Latest / Pod Save America / “Problems not solved.”

Transcript

“Problems not solved.” · Pod Save America

0:00
Speaker 1: A quick note before we begin today's show. We recorded
0:02
Speaker 1: this pod early Thursday morning as the horrific terrorist attack
0:06
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan was still unfolding, an attack that has left
0:09
Speaker 1: dozens injured and dead, including multiple American troops. So we
0:13
Speaker 1: weren't able to fully cover that story on today's pod,
0:16
Speaker 1: but we will be talking about it a lot more
0:18
Speaker 1: on Monday's episode. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.
0:41
Speaker 2: I'm Dan Pfeiffer.
0:42
Speaker 1: On today's show, Nancy Pelosi stops a centrist rebellion over
0:46
Speaker 1: the budget. In new change research, Crooked Media Poll of
0:48
Speaker 1: Virginia gives Democrats a small lead and a few warning
0:51
Speaker 1: signs for 2022. And California Senator Alex Padilla stops by
0:55
Speaker 1: the office to chat with Tommy and me about the
0:57
Speaker 1: California recall, voting rights, and more. But first, check out
1:01
Speaker 1: this week's hysteria where legendary TV comedy writer and good
1:05
Speaker 1: friend of the pod, Jen Statsky, joins Erin and Alyssa
1:08
Speaker 1: to discuss her hit HBO series, Hacks, one of my
1:11
Speaker 1: favorite shows over the last few years. New episodes of
1:15
Speaker 1: Hysteria drop every Thursday, so check it out. Also, if
1:19
Speaker 1: you are a registered voter in the state of California,
1:22
Speaker 1: listen up. Check your mail for a recall ballot. Fill
1:26
Speaker 1: it out. Return it by September 14th. If you don't
1:29
Speaker 1: want California controlled by a radical right-wing Republican, vote no
1:34
Speaker 1: on question one, Should Governor Newsom be recalled? And leave
1:38
Speaker 1: question two blank, according to the Newsom campaign. And please note,
1:42
Speaker 1: what we just said was not authorized by a candidate
1:45
Speaker 1: or a committee controlled by a candidate, Dan.
1:48
Speaker 2: So you have to say that?
1:49
Speaker 1: That is something that I've been told that I need
1:51
Speaker 1: to say, yeah. I do what people tell me. Anyway,
1:54
Speaker 1: visit votesaveamerica.com slash California to learn more. All right, let's
2:00
Speaker 1: get to the news. Is it possible to outmaneuver House
2:04
Speaker 1: Speaker Nancy Pelosi? This week, New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer
2:08
Speaker 1: and nine other centrist Democrats decided to fuck around and
2:11
Speaker 1: find out. After threatening for days to vote against Joe
2:15
Speaker 1: Biden's economic plan unless Pelosi first held a vote on
2:18
Speaker 1: the bipartisan infrastructure bill, the group that no labels nicknamed
2:21
Speaker 1: the Mod Squad caved, allowing the $ 3. 5 trillion budget resolution
2:26
Speaker 1: to pass with all 220 House Democrats out. What they
2:30
Speaker 1: got in return was a promise from Pelosi to put
2:32
Speaker 1: the infrastructure bill on the floor by September 27th, even
2:36
Speaker 1: though House progressives continue to say that they won't vote
2:39
Speaker 1: for that bill unless the full budget passes the Senate
2:42
Speaker 1: and comes to the House. Dan, did the problem solvers
2:46
Speaker 1: solve any problems here, or was this just a huge
2:48
Speaker 1: waste of everyone's time?
2:50
Speaker 2: The only problem that I think was solved here was
2:54
Speaker 2: Josh Gottheimer having too many friends, because now he has none.
2:57
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, not a lot of House Democrats very happy
3:04
Speaker 1: with my former boss, Josh Gottheimer, I should let everyone know,
3:08
Speaker 1: when I was just a 22-year-old speechwriter on the Kerry campaign.
3:12
Speaker 1: He was the chief speechwriter.
3:13
Speaker 2: Back when you were a young problem solver, just learning.
3:16
Speaker 3: To solve problems.
3:17
Speaker 1: Yeah, apparently I didn't learn well enough. I didn't follow
3:20
Speaker 1: in Josh's footsteps, so I did not become a problem
3:22
Speaker 1: solver myself, unfortunately, but he was my boss. So yeah, well,
3:27
Speaker 1: I mean, the Chamber of Commerce, which unsurprisingly supported Gottheimer's Goobers,
3:33
Speaker 1: which is another name for them.
3:34
Speaker 2: Oh, pod title. I think I see it.
3:36
Speaker 1: They tweeted that the infrastructure bill has been, quote, successfully
3:40
Speaker 1: decoupled from the reconciliation bill. Is that true?
3:44
Speaker 2: No, they cannot be decoupled because the dynamics here are
3:48
Speaker 2: such that either both bills pass or neither bill passes, right?
3:52
Speaker 2: That is what is going to happen. Nothing changed throughout
3:55
Speaker 2: all of this drama that was just documented minute by
4:01
Speaker 2: minute by Capitol Hill reporters looking to not have vacation
4:05
Speaker 2: in August or something. But ultimately, they have the same
4:08
Speaker 2: amount of leverage they had before. Nothing has changed. They're
4:12
Speaker 2: now just– Nancy Pelosi has a deadline by which she
4:15
Speaker 2: needs to get the Senate bill to her. Everyone knows that.
4:18
Speaker 2: It's not a surprise. We're going to end up in
4:19
Speaker 2: the same place.
4:20
Speaker 1: If the.
4:22
Speaker 2: Let's say for some reason the budget bill does not
4:25
Speaker 2: pass the Senate by that time, then eight, nine, 10,
4:29
Speaker 2: 30 House progressives will just do what Josh Gottheimer did
4:32
Speaker 2: and hold back on it, right?
4:34
Speaker 1: Like this is- Yeah, they'll vote against, like that's what
4:36
Speaker 1: she could put the, she can hold a vote on
4:39
Speaker 1: the infrastructure bill on September 27th. Doesn't mean it's going
4:41
Speaker 1: to pass if House progressives don't get what they want,
4:44
Speaker 1: which is a budget coming over from the Senate. Yes.
4:47
Speaker 2: In the long history of stupid pointless legislative fights, this
4:50
Speaker 2: one is very near the top. Never has so much
4:53
Speaker 2: energy been spent on something of so little consequence here.
4:57
Speaker 2: They want a minor kind of sort of change in
5:01
Speaker 2: a legislative procedure. And even in their grandest ambitions, if
5:05
Speaker 2: they had solved the problems to which they have dedicated themselves,
5:10
Speaker 2: what most would have happened is that the bipartisan infrastructure
5:13
Speaker 2: bill would have passed three weeks earlier than it otherwise
5:15
Speaker 2: would have. That's really what they were pushing for. It's absurd.
5:18
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about why it happened and sort of
5:21
Speaker 1: the motivations that led to it. Five of these Democrats
5:24
Speaker 1: are in Biden districts that range from D plus seven
5:26
Speaker 1: to D plus 17. Only Jared Golden is sitting in
5:30
Speaker 1: a district that Trump won of all of them. And
5:33
Speaker 1: as you pointed out before, the other six Democrats in
5:35
Speaker 1: Trump districts that are in the House didn't join this group.
5:39
Speaker 1: So what do you think their motivation was for doing this?
5:42
Speaker 1: And like, what do you make of the fact that
5:43
Speaker 1: so many other moderates, including groups like the Third Way
5:46
Speaker 1: and the New Democratic Coalition, didn't join, uh, Godheimer's gang.
5:51
Speaker 2: I really cannot possibly divine any actual reason for these,
5:57
Speaker 2: this nine eventually became 10 members to engage in this
6:01
Speaker 2: pointless fight other than sort of polishing their centrist bona
6:05
Speaker 2: fides for the world to see, right? Like we're going
6:08
Speaker 2: to position ourselves directly between Nancy Pelosi and the Republicans.
6:12
Speaker 2: It's just like, it's all performance art. It has no
6:14
Speaker 2: substantive meeting. It doesn't even really help them politically. It,
6:18
Speaker 2: It probably helps some of them raise some money. But
6:22
Speaker 2: I think it's probably just attention and a desire for
6:25
Speaker 2: something involving leverage and really not a bunch of people
6:28
Speaker 2: playing checkers in a game of chess. But I think
6:31
Speaker 2: there's some broader dynamics here that are interesting. One, the
6:35
Speaker 2: fact that most people whose districts are most at risk
6:38
Speaker 2: did not join them says everything about this. There's a
6:41
Speaker 2: lot of when folks like us and other progressive groups
6:45
Speaker 2: were criticizing these members for what they were doing. It's like, oh, look,
6:50
Speaker 2: pod bros in California weighing in to say that, to
6:53
Speaker 2: tell the Democrats who have to win Trump districts how
6:56
Speaker 2: to do their jobs. No, the Democrats who have to
6:58
Speaker 2: win Trump districts get the fundamental truth that Democrats will
7:03
Speaker 2: either hang together or they will hang separately, right? And
7:08
Speaker 2: it is like, yeah, I totally get that defending a $ 3. 5
7:10
Speaker 2: trillion bill that's going to have a bunch of progressive
7:13
Speaker 2: stuff in it is going to be hard in Trump districts.
7:16
Speaker 2: But you know what's going to be a lot harder?
7:17
Speaker 2: If the whole party falls flat on its fucking face
7:19
Speaker 2: and passes nothing, right? Given a world of two options,
7:22
Speaker 2: success is the right thing to do here. And the
7:24
Speaker 2: Democrats who really need everything to go their way to
7:27
Speaker 2: win are not trying to get in the way of success.
7:29
Speaker 2: It's the Democrats who are– like Ed Case and Jim
7:33
Speaker 2: Costa and these others are not going to lose. They
7:36
Speaker 2: have no danger of losing, yet they're the ones causing
7:38
Speaker 2: the problem here.
7:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, we can't– divine their motivations. But there's certainly the
7:44
Speaker 1: fact that a bunch of Democrats sitting in Trump districts
7:47
Speaker 1: didn't join them certainly means that it wasn't entirely about
7:51
Speaker 1: the politics on the ground and their voters. We also
7:53
Speaker 1: know this because Data for Progress and Climate Power surveyed
7:58
Speaker 1: the districts of some of the members of this of
8:01
Speaker 1: Gottheimer's gang here. Two out of three voters in those
8:05
Speaker 1: districts view additional climate and clean energy investments as an
8:08
Speaker 1: important priority. More than 62% support Biden's Build Back Better proposal,
8:14
Speaker 1: which is outlined in the budget resolution. And voters would
8:18
Speaker 1: be less likely, less likely by a 13-point margin to
8:21
Speaker 1: vote for a candidate for Congress who opposes the Build
8:25
Speaker 1: Back Better agenda, a.k.a. the budget resolution. Those are some
8:30
Speaker 1: pretty good numbers for Biden and the plan in those
8:34
Speaker 1: districts of people who decided to try to tank it
8:37
Speaker 1: because they wanted to vote on the infrastructure bill first.
8:39
Speaker 2: You mean the people who want to call themselves Biden
8:41
Speaker 2: Democrats and then run on tanking the Biden agenda? Those people?
8:45
Speaker 2: Is that who you're talking about?
8:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, those people. Those people. What did you think of
8:49
Speaker 1: Sean Patrick Maloney, the chair of the DCCC, apparently calling
8:53
Speaker 1: the members of this group to warn them that they're
8:54
Speaker 1: putting the majority at risk, which they took as a
8:57
Speaker 1: fundraising threat?
8:59
Speaker 2: Just once again, the whole thing is so stupid, right?
9:03
Speaker 2: Like if you you're The difference in your ability to
9:07
Speaker 2: do the things you claim to care about when you
9:09
Speaker 2: run for Congress between being the majority and the minority
9:12
Speaker 2: is everything, right? You can do almost nothing in the
9:15
Speaker 2: minority other than vote no repeatedly. And so you have
9:19
Speaker 2: these members here who claim to care about all these things,
9:21
Speaker 2: infrastructure and roads and bridges and all of that, putting
9:24
Speaker 2: the majority at risk for no real reason. What I
9:28
Speaker 2: think is interesting about this and why it played out differently,
9:32
Speaker 2: because as you pointed out, the typically moderate groups backed
9:37
Speaker 2: the progressives and Pelosi on this play, not the moderates.
9:41
Speaker 2: And that is the opposite of how it used to go.
