Pod Save America - Is Trump God's Gift to Women?

Episode Date: September 25, 2024

Lovett and guest host Errin Haines break down Kamala Harris's efforts to close the gap with Donald Trump on the economy, and what might be behind Trump's deranged new appeal to women voters. Then, Fox News's Jessica Tarlov, cohost of The Five, stops by to talk about what it's like to be a Democrat on the network Democrats love to hate, and how she survives her daily confrontations with Fox's most opinionated conservatives. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pond Save America, I'm Jon Lovett. And I'm Erin Haines. On today's show, Kamala Harris tries to erase Donald Trump's advantage on the economy with a big policy speech in Pennsylvania. Trump keeps up the creepy hypnotist routine with his new approach to women, and the liberal who's made a name for herself

taking the fight to Fox News' most irritating personalities, Jessica Tarlov, stops by to talk about surviving life as a host of The Five. With me to get into the latest with Harris and Trump is our friend Erin Haines, editor at large of The 19th, which covers politics and policy through the lens of women's experience and a reporter who is just deeply immersed

in how women are thinking and feeling about this election. Erin, welcome back to the show. You know, it's good to be with you. And let me just say for the record, you were robbed on Survivor. I just wanna put that on record. I watched you, you were phenomenal. Thank you so much for saying that. And I appreciate that. robbed on Survivor. I just wanna put that on record. I watched you, you were phenomenal.

Thank you so much for saying that. And I appreciate that. And that's the kind of journalistic, sort of an unbiased take that we're coming to you for. So first of all, we haven't talked to you in a while. The last time you were on the show, July 19th, that was in Madison. Joe Biden was two days away from dropping out of the race,

which felt like it might be happening, was what wasn't guaranteed. We talked about whether if it did happen, there would be an open process, how Black Moon reactive Kamala was passed over just for starters. How are you feeling right now? How different was this than you expected from what you imagined a Harris candidacy might look like? Okay, so I think the words that you're looking for is Aaron is right. Always listen to Aaron. I know it's not your fault. You had a lot of curdled buttermilk that night, if I'm recalling. So your brain, I don't know what was going on for you, but it's okay. We know better, we're doing better.

So now that we've gotten that little matter of business out of the way, listen. Wait a second, wait a second. I don't remember, was it like, I don't think I was on the other side of that debate. I think we were still looking for maybe somebody else. We were entertaining other folks as if, you know, it was not going to be Kamala Harris. And now that it is Kamala Harris, look, I think some things are playing out the way we expected. Like, absolutely, black women's excitement and enthusiasm about her candidacy was immediate from like minute one.

But I think if you had told me that we were gonna have white dudes for Harris or nerds for Harris or Liz and Dick Cheney for Harris, like, or that joy was gonna be a strategy or a plan, right? No, those things were not on my 2024 bingo card. Yes, I think, I feel like even people who were very excited about Vice President Kamala Harris and who believed that there would be a flood of enthusiasm for her or for any replacement,

could not have known how bright they would have been. No, I think that's true. I mean, I think just seeing how strong of a candidate she's been in such a short time, like she really seems to be meeting this moment and passing a lot of those kind of big tests in a way that conveys like a real sense of the stakes and the urgency, particularly for Democrats, right?

Like that record fundraising that we saw, her debate performance obviously was really pretty incredible. I think we can agree. Also her DNC speech and just the delivery of that and how folks really responded to that entire week, but obviously culminating in her speech. So yeah, I think that's probably why you have Democrats responding the way they are to her candidacy

and people being calm and curious, you know, with six weeks to go. So speaking about the stakes, today the vice president is going to Pittsburgh for a major economic address. That's how the campaign is billing it. Dan and John will dive into more of the details tomorrow, but I did want to talk a bit about the context in which the speech exists. From the jump,

the race looked like it basically it's going to be one or lost on the economy. Prices, cost of living, jobs, whether things were better under Trump. Harris started in a pretty deep hole on who voters trusted on the economy with Trump leading Biden by 12 points earlier this year. Now Harris has closed the gap to just six points according to the Washington Post. Three potential explanations for that. One, has closed the gap to just six points, according to the Washington Post. Three potential explanations for that. One, sentiment on the economy is just improving. People are having a better view of inflation.

