. Worldwide.

Hello, media consumers. Welcome to Press Box. Brian Curtis of the Ringer here, along with producer, Brian Waters. With five days left till the election, there's only one person we can bring on. Astead Herndon is the host of the excellent New York Times podcast, The Run Up. He's one of our favorite guests, one of our favorite people to talk politics with. He's been on the ground in Philly, but he will always be Chicago's very own. Instead, welcome back to the press box.

Thank you. I'm excited to be here. Let's start here. The Harris team has had about 100 days to run a presidential campaign. How do they feel with five days left? Honestly, I think they feel okay. I mean, to be, you know, for much of those 100 days, they have been dealing with the fallout of a crisis.

And they built this plane as they've been flying it. But, you know, on that scale, They've arrived to a much better place than obviously they were when Biden was the candidate before them. And more than anything, I think their central premise of this race has been proven out. I remember even back when this was, Biden was the candidate, you would hear Democrats in those top campaign positions say, by the end of this race, the stakes will become clear and Donald Trump is going to re-remind people of his own extremism. And that will be good for us. And I think the Madison Square Garden rally was a big part of that.

And I think more and more, you know, you just have a stark contrast in the closing messages from both candidates. Trump would rather be talking about economy, immigration, or the like, but it's really clarifying that he's not a Nazi and doesn't hate Puerto Rico. Whereas I think the Harris campaign feels like it has, like, one, a candidate who can hit all of the places they want to hit, which they did not have before. And I think also is delivering a consistent message that is, you know, the one they're rolling with. Now, like, was there different options for them? For sure. They could have done a bigger policy break from Biden. They could have, you know, tried to present two more competing visions of kind of where the country is going to go. I think kind of we've learned that Democrats think their best bet to victory is a Trump referendum where most of the country will reject him. And I think that's basically how they've run, particularly the last couple, the last, you know, the closing weeks of this race. And I think via early voting and some of the sentiments we hear from them, they feel more confident than ever that that strategy is going to work. So the candidate is different. The vessel is different.

But you think ultimately when we talk about issues, we talk about closing message, the Harris campaign is a lot like the Biden campaign would have been? It is with a couple important differences. I do think abortion rights is more salient as an issue. And I think representation with her in terms of motivating the base, her is a different generational figure. All of that stuff matters, right? Like we hear from Democrats all the time who were so nervous about every word that came out of Biden's mouth and feel a sense of inspiration from Harris that I don't think you can discount.

Where most of those people probably going to vote for Biden anyway? Yes. But the energy level is different. Their willingness to give. They're willingness to tell neighbors and all those other folks. I think it's much improved with her as a candidate. But has this been a rate? But is the central place this race landed essentially a Trump referendum?

and an attempt for Harris to recreate an anti-Trump coalition? Yes. And would Joe Biden have run that same playbook? Yes. So I'm saying, like, I don't think they've tried to, they've done as big of a pivot as I think the candidates which allowed them the opportunity to. But frankly, I think that that speaks to a party that has landed on this as their most successful route to victory and has not really diverted from that path.

And I would say that can be seen as a good thing. thing. But it's also the reason they got themselves in this problem in the first place. Their unwillingness to break from Biden, their unwillingness to kind of see this moment as a non-traditional one. And so the deference to him initially, I still think is their biggest barrier to win it. I think they spent themselves tying themselves two years to the status quo in a time where people feel like they don't love how things are going. But with that in mind, are they probably at the best place they could have been, you know, from the premise of the first debate between Biden and Trump, probably.

It's funny because for many months there, I thought if Trump wins, the thing that will be second guess the most is picking Tim Walz over maybe Josh Shapiro, talking him into it if he even wanted that job to begin with. But those couple of answers she gave about how will you be different than the Biden administration, that will be somewhere in the power rankings of things people go over if Trump wins, no. Certainly. I mean, I, it's. If you can't answer a question from Sunny Hosten on the view of saying a single thing that would be different from Biden, I think it's fair for people to see this as a continuation of that term and judge you kind of on that front.