9:44
Speaker 2: I think it says a couple of things. The first
9:46
Speaker 2: is what you pointed out for the data for progress
9:49
Speaker 2: and climate power poll is this is a popular and
9:51
Speaker 2: not polarizing agenda. People like it. This is not the ACA,
9:56
Speaker 2: which is healthcare and therefore, by definition, personal and polarizing.
10:00
Speaker 2: It's not Bill Clinton's 1993 budget that had an energy
10:03
Speaker 2: tax in it that was devastating to Democrats in fossil
10:07
Speaker 2: fuel producing states. So it's popular. It also shows the
10:13
Speaker 2: power of Biden's moderate brand. The fact that it's Joe
10:17
Speaker 2: Biden's agenda– is a signal to voters, including voters who
10:22
Speaker 2: do not love Joe Biden, that this is something different
10:25
Speaker 2: than the radical socialist Democrats to hear about on Fox
10:29
Speaker 2: News or Bernie Sanders or AOC. And I think that's
10:32
Speaker 2: really interesting. It provides actually Biden a lot of leverage
10:35
Speaker 2: and sort of running room as we go forward to
10:37
Speaker 2: push a very progressive agenda because the fact that it's
10:42
Speaker 2: Joe Biden's, it gives it some brand equity with a
10:48
Speaker 2: set of voters that gives it these numbers in these
10:51
Speaker 2: moderate or vulnerable or purplish districts.
10:55
Speaker 1: I also think it says something about, you've talked about
10:58
Speaker 1: this a lot, the difference between being a moderate and
11:02
Speaker 1: being a centrist. Can you talk about that a little bit?
11:05
Speaker 2: Being a moderate means you have a set of ideological
11:08
Speaker 2: principles and policy preferences that are closer to the center.
11:11
Speaker 2: It could be, I support a public option, not Medicare
11:15
Speaker 2: for all. I support increasing the corporate tax rate X,
11:21
Speaker 2: but I don't support a wealth tax. It's just you
11:24
Speaker 2: have a set of moderate principles that guide your decision-making.
11:27
Speaker 2: And you're going to be for those whether they are
11:30
Speaker 2: the policy of the entire Democratic caucus or a part
11:32
Speaker 2: of the Democratic caucus. Centrism is not an ideology. It's
11:36
Speaker 2: an identity. What it means is that you position yourselves
11:40
Speaker 2: in somewhere a few steps closer to the center from
11:44
Speaker 2: where your party is, wherever your party is, whether that
11:47
Speaker 2: is a more centrist party of the 90s or the
11:49
Speaker 2: early 2000s or a much more progressive party. Moderates care
11:54
Speaker 2: about policy. Centrists care about performance. It is about demonstrating that.
12:00
Speaker 1: You are a centrist. They want to be seen as centrist.
12:03
Speaker 1: And moderates are just, it's what they believe in terms
12:06
Speaker 1: of policy.
12:06
Speaker 2: Here's an example I think helps make sense. Amy Klobuchar
12:09
Speaker 2: is a moderate. She ran for president as a moderate.
12:12
Speaker 2: She has a long history of being a moderate. Kyrsten
12:14
Speaker 2: Sinema is a centrist. Whatever, if she sees a progressive
12:18
Speaker 2: parade forming somewhere, she goes looking to rain on it.
12:21
Speaker 2: But Klobuchar, a longtime moderate, adjusts her positions based on
12:26
Speaker 2: the reality on the ground. She is for this bill.
12:29
Speaker 2: She has changed her position on the filibuster, but there
12:33
Speaker 2: are things she will not do. She's not moving based
12:38
Speaker 2: on where the polls around her move. I think it's
12:40
Speaker 2: a really, really important distinction because we want moderates in
12:44
Speaker 2: our party. We need moderates to win in a lot
12:47
Speaker 2: of districts around the country. just because of the political
12:50
Speaker 2: makeup of America and how many rural and exurban districts
12:55
Speaker 2: there are that have a lot of independent voters or
12:58
Speaker 2: Republican voters. But centrists are the ones who actually make
13:01
Speaker 2: the problem worse because they're running against the Democrats. You
13:04
Speaker 2: have Republicans running against the Democrats and centrists running against
13:08
Speaker 2: the Democrats, and that's how you lose.
13:11
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is exactly how you lose. Well, let's talk
13:14
Speaker 1: about what happens now because I have a feeling this
13:16
Speaker 1: isn't the last we've heard from the centrists. Over in
13:19
Speaker 1: the Senate, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema weighed in with
13:22
Speaker 1: statements of support for their House colleagues this week. Sinema
13:27
Speaker 1: even reiterated that she's not voting for a plan that
13:31
Speaker 1: costs $ 3. 5 trillion. Manchin has also said something similar. So
13:36
Speaker 1: how did Biden, Schumer and Pelosi land this plane? And
13:39
Speaker 1: do you think this week's events made their jobs harder,
13:43
Speaker 1: easier or no change?
13:46
Speaker 2: I don't think it made it harder. I think it
13:48
Speaker 2: just revealed how challenging this is, right? In a world
13:52
Speaker 2: with such narrow margins, we sort of always think about
13:55
Speaker 2: what does Joe Manchin care about? What does Kyrsten Sinema
13:56
Speaker 2: care about? But what this group of 10 members sort
14:00
Speaker 2: of proved is any person, any House member can go
14:04
Speaker 2: find five friends and become Joe Manchin for a day, right?
14:07
Speaker 2: They have the ability to block anything. I think it
14:09
Speaker 2: just revealed the difficulties that always exist in trying to
14:11
Speaker 2: pass a bill with– margins this narrow and such great
14:17
Speaker 2: ideological diversity within the caucus. So it's always going to
14:20
Speaker 2: be hard. I'm trying to think about how this plays out.
14:26
Speaker 2: And if there is going to be a bill, it's
14:29
Speaker 2: going to come from the Senate. And by definition, that
14:32
Speaker 2: bill will have the sign-off of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
14:37
Speaker 2: Warren on the left and Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin
14:40
Speaker 2: on the right. That bill is going to come to
14:43
Speaker 2: the House. And what I– I sort of– is there
14:46
Speaker 2: really room to the right of Joe Manchin in a
14:50
Speaker 2: state that Trump won by nearly 40 points for– to
14:55
Speaker 2: try to say this– like I cannot support this bill,
14:58
Speaker 2: this progressive wild-eyed bill that Joe Manchin is for? That
15:01
Speaker 2: seems really hard, right?
15:02
Speaker 1: No. Yeah, no. I think it's– the action now moves
15:05
Speaker 1: to the Senate for sure. Right.
15:07
Speaker 2: And then on the left too, same thing. Is Bernie
15:10
Speaker 2: Sanders going to sign off on a bill? It's his committee.
15:13
Speaker 2: He's helping write it. Is he going to sign off
15:16
Speaker 2: on a bill that is too mushy middle for the
15:20
Speaker 2: Congressional Progressive Caucus or the squad? That seems unlikely to
15:23
Speaker 2: me too. So what we really have to do is
15:24
Speaker 2: figure out what is the one thing that those 50
15:27
Speaker 2: Senate Democrats can agree on. And then I think we
15:30
Speaker 2: should be in an okay place in the House. There
15:32
Speaker 2: was obviously– as this last week proved, there's always the
15:34
Speaker 2: capacity for some troublemakers, but the big work is going
15:39
Speaker 2: to happen in the Senate.
15:41
Speaker 1: We've been saying this throughout this whole process, but again,
15:45
Speaker 1: nothing goes anywhere unless Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders agree
15:51
Speaker 1: on it. In the House, you can say AOC and
15:54
Speaker 1: Josh Gottheimer have to agree. All these Democrats have to
15:56
Speaker 1: get together and agree on every detail of of this plan,
16:00
Speaker 1: which is why it is always unhelpful to make a
16:03
Speaker 1: big public stink over your problems with the bill like
16:08
Speaker 1: this gang of moderates or this gang of centrists did
16:11
Speaker 1: this week. Good catch, good catch. Yeah, no, I'm going
16:15
Speaker 1: with centrist. It's why it's a problem because like just
16:19
Speaker 1: do all this behind closed doors.
16:21
Speaker 2: Right.
16:21
Speaker 1: Like you're all going to have to agree on the
16:23
Speaker 1: same thing anyway. Fighting this out in public serves nobody
16:26
Speaker 1: except potentially the reputations of these centrists in their districts.
16:31
Speaker 1: But I don't even know if it does. Like, I
16:32
Speaker 1: don't know if if Josh Gottheimer or any of those
16:36
Speaker 1: centrists in the game go home, you know, and think, oh,
16:39
Speaker 1: this this actually gave me a boost this week. Maybe
16:42
Speaker 1: it does. Maybe they can run ads and be like,
16:44
Speaker 1: I took on Nancy Pelosi. I don't know if that works.
16:47
Speaker 3: Maybe.
16:47
Speaker 2: I think– does it get them some round of applause
16:50
Speaker 2: at their local Rotary Club meeting from some business leaders
16:54
Speaker 2: who think that we're spending too much money but also
16:57
Speaker 2: want a tax break? Maybe. There is a world of
17:00
Speaker 2: donors out there who– these are the people who are
17:04
Speaker 2: always yelling at Barack Obama about how he needs to
17:06
Speaker 2: kind of budget deal with Republicans who probably are more
17:09
Speaker 2: supportive of these members. But ultimately– nothing was gained and
17:13
Speaker 2: all that was lost was time.
17:15
Speaker 1: Yeah. So how do you think the broader political environment
17:18
Speaker 1: affects these negotiations? We've got Delta still surging. The economy
17:21
Speaker 1: is not where it should be. Everything that's happening in
17:25
Speaker 1: Afghanistan right now, how do you think that will affect
17:27
Speaker 1: the way Democrats approach these negotiations?
17:30
Speaker 2: It's how it could affect it and how it should
17:33
Speaker 2: affect it, right? Here's how it could affect it, which
17:35
Speaker 2: is we've already seen some diminution in Biden's approval rating.
17:39
Speaker 2: If that were to continue to go down, there was
17:41
Speaker 2: one poll that I imagine, slash hope is an outlier
17:44
Speaker 2: that had him in the low 40s the other day.
17:46
Speaker 2: But if that were to become sort of where his
17:48
Speaker 2: numbers are, you could see all of the sudden Democrats
17:52
Speaker 2: looking for the exits. It doesn't mean they won't pass anything,
17:54
Speaker 2: but the idea that we're all going to get on
17:56
Speaker 2: board with something nearing $ 3. 5 trillion filled with a bunch
18:00
Speaker 2: of big, bold, progressive jobs and family initiatives is may
18:06
Speaker 2: seem less appealing. Because right now, Biden, and to date,
18:09
Speaker 2: has been the most popular Democrat and most popular politician,
18:12
Speaker 2: active politician in the country. And so it seems like
18:15
Speaker 2: it made sense to follow him wherever he's going. If
18:17
Speaker 2: he becomes less popular, that always sort of weakens their
18:21
Speaker 2: ability to push their members. In reality... What should happen is,
18:26
Speaker 2: let's say that Biden's numbers do take a hit, it's
18:28
Speaker 2: a messy political environment for all the reasons you cited.
18:31
Speaker 2: That's actually an argument for doing more quicker in a
18:35
Speaker 2: more unified fashion than the opposite. It's like, oh, what's
18:38
Speaker 2: the best way to strengthen our political position heading into 2022,
18:43
Speaker 2: which is go pass a really popular bill, which poll
18:46
Speaker 2: after poll shows has bipartisan support and is popular in
18:48
Speaker 2: the places we need to win, and let's strengthen the
18:52
Speaker 2: our incumbent president whose approval rating is very closely correlated
18:55
Speaker 2: with what our performance is likely to be in the
18:57
Speaker 2: congressional elections. That's what the mentality should be. Now, have
19:01
Speaker 2: Democrats always been closely familiar with their own political self-interest?
19:05
Speaker 2: Not always, but I think Schumer gets that. I think
19:08
Speaker 2: Pelosi gets that. I think probably the way this played
19:10
Speaker 2: out over the last week shows the vast majority of
19:12
Speaker 2: Democrats get that. But obviously, anyone can be a skunk
19:15
Speaker 2: at the garden party here.
19:17
Speaker 4: Yeah.
19:18
Speaker 1: I mean, there's only two choices here, right? There is–
19:20
Speaker 1: pass the infrastructure bill, pass the build back better plan.