They see that coming down. Consumer sentiment is rising. Two, Kamala has laid out a bunch of policy specifics, and that serves to be both a contrast with Biden and kind of pitches this into a contrast with Trump about the future. And then three, she's a different person. She isn't Joe Biden. with Biden and kind of pitches this into a contrast with Trump about the future. And then three, she's a different person.

She isn't Joe Biden. At the same time, we just had another round of polls that make clear voters still do trust Donald Trump on the economy. They trust Donald Trump on the economy more than they trust Kamala Harris. What are you hearing when you're on the trail directly from voters? And what do you hear from volunteers? Because I know you've been talking to some volunteers trying to persuade their friends and neighbors on the economy.

Yeah. I mean, I think her talking about affordability and also really kind of leaning into her lived experience, her background and how that's really informing how she's thinking about policy and how she's thinking about governing, like that's also a message that her surrogates, that these volunteers and these organizers, that's something that they can take to everyday Americans who may be feeling the pinch in this economy, even as the economy has improved overall. Is it improving an individual American's lives? That is really, I think, why we've seen that kind of intractability on how people feel about the economy.

So, you know, when she is talking about not even being in a home, you know, being a renter, her mom being a renter until she was a teenager, like that's something that other Americans can identify with when she, you know, tries to draw the contrast between, you know, her kind of earning where she has gotten to in life, as opposed to former President Trump, who was born rich. That is a contrast that makes her more relatable,

even as she is kind of starting to put some meat on the bones with these specifics, in terms of what the opportunity economy is going to mean, and how different kinds of Americans can see themselves fitting into that. Yeah, so in the speech, she's obviously gonna put, I think, some more sort of meat on the bone around affordability, around investing in entrepreneurship, around manufacturing and infrastructure.

But in just how the speech is being framed, it does seem like one goal of it is to just drive the idea that she's not a radical, right? The release talks about how she's a pragmatist and a capitalist. What do you make of that? What do you think they're trying to address? What do you think the concern is?

Yeah, I mean, I think this kind of goes to some of the polling that we've seen that say, people don't feel like they know enough about her. She's still kind of an unknown. And she is. People were not paying that much attention to her as vice president. She wasn't the main person that was making policy. And her opponent is somebody who was president before, who people, you know, for better or for worse, do have a sense of, especially in terms of how they feel

about what the economy was like for them under his presidency. They don't have that experience with her, right? And so her trying to reassure people, her trying to convince people that she is reasonable, that the opportunity economy is not some kind of pie in the sky thing, but that trying to kind of ground that in reality about what is possible. But I do think that it is interesting

that she is talking about the economy, not just in a way that talks about people getting by or getting back to something, but really being able to build wealth and have real, like that is certainly something that feels different in tone than what we heard before she was the candidate. Yeah, I think we even maybe talked about this

the last time we were on the show. I've noticed that too, there's a real focus on wealth building. There's some data coming out about how Trump's position on the Affordable Care Act will take away health insurance from entrepreneurs who use it to get coverage while they're building small businesses. One big part of what she's gonna talk about today

is trying to get to 25're building small businesses. One big part of what she's going to talk about today is trying to get to 25 million new small businesses. The talking about being a capitalist, being a pragmatist, it did feel like the first time, like this campaign has been so good about brushing Donald Trump off. And I don't think this is at all defensive at all. I think she's, you know, there was just another poll. There was a poll that came out the other day that showed like capitalism being very popular, socialism being very unpopular, less popular than JD Vance.