Honestly, I think the biggest thing that Harris could have done to signal a policy break from Biden, to signal a new way forward as she has kind of pronounced, would have been to break on Gaza. But I think that was the real litmus test that they're not really willing to do. So with that in mind, yeah, anti-Trumpness is probably your best route to face. victory. And so I think that Shapiro's decision, particularly if she loses Pennsylvania, will certainly be second guess. But if you ask me, what is the biggest, what is the biggest reason that Donald Trump has a shot of victory in 2024? I would say it is because Democrats did not recognize the seriousness of that possibility for a long time and spent. And when they

could have been setting up a primary to pick the strongest candidate possible, working out some of their policy differences that's come back to Biden Harris, recorrected from a 2019 primary, but I think they universally see as overly progressive right now, all of that would have been fixed by them kind of being honest about where the country was on Biden's age and following through on the transitional premise, he basically laid out to people in 2020.

Their refusal to do that has put them in this position. And so all I'm saying is like, I think that there are micro choices you can analyze from Harris that if she does not win, will be over-analyzed. But if you ask me, they're working from a position that was made worse by the years that preceded it. And so, honestly, I think this is pretty much the best case scenario for them. Because for a lot of the time leading up to this race, they were making Donald Trump's

path a lot easier. And you could go back and reanalyze that decision of either pushing Biden not to run again or I guess Biden's decision to run again, right? the blame can go two different ways. And I guess I want to acknowledge that sometimes when I talk about this, they're acting like as if I'm like was calling on people to throw the man out. And all I'm saying is there's a difference between telling someone they can't run again and then being universally deferential to their second run.

And they chose the second option. They chose to be. And I think that's a lot of like political incentive. That's a lot of people's own personal ambition. That's a lot of the fact that a lot of these staffers or other politicians were saying, hey, even if he loses, I'll have a better shot in 2028 than I do right now. All of that is normal political brain, but it does not actually speak to the seriousness of Trump's threat as they're laying it out, right? And so I'm saying if Donald Trump was the threat to democracy

that they are presenting, they should have moved like that. They should have acted like that from the jump. And honestly, I think that's their biggest thing that has complicated their ability to win in this race, is that the presence of Biden was to so many people struck at the message they were trying to tell as Donald Trump as existential threat. And honestly, I think there was no one who made them do that. That was the problem, the blame for that is for politics as usual. And they had to recognize this was an unusual time. You mentioned Trump's rally at MSG, which begins with Tony Hinchcliff delivering that line about Puerto Rico. Other than handing the Harris campaign, an incredibly advantageous late storyline. What did you make of that story and how

it's played out in the campaign? Well, I think, again, if the Harris campaign's biggest problems of their own creation, certainly Donald Trump's is also. And I think even more so in this cycle, he has chosen not just, he's chosen not to be additive. He has chosen not to include the Nikki Haley's on the trail to bring people in. And we know that's against Donald Trump's personality. So I'm not acting as if I expected that to happen. But I'm saying we cannot just work from that place. Like there's a version of this where a more traditional Republican is using issues like economy, immigration, and crime to be knocking off incumbents left and right, to actually

feel like they're coming from a place of strength in this race, right? And so I think in a lot of ways that Harris is the best place they could have been given the situation. Donald Trump is probably in the best place he could be given his built-in liabilities. And so the way I think that that story played out is kind of similar. to Biden in the first debate, in this respect, the problem isn't just that it was racist, which it was, or not funny, which I don't think it really was, or, like, is reflective of a kind of internet-y culture that usually doesn't see the light of day in this way. You know, like,

if you're listening to his podcast, you're a type of person, self-selecting person listening to it. Bringing that tone and that humor to that stage is not a good idea, right? Like, I think even more so than that, it confirms what people already believed. about Donald Trump, right? It's that it's that the racism and the bullying is very much in line with Trumpism. And I think that is the re-reminding factor. The reason it cuts through is because you had folks basically telling themselves, and you can hear this even in the endorsements of big Puerto Rican figures. I think about like Nikki Jams on endorsement. He was basically saying, yeah, I had heard all of that stuff about Donald Trump's bullying or Donald Trump's racism or

that he hates Latinos. And I said no, because I was going to prioritize an economy over that. But then this, this, this does not allow you to do that anymore. And so one of the things I think is a big question that you couldn't have answered until we're this close to the race or this close to election day is what will people be thinking about as most important come that time? And that could have been the economy. That could have been immigration. And I, but I think something about his MSG rally made you think about chaos, made you think about the tone of bullying, how they're not an inclusive. That doesn't sound like an inclusive group of people, folks.