19:24
Speaker 1: That's the budget or not. And not is a huge
19:29
Speaker 1: political failure that has now, you know, joined a bunch
19:33
Speaker 1: of other bad political developments to make it a really
19:35
Speaker 1: crappy political environment. Or it's to, it's to stand together
19:39
Speaker 1: and pass something, knowing that it could be, you know,
19:42
Speaker 1: somewhat risky and that people in the Republicans are going
19:44
Speaker 1: to attack it. And they're going to frame it as
19:46
Speaker 1: some like big spending, you know, package that blah, blah,
19:49
Speaker 1: all the shit that they're going to do. There's risk
19:51
Speaker 1: to it, but also know that, you know, voters will
19:55
Speaker 1: appreciate that you have done something to make the economy
19:58
Speaker 1: better and to improve their lives. On that note, I do.
20:01
Speaker 1: One thing I noticed this week is in all the
20:03
Speaker 1: reporting on this and the way everyone's talking about it,
20:05
Speaker 1: you hear Talk about a budget. You talk about resolution.
20:08
Speaker 1: Talk about a reconciliation bill. You hear the number 3.5 trillion.
20:12
Speaker 5: Right.
20:13
Speaker 1: And we are not talking nearly enough about what is
20:17
Speaker 1: in this budget, which is exactly what people like, according
20:22
Speaker 1: to all these polls. Right. Like we need to start
20:24
Speaker 1: talking about what's in this budget. We've got to boil
20:26
Speaker 1: it down to simple language. You know, it's about eliminating
20:29
Speaker 1: tax cuts for the 1%. so we can cut taxes
20:32
Speaker 1: for the middle class, create jobs, make education and healthcare
20:34
Speaker 1: more affordable, fight climate change. Whatever it is, we've got
20:38
Speaker 1: to get a message here and continue to talk about it.
20:40
Speaker 1: Reporters are not going to do this for us. They're
20:42
Speaker 1: going to continue to talk about it in shorthand because
20:43
Speaker 1: that's just what they do. But Democrats really need to
20:46
Speaker 1: talk more about how this budget and how this Build
20:49
Speaker 1: Back Better plan is going to improve people's lives because
20:53
Speaker 1: if that gets lost, it's going to be much easier
20:55
Speaker 1: to oppose it, I think.
20:57
Speaker 2: I have written about some rules for how to do this.
20:59
Speaker 2: I have violated all all of them in this conversation
21:01
Speaker 2: because it's very hard.
21:02
Speaker 1: You know, I do too. It's hard.
21:03
Speaker 2: It's very hard to do the analysis of this. Like
21:05
Speaker 2: saying the Build Back Better plan seems weird to say,
21:09
Speaker 2: even though it makes a lot more sense to regular
21:11
Speaker 2: people than budget reconciliation, but how are you distinguishing that?
21:14
Speaker 2: And the one that I think is really important, and
21:17
Speaker 2: it's hard to have this conversation about the legislative machinations
21:20
Speaker 2: without using this word or using this term, but we
21:23
Speaker 2: have to stop talking about the price tag. Not because
21:26
Speaker 2: the price tag is bad. This poll, the Data for
21:29
Speaker 2: Progress poll, very explicitly put the price tag in there
21:32
Speaker 2: to test it, right? Because it's cheating to not put
21:35
Speaker 2: it in there because you know Republicans and the media
21:36
Speaker 2: will use it. But this is something our friend Anat
21:39
Speaker 2: Shankarasario used to say, which is only Democrats try to
21:42
Speaker 2: sell a product by advertising the price tag, right? Talk
21:45
Speaker 2: about the product, not the price tag. What's in there?
21:46
Speaker 2: What are we trying to do and get away from
21:50
Speaker 2: all of this like legislative mumbo jumbo that we just
21:52
Speaker 2: talked about for 40 minutes.
21:55
Speaker 1: Yeah. So for all the Democratic infighting, Tuesday wasn't just
21:59
Speaker 1: a poop in the punch bowl news. Thank you, Dan,
22:03
Speaker 1: for that extremely niche joke.
22:05
Speaker 2: Can I just, I would just like to say that
22:08
Speaker 2: I write the outline very early on Wednesday mornings, sometimes
22:13
Speaker 2: to entertain myself, John, since I, I put Easter eggs
22:16
Speaker 2: in to see if you read the outline before our
22:18
Speaker 2: producers start doing the very good research for it. I
22:21
Speaker 2: would note that you did not read it in advance
22:23
Speaker 2: this time, and I had to point this joke out
22:25
Speaker 2: to you.
22:26
Speaker 1: You were very excited to point that out to me
22:28
Speaker 1: last night. You texted me, is that joke going to
22:30
Speaker 1: be still in there? And it wasn't going to be,
22:32
Speaker 1: but now, now because you asked for it, I wanted
22:34
Speaker 1: to make sure everyone know that you wrote that.
22:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a very niche joke because I'm guessing that
22:39
Speaker 2: a large portion of our audience doesn't know what Punchbowl
22:40
Speaker 2: News is.
22:42
Speaker 1: That is also true. That's why I said it's so niche. Anyway,
22:44
Speaker 1: Tuesday was also the day the House passed the John
22:47
Speaker 1: Lewis Voting Rights Act on a party line vote. Legislation
22:49
Speaker 1: which would restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act by requiring
22:53
Speaker 1: jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination around voting to
22:56
Speaker 1: receive approval from the Justice Department before changing voting laws.
23:00
Speaker 1: Of course, no Republicans in Congress support this bill except
23:04
Speaker 1: for Senator Lisa Murkowski. So in order for it to pass,
23:08
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats need to reform the filibuster. So as usual,
23:11
Speaker 1: we are back at square one. Nothing new on the
23:14
Speaker 1: politics here. You know, we had every Republican vote against
23:17
Speaker 1: it in the House. But on the substance of the bill,
23:20
Speaker 1: Slate's Mark Joseph Stern wrote a piece where he called
23:22
Speaker 1: this legislation court reform and said it's the clearest indication
23:26
Speaker 1: yet that House Democrats are getting serious about reigning in
23:29
Speaker 1: an out-of-control Supreme Court. Why is that?
23:33
Speaker 2: Unlike the For the People Act, this bill is specifically
23:36
Speaker 2: designed to address a series of recent-ish court decisions affecting
23:41
Speaker 2: voting rights. And it's born in the recognition that In
23:45
Speaker 2: every situation where the Roberts Court, dating back nearly a decade,
23:48
Speaker 2: has the opportunity to vote in a way that curbs
23:51
Speaker 2: voting rights, they vote to curb voting rights. And so
23:54
Speaker 2: the three decisions here that it addresses are Shelby County v. Holder,
23:58
Speaker 2: which goes back to 2013, which was when they essentially
24:03
Speaker 2: eliminated the preclearance function, which required states with a history
24:07
Speaker 2: of race-based voter suppression to get new election laws cleared
24:11
Speaker 2: by the Justice Department first. Their reasoning was basically that
24:15
Speaker 2: racism was over, which turns out that was not correct.
24:19
Speaker 1: No, they missed the mark there. Yes.
24:23
Speaker 2: The second one was Brnovich v. DNC, which just came
24:27
Speaker 2: down earlier this summer, which it basically shifted the burden
24:33
Speaker 2: in deciding whether a law violated voting rights by giving
24:37
Speaker 2: the state a wide berth to put in place restrictions
24:41
Speaker 2: and to cancel votes. And the third one is something
24:47
Speaker 2: we call the Purcell case, which is from 2006, but
24:50
Speaker 2: also made it much harder to challenge voting rights cases
24:55
Speaker 2: in federal courts. And so it seriously thinks it challenges
24:58
Speaker 2: all of that, puts– re-puts in place the preclearance function,
25:01
Speaker 2: puts in some guidelines, and is trying to draw some
25:04
Speaker 2: lines around the court to prevent them from doing what
25:08
Speaker 2: they've been doing for a decade. It's critically important. It
25:10
Speaker 2: is not going to solve a lot of our current
25:12
Speaker 2: problems and would not have a huge effect on a
25:16
Speaker 2: lot of the laws that have been passed since 2020.
25:19
Speaker 2: But it absolutely has to be done. People have been
25:24
Speaker 2: trying to do parts of this since 2013. And there
25:26
Speaker 2: has been, other than Lisa Murkowski, no Republican support to
25:29
Speaker 2: do so. And the problem has only gotten exponentially worse
25:31
Speaker 2: since then.
25:33
Speaker 1: I do wonder if these added court reform provisions in
25:36
Speaker 1: this bill that the House put in there if Manchin
25:39
Speaker 1: and Sinema and those types will embrace them. It seems
25:41
Speaker 1: like so far they are, and they're working on compromise
25:45
Speaker 1: legislation to introduce in the Senate as well. Everyone will hear,
25:49
Speaker 1: we recorded our interview with Senator Padilla yesterday, but he
25:53
Speaker 1: gave somewhat hopeful indications that there are conversations they're having
25:57
Speaker 1: in the Senate with Manchin about compromise legislation that can
26:00
Speaker 1: get everyone on board. And then hopefully they believe that
26:04
Speaker 1: they can tweak the rules is what he says. um, to,
26:08
Speaker 1: to ultimately pass this. Don't know what that means exactly.
26:11
Speaker 1: Don't know if that's too hopeful, but, um, you know,
26:15
Speaker 1: what else can we do? But, uh, but hope that,
26:17
Speaker 1: that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema will come through in
26:19
Speaker 1: the end, except scream into the void. I mean, that
26:22
Speaker 1: is where the other option.
26:24
Speaker 2: It's worked great so far. So I don't know why
26:25
Speaker 2: we would stop. I just, I think there's one thing
26:28
Speaker 2: that's worth putting a finer point on because it's speaks
26:31
Speaker 2: to the state of the Republican party today is, um,
26:34
Speaker 2: When in 2006, the last time the Voting Rights Act
26:37
Speaker 2: was extended, it passed the Senate 98 to nothing and
26:40
Speaker 2: the House 390 to 30, 30 something, I think. And
26:45
Speaker 2: so this is how far the Republican Party has come
26:47
Speaker 2: in 15 years, where it is the official position of
26:49
Speaker 2: the party that expanding voting rights or even not even
26:53
Speaker 2: just expanding voting rights. Allowing voting rights to exist as
26:57
Speaker 2: they did since the 60s is an anathema to the party.
27:01
Speaker 2: And you saw a lot of these. Just when you
27:03
Speaker 2: go back, like flash forward, let's say we survive, right?
27:06
Speaker 2: And you flash forward like 50 years and you look
27:08
Speaker 2: back and like read in a history book that every
27:12
Speaker 2: single Republican voted against the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.
27:17
Speaker 3: Yeah.
27:17
Speaker 5: Right?
27:17
Speaker 2: You're either going to look back and say, man, that
27:19
Speaker 2: was a weird fucking time or, oh, that's how we
27:22
Speaker 2: ended up living in Gitmo, right? Those are the two
27:24
Speaker 2: ways you think about it.
27:27
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's so funny. I mean, I'm glad
27:28
Speaker 1: you put a fine point on it. I think we've
27:31
Speaker 1: become so used to the turn that the Republican Party
27:34
Speaker 1: has taken and how extreme they've become that it just
27:37
Speaker 1: did not surprise me at all. Everything that's happened in
27:41
Speaker 1: the last four, five, six years tells you that, of course,
27:45
Speaker 1: there was no chance that any of them were going
27:46
Speaker 1: to support even the most moderate reforms to protect the
27:51
Speaker 1: right to vote.
27:53
Speaker 2: In 2013, after the Shelby decision came down, Republicans pretended
27:57
Speaker 2: like they were going to work on a solution for years.
27:59
Speaker 2: So even back– even just less than 10 years ago,
28:01
Speaker 2: they felt an obligation to pretend to care about voting rights.
28:05
Speaker 2: Now it's just like fuck that and just vote against
28:09
Speaker 2: it with pride. Send out fundraising emails about how they
28:11
Speaker 2: voted against it with pride. It's just– we're in a–
28:14
Speaker 2: it's a very precarious position.
28:16
Speaker 1: Half the party thinks that the people who attacked the
28:20
Speaker 1: Capitol on January 6th were patriots. So that's where we are.
28:35
Speaker 2: All right.
28:35
Speaker 1: So we've been talking a lot about the California recall.