So they're clearly trying to speak to sort of a broad cross section of America, but it was the first time I thought, ha, I wonder if whether they're seeing an effect of it or not, that they wanna make sure they're rebutting this idea of like comrade Kamala, some of these allegations from the right that she's a radical. Yeah, and I think too, just like you have everyday Americans

who are saying, well, yeah, well, where is my piece of capitalism, right? I mean, when Kamala Harris is talking about $25,000 home ownership assistance, like that is, oh, so I might be somebody who may be able to become a homeowner too. When she's talking about, you know, $50,000 instead of $5,000 for people who want to start a small business and talking about the healthcare piece of folks having a small business, making

that a reality as opposed to just talking about things like lowering the unemployment gap or making it possible for you to afford eggs or milk. Like, no, I don't just wanna do that, right? Like, I actually want some shit in this economy. Like, where's my American dream, right? So making that pitch to people, I think, is something that's resonating and is a contrast to somebody who is talking

a lot more about his American dream. Yeah, I also do think it's a bit about men who have maybe been drawn into the, like the Manosphere, pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You know, you have to get ahead on your own. You have to do this yourself kind of thing. And like, they wanna hear like, oh, I'll have opportunity in the Kamel Harris administration.

Definitely, I mean, so much of, she has been talking about and talking to American men about what it means for them when she talks about the economy that she is pitching if she is elected president. You hear her talking to black men in particular, a group of voters that she needs to shore up who is wondering, you know, where do I fit in to a Kamala Harris presidency? Or, you know, when she's going on, she's going on podcasts as well. I mean, certainly we've seen Donald Trump, you know, wading into the man-o-verse to talk about, you know, his version of masculinity in

the economy. But she's doing some of that too. You just saw her doing that podcast with a couple of former basketball players. Like that is to a very specific audience. Like she does that just after she sits down with Oprah. Like, I think she's trying to appeal to as broad a coalition as possible in the time that she's got left, right? As people are already voting.

So I actually wanna put side by side how Kamala is talking about the economy with how Trump is talking about the economy. Here he was in Savannah, Georgia, and he rambled endlessly. He did every one of his conspiratorial lines, but mixed into that was the message his campaign actually wanted him to deliver,

which is some version of this. So as your president, here is the deal that I will be offering to every major company and manufacturer on earth. I will give you the lowest taxes, the lowest energy costs, the lowest regulatory burden and free access to the best and biggest market on the planet. But only if you make your product here in America, it all goes away if you don't make your product here. So what I find interesting about that is like, we're so used to Trump being weird and every

election with Trump being weird. But if you strip out the Trumpiness, what you have is Kamala Harris saying she wants to lower costs through tax breaks for the middle class, make housing more affordable, tax breaks to start new businesses, lower prescription drug prices, and industrial policy, investments in infrastructure, clean energy, manufacturing. Right? Then you have Donald Trump basically doing Paul Ryan economics. I will do unbridled capital, right? Like you can count on, you don't have to worry about taxes as much or unions or workplace safety or environmental rules. Like

you will be unleashed. Like the wealthiest interest in the society will be unleashed and that will trickle down to working class and middle-class people. Oh, and just as a little bonus icing on the cake, I'm going do mass deportations, and I'm gonna do tariffs as some promise to increase domestic manufacturing and increase wages for the middle class. And Donald Trump is obviously his worst enemy, but so is his agenda. And I'm just wondering like what you see

when you put aside the Donald Trump noise and just get to the actual substance of that side-by-side contrast. Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, John, let me just say that contrast that we just heard, like that is the main case for why we need another debate. Like we barely got into the economy in that first debate. Like that was like the first question

then we moved on to all kinds of other stuff. And then we got into, you know, pet eating and it went totally off the rails from there. But like, yes, we need to hear more about what both of these candidates are talking about in terms of the economy, because they are two starkly contrasting visions, as I think we just heard. So there's kinds of things he is talking about. How is the everyday American supposed to understand what that is going to mean for them? How that is going to translate into their daily lives?

I don't think that that is what they are hearing. And meanwhile, you have Vice President Harris continuing to talk about what she wants to do for the American people. Like that is really what feels different. I don't know that that's necessarily what we're gonna to get, you know, in this speech out of Pittsburgh. I'm very curious to hear that, but like there are not enough opportunities for us to hear more specifics, right? I mean, what you just played was not a concept of a plan.