And so that's the terms Harris wanted people to be re-reminded of at this time. And so that that's the thing I think it really matters is not just what he said, but the fact that what he says is very much in line with what he has said previously. And I think that's what brings it brings it back top of mind to people and it allows it not to be dismissed easily, right? If Biden's bad first debate was an aberration, it's easily dismissed.

If the Trump comedian sounds like something that's completely out of whack with what you know from Donald Trump, it's more easily dismissed. But it doesn't. It confirms something you already believe to be true. There was an Axio story this week about how people around Harris,

no matter what the polls say, feel she's going to lose. Can you tell me why there have been so many vibes stories in this cycle? Yeah, I mean, I don't, I think, I mean, there's the journalism answer and there's like the reporting answer. Like, I think Democrats are nervous, like, right? Like, they're at one, in one case, you can never expect them not to be after 2016. Like, I don't actually think Democrats' nervous stories are all that interesting. I'm like, yeah, they are. Like,

And honestly, like, it's actually funny to me, like, Republicans are wildly overconfident. Like, you know, in the 50-50 race, they should probably be equally nervous and equally confident. So any anything that, like, strays from that doesn't really make sense to me. So in the same way we're writing Democrat nervous stories, I would be writing Republican. Why aren't Republicans nervous stories, right? And so I think that's true on one place, but I really think it's a media thing. Like, you know, one of my, you know, and of course what we do on the run-up has been intentionally focused on the electorate, has been intentionally focused on how people are

ingesting this race and intentionally removed often. We do some of this stuff, but intentionally removed often from what the insiders are saying is going to happen. Right? A lot of times we are taking what they say and trying to stress test it among people rather than just reporting about the kind of insider food fight. But I think if that's your thing and you do the insiders, or food fight.

Like, there's just a way that folks rely on these stories when they're a week or two out. And I just think it's kind of dangerous. You know, I think back to midterm elections when the last couple weeks, you had a full lurch towards Republicans are going to kick Democrats' ass. And I think that ends up creating expectations that, to be honest, Biden seized on to say, you know, like, and not just Biden seizing on is important. I think it just creates wildly out of whack. expectations for what people can expect. And so I think anything past, you should be prepared for

every form of result, is irresponsible to me. And so I'm not, I don't have a problem with reporting maybe what the insider feeling is. I just think that should also be coupled with what we should be creating as a sense of expectation among the public, because I think that matters a lot more. So, like, you know, we were just in Pennsylvania. Obviously, we do things around canvassing in Philly and how that's landing with certain working class groups. But we also talk to the Secretary of State to try to get a firm answer on when are we going to know the result, right?

Like, and I think that type of reporting has to also be coupled with those insider feelings because I think you want the public to know, no matter what they're saying, the numbers, the data, the reporting, tells us all of these are in the range of possibility. And I think that's just a much better public service. Like, actually don't even know what the public is supposed to take from the fact that Harris's campaign is nervous. Like, you know, like, I actually don't, what are you like, okay?

You know, like, it's like a thing. And so sometimes I just, I find myself frustrated with that form of reporting a lot where it's like the only thing I think I'm getting here is you flexing the fact that you're talking to them and you're talking to other people who care about breaking that source barrier and talking to them. But it's not like there's actually a good answer from the public perspective of what that's supposed to give them. Because I don't really think that's all that valuable. No, it seems to be a feedback loop because the stories are sourced by nervous Democrats to be read by nervous Democrats.