28:38
Speaker 1: The other big 2021 race is the gubernatorial race in
28:40
Speaker 1: Virginia between former Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe and Republican private
28:44
Speaker 1: equity executive Glenn Youngkin. In 2020, Joe Biden won Virginia
28:48
Speaker 1: by 10 points, 54 to 44. In 2017, Ralph Northam
28:52
Speaker 1: won the governorship by nine points, 54 to 45. In
28:56
Speaker 1: And in our latest Polar Coaster survey with Change Research,
28:59
Speaker 1: we find McAuliffe leading by six points, 49 to 43,
29:03
Speaker 1: with 3% supporting a third party candidate named Princess Blanding
29:08
Speaker 1: and another 5% undecided. What's keeping the race close? McAuliffe
29:12
Speaker 1: is significantly underperforming Biden by nine points among young voters
29:17
Speaker 1: and 16 points among Hispanic voters. His voters are also
29:21
Speaker 1: paying less attention to the race and are less motivated
29:23
Speaker 1: to vote than Youngkin's voters. All right, we got a
29:26
Speaker 1: lot more to dig into here, but I'll stop there
29:28
Speaker 1: for now. Dan, what, if any, implications does this race
29:31
Speaker 1: have beyond Virginia? Why are we paying so much attention
29:34
Speaker 1: to this? And what was your first reaction to these
29:37
Speaker 1: top line results? Keeping in mind all the usual caveats
29:40
Speaker 1: that it's just one poll and polls can sometimes miss
29:43
Speaker 1: the mark.
29:43
Speaker 2: I mean, every once in a while that happens.
29:46
Speaker 1: Every once in a while. Yeah, you got to watch
29:48
Speaker 1: out for that.
29:48
Speaker 2: I mean, my first reaction when seeing the top line
29:51
Speaker 2: number was relief, right? Six points is still a significant lead.
29:55
Speaker 2: When you look at this, McAuliffe's at 49% and has
29:57
Speaker 2: room to grow. Because he's at 49 and underperforming. He's
30:01
Speaker 2: getting less of Biden's voters than Youngkin is getting of
30:04
Speaker 2: Trump's voters. So he is well positioned. What is happening
30:08
Speaker 2: underneath is concerning. And the reason we care is we
30:11
Speaker 2: care about the people of Virginia. We want them to
30:13
Speaker 2: have a good governor, not a Trumpy private equity executive,
30:17
Speaker 2: which is a real tongue twister. But it also– Rich guy.
30:23
Speaker 2: He is a very, very rich guy. Yeah. he, but it,
30:28
Speaker 2: it sets the political narrative for the year. If Republicans
30:30
Speaker 2: win the state that has been moving steadily in democratic
30:33
Speaker 2: direction since 2008, it would, you know, give a huge
30:37
Speaker 2: boost in momentum and fundraising to them. You could see
30:40
Speaker 2: if we are not, I mean, I hope it's not
30:43
Speaker 2: the case, but if you're not through passing the elements
30:46
Speaker 2: of the Biden economic agenda, like, like the, we talked
30:50
Speaker 2: about with the poll numbers, it could bring that to
30:52
Speaker 2: a screeching halt. Um, On one level, you can look
30:55
Speaker 2: at these– the enthusiastic numbers of Virginia and say, you
30:58
Speaker 2: know what? I don't blame Virginia voters for being fucking tired.
31:01
Speaker 2: Their election schedule is stupid. They have to do– think
31:04
Speaker 2: about it this way, right?
31:05
Speaker 1: They– 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Yeah, no.
31:07
Speaker 2: It's like you can't have a presidential battleground state, a
31:13
Speaker 2: state filled with competitive house races necessary to keep or
31:16
Speaker 2: take the majority and then have a governorship on one
31:20
Speaker 2: year and then two years later put most of your
31:21
Speaker 2: state legislature up there. Like it's just– it's exhausting. But–
31:25
Speaker 2: and we've talked about this as it relates to California.
31:27
Speaker 2: When you look at the polling in California, you see
31:29
Speaker 2: a similar level lack of Democratic enthusiasm there. If you
31:34
Speaker 2: talk anecdotally to a lot of different sort of grassroots
31:37
Speaker 2: activist groups, it's not that Democrats are not excited because
31:42
Speaker 2: there are still a lot of people volunteering and donating.
31:46
Speaker 2: But it's not at the sort of level that it
31:49
Speaker 2: was from 2017 to 2021.
31:49
Speaker 1: Yeah.
31:52
Speaker 2: And that is concerning. And that made me like, yes,
31:55
Speaker 2: we could probably win a state like Virginia with a
31:57
Speaker 2: candidate like Terry McAuliffe, who was incredibly well-known and well-liked
32:00
Speaker 2: in that state. But what happens when you get to
32:03
Speaker 2: Pennsylvania Senate race, Wisconsin Senate race, Arizona, Georgia, some of
32:08
Speaker 2: these closer House races? If there's an enthusiasm gap like
32:11
Speaker 2: this one going into those election days, we will lose.
32:14
Speaker 2: We will lose the House and the Senate. That's pure math.
32:18
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, people need to people need to start paying
32:21
Speaker 1: attention a little bit more. I don't know how many
32:24
Speaker 1: times to say, you know, it's like you hear some
32:26
Speaker 1: of these warnings and you're like, oh, it sounds so
32:28
Speaker 1: it sounds so gloomy and dismal. It's not to make
32:31
Speaker 1: everything gloomy and dismal. It's to say that, like, our
32:34
Speaker 1: destiny is in our hands here. Right. And if you
32:38
Speaker 1: go out and you get people fired up that, you know,
32:40
Speaker 1: and you get them engaged, you get them registered to
32:42
Speaker 1: vote and we do what we did in 18, do
32:43
Speaker 1: it in 20. Like these elections are ours for the taking.
32:47
Speaker 1: But if all we do is say, you know, I'm
32:49
Speaker 1: pretty tired and checked out. I got to take a
32:51
Speaker 1: break now. Then we're going to get really close results
32:55
Speaker 1: in blue states and lose a bunch of purple and
32:58
Speaker 1: red states. That's basically what we're facing.
33:00
Speaker 2: I mean, the one sort of maybe counterpart of this,
33:04
Speaker 2: it is like we'll want to check back in on
33:06
Speaker 2: this post Labor Day. Like this has been a shitty summer, right?
33:10
Speaker 2: It is August, which is already usually a time of
33:14
Speaker 2: some measure of disengagement. There's obviously a lot happening around
33:18
Speaker 2: the world, as you just talked about. It's definitely like
33:20
Speaker 2: we're dealing with Delta and all these other things. There's
33:23
Speaker 2: more than enough time to get this problem fixed for
33:27
Speaker 2: the midterms.
33:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, look, so digging into the poll, right? We talked
33:31
Speaker 1: about some of the good news. Youngkin has outspent McAuliffe $ 16. 9
33:36
Speaker 1: million to $ 11. 3 million so far. He's still losing by six.
33:40
Speaker 1: His favorability is 37% favorable, 40% unfavorable. So those aren't
33:44
Speaker 1: great numbers for Youngkin. It's not like that the race
33:47
Speaker 1: is close because people love him. Um, of the 5% undecided,
33:51
Speaker 1: nearly half are registered Democrats, a group that Youngkin is
33:54
Speaker 1: losing by 94 to one. Um, Trump is 20 points
33:58
Speaker 1: underwater in the state of Virginia right now in this poll.
34:01
Speaker 1: And 54% of voters found a message tying Youngkin to Trump,
34:05
Speaker 1: a persuasive reason to oppose him. So that's some, that's
34:08
Speaker 1: some good news too. And then now we should talk
34:10
Speaker 1: about sort of the issue environment, right? Which is obviously it's, uh,
34:14
Speaker 1: specific to Virginia in this poll, but I think you
34:16
Speaker 1: can extrapolate about sort of the larger issue environment nationally
34:20
Speaker 1: from some of the stuff that we're seeing here. Voters
34:22
Speaker 1: think McAuliffe would handle almost every issue better than Young
34:24
Speaker 1: can by significant margins, including climate change, income inequality, education, abortion,
34:29
Speaker 1: and housing. Voters also agree with McAuliffe's positions on vaccine
34:33
Speaker 1: and mask requirements. They approve them by 60%. So it's
34:35
Speaker 1: not like There's, you know, Youngkin's position on a lot
34:41
Speaker 1: of issues aren't what's driving a lot of the race here.
34:45
Speaker 1: Although we can see now back back to the challenging news.
34:49
Speaker 5: Yes.
34:49
Speaker 1: It's called bad news. It's called challenging. A lot of
34:53
Speaker 1: the Republican messages are breaking through to voters. So 79
34:57
Speaker 1: percent of all Virginians, including 68 percent of Democrats, consider
35:02
Speaker 1: violent crime to be a threat to Virginia. That's in
35:04
Speaker 1: the poll. Over 90 percent of Youngkin voters believe that
35:08
Speaker 1: critical race theory, illegal immigration, voter fraud and socialism pose
35:12
Speaker 1: significant threats to Virginia. Also, more than half of undecided
35:17
Speaker 1: voters and the third of Biden voters who are not
35:19
Speaker 1: yet supporting McAuliffe think that critical race theory is at
35:23
Speaker 1: least a medium sized threat. What's your take on on
35:27
Speaker 1: sort of where where the issue environment is right now?
35:31
Speaker 2: It speaks to the power of the right-wing media ecosystem.
35:35
Speaker 2: Crime is a real issue that affects people's lives. I
35:38
Speaker 2: think the numbers in here suggest that the Republican focus
35:42
Speaker 2: on crime has given it a disproportionate role in the election, but.
35:48
Speaker 1: We should- I would also say, by the way, that
35:50
Speaker 1: it is, just before I forget, it's a Republican focus
35:53
Speaker 1: on crime and a Republican media focus on crime. Crime
35:55
Speaker 1: is also something that local media- Even nonpartisan local media
36:00
Speaker 1: and just all media tends to focus on when there
36:02
Speaker 1: is crime, it gets reported, it makes headlines. And so
36:07
Speaker 1: even if you look at overall crime rates and they're
36:09
Speaker 1: not that much different and all this kind of, you know,
36:12
Speaker 1: you look at all that, it's when crime happens, when
36:15
Speaker 1: violent crime happens, it gets reported and people see it
36:18
Speaker 1: and they start worrying.
36:20
Speaker 2: And it leads the news.
36:21
Speaker 5: Right.
36:21
Speaker 1: And it's very, very rarely in.
36:25
Speaker 2: The context of how often it happens, right? Or what
36:28
Speaker 2: the circumstances are. But so as your point, crime is real.
36:33
Speaker 2: Critical race theory and the rise of socialism are fake.
36:36
Speaker 1: Those are made, that is a- Entirely generated by the
36:40
Speaker 1: Republican media machine.
36:41
Speaker 4: Yes.
36:41
Speaker 2: It is not a thing that's happening. We had a
36:43
Speaker 2: great conversation about this a few weeks ago or a
36:45
Speaker 2: month or so ago with Jelani Cobb on critical race theory.
36:49
Speaker 2: Socialism is not rising. It's all bullshit. It is just
36:52
Speaker 2: a Republican narrative, right-wing media narrative that is permeating to
36:57
Speaker 2: large swaths of the public. And one of the interesting
37:00
Speaker 2: things in this poll was that change actually separated out
37:04
Speaker 2: the Republicans who self-identify as consuming right-wing media. That could
37:08
Speaker 2: be Fox. It could be Newsmax, something like that. And
37:11
Speaker 2: the Republicans who self-identify as only consuming mainstream media, local news, newspapers, etc.,
37:18
Speaker 2: Over 90% of the Republicans who consume right-wing media think
37:21
Speaker 2: critical race theory is a significant or major threat. But
37:27
Speaker 2: more than 80% of the non-right-wing media-consuming Republicans also feel
37:32
Speaker 2: that way. And so this is not– and I think
37:35
Speaker 2: this is just such an important thing for us as
37:37
Speaker 2: Democrats and political analysts to recognize is these things spread
37:42
Speaker 2: far beyond the very small audience of people who watch
37:45
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson every night. It is everywhere. And we have
37:48
Speaker 2: to find ways to deal with it. We have to
37:50
Speaker 2: recognize it's in the issue environment. We have to respond
37:52
Speaker 2: to it. We have to deal with it. And I
37:55
Speaker 2: think that it is a warning sign and it's going
37:59
Speaker 2: to be a bigger problem in a more nationalized political
38:04
Speaker 2: environment in 2022.