Like that is a very clear vision of what he plans to do should he return to the White House. And that just really does not have very much to do with the everyday American who was sitting at their kitchen table trying to figure out how they're managing their own economy. Yeah, it's interesting, right? Because that message that Donald Trump was trying to deliver in Georgia, it's drowned out. It was drowned out by this. This is what surrounded what he was saying in Savannah. For years they knocked the word the word tariff properly used is a beautiful word. One of the

most beautiful words I've ever heard. It's music to my ears. I find it very hard to sleep. I get so many ideas. I'm thinking all the time. I'm going to a McDonald's over the next two weeks and I'm going to stand over the french fries because I want to see what her job really wasn't like. Your wages will rise your costs will fall your job opportunities will grow because we will conduct the largest deportation operation sadly in American history. We have no choice. So you've written about the election entering its dark phase. I was like, oh, were we in the fucking light phase? Was this the rainbow phase?

The joy phase, you know, that was kind of the beginning and now, yeah, the clouds are definitely rolling in. Can I just say, you know, look, I too, like former president Trump, do like to stand at McDonald's and smell the fries. It's delicious. And frankly, right now I am starving. But no, I mean, like that again, a contract like Kamala Harris actually worked at McDonald's. He's talking about going there to smell the fries to see what that maybe

might've felt like. Look, this is the kind of thing that gets applause lines from his faithful at the rally, but like he needs to actually expand his voters beyond that base of people, beyond that kind of 70 million voter threshold, like if he is going to win in November. And so what additional voters, I guess, who are not familiar with him for whatever reason, since he's been in the atmosphere for the past decade,

like what number of those voters does that kind of message appeal to? Yeah, so basically he's just joking about how, oh, she didn't really work at McDonald's. Just part of his unending series of ways in which he was trying to say, you know, attack her on a race. But who are tariffs exciting also?

Like tariffs are exciting. Yeah, well that's sort of the strange thing about this because on the one hand, he like, there's been a bunch of stories about how his camp king can't figure out how thing about this because on the one hand, there's been a bunch of stories about how his camp king can't figure out how to get this guy on message. He's not doing as many rallies. When he does, he is unhinged. He talks about obviously eating cats and dogs,

the tale of which, no pun intended, I think has continued. At the same time, his agenda is deeply unpopular. And even just as we watch those two clips, I don't know what's actually worse for him. Donald Trump rambling incoherently in a way that reminds people of why they don't like him personally, or Donald Trump putting attention on the contrast between him and Kamala Harris on the economy.

Donald Trump, the two moments in his presidency when he was basically at his most unpopular were around the insurrection and around the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, right? Which tells you something that like this idea that like Donald Trump being off message is inherently bad for him. Like I don't know when his when his actual economic message, I think if it actually gets in front of people, if you actually draw that contrast is pretty unpopular.

It is, and yet this race is still gonna be a matter of inches, like how? Yeah. I mean, like, what is it that I guess, first of all, I mean, hearing from undecided voters at this point, wherever they are, whoever they are, about what they're still on the fence about, I think that's really important in this moment because I do think when we talk to voters on the ground, the things that

they are focused on really are the issues of affordability, first and foremost. I mean, things, yes, things like access to reproductive care, absolutely important to people, you know, issues of gun violence, absolutely important to people, issues of gun violence, political violence, democracy, all that stuff matters, but they really are thinking about what this election means for them and not necessarily for either one of those candidates.

And the economy is just central to that. Yeah, it makes me wonder about like what the actual value is of a big, serious policy address about all of these different pieces of it. When on some level, there are a lot of voters out there that just need to hear, I'm gonna make everything more affordable. That's my focus, that's what you care about,

that's what I care about. Yeah, I mean, look, yeah, voters are definitely focused on affordability and more to the point, like whether she gets that this is their priority and whether they feel like it's gonna be her priority if she is their next president, right? But I do think, I mean, yes, like this speech in Pittsburgh

is partly for a political press corps who's looking to hear more from her on specific policies. She's been talking a lot about this opportunity economy. Like you said, some of the folks that are in that room are looking to maybe hear a little bit more, get some more meat on the bones and understand that she is sensible and pragmatic. At the end of the day, like her tone around the economy

has also been something that has felt different, like that focus on affordability. Like you had President Biden really touting, you know, Bidenomics and how good the economy was. And that was not something that a lot of everyday Americans were saying that they felt. So we don't really hear so much about that anymore, right? She's focused on the future, not just their record together.