Absolutely. And I'm like, okay, glad everyone's like, you know, it's kind of like a Ponzi scheme. Like everyone's eating here, but no one's being served, you know? And so, like, I don't really get why those stories take up so much space, except for the fact that I think people try to, there's an instinct. And I say this for us, because I have to check myself on this instinct. I think there's an instinct to try to make sure your coverage points to the correct result. And then if that's what you're trying to do, I think you want to, you drop some of these stories that allow you to say, oh, if it goes this way, I knew it

coming. I knew it was coming. If it goes this way, I knew it was coming. And so one thing I was telling, uh, uh, our squad is like, that's not the way to think about it. The way we're going to think about it is like, not only from what we're reporting, but even from our conversations with the Nate Cones and all of that of the world, they're telling us to be prepared for anything based on these set of factors. So what I want our listeners to know is those set of factors and feel like they are prepared to know the people who matter, the states who matter, and the why of it. But I don't think that has to, that doesn't point in a direction, you know. And so it's a harder task to kind of hold yourself to. But I think it's a much more important one

and one that's much more journalistically focused on public service rather than just flexing, sourcing, which I sometimes think is that. And to be honest, like now this is a media podcast. I'm like, that's not even that flex of a source. Like, you've got a Democrat to say off the record, they're nervous. Like, you could do that in your, you could be, you could be in a coma and get that in D.C. You know, like, it's not even, it's not that hard. So I don't really get the flex in the first place. Let's talk about that Pennsylvania episode of the run-up, which I really enjoyed because

you really let the conversations with the canvassers, the Harris canvassers you were following around in West Philadelphia, just play for minute after minute. And if anybody wants to hear a non-insider conversation about the election and what voters, the kind of questions and things that voters are bringing up, I highly recommend that episode. What you'll learn about the campaign in Philly and in Pennsylvania from doing that reporting? Yeah, I mean, it was interesting because we intentionally wanted to go. This is kind of our, we've been out canvassing now consistently for the last three or four episodes. And partly it's like, that is my desire to the point I'm saying before. Make sure by by election day, you feel like you have heard.

from the voters in the states that matters most on the questions they're asking. So we're just in Georgia. We're in North Carolina. On Saturday, we'll be in Wisconsin. So it's like a part of an intentional process that we've set up. But in Pennsylvania, this was a specific to black voters in West Philadelphia. And we were with a working family's party who is, who was an intentional choice because I wanted to be with a group that might be a little more honest about the Democrats drop off in these places and what they have to do to

combat them. And so one thing that I thought was interesting was during the training portion that we played at the initial part, you know, you have someone who is doing a role play and is saying, you know, Harris, like, you may not like both candidates, but they're the better, they're the lesser of two evils. And organizers say, we don't want to talk in that framing. We don't want to say that. We actually want to say this in terms of what can, that she's close to your values or use affirmative language. We don't want to work from the premise that both sides are bad. And I think that's been a shift or pivot. They're trying to intentionally combat that sense.

But when she was on the doors, I don't know if you like know this, she goes back to that. She goes back to, you know, lesser of two ephos. And it's effective, you know? And so one thing I took away was even if there is an uncomfort with that kind of maybe gun to your head style of politics and they want to work from a place where it's not just Republicans are bad, but Democrats are good. And these places, there's not universal agreement that democratic policies or this version of the Democratic Party is fighting for your interest. And so it's a lot harder of a hill to climb for that to be the motivator than to say, but I do think it's more universally agreed, which is that Donald Trump is not. And so one thing I heard in that canvassing was what lines up with the day, though, and I think it's sometimes misreported. It's like it's not like there's been some big lurch to Trump by black people.

But there has been a drop-off from Democrats and Democratic identification, which has caused Republicans to have some opportunities. And they just made a more, a greater group of black voters, swing voters, I think, I would say. And they're ingesting the messages they're hearing from both sides and kind of taking it for what it is. And I think that was one of my bigger takeaways from that episode was that, you know, for as much as they would want to be out of lesser of two evils, when Rashida, our canvasser is on that door,

lesser of two evils was more effective than don't you believe in Harris and what she's laying out? Because they had kind of qualms, the folks she was talking to. And so I think that was one big takeaway that I had was like, because it bothers me sometimes

when we talk about black voters as if they've just woken up overnight and become into Donald Trump. I think what makes much more sense to me is there has been a consistent years-long drop-off from Democrats. And what we're seeing now is a candidate in Trump and a Republican Party that's picking off some of the more working class versions of that through a message that they've been honing over the last several years. That's a really interesting. So those voters are now

in play and Donald Trump and his campaign season opportunity there. And here we are five days before the election. Yeah. And even the argument they don't want to make in terms of, hey, she's better than the other side is kind of where they've landed. You asked Democrats a year and a half ago, beginning of 2020, they were like, we need to tell people what we're doing for them. You know, we don't want to, like, this was all the things they were saying at that time. But come the end of this race, what is she saying at the ellipse? Basically, a re-reminder of his threat to democracy. And yes, she's laying out, and this is, he has an enemy's list.