38:06
Speaker 1: So one question about how to deal with it. We
38:08
Speaker 1: actually tested out two messages about critical race theory that
38:12
Speaker 1: Democrats could possibly use. One is about how Republicans want
38:15
Speaker 1: to ban our schools from teaching our children about difficult
38:18
Speaker 1: issues like slavery or racism, but denying the uglier parts
38:21
Speaker 1: of our history denies the heroism of everyone who fought
38:23
Speaker 1: to right those wrongs. Another message we tested is Republicans
38:27
Speaker 1: want the federal government to decide what's being taught in
38:29
Speaker 1: local schools, but teachers should have the freedom to teach
38:32
Speaker 1: all of American history without Congress dictating lesson plans. That
38:35
Speaker 1: one did much better with voters, uh, from all parties,
38:40
Speaker 1: which is interesting. It's the idea that Republican politicians in
38:44
Speaker 1: Washington are going to get in the way of what
38:45
Speaker 1: teachers want to teach your kids. Although it is interesting
38:48
Speaker 1: and somewhat sad, I would argue that the one that
38:51
Speaker 1: didn't actually mention critical race theory or race in general
38:54
Speaker 1: was the one that did better than, than the, uh,
38:56
Speaker 1: the one. And I mean, it's not surprising because it
38:58
Speaker 1: did better with Republicans and independents, but it does show
39:01
Speaker 1: that there is some opening for Democrats to respond to
39:04
Speaker 1: these attacks on critical race theory.
39:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely.
39:08
Speaker 1: Um, We also tested sort of messages about Youngkin and McAuliffe.
39:15
Speaker 1: The most persuasive positive messages for McAuliffe were talking about
39:18
Speaker 1: his plans, helping small businesses, raising the minimum wage, providing
39:22
Speaker 1: childcare and paid leave. The most persuasive negative message about
39:27
Speaker 1: Youngkin was at Carlisle, he was a private equity executive
39:32
Speaker 1: at the Carlisle Group. At Carlisle, Youngkin outsourced and laid
39:35
Speaker 1: off employees. As governor, he'll take care of himself and
39:37
Speaker 1: wealthy friends at your expense. Boy, isn't that deja vu
39:41
Speaker 1: to a guy named Mitt Romney that we ran against
39:44
Speaker 1: in 2012. It was basically the most powerful message against
39:46
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney that we had all that we tested in
39:49
Speaker 1: the Obama campaign. And it's amazing that this many years later,
39:51
Speaker 1: it's still the most effective message against Youngkin. And we
39:54
Speaker 1: also tested messages about his closeness to Trump. The fact that, um,
39:59
Speaker 1: He had appeared at a rally with one of the
40:01
Speaker 1: insurrectionists on January 6th that he's going to Trumpify Virginia.
40:05
Speaker 1: And by the way, those messages were effective, so I
40:07
Speaker 1: don't want to dismiss the effectiveness of the Trump messages.
40:10
Speaker 1: But he's a rich guy who outsources jobs and was
40:13
Speaker 1: a wealthy private equity executive is just a few points
40:17
Speaker 1: better than those messages and the most effective ones. What
40:20
Speaker 1: did you think of that? And is there anything, what
40:22
Speaker 1: did you think of that? And then is there anything
40:23
Speaker 1: to learn from that that we can sort of extrapolate
40:25
Speaker 1: to the larger national political environment today? as Democrats think
40:28
Speaker 1: about the midterms?
40:31
Speaker 2: We have to relearn this lesson every single time, which
40:34
Speaker 2: is the difference between Mitt Romney's 2012 loss and Donald
40:40
Speaker 2: Trump's 2016 win, other than Jim Comey's gigantic ego and
40:45
Speaker 2: some Russian shenanigans, is turnout among working-class Republican white voters
40:53
Speaker 2: in rural areas. That is the difference. There are some
40:56
Speaker 2: shifting from Obama to Trump, and then some shifting from
40:59
Speaker 2: non-voter to voter. It's because there is a schism to
41:03
Speaker 2: be drawn in the Republican Party between their corporatist, plutocratic, tax-cut-loving,
41:09
Speaker 2: Medicare-cutting agenda and their working-class populist base. We saw that
41:13
Speaker 2: work in 2012. We saw that work in 2018 with
41:15
Speaker 2: a lot of races. It was part of the Biden message,
41:20
Speaker 2: the Main Street, Wall Street situation, and it should work here.
41:24
Speaker 2: And obviously, maybe a broader lesson to Republicans, and I'll
41:27
Speaker 2: regret this if Youngkin comes back and wins, but is rich,
41:32
Speaker 2: politically maladroit private equity executives is maybe not who you
41:36
Speaker 2: want to go hand your party nomination to, just in general?
41:39
Speaker 1: And look, we should draw a distinction between him and Trump,
41:42
Speaker 1: because some people are probably thinking, well, wasn't Trump a
41:44
Speaker 1: rich guy? Yes, but Trump worked pretty hard to make
41:47
Speaker 1: sure that his identity was not a rich guy. Yes. Yes.
41:52
Speaker 2: I mean, he had all the policies of a rich guy,
41:54
Speaker 2: but he also ran, he was able to like, this
41:58
Speaker 2: is a seven pod series about how I use nativism.
42:01
Speaker 1: As a proxy for populism.
42:04
Speaker 5: Right.
42:04
Speaker 2: But he was a, you know, he, he was able to,
42:08
Speaker 2: to have an identity that was different than Mitt Romney
42:10
Speaker 2: or Glenn Trumpkin as the McAuliffe came in, which I
42:14
Speaker 2: have to say, That hurts my ears every time I
42:18
Speaker 2: hear them say it or I receive an email from
42:20
Speaker 2: the McAuliffe campaign with it. But I do understand why
42:23
Speaker 2: they're doing it in the poll. Yeah, I do. It
42:25
Speaker 2: makes sense. The other thing about Trump that's interesting is
42:28
Speaker 2: he is a net negative with the broader electorate, and
42:30
Speaker 2: he's not even really a net positive with even young voters.
42:35
Speaker 2: Only 8% of young voters say Trump's support is a
42:38
Speaker 2: major reason why they're supporting him. That's interesting. Virginia is
42:40
Speaker 2: a very anti-Trump state. Just demographically, it is. But it's
42:46
Speaker 2: something to watch going forward that we saw a little
42:49
Speaker 2: bit of this in some of these special elections that
42:50
Speaker 2: maybe we're overstating Trump's impact within the Republican Party. When
42:57
Speaker 2: I look at this, I see a couple of things
42:59
Speaker 2: that I think Democrats need to focus on. One is
43:01
Speaker 2: get people reengaged and fired up. And part of that,
43:05
Speaker 2: I think, is finding messages about the Republicans that raise
43:10
Speaker 2: the stakes of the election. We won Virginia in 2017,
43:13
Speaker 2: the House in 2018, the presidency in 2020 because Democrats voted, organized,
43:17
Speaker 2: and donated as if the civilization depended on it. And
43:21
Speaker 2: it may not feel that way right now with Democrats
43:23
Speaker 2: in control of everything. And we need to– and once again,
43:28
Speaker 2: it does again, right? We've talked about it before, but
43:30
Speaker 2: the consequences of losing either House or Congress is devastating.
43:34
Speaker 2: And people have to understand what that means. And so
43:37
Speaker 2: we need to find our– truthful, non-racist, non-offensive, non-bigoted, non-Nativist
43:43
Speaker 2: versions of some of these Republican issues like critical race
43:48
Speaker 2: theory and socialism that get people fired up. Because you
43:49
Speaker 2: can sort of understand why Republicans are more fired up
43:52
Speaker 2: than Democrats because we're talking about what we're putting on
43:56
Speaker 2: your kitchen table and Republicans are saying that the civilization
43:58
Speaker 2: outside your house is burning down. Obviously, they're going to
44:01
Speaker 2: be more fired up over that because they create this
44:04
Speaker 2: apocalyptic political environment. And we were able to do that
44:07
Speaker 2: because Trump was such a dangerous manifestation of that.
44:11
Speaker 1: Well, that isn't that the challenge of a message that
44:15
Speaker 1: Republicans are rich assholes who are going to help their
44:18
Speaker 1: rich friends, right? We know that if you pull that message,
44:21
Speaker 1: it ends up being the most effective message. And you
44:23
Speaker 1: can say Democrats are fighting hard for the middle class.
44:25
Speaker 1: Look at all Joe Biden's economic plans, right? Like, you know,
44:28
Speaker 1: that polls really well. It is hard to make that
44:32
Speaker 1: message feel as urgent as and to raise the stakes
44:36
Speaker 1: with that message as some of the Republican messages are.
44:40
Speaker 1: And so then if you're a Democrat, you think, okay, well,
44:43
Speaker 1: the messages that really raise the stakes are about the
44:46
Speaker 1: very real Republican threats to democracy itself, or the idea
44:51
Speaker 1: that if Republicans are in charge, like the planet is
44:55
Speaker 1: fucked because we're not going to do anything about climate change, right?
44:57
Speaker 1: So like, then you sort of gravitate towards those messages.
45:00
Speaker 1: And then the other problem you have is, the media
45:03
Speaker 1: narratives don't necessarily cooperate well with the economic messages, right?
45:08
Speaker 1: Because the media doesn't necessarily focus on economic inequality, economic
45:14
Speaker 1: populism in a way that Democrats might want them to, right?
45:18
Speaker 1: The media narrative is unpredictable and it's all over the place.
45:21
Speaker 1: And so it is hard to find a message that
45:23
Speaker 1: sort of marries up with the media environment, which is
45:26
Speaker 1: how a lot of voters just consume information about the world.
45:31
Speaker 1: for Democrats if they're using a lot of these economic messages.
45:33
Speaker 1: I'm thinking out loud here, but that's what I think
45:36
Speaker 1: we've never really figured out and what's really challenging for Democrats.
45:39
Speaker 2: That's right. Because you need not just media coverage, but
45:43
Speaker 2: media coverage that breaks through. And you need content that
45:48
Speaker 2: gets engagement in social media and therefore a show to
45:51
Speaker 2: more people. And you know, I've talked to a lot
45:55
Speaker 2: to several progressive groups. We've been testing a lot of
45:57
Speaker 2: things and the economic message is hard. I mean, we
45:58
Speaker 2: see it sometimes in our own content when we write,
46:01
Speaker 2: write and talk about infrastructure, right? It's not exactly like
46:05
Speaker 2: people don't care, firing it off. Um, but there are
46:09
Speaker 2: like in this poll, I think there are three things
46:12
Speaker 2: that I think are worthy of further exploration than one
46:15
Speaker 2: sort of way to think about polling going forward. The
46:18
Speaker 2: three things are, um, 90% of McCullough voters see climate
46:23
Speaker 2: change and white supremacy as significant threats facing Virginia.
46:28
Speaker 1: Yeah.
46:29
Speaker 2: That's something to think about, about how we message that.
46:32
Speaker 2: And there's obviously nuance to how you do it, but
46:34
Speaker 2: the politics of climate have shifted that I think it
46:37
Speaker 2: can become, and it can tie into that plutocratic message
46:41
Speaker 2: because of who you're fighting for there. The other one
46:44
Speaker 2: is vaccine and mask mandates. I've been doing a whole
46:46
Speaker 2: bunch of research on this for a forthcoming message box,
46:50
Speaker 2: but I'm becoming more and more convinced that Democrats should
46:52
Speaker 2: run aggressively on vaccine mandates. And McAuliffe has started doing that.
46:57
Speaker 2: And Youngkin felt so sort of on the defensive about
47:00
Speaker 2: it that he had to put out an ad where
47:02
Speaker 2: he was kind of sort of maybe encouraging Virginians to
47:07
Speaker 2: get the vaccine. But he was too afraid of upsetting
47:10
Speaker 2: the MAGA base to really do it. And it sort
47:12
Speaker 2: of puts Republicans in a really impossible position. And that's
47:14
Speaker 2: kind of what you want to do. And then in general,
47:17
Speaker 2: I think one thing we have to think about as
47:19
Speaker 2: a broader political community when it comes to polling is
47:22
Speaker 2: looking as much at motivation as support, right? Yes, we
47:28
Speaker 2: see this all like people love this bill. People love
47:31
Speaker 2: the Biff. Are people really going to get fired up
47:33
Speaker 2: and vote?
47:33
Speaker 1: Is that going to get them off their couch? Yeah.
47:35
Speaker 1: Is the Biff going to get them off their couch?
47:36
Speaker 1: That's the question.
47:38
Speaker 2: I'm going to venture no on that.
47:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, no kidding. No, that is, I think we have
47:44
Speaker 1: laid out what the challenge is here. and there are
47:47
Speaker 1: a lot of opportunities, but like, and also we've laid
47:49
Speaker 1: out the fact that, I mean, a lot of these
47:51
Speaker 1: we've presented as choices, but I think Democrats are going
47:54
Speaker 1: to have to do sort of both all of the above, right?
47:56
Speaker 1: Like there are, you're going to have to get people
47:58
Speaker 1: out by talking about the giant stakes in this election.