MUSIC There are some lines that Trump does manage to read off the prompter and one new part of his stump speech is a direct appeal to women that we've been talking about. He started doing it over the weekend. It sounds like this. Business, I always thought women liked me. I never thought I had a problem. But the fake news keeps saying women don't like me. I don't believe it. I think they like me because I represent something that's very important.

I make this statement to the great women of our country. You will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger. You're not going to be in danger any longer. You will no longer have anxiety from all of the problems our country has today. You will be protected and I will be your protector. Women will be happy, healthy, confident and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion. That's all they talk about, abortion. So Erin, you're a woman, one less thing to worry about? Well, first of all, let me just say, like the way that the volume went from

like the volume of my Calm app to the all caps that he's doing on Truth Social, like that was a lot. Let me just say that. He's not, I mean, that's not the teleport, that's directly from his Truth Social posts from over the weekend where, I mean, he just really could not, he didn't have enough, he couldn't say enough about women,

which kind of signals to me that he clearly knows that he needs women to win in November and that there is this huge gender gap right now, right? So, you know, him saying that he's gonna be their protector and they're gonna be so happy that they won't be thinking about abortion anymore. Again, outside of the women who are already planning to vote for him, I don't know who that message is

supposed to appeal to, not to mention that it really is just kind of the concept of an idea as opposed to how he plans to do any of that. It's so creepy. It's creepy as fuck. Like it sounds like he's about to offer to give you a tattoo of his name on your inner thigh. It's like the weirdest fucking thing I've ever,

like I will be, you'll never be lonely. Like who is, like I, it is a bath, like it is, like I like find it like so strange. It is so like intimate and like patronizing. Like I, and it's written down. Like this is not, he didn't, he's not riffing. Like this is a message they're trying to deliver. And like, okay, like I can't imagine, you know,

we're not gonna, as you said, like this is not for anyone other than his diehard fans, but like, is there some logic to it? Is there some way it's an argument for men? Maybe that is the audience. I really don't know. I mean, look, we went into this year at the 19th saying gender was gonna be on the ballot, right?

Like there were these two contrasting, really contrasting versions of masculinity when it was Biden versus Trump. And now you have Kamala Harris on the ticket and an even more striking gender contrast, to say the least. Like his brand of masculinity rubs a lot of women the wrong way and reminds them of the freedoms and rights

that they, you know, that have been eroded as a result of his policies and actions. And so that is certainly Harris's case to women, you know, kind of framing this election in terms of protecting those rights and freedoms that she says he has helped take away. But like, you know, I don't, I don't know which women this appeals to. And clearly it's young men who are kind of gravitating to Trump in numbers larger than women.

So there's like a version of strength here or a version of what his understanding of women or gender is that is maybe appealing to them. Because no, I don't think that this is appealing to the vast majority of women in this country. Yeah. is appealing to the vast majority of women in this country. Yeah, like I don't wanna be another person kind of sane washing Trump and helping make sense of his sort of musings. But clearly like Democrats are telling women, protect yourself, protect your basic bodily autonomy.

These people wanna control you, vote for the Democrats. And Trump is trying to say some version of, you're at risk because of immigrants, right, of migrants, of crime, and like, I will protect you from that. And I do think that like, there is a less creepy, fascistic version of something to say to men,

which is the kind of protection Trump is offering, this way of controlling and being in charge of women. Like that's actually weakness, that's not strength. That's a weak form of masculinity. That's what like insecure men do. That's the cyber truck of masculinity. And what we're saying is if you really want to show how strong you are, if you want to show that you want

to support, respect and protect women, how you do that is standing with them in this election. Like to be a man is to be a good husband, boyfriend, father, son, is to stand with the women in your life for telling you that they want your support. And I don't know that we're doing that enough. Yeah, and also just that we're seeing two very different understandings

of the meaning of the word safety, right? So that's one thing. But I think, you know, the other thing about this is this version of masculinity that doesn't really work for a lot of women. You're seeing Governor Walz and Second Gentleman Emhoff really kind of exhibiting some very contrasting versions of masculinity that are really challenging what our ideas of masculinity can be as leaders.