I have a to-do list, right? I think that's a little different than what they've talked about before because they're making sure it's still emphasizing what we're providing to you. but they understand that the biggest glue that holds their coalition together is dislike of Donald Trump. And so for as much as they wanted to be about kind of loftier policy values, when we got to the end of the day on this race, and partially because Trump reminds you of his extremism on the other side, it does not surprise me that's where this is landing. And that's the thing I'm saying is it would have been, I think would have been true no matter the candidate switch. It would have been a harder sell, in my opinion, with Joe Biden. I think a lot of people had written him off.

But I don't think the message would have been completely different than the one we're hearing now. I want to ask you about something you mentioned to Katie Couric in a recent podcast about how when Kamala Harris ran for president the first time back in 2019, there was a tension between the authentic Harris, the person who's very direct, the former prosecutor, and the Harris that her consultants thought voters might have. preferred to see. How have you seen that tension play out in this race? Yeah, I think that's a great question. The first thing I would say is I don't think this is a tension unique to Harris. I think a lot of times authenticity when we talk about politics is filtered through identity. And so there was a push and pull with how authentic of a version can Obama be, or a lot of black politicians. And there's a certainly even a higher bar of authenticity or think, how can women be on the trail? I remember this when covering, I mentioned this in that podcast, but I remember this really when covering,

in Harrison Warren at the same time in the early portions of the 2019 primary. I think I had a little bit of an education in the fact. I was thinking like, why wouldn't you, because you'll have these off-record moments, you have times when you feel like you get a glimpse of someone's full self. And I'm like, why won't you be that? You know, why won't you do or say that? And a lot of times the answer is they're told that the country may not be ready for that or receive that well.

And one thing Elizabeth Warren sets us two months ago at the DNC when we asked her about some of this stuff was that she feels like the real benefit is not just that there is more women in politics, but the amount of them allows you to be yourself. Because when there was only a few examples, you were fitting in the Hillary Clinton box. You were fitting in an Elizabeth Warren box or whatever. And I just think that there is more examples they have now of how authenticity looks like across different identities. So that's a broad answer to your question. let me answer it specifically. This version of her, the prosecutor, the criminal on the other side, that I will not be bullied. I've actually understood bullies the whole time, is who she's been for a long time and is consistent

with her attorney general self, consistent with her prosecutor's self in San Francisco, a distance from the left wing and the kind of uncomfort with the most progressive version of policies has been who she's been for a long time. And so what I was saying really is I think that in 2019, partly because she was on a different stage or a different level of politics, I think also the, it was a very ideologically rigid primary. You had Bernie and Biden kind of on different polls of where the party was and candidates who weren't named them kind of trying to find themselves in the middle. I think she was pulled from her truest version of herself, both in policy and in presentation. And I think that the different, the different, the, the, The hard part, the really lasting impact of that is that that was her introduction to the country. And so her introduction to the country was not consistent or, I think, authentic. And to be honest, a lot of them say that. A lot of the folks who were running the campaign say that that was a failure.

Obviously, not just in the votes, but how it played out. And I think right now they have been trying to reverse that problem, right? There has the first interview she's doing, the big buildup on with Dana Bash, I think remember the big question that, you know, kind of lasted from that was, the big question that kind of lasted was how do you kind of explain the positions you took four years ago until now. So that's what I'm saying. I think still think that stuff sort of lingers.

But what I think right now, it benefits her to the point about being your kind of truest version. It's less ideological, right? a general election, you are focused on the other side. You're not focuses on differences within your own party. And I think abortion rights is an issue she has legitimately cared about her entire career and is now part of a wheelhouse that matters more to Democrats. So it's put her on more naturally confident footing. And then the other thing I would say is she shed some of the chatters in her ear.