48:01
Speaker 1: You also have to realize that there are independent voters,
48:05
Speaker 1: swing voters, voters who aren't engaged in every election, who
48:09
Speaker 1: don't vote in every election that are going to care
48:12
Speaker 1: more about some of these economic issues and making sure
48:15
Speaker 1: that the Democrats have actually done something to improve their lives.
48:18
Speaker 1: And you're going to have to figure out a way
48:19
Speaker 1: to message all of the above, I think, right? And
48:23
Speaker 1: it's not satisfying because a message is supposed to be
48:25
Speaker 1: like succinct and simple and stuff like that. But I
48:27
Speaker 1: think in this environment, you need to find a way
48:30
Speaker 1: to communicate like all of these messages to different groups
48:33
Speaker 1: of voters.
48:34
Speaker 2: That's right. I mean, to think about it, to sort
48:36
Speaker 2: of put a fine point on the challenge, and like
48:39
Speaker 2: this is in this, you'll see this in this polling
48:41
Speaker 2: in Virginia, which is You need a bunch of younger,
48:45
Speaker 2: by definition, more progressive voters who were potentially tuned out
48:49
Speaker 2: before 2016, tuned in in the Trump era, and maybe
48:54
Speaker 2: tuning out. And you need a bunch of suburban Mitt
48:58
Speaker 2: Romney voting Republicans who turned against their party to vote
49:03
Speaker 2: for maybe Hillary Clinton, but definitely Joe Biden. in because
49:06
Speaker 2: of trump to keep them in the fold so you
49:08
Speaker 2: have to get these people on the left more engaged
49:10
Speaker 2: these people in the center from defaulting back to their
49:13
Speaker 2: natural home.
49:16
Speaker 1: Need them both. Okay. We'll end there for now. When
49:20
Speaker 1: we come back, Tommy and I talk to California Senator
49:23
Speaker 1: Alex Padilla. Joining us now is the junior senator from California,
49:36
Speaker 1: our Senator Alex Padilla. Senator, welcome to Pod Save America.
49:39
Speaker 5: Thank you guys for having me.
49:40
Speaker 4: Thank you for coming in. It's amazing to have you
49:41
Speaker 4: in studio. We would love to just jump right into
49:44
Speaker 4: the recall because we're here in California. I think the
49:48
Speaker 4: East Coast forgets about us and all the things that
49:51
Speaker 4: are happening in the state from wildfires to elections that
49:54
Speaker 4: will determine the fate of tens of millions of people.
49:56
Speaker 4: But I digress, John.
49:56
Speaker 1: Sorry.
49:58
Speaker 4: The people I know who work for and around Governor Newsom,
50:03
Speaker 4: his staff, They went from, I think, being kind of
50:06
Speaker 4: annoyed by the recall effort because it was an expensive
50:08
Speaker 4: distraction to seemingly being now concerned about whether Governor Newsom
50:14
Speaker 4: could be recalled.
50:15
Speaker 3: There's some recent polling that shows it's tightening.
50:18
Speaker 4: Why do you think that's happening and what do you
50:20
Speaker 4: think people can do about it?
50:21
Speaker 3: What do they need to know?
50:22
Speaker 5: Look, I think part of why it's happening is a
50:25
Speaker 5: recognition that we're living in some very unique times, right?
50:29
Speaker 5: This isn't a normal year. It's We're in the middle
50:32
Speaker 5: of a global health pandemic. People worried about just staying alive.
50:35
Speaker 5: Number one, we're also at a time like my wife
50:38
Speaker 5: and I just started sending our kids back to school
50:39
Speaker 5: last week. Thank God, right? In person, but with masks
50:43
Speaker 5: and hourly sanitizer. So there's just a lot going on
50:45
Speaker 5: in your mind to, to make you anxious and to
50:48
Speaker 5: process through all that, uh, an election at an odd time.
50:52
Speaker 5: Like what's this recall thing. It's only happened a few
50:54
Speaker 5: times in the course of history, uh, but it is critical, right?
50:57
Speaker 5: It is critical. Uh, so, uh, uh, Can't rest on
51:01
Speaker 5: our laurels. Yes, there's more Democrats registered in California than Republicans,
51:04
Speaker 5: but it doesn't mean anything if people don't vote. Happy
51:08
Speaker 5: to see a lot of the reforms I put in
51:10
Speaker 5: place when I was Secretary of State continue to be exercised.
51:13
Speaker 5: Send every registered voter a ballot in the mail automatically, right?
51:16
Speaker 5: Let's make it easy.
51:17
Speaker 3: Thank you for that.
51:18
Speaker 5: I'm very lazy.
51:18
Speaker 3: I'm incredibly lazy.
51:19
Speaker 5: I like doing it in other states.
51:20
Speaker 3: That was great.
51:21
Speaker 5: And no easier way to vote than by mail. Mail
51:25
Speaker 5: it back in. You don't even have to worry about
51:27
Speaker 5: a stamp, right? Postage is covered. If you want to
51:30
Speaker 5: vote in person, you can vote early. You can vote
51:32
Speaker 5: the day of. You can vote at any vote center
51:34
Speaker 5: in your county. Like there are literally no excuses, folks.
51:36
Speaker 5: But when it comes to the recall, here's how I
51:38
Speaker 5: see it. Not just I do think the governor is
51:41
Speaker 5: doing a good job. This wasn't the first recall attempt
51:45
Speaker 5: at him.
51:45
Speaker 1: There was multiple.
51:46
Speaker 5: This is the one that finally qualified because there was
51:48
Speaker 5: a frustration about COVID. And have forbid we had a
51:52
Speaker 5: governor that listened to the public health experts and the
51:56
Speaker 5: scientists and And said, hey, folks, I want to keep
51:58
Speaker 5: the people of California alive. We're going to need to
52:00
Speaker 5: quarantine for a bit. And when we go out, we're
52:03
Speaker 5: going to need to wear masks. And, yes, socially distance
52:05
Speaker 5: and use hand sanitizer. If only that was the case
52:08
Speaker 5: in Texas and Florida and some other places, maybe the
52:10
Speaker 5: nation wouldn't be where we are today. So if you
52:15
Speaker 5: want a governor that cares about literally your life. vote
52:18
Speaker 5: no on the recall. And make sure you vote. The
52:22
Speaker 5: other thing I'll add, because I know you guys are
52:23
Speaker 5: a sophisticated bunch, is a national perspective. You see this
52:30
Speaker 5: BS of an audit in Arizona? That would never fly here.
52:33
Speaker 5: I know the state and local elections officials in California.
52:36
Speaker 5: We stand by the integrity of our elections. You see
52:39
Speaker 5: the voter suppression tactics in Texas and Georgia, other places?
52:43
Speaker 5: That would never fly. The California legislature knows better. And
52:47
Speaker 5: so if you're a Trump Republican eager to grab power
52:50
Speaker 5: somehow in California, you can't win on a regular election.
52:54
Speaker 5: Maybe you roll the dice and try this recall. That's
52:56
Speaker 5: really what's going on.
52:57
Speaker 1: A lot of recent polls have shown a surprising level
53:00
Speaker 1: of support for the recall among Latino voters. Why do
53:03
Speaker 1: you think that is?
53:04
Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, I don't think it's firm. Having worked in
53:08
Speaker 5: electoral politics for a couple of decades now, I've seen
53:12
Speaker 5: the trend too often, frankly, but Latino voters are just
53:16
Speaker 5: kind of a little bit later, start paying attention a
53:18
Speaker 5: little bit later, start doing our homework and a little
53:20
Speaker 5: bit later to get around to making our plan to vote.
53:23
Speaker 5: But we do and in increasing numbers. And so, frankly,
53:27
Speaker 5: that's what the campaign is for. You know, we weren't
53:30
Speaker 5: issued ballots the day that recall qualified. The date was set.
53:33
Speaker 5: And now the election is happening. The ballots are flying.
53:36
Speaker 5: You see the ads on the air, both English and Spanish,
53:39
Speaker 5: thankful and bilingual, trying to do my part. And I
53:42
Speaker 5: think as Latinos do get the message of what's at stake, right,
53:46
Speaker 5: we have a governor who cares about immigrants, for example,
53:49
Speaker 5: and is investing in the immigrant community. Or we can
53:51
Speaker 5: go backwards with one of these other folks that are
53:54
Speaker 5: on the ballot if the recall were to pass. You know,
53:57
Speaker 5: we have a governor who cares about climate and the
53:59
Speaker 5: future of our planet. We have a governor who's investing
54:02
Speaker 5: more in education, access to health care, all the stuff
54:04
Speaker 5: that Latino families, every family, frankly, really cares about. Do
54:08
Speaker 5: you want to keep going in this direction or do
54:10
Speaker 5: you want to go backwards?
54:12
Speaker 1: You think the Newsom campaign is doing enough to reach
54:13
Speaker 1: out to Latino communities? Because I saw a bunch of
54:15
Speaker 1: Democratic strategists, Latino organizers that are sounding the alarm about this.
54:19
Speaker 1: Are they wrong to be that worried?
54:21
Speaker 5: No, I think they're both right. I do think the
54:22
Speaker 5: Newsom campaign is doing a lot more than I've seen
54:27
Speaker 5: in typical statewide campaigns over the course of the decades
54:30
Speaker 5: that I've been involved. But there's always more to do.
54:34
Speaker 5: You know, there's no substitute for grassroots campaigns. You count Facebook, Twitter,
54:38
Speaker 5: your way, you know, to victory here. It means organizing
54:42
Speaker 5: in communities. And if 2020 was any indicator, right, important
54:46
Speaker 5: statewide races, house races, legislative races, we had the census
54:49
Speaker 5: in 2020 with the limitations because of COVID, right? Going
54:53
Speaker 5: door to door is not the same these days. Are
54:55
Speaker 5: we willing to shake somebody's hand is not the same
54:57
Speaker 5: these days. But we've got to do that outreach, particularly
55:01
Speaker 5: in Latino communities.
55:02
Speaker 3: So I have some.
55:04
Speaker 3: Petulant liberal friends here in California.
55:08
Speaker 4: They're progressive, but they're annoyed at Gavin for various reasons.
55:11
Speaker 4: They're frustrated by all the things that we all had
55:14
Speaker 4: to go through because of COVID. And they're thinking about
55:17
Speaker 4: sitting this election out. And their argument goes something like, look,
55:21
Speaker 4: even if someone right wing and crazy like Larry Elder
55:24
Speaker 4: gets elected, what damage can he really do? There's a
55:28
Speaker 4: veto proof majority in the state legislature, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
55:32
Speaker 4: Can you explain to these big-brained liberals what damage could
55:36
Speaker 4: actually be done if we had a Republican governor over
55:39
Speaker 4: the next year and a half or whatever?
55:40
Speaker 5: Well, let's explain by analogy, right? Let's, you know, from
55:44
Speaker 5: 2018 to 2020, well, hey, Democrats took back the House.
55:48
Speaker 5: Nancy Pelosi was in many ways a backstop to a
55:50
Speaker 5: lot of what Republicans are trying to accomplish, not just
55:53
Speaker 5: Republican senators, but Trump, right? So did it matter who
55:58
Speaker 5: the president was? Of course it did. Who's appointing judges
56:02
Speaker 5: to the bench? Who's appointing cabinet secretaries? Who's appointing heads
56:08
Speaker 5: of different key departments and agencies? Even if it's for
56:12
Speaker 5: a year of elder, God help us. Imagine that at
56:18
Speaker 5: the state level. And let me remind us, California is
56:21
Speaker 5: the most populous state in the nation, the most diverse
56:23
Speaker 5: state in the nation, the fifth largest economy in the world.
56:28
Speaker 5: large economy of any state in the nation. So yes,
56:31
Speaker 5: even for an interim time period, there's damage that can
56:33
Speaker 5: be done. That's what's at risk. That's why we need
56:35
Speaker 5: to vote no on the recall.
56:37
Speaker 4: The other thing you do here is that, you know,
56:40
Speaker 4: the stakes could involve your colleague, Senator Feinstein. Like, I
56:43
Speaker 4: know this is a delicate subject, but there's been some
56:45
Speaker 4: reporting where, you know, the New Yorker Politico have reported
56:49
Speaker 4: out suggestions from colleagues that she might be, you know,
56:51
Speaker 4: having some memory loss, some cognitive decline. There's a question
56:54
Speaker 4: of whether if Newsom is recalled, you get a Republican
56:57
Speaker 4: in her place, Feinstein retires early, that Republican governor could
57:01
Speaker 4: name her replacement. Given that concern, have you heard any
57:05
Speaker 4: talk of or recommendations that she maybe retire early and
57:09
Speaker 4: eliminate that risk? Is that something people are thinking about?