Also, I mean, I think this upcoming vice presidential debate is going to be very consequential in terms of, two contrasting versions of masculinity as well, right? And just, I mean, his vice presidential, Trump's vice presidential nominee, JD Vance, certainly doesn't do him any favors with women either, just in terms of how he, I mean, he may be trying to emphasize families.

I guess that's the point of it. But doing that at the expense of women who do not have families, as if they are worth less or their votes are worth less, their value is less in our democracy and our society. Like that is not, that's certainly not a message. I mean, that's a message that's galvanizing women, but probably not in the way that they would want.

Yeah, look, there is this sort of like, Republicans, conservatives, this conservative ecosystem, the one that JD Vance was so plugged into, they didn't realize how weird he sounded when he became a national figure. They are feeding off this uncertainty that men have that, you know, we have talked a lot about like toxic masculinity. And it's hard to come up with the good qualities of masculinity that you wouldn't also celebrate

in women. It's hard to come up with the good qualities of femininity you wouldn't also celebrate in men. And there is a way in which like Republicans are really are latching on to something that isn't false which is like these these like fundamental ideas like are under attack and like we do need to be kind of offering a positive vision on these topics. Well here's what's wild John I'm old enough to remember when we were in Milwaukee at the RNC, when there was a, look, you talk about staying on message,

there were surrogates throughout that week who tried to paint a very different picture of President Trump. The President Trump that we didn't know was what they were billing to us, right? The President Trump who cared a lot, cares a lot about women, who empowers women, you know, professionally, personally. Laura Trump, you know, got up there and talked about the Donald Trump that she

knew, the family man that she knew, the grandfather that she knows and loves, right? The father-in-law who has been supportive of her in her career. Sarah Huckabee Sanders also was somebody that talked a lot about how the former president empowered her when she was in that administration. That feels like so long ago now. I think about, because I thought a lot about the audiences who might have been tuned in during that week who were maybe just kind of checking in for the first time on the election

and were maybe some number of them could have been persuaded, you know, right? That maybe we were wrong about him, maybe we missed some things about him, but yet, you know, because he's really not able to stay on script, I think we, you know, he has been at odds with the messaging that we saw just a couple of months ago. Before we let you go,

Trump gave his economic speech in Georgia. We had some new polling this week that had Trump up on Harrison, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. I wanted to ask you about Georgia and North Carolina specifically. What are you seeing or hearing from voters in those states that we might be missing? And why do you think North Carolina might be looking better right now than Georgia does? Yeah, North Carolina is interesting. I mean, especially for the Mark Robinson of it all, right?

I mean, I think I will be continue to be interested in polling kind of on the other side of that scandal. Uh, you know, whether or not he, uh, Mark Robinson and, and, and Donald Trump are kind of successfully tethered together. But I mean, look, I, you know, the reality is that the former president is somebody who does have strong support in both of those states. And so Kamala Harris is trying to make up ground in those places. She has certainly kind of clawed back the black voters that maybe were not as

enthusiastic when, you know, President Biden was still on the ticket. But yes, I mean, to build the kind of coalition that it's going to take for her to win in places like Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, I think the campaign is clear that they still have a lot of work to do, you know, to get that coalition to get that coalition together because of what the former president's strength has been in those places. Yeah, on Mark Robinson, I feel like,

yeah, I mean, look- What about on Mark Robinson? I feel like this is maybe, you know, like a little bit indelicate, but I do think one part of this story that like, I don't know, is being sort of assumed without being discussed is like how somebody like this went from clickety clackin on the keyboards on the forums to being the current lieutenant governor. He's not just a gubernatorial candidate.