You know, I think when you first arrived to national, politics, it can be easy to just sign up for people who were on this campaign 10 years ago or 50 or this campaign for eight years ago. And you have so much input about who you should be. And I think one of the things that we've learned from the reporting now is there's a little more clarity about them shaping it around who she wants to be. And I think that that's been helpful too. And so I would say that there's all things that have improved, I think, a kind of authenticity gap that felt unclear last time. But I also think, and I also think, and I I think I might be, you know, this is a personal belief of mine, that they're still playing catch-up

on that front because the first, for two reasons, just to how, like, you look back to the Democratic primary of last cycle, and it was in Looney Tunesland. You know, like, it was so outside of where the party has landed now that I think there has to be more honesty about just how outside of the kind of median electorate where they were. So there's a huge gap to make up. And the other thing I would say is this is the downside of not being willing to articulate breaks from Biden. You know, it is that that was an administration that governed more progressively than a lot of people expected over the last four years. And so if that's how you introduce yourself to the country, the last four years your vice president supporting this person, and then you

won't actually articulate what your differences are from that person, then I think it does become reasonable for people to question whether you're kind of moderate pivot right now is an authentic one. And so I actually personally believe it is more true to her than she was four years ago. I just also hear from voters. And I think I understand why they don't necessarily fully trust all of that pivot because of what they've seen in the last four to six years. Last time you were here, we were talking about Joe Biden's 2024 campaign because he had not dropped out yet. Yep. And you were mentioning that you thought it was way more online than his 2020 campaign. Yeah. Way more in that world and about pleasing that world. How online has the Harris campaign been,

do you think? Well, that's a good question. Well, the first thing I would say is, if I could relate it back to the MSG problem for Trump, they have an issue too with the same question. Like, the reason you think Tony Hitchcliff hits rather than you obviously know it doesn't is because you spend too much time in a MAGA masculinity ecosystem. The same reason I think he chose Vance. It's like they have been, they have made a pivot to embracing that world as part of them, part of them most clearly. And I think that's actually the biggest, if I take online as a category. The biggest online thing that has happened in this race is that Donald Trump has subsumed some of the dissentist like, you know, internet-y ecosystem and has made that a

point of his campaign. So, like, I think that gets them in trouble. That might lose them in the election. But, you know, like that, and I think that's opposed to a Donald Trump who would have Nikki Haley hit the trail, who would talk about suburb, you know, like the other kind of more traditional conservative version. But on the Democratic front, You know, it's, it's, they have, I think, there's a difference between online and I think recognizing a new media ecosystem. And while they have certainly leaned into more a podcast, more non-traditional news or whatever, they're mostly going there with a fairly traditional political message. So I don't think like the fact of her going on club Shay Shay or Call her Daddy or anything is like galaxy brain or incorrect. And also because they're taking a message that they would take anywhere really on that front.

I really just think that they dismissed mainstream media. These are all symptoms of Biden too, right? I think their dismissiveness of polling. Their dismissiveness of like mainstream media as having some value. And I think like the kind of incentive structure of. of like small donations being a kind of self-fulfilling world are all just challenges for any campaign. So I think that they've done themselves a world of good

on the online front by admitting the thing that was the most true to everyone with eyes, which was that Joe Biden was too over for a second term. So I'd actually think they did a big thing on this front by actually responding to people's concerns who had that for a long time. but I still think they have a challenge with the kind of question of who is our audience and who is our base. I guess I just don't think that's as big of one as I may have thought was super important during the primary.

But it has been important to the extent it stopped them from having a primary. You know what I'm saying? Like I actually don't think they're running a particularly like math, general election, like online prop, like campaign. Like I think they have, I can sell from their messages from where they're going. I think it's a pretty multifaceted like strategy. And so, like, I think they are speaking a little bit in a broader language. Their recognition of the messenger problem, I think, helped them on that front. The only thing I would say, if I could add one thing to this is, I set this on

the daily recently, but I do think that, like, the type of voters they're dropping off with, even those folks in Philly, those are the type of people, you know, the working class people of color, the non-college men, the younger folks who do not have a belief in the democratic system as working in its current form. And one barrier I think Democrats have is the fact that they are talking about protecting a democracy rather than improving a democracy. And I don't know if that's an online thing more so than it is a college-educated thing, more so than there's like a system has kind of work for me thing, right? Like, I don't think that's fully described online more so than there's the type of people who make the most decisions there. But I think it's a