57:13
Speaker 5: Maybe I've kind of heard it in the political gossip columns,
57:16
Speaker 5: but not in reality. That's nothing that we've talked about
57:19
Speaker 5: in the Senate or with the governor, but I get
57:22
Speaker 5: where it's sort of a, coming from. And so let
57:24
Speaker 5: that be the biggest reminder of why we need to
57:28
Speaker 5: keep Governor Newsom in that seat. Look, it doesn't have
57:32
Speaker 5: to be Feinstein. My wife reminds me every day when
57:35
Speaker 5: I'm in Washington, we're on the phone, she says, please,
57:38
Speaker 5: please look both ways before crossing the street. But heaven
57:41
Speaker 5: forbid I get sideswiped and we're now in a 50-49
57:46
Speaker 5: Republican majority in the Senate. So that's The times that
57:51
Speaker 5: we're living in.
57:51
Speaker 3: Well, now I'm anxious about two things.
57:53
Speaker 1: God. There's 50 things to be anxious about.
57:56
Speaker 5: Last time I said that, my phone blew up. Just DoorDash, man.
58:00
Speaker 1: Just DoorDash.
58:01
Speaker 3: Can we get you a driver maybe?
58:02
Speaker 1: So, I mean, I want to ask you this because
58:04
Speaker 1: you were Secretary of State. Like the recall will cost
58:07
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars for the state, right? It's
58:09
Speaker 1: the number of signatures required to trigger a recall is
58:12
Speaker 1: relatively small. It's pretty easy to get on the ballot.
58:15
Speaker 1: Someone could end up winning with a very small percentage
58:17
Speaker 1: of votes. Do you think it's time for the state
58:18
Speaker 1: of California to repeal or at least reform the recall process?
58:23
Speaker 5: Oh, I absolutely expect a lot of conversation. There are
58:25
Speaker 5: probably some proposals once the recall is over, right? You
58:28
Speaker 5: don't want to debate the rules when you're in the
58:30
Speaker 5: middle of the game. But once the recall is over,
58:32
Speaker 5: win or lose, and God, I pray that the recall
58:34
Speaker 5: is defeated, they're going to revisit that question. And frankly,
58:37
Speaker 5: it comes up every election cycle. California is known for
58:40
Speaker 5: our initiative process, how many propositions are in every ballot,
58:44
Speaker 5: Is it too easy to qualify a measure? Is it
58:46
Speaker 5: too hard to qualify a measure? You bring the threshold down, then, oh,
58:50
Speaker 5: you're going to crowd the ballot. It's too easy to qualify.
58:52
Speaker 5: But you raise it too high, then all of a
58:54
Speaker 5: sudden it's no longer citizen democracy. People go back to
58:58
Speaker 5: the progressive movement and the reforms of the 1920s. So
59:03
Speaker 5: I think it's important, healthy debate, especially as they're maybe
59:06
Speaker 5: changing the rules of how you gather signatures. You know,
59:09
Speaker 5: once upon a time it was, you know, door to door,
59:11
Speaker 5: standing in front of the grocery store, there's been a
59:13
Speaker 5: push to let people submit their signatures electronically. So if
59:16
Speaker 5: you can all do it by email blast pretty soon,
59:18
Speaker 5: then yes, is the threshold too high or too low?
59:22
Speaker 5: So It's a complex conversation, but let's get past the
59:25
Speaker 5: recall first.
59:25
Speaker 1: Yeah. So turning to your current day job in Washington,
59:29
Speaker 1: you're in the middle of budget negotiations right now. You've
59:31
Speaker 1: been an outspoken advocate on fighting climate change. What climate
59:36
Speaker 1: policy do you want to see in the reconciliation bill
59:40
Speaker 1: that you would say is a win?
59:42
Speaker 5: Well, we've made some progress already. And to just set
59:48
Speaker 5: the stage, before I was a Appointed to the Senate
59:53
Speaker 5: before I served six years as California Secretary of State.
59:56
Speaker 5: I served in the State Senate. And for six of
59:59
Speaker 5: my eight years there, I chaired the Committee on Energy, Utility,
1:00:01
Speaker 5: and Communications. So front row, seated at the table with
1:00:06
Speaker 5: a gavel in hand on renewable energy policy, a lot
1:00:09
Speaker 5: of the climate policy, which I think is a hell
1:00:11
Speaker 5: of a foundation for national policy. We talk about increasing
1:00:15
Speaker 5: renewables or clean technology and innovation policy. even in the
1:00:20
Speaker 5: transportation sector, not just the electrical grid. These aren't just
1:00:24
Speaker 5: ideas that we think are good and we'll cross our
1:00:26
Speaker 5: fingers and hope they work. California has demonstrated that it works.
1:00:30
Speaker 5: It is doable and you can make a difference. And
1:00:33
Speaker 5: so I get to bring that knowledge and that perspective
1:00:36
Speaker 5: and experience to the Senate as we're advancing this. So
1:00:40
Speaker 5: pushing the envelope on renewable energy mandates, not just in
1:00:44
Speaker 5: California and states we choose, but for the entire nation.
1:00:47
Speaker 1: That's one.
1:00:48
Speaker 5: Part and parcel with that, by the way, is a
1:00:49
Speaker 5: whole lot of worker retraining, right? It's one of the
1:00:53
Speaker 5: heartaches for colleagues from West Virginia, for example.
1:00:56
Speaker 1: Just thinking out loud.
1:00:57
Speaker 5: Just to throw some names out there. It's not about, okay,
1:01:00
Speaker 5: coal miners are going to lose their jobs. It's how
1:01:02
Speaker 5: do we retrain them into a sector of the future?
1:01:05
Speaker 5: Equally good paying, equally good benefits, but in a way
1:01:09
Speaker 5: that respects the planet in a better way. So that's one.
1:01:14
Speaker 5: And I have a story, actually, of my first One
1:01:16
Speaker 5: of my first bipartisan bills was with Senator Cornyn from Texas.
1:01:20
Speaker 5: Never let a crisis go to waste, right? So remember
1:01:24
Speaker 5: the ice storms in Texas a few months back? So
1:01:26
Speaker 5: I approached him and I said, look, you're dealing with
1:01:29
Speaker 5: grid issues because of these ice storms. It's only a
1:01:31
Speaker 5: matter of time before California deals with grid issues because
1:01:34
Speaker 5: of wildfires. There's got to be a way we partner,
1:01:36
Speaker 5: bring federal resources to bear. Let's modernize the electrical grid,
1:01:40
Speaker 5: not just for reliability purposes, but for resiliency purposes. Imagine
1:01:45
Speaker 5: if we made the grid more efficient. We can reduce emissions,
1:01:48
Speaker 5: improve air quality. And I got the stop right there sign.
1:01:52
Speaker 5: As long as we don't put climate change in the label,
1:01:55
Speaker 5: like we can do this.
1:01:56
Speaker 1: God, hey, whatever it takes.
1:01:57
Speaker 3: But hey, you know what?
1:01:58
Speaker 1: We did.
1:01:59
Speaker 5: We got the language right. The policy is good. So
1:02:02
Speaker 5: good that it got swept into the bipartisan infrastructure package.
1:02:05
Speaker 5: They multiplied the money that we're asking for times five
1:02:08
Speaker 5: and it just got passed by the Senate. So there
1:02:10
Speaker 5: is hope. There is hope.
1:02:11
Speaker 4: Did you have to Zoom in Ted Cruz from Cancun
1:02:14
Speaker 4: for these negotiations or is he left out? He's not
1:02:17
Speaker 4: part of it.
1:02:18
Speaker 5: I can either confirm or deny. But here's another great example.
1:02:22
Speaker 5: And this one is very much on life experience for me.
1:02:27
Speaker 5: You know, this idea of zero emission school buses. Once again,
1:02:32
Speaker 5: California demonstrating it's not an idea. Maybe sometime in the future,
1:02:36
Speaker 5: technology exists. There's electric school buses en route to Oakland Unified,
1:02:40
Speaker 5: Los Angeles Unified, many other school districts that are beginning
1:02:43
Speaker 5: the transition. I was one of those kids that rode
1:02:47
Speaker 5: a school bus, and I still remember the smell of
1:02:50
Speaker 5: that diesel exhaust. It didn't smell good. I'm sure it
1:02:53
Speaker 5: wasn't good for me in hindsight. And imagine the federal
1:02:57
Speaker 5: government partnering with school districts to retire diesel school buses.
1:03:00
Speaker 5: which represent more than 90% of the bus suites in
1:03:02
Speaker 5: the nation, and replace them with clean technology. Better for
1:03:07
Speaker 5: the air, better for our kids' lungs, and better for
1:03:09
Speaker 5: their academic performance because healthier kids learn better. And so
1:03:13
Speaker 5: that is another key strategy in the infrastructure negotiations.
1:03:17
Speaker 1: It does seem like a renewable energy standard would be
1:03:19
Speaker 1: the most impactful policy that you could include in the bill.
1:03:22
Speaker 1: Do you think that you'll be able to get support
1:03:25
Speaker 1: for that from all 50 senators, including... say senators from
1:03:29
Speaker 1: West Virginia?
1:03:30
Speaker 5: I do think so. I do think so. Again, being
1:03:32
Speaker 5: thoughtful about not just the technology piece and issues like intermittency, right?
1:03:37
Speaker 5: This is now the engineer geek and me coming out.
1:03:39
Speaker 5: You know, what happens when the sun's not shining? Yeah,
1:03:41
Speaker 5: solar doesn't work as well. Or what happens when the
1:03:43
Speaker 5: wind's not blowing? You know, what about those wind turbines?
1:03:45
Speaker 5: So you got to have a mixed portfolio. You got to,
1:03:49
Speaker 5: you know, account for, engineer for intermittency, things like that,
1:03:53
Speaker 5: and address the workforce issues. But I do think there's
1:03:56
Speaker 5: a number of states that have made progress where we
1:03:58
Speaker 5: have a lot of a experience and data to work
1:04:00
Speaker 5: off of.
1:04:01
Speaker 4: Senator, a lot of progressives are pretty worried and concerned
1:04:05
Speaker 4: about the lack of progress on legislation like the For
1:04:08
Speaker 4: the People Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement
1:04:11
Speaker 4: Act that would help fight back against these state by
1:04:13
Speaker 4: state voter suppression or voter subversion laws. You know, I
1:04:17
Speaker 4: go to your Twitter account. I see you constantly calling
1:04:20
Speaker 4: for the Senate to pass these bills. You have an
1:04:23
Speaker 4: interesting combination of sort of normal title case and all
1:04:26
Speaker 4: caps usage that we should get into later.
1:04:29
Speaker 5: But if only I can bold.
1:04:30
Speaker 4: Yeah, you're trying to all caps this thing over the
1:04:34
Speaker 4: finish line, which I love. But has the Senate made
1:04:36
Speaker 4: any progress on crafting a narrower bill that might be
1:04:40
Speaker 4: able to get more support? Or is there any progress
1:04:44
Speaker 4: on getting Manchin or Sinema to potentially drop their opposition
1:04:47
Speaker 4: to the filibuster reform?
1:04:48
Speaker 5: Yeah. So look, I'm an eternal optimist, right? If you're
1:04:52
Speaker 5: not an optimist, you guys have been on the inside.
1:04:54
Speaker 5: You're in the wrong business. There's always got to be
1:04:57
Speaker 5: a way. It's not always easy, but there's got to
1:04:58
Speaker 5: be a way. And there's got to be a way
1:05:00
Speaker 5: on voting rights. As President Johnson said, once upon a time,
1:05:04
Speaker 5: it's the rights that preserve all other rights. And another
1:05:09
Speaker 5: example of my prior experience, in this case, Secretary of
1:05:12
Speaker 5: State days, being so meaningful and timely in the Senate.
1:05:17
Speaker 5: So The first time the For the People Act was
1:05:21
Speaker 5: going to be up for a vote in the Senate,
1:05:23
Speaker 5: there was an op-ed by Joe Manchin saying he was
1:05:26
Speaker 5: against it. We ultimately ended getting his vote. All 50
1:05:30
Speaker 5: Democrats went up on it. Every single Republican wouldn't vote
1:05:33
Speaker 5: to begin debate or discussion on it. But how do
1:05:36
Speaker 5: we get there? Fun fact, there's only a couple of
1:05:39
Speaker 5: former state secretaries of state serving in the United States Senate.
1:05:43
Speaker 1: I'm one.
1:05:44
Speaker 5: Joe Manchin's another one. So we had a chance to
1:05:46
Speaker 5: literally sit and his office underneath the Capitol, go through
1:05:50
Speaker 5: the bill section by section, line by line, like, you know,
1:05:54
Speaker 5: what's the most important pieces here? This is how it works.
1:05:56
Speaker 5: This is how it works together. Chuck Schumer put together
1:06:00
Speaker 5: a committee that includes Manchin, myself, Senator Warnock, Senator Klobuchar,
1:06:04
Speaker 5: a couple of others to try to create a pared
1:06:07
Speaker 5: down version of the For the People Act, the voting
1:06:11
Speaker 5: rights bill that we will probably take up soon after
1:06:13
Speaker 5: we reconvene after this August recess. So Start paying attention
1:06:16
Speaker 5: soon after September 13th. I think there's going to be
1:06:19
Speaker 5: something to be excited about, to push for, and will
1:06:22
Speaker 5: be the final, final test, I think. Republicans are going
1:06:25
Speaker 5: to be willing to play ball.
1:06:27
Speaker 1: I'm not holding my breath.
1:06:29
Speaker 5: Or we're going to make the case as to why
1:06:31
Speaker 5: we need to tweak the rules at least for this,
1:06:33
Speaker 5: because the 2022 elections will be here before you know it.
1:06:36
Speaker 3: This is the first hopeful election. news I've heard about.
1:06:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll settle for a tweak. We started off with
1:06:41
Speaker 1: kill the filibuster. A tweak is fine if we're going
1:06:44
Speaker 1: to get voting rights passed.
1:06:45
Speaker 3: You're building suspense of something to look forward to.
1:06:47
Speaker 1: This is great. Great news that you guys are including
1:06:50
Speaker 1: immigration reform in the reconciliation bill or intend to. If
1:06:54
Speaker 1: the parliamentarian decides that that's not germane to include immigration reform,
1:06:59
Speaker 1: do you think that your predecessor, Vice President Kamala Harris,
1:07:03
Speaker 1: should overrule the parliamentarian?
1:07:05
Speaker 5: I don't know if I We'll have to come to
1:07:09
Speaker 5: that because we're pretty hopeful. And a big part of
1:07:12
Speaker 5: our case to the parliament here and is pointing out precedent.
1:07:16
Speaker 5: In 2005, Republicans were in the majority in the United
1:07:21
Speaker 5: States Senate, and they tweaked immigration law using the budget
1:07:25
Speaker 5: reconciliation process. Had more to do with different categories of
1:07:29
Speaker 5: visas and numbers and whatnot. But there is precedent for this.
1:07:34
Speaker 1: Although no one challenged it then. That was the only
1:07:35
Speaker 1: thing I heard about that. And then no one challenged
1:07:38
Speaker 1: the rule because the Republicans were for it. So I
1:07:39
Speaker 1: wonder if they'll try to challenge it this time.
1:07:41
Speaker 5: But hey, it wasn't just whether Democrats or Republicans or
1:07:44
Speaker 5: anybody challenged, the parliamentarian- Said okay. Said okay at the time.
1:07:47
Speaker 5: And so we're hoping that's going to be sufficient enough
1:07:50
Speaker 5: and that we craft the proposals appropriately enough. This isn't
1:07:54
Speaker 5: standard procedure. This is budget reconciliation.
1:07:56
Speaker 3: But hey, you know, I.
1:07:58
Speaker 5: I hope folks go to my website and find the
1:08:01
Speaker 5: speech I made on the floor of the Senate making
1:08:03
Speaker 5: the case on immigration reform as part of budget reconciliation
1:08:08
Speaker 5: out of recognition for the economic impact that immigrants make
1:08:11
Speaker 5: each and every day. We talked earlier about California being
1:08:14
Speaker 5: the most populous state in the nation, home to more
1:08:16
Speaker 5: immigrants than any state in the nation, and with the
1:08:18
Speaker 5: largest economy of any state in the nation. That's not
1:08:20
Speaker 5: a coincidence. The contributions of immigrants to the economy as
1:08:26
Speaker 5: workforce As consumers, as entrepreneurs, of course it has a
1:08:31
Speaker 5: federal budgetary impact. Uh, and if we can score that, uh,
1:08:35
Speaker 5: make the argument, bounce the numbers, let's get this done.
1:08:38
Speaker 5: Let's do right by the millions and millions of immigrants
1:08:41
Speaker 5: that have been here for years.
1:08:42
Speaker 1: Do you know that?
1:08:43
Speaker 5: Here's another fun fact. Adult undocumented immigrants have been in
1:08:48
Speaker 5: the United States on average, 18 years, 18 years of
1:08:54
Speaker 5: work and paying taxes, raising families. very different population than
1:08:58
Speaker 5: young or unaccompanied minors seeking asylum on the southern border.
1:09:03
Speaker 5: And so let's not conflate the two. I know Republicans
1:09:06
Speaker 5: like to point to the border as an excuse to
1:09:07
Speaker 5: not make progress on immigration. You know, let's do right
1:09:10
Speaker 5: by dreamers, by farm workers, by essential workers, and so
1:09:13
Speaker 5: many more.
1:09:14
Speaker 1: So the two of us way back when worked for
1:09:18
Speaker 1: Senator Barack Obama, when he was a new senator, like
1:09:23
Speaker 1: 98th in seniority, right? He liked the job, but eventually
1:09:27
Speaker 1: decided he was going to, he got a little tired
1:09:30
Speaker 1: of the Senate, wanted to find another job. How are
1:09:32
Speaker 1: you liking the Senate so far as a brand new senator?
1:09:35
Speaker 1: I'm loving the Senate. Are you loving it?
1:09:36
Speaker 4: Really?
1:09:37
Speaker 5: I'm trying to catch my breath.
1:09:38
Speaker 1: I know you can't say that you hate it, but
1:09:39
Speaker 1: does it frustrate you at all?
1:09:41
Speaker 3: Wink if you hate it.
1:09:44
Speaker 5: In all sincerity, like I've been in public service for
1:09:46
Speaker 5: many years, my city council days, When I was elected
1:09:48
Speaker 5: to the state senate, people would ask me, what do
1:09:50
Speaker 5: you like better, city government or the legislature? I liked
1:09:53
Speaker 5: them both. It was hard to pick between the two.
1:09:55
Speaker 5: I was elected secretary of state. Even my closest friends
1:09:59
Speaker 5: in 2014 said, really? Voter registration? That's so boring. The
1:10:03
Speaker 5: 2016 happened.
1:10:04
Speaker 1: A little more exciting, yeah.
1:10:05
Speaker 5: But that was a good gig. They're all just different.
1:10:08
Speaker 5: Now I have a clear answer.
1:10:09
Speaker 1: Yes, the U.S.
1:10:10
Speaker 5: Senate is the favorite job that I've had in elected office.
1:10:13
Speaker 5: I mean, think of the issues that we deal with.
1:10:15
Speaker 5: You know, we're talking infrastructure, COVID response, immigration reform, access
1:10:19
Speaker 5: to health care, wildfires in California. I mean, it's huge.
1:10:24
Speaker 5: It's also a unique time. We talked earlier about making
1:10:27
Speaker 5: this transition. in the wake of the deadly January 6th insurrection,
1:10:32
Speaker 5: that's not the typical way that it's done during a
1:10:35
Speaker 5: once in a century global health pandemic, right? There's a
1:10:37
Speaker 5: lot going on. It's a lot to reflect on during
1:10:40
Speaker 5: these cross country flights, but I'm enjoying it. I've been
1:10:43
Speaker 5: blessed with a good staff, a lot of Californians, especially
1:10:47
Speaker 5: resumes came my way when the appointment was announced. I
1:10:49
Speaker 5: think we've hit the ground running in part because of
1:10:52
Speaker 5: the experience over the years and a lot of great
1:10:54
Speaker 5: relationships that we've developed, uh, over time. So, uh, hoping
1:10:58
Speaker 5: to earn a full six-year term next year and settle
1:11:00
Speaker 5: in for a longer haul.
1:11:02
Speaker 4: Is it annoying that you represent like 40 million people
1:11:05
Speaker 4: and you walk around in like Rhode Island's trying to
1:11:07
Speaker 4: throw its weight around? You're like, you're not, that's not
1:11:10
Speaker 4: a state. You're like, I'm automatic voter registration registered more
1:11:14
Speaker 4: Californians than you have in your entire state.
1:11:16
Speaker 5: I think my favorite line is, we have schools bigger
1:11:18
Speaker 5: than that. You know, a little bit when you're counting,
1:11:22
Speaker 5: you notice, look, between, you know, Two senators per state,
1:11:24
Speaker 5: is that fair? The filibuster rule, electoral college, all those
1:11:28
Speaker 5: reasons why states with larger populations should be frustrated, have
1:11:31
Speaker 5: a chip on our shoulder, maybe one on each shoulder.
1:11:34
Speaker 5: But then I'll get sage wisdom from colleagues like Cory Booker,
1:11:39
Speaker 5: who says, man, you're from California. You maybe just got here,
1:11:42
Speaker 5: but you got to walk in with some swagger. You're
1:11:44
Speaker 5: from California. So if a few other senators are thinking
1:11:48
Speaker 5: that way, we'll use that to our advantage.
1:11:50
Speaker 4: Cory Booker is like quoting King, quoting Gandhi, quoting somebody else.
1:11:54
Speaker 4: This is a dumb question, maybe. So Senator Manchin gets
1:11:57
Speaker 4: all this coverage and love for living on a houseboat.
1:12:01
Speaker 4: It's kind of over the top, we think. Have you
1:12:03
Speaker 4: considered some sort of, like, kooky living situation, like an
1:12:08
Speaker 4: RV or something that, like, might kind of draw the
1:12:11
Speaker 4: media's attention away from him?
1:12:12
Speaker 1: Repeat with the houseboat, yeah.
1:12:14
Speaker 5: All right. So at the risk of TMI, if you
1:12:16
Speaker 5: ask me, would I personally consider it? Yeah. I'm trying
1:12:19
Speaker 5: to save it for my kid's college.
1:12:21
Speaker 1: Yep.
1:12:22
Speaker 5: But if you ask my wife, she was the first
1:12:23
Speaker 5: one to put her foot down. You are not going
1:12:25
Speaker 5: to be doing that. Even if it's a small apartment,
1:12:27
Speaker 5: you're getting yourself an apartment.
1:12:29
Speaker 1: You're not like living with Durbin and Schumer in some
1:12:32
Speaker 1: small little apartment or whoever lives in that apartment. No, no, no.
1:12:35
Speaker 5: Small studio apartment, 10-minute walk to the office. I got
1:12:38
Speaker 5: a bed, a chair, and a coffee machine.
1:12:41
Speaker 3: That's all you need. That's all I need. Remember, early
1:12:44
Speaker 3: in 2006, John and I both worked in the Senate.
1:12:46
Speaker 4: And I think Obama wrote about this in the book eventually.
1:12:48
Speaker 4: But he got his place. He got like the bare
1:12:50
Speaker 4: minimum stuff in the apartment. And he forgot a shower curtain.
1:12:54
Speaker 4: So he was like trying to get ready in the morning,
1:12:55
Speaker 4: just blasting water all over the bathroom in some like
1:12:58
Speaker 4: crappy place he lived.
1:13:00
Speaker 1: It was a little too much of a college vibe there.
1:13:01
Speaker 1: It was very college-y. But I'm glad you got yourself
1:13:03
Speaker 1: a place. And a hot spot. And a hot spot.
1:13:05
Speaker 1: Senator Padilla, thank you so much for coming on the pod.
1:13:08
Speaker 1: Please come back anytime.
1:13:09
Speaker 5: Hey, this is home.
1:13:10
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Absolutely. Take care. Thanks to Senator Padilla for joining
1:13:17
Speaker 1: us today. Hope you all have a great weekend and
1:13:19
Speaker 1: we'll talk to you next week.
1:13:21
Speaker 2: Bye everyone.
1:13:22
Speaker 1: Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive
1:13:25
Speaker 1: producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Flavia Casas.
1:13:30
Speaker 1: Our associate producers are Jazzy Marine and Olivia Martinez. It's
1:13:34
Speaker 1: mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our
1:13:37
Speaker 1: sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Somenator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou,
1:13:41
Speaker 1: Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to
1:13:44
Speaker 1: our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, Yale Freed,
1:13:48
Speaker 1: and Nar Melkonian, who film and share our episodes as
1:13:50
Speaker 1: videos every week.