big gap between the world they feel like in their struggle to win back some of these voters. And so there's been this discussion about is the message of protecting democracy ineffective? And I guess the big point I always make on this front is like maybe that's ineffective. I don't think people don't care. I think they're not working from the premise that the voters they're most dropping off with work from. And that is that there is a problem with our political system that needs fixing. And so if they were the, you know, and so whether that is gerrymandering, term limits, filibuster, blah, like, whatever you want to call it. Like, and I think there's different ways of solutions people take. We hear all the time about money and

politics, about, about broken, says, no one feels like no one's being held accountable, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so I think that there was some misread of 20,000. And so I think that there was some misread of 2020 where people could act like a Bernie Sanders or someone was catching on because they were flagrantly progressive. And so you have to back single payer health insurance. And I'm not sure that's true. Like, I actually think it was a clarity about how politics is not working. And if they want to scoop up some of the people that were interested in that, but have gone on to be interested in Trump or gone on to not vote in general, I think they have to grow in terms of speaking about a political system to become more responsive.

And the problem is, I don't really know if they want that. Right. Like, the problem with reshaping, like, you know, the problem with, like, term limits as a policy is many, but one, the people who have to impose it on themselves. And so, like, somewhat, I just think more than onlineness, there's a gap in terms of, is this working for you in its current form? and that's a place where I feel like politicians, particularly Democrats, I think Donald Trump actually speaks to that.

So I'm saying, I think particularly Democrats have been uncomfortable being. Yeah, and it feels like there's just a lot of rhetorical room to maneuver there, whether you want term limits or not between what Donald Trump is saying, which is, you know, elections are being stolen, dead people are voting in Pennsylvania. And as you put it, American democracy is not working for me. Yes, and I'm saying, like, they could start from that premise, say Donald Trump is exploiting that in a poor fashion, but here are the things. things we're going to do to make government more responsive.

Like, I think that's a totally open lane. But I just don't think that's really been their interest. And so, like, when it's kind of a starting position problem, where if, like, you start from the position of it be of it working, I think immediately there's a type, there's a growing group of voters who feel like politics as usual as bad. And you don't feel like you're speaking in like a direct authentic language. And I don't know. And again, I don't know if that.

I don't know if it's fair to call that being too online, more so than it is being insulated from the type of people who government does not work for, right? Because in these people's real lives, to be honest, like, most of the people don't know those people. You know, like, it's not just the online problem. Like, it is a, it's a class and, oh, it's like great. It's all of those things. All the reasons we live, the lives we live.

But I'm saying the issue, I think, is that they don't know these people, you know? And so the attempts to craft a multi-racial coalition, as Democrats have been talking about for the last four or something years, have been done by people who don't know who those people are and don't know the language in which they speak in. And I think it sounds like that. So it's not surprised. It hasn't really worked for me. And it has worked for moderate Republicans. It has worked for centrist. It has worked for other groups.

Last one for you, Ested, since we're a media podcast, I have to ask, what did you make of the Washington Post decision not to endorse comments? Harris. Oh, oh, disappointing. You know, I think that news is in a really challenging time. And I understand the argument that we have a trust deficit with public. I'm sympathetic to the argument. I believe it. I think that the way of going about fixing that is journalism that is in the world that sees people feel represented and how it works out. We hear from so many people. I just, I'm literally today. I'm in this county in Washington because of this gimmick

because they're the only ones who have voted for the right person for president since 1980. We were there last year. We're doing an episode with them for the day before the election. And the guy, the one of the guys, this Trump guy, we talked to last year was come back to talk to us again. I was like, oh, this was the first time I could have any of my friends or relatives listened. Like they listened and I thought they wouldn't listen in New York Times,

but they loved it. And they felt like it was fair and whatever, whatever. like that is the proof points that I think actually win people over is an ability to make people feel heard. And that's even, and that doesn't even mean you, doesn't mean you agree. It doesn't mean you lack context. Doesn't mean you don't factor that. But actually just prioritizing their voices. But I don't think that's the way a lot of people have gone about fixing this trust gap. And so these type of methods, just not endorsing feels like cowardice, particularly how they did it. Like if you did, if this was a value that Jeff Bezos held, say that last year. Say it earlier this

year. Don't say it two weeks before the election. And if this was a value that was held, it should have been communicated to the newsroom. It should be communicated, you know, it could be communicated to subscribers before they blew up and canceled subscriptions. So I think that just like, I think the way it played out was really, it is really disappointing. And I think it speaks to something that I find a little, a little scarier. I don't think, I don't think if Trump were to win again, institutions that stood up for norms and rules and pushing back against that disruption would do that in the same way. I think for a lot of media, they would take the lesson as the country wants this.

And I think pivot to reflect that. And I just think that's a mistake. Like, not only obviously on journalistic values and speech values and all of that, I actually think it's just a misread of the election. Awesome. And so one thing I super worry about is a lesson from a second Trump win to be one that media and a lot of institutions take as a reason to be deferential. And that is not our job either. Like even if you were mad at the level of what you would say is resistance in 2017 or 18, even if you thought people jumped the shark on that, deference is not the answer.

And so I don't like when people jump the shark in one direction And I don't like it when they jump in the other direction either And I do worry that that would be in our future All right, instead, Herndon, you're going to want to listen to the run-up There can be more episodes coming between today And Election Day, Tuesday. It's completely different than anything you're going to hear from those insiders Wait, can I say I'm actually pro-inside.

I'm actually not anti-in-well, I'm not pro-insider. I'm not anti-insider. I am anti the space they hold in political journalism. Like, I think it has to be coupled, it has to be matched with other folks' voices. And I think actually we would do ourselves a world of good on the credibility front, on the trust front, if we let folks speak for themselves

and the type of people who do not expect to be heard by media. The number one thing we hear is, like, I didn't, why are you here? Why do you want to talk to me? But that sense of empowerment is actually what our jobs, I think, are about in a lot of big sense. And so go to the places in which they feel unheard. And that is not just D or R.

Those are a lot of people. And you do the insider some good in that front, too, because they don't know them either. We can be against untethered insiderdom. Yes, yes. That's much better. We found common ground. This is fantastic. Listen, look at those go.

Thank you once again for coming on the press box. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. It's time for the second. weekly edition of David Shoemaker guesses the strained pun headline. Yeah.

Monday's headline about a new memoir by Al Pacino was, Say hello to my little pen. That's me doing it. Was that a Razor Ramon right there? I was just going to say that. I learned about Tony Montana through

Razor, through the bad guy. Today's headline, David, comes to us from the Twitter account Hurricane Kix It's from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. You remember the Steelers started the season with a different quarterback, Justin Fields. Then they decided we're going to Russell Wilson. It's time to go to Russell Wilson.

People thought that might not be a good idea, but it turned out pretty well. It's time for Russell Wilson. Ponder that idea as you ponder. What was the Pittsburgh Post-Gazettes strained pun headline. Wilson, Russell, it's time. There's a lot to work with here. New quarterback, no more fields. Yeah, why don't we stick with Wilson? Wilson. Otherwise known as Russ. Uh-huh. It's his time, his specific time. So it's Russ. It's his unit of time. Russ. Russ hour, there you go. Russ hour. That is

the press box. I'm Brian Curtis. Productive Magic. As always, by Brian Waters. Got some election magic this week, too, because we saw I'm wearing his press box button at the polls there in Baltimore. That was an absolutely fantastic visual. All right, coming up, man,

we got a lot coming up. We're going to record our Monday episode on Sunday night. That's me and Shoemaker. So if you're up late Sunday night, you can listen to it then. Otherwise, you'll have it all day Monday, November 4th, the day before election day. And then on election night itself, there's a very good chance we will not have a result, but I can vow to you

that Shoemaker and I will do something. We will record something. We will be on. If we have a result, we'll do that. If we have not a result, but a lean will do that. If we have a complete jump ball to use only in journalism term, I've heard a lot lately. We'll just talk about that. That will be up Tuesday night. And then we got a lot more coming next week. Dave Weigel's going to be on the podcast, all kinds of fun stuff here on the press box. You're going to want to listen, you're going to want to subscribe. You're going to want to stay tuned

for more lukewarm takes about the media. Talk to you on Sunday night.