He's the current lieutenant governor. And you know, there's this clip that I'm sure we're going to be seeing between now and November Lieutenant Governor. He's not just a gubernatorial candidate. He's the current lieutenant governor and You know, there's this clip that I'm sure we were gonna be seeing between now and November of Donald Trump Calling Mark Robinson Martin Luther King on steroids I do think it's pretty revealing that I think like one part of this is like someone went from this unqualified person rocketed up through Republican politics in Georgia because he's a black Republican and they were excited to throw their arms around him. I wonder what you make about that, what you think of that, and how that has impacted this

story as it's unfolded. Absolutely. I mean, come on, John. We're old enough to remember Herschel Walker, candidate for Senate in Georgia, who also had some problems to say the least going into that election, which he lost. So like Herschel Walker, Mark Robinson is somebody who really kind of embraced the Trumpism model of politics. And him being a black Republican made him only more appealing, I guess, to

some number of Republican voters in North Carolina who chose him to be Lusitant Governor and then made him the Republican nominee for governor. And by the way, I mean, he certainly was problematic on gender even before we got to... A ton of this shit was out there. Yes. A lot of this shit was out there. Yes. A lot of this was already out there. But that was, none of that was a non-starter.

None of that was a deal breaker for those voters. Up to that point, it was not a deal breaker for former President Trump who emphatically endorsed him. Again, calling him Martin Luther King on steroids. By the way, his daughter has said, please cease and desist from aligning my father with this man. So yeah, it has all been okay, I guess,

is kind of where, what I would say to this. And it'll be interesting to see if these latest revelations are a bridge too far for general election voters. But I mean, nothing he had done prior to this point was a bridge too far for those primary voters. Yeah. Well, he was down by, in some cases, double digits before the latest or as the latest scandal was breaking.

The Times poll, I believe believe had some of its sample taken after these latest revelations. So it's not looking good for him in the governor's race. I think the question is how well can Robinson be tied to Trump by the Harris campaign, which has put out a strategy to do it. Erin Haynes of the 19th, thank you so much for being here. It's always good to see you.

And are you going out on the road? Yeah, I mean, I expect that I will be getting back out on the trail here soon to see, I mean, really just, I am on the lookout for any and all undecided voters. Call me, my DMs are open. I wanna hear where you are at this point and what the thing is gonna to be that gets you across the finish line for either one of these candidates.

People are starting to vote and people are starting to make up their minds right now. The thing about election season is we have a target rich environment to talk to people who are already casting their ballots or trying to make up their minds. I'm just so curious about where people are and what it is that is helping them make up their minds. Cause I'm just trying to, why and how this election is still so close, I need to solve this mystery. It's a little bit like in an old sitcom

when the couple is fighting over a dog and they're in the courtroom and everyone's watching and there's a little puppy between the two parents and they both have treats. They're trying to get to talk to them, except in this case, one of the parents is a wheat thresher and it's like, come on, come on over. We have a nice son.

That's a wheat thresher. What have you been benching? I don't know. I don't know. This is just old, I think this is just, this is old 80s sitcoms from my childhood. Wow, you're on like YouTube, you're down the YouTube rabbit hole over there.

I have been getting the conspiracy theories that TikTok believes I'm interested in. Saturn isn't real. Jim Carrey and Joe Biden are the same person. The conspiratorial mindset that the algorithm sees in me, I'm excited, I'm excited for the direction I go. I look forward to your full radicalization and what that means for the Pod Save audience. I'm sure that we're all looking very forward.

Yeah, so I'm gonna look forward to it. We're not going back. Erin Haines, thank you so much. Okay, when we come back from the break, we're going to hear from Jessica Tarlov, the token liberal on Fox News, who may be pulling an inside job. But before we get to Jessica, as the new Supreme Court term approaches in early October, now is the perfect time to catch up on Strict Scrutiny. Learn about the last term's biggest rulings, get a preview of what's on the docket next,

and laugh so you don't cry about the absolutely wild judicial antics on the current court. Tune into Strict Scrutiny on Amazon Music or wherever you get your podcasts. And on October 2nd, I am hosting a Trek the Vote is a live comedy show and fundraiser that will have politics, games, high-octane nerd business. We will have incredible Star Trek icons like Jonathan Frakes, Gates McFadden, Will Wheaton, Jerry Ryan, Tawny Newsom, and so many more. All funds are going to go to Vote Save America We will have incredible Star Trek icons like Jonathan Frakes, Gates McFadden, Will Wheaton, Jerry Ryan, Tawny Newsom, and so many more. All funds are going to go to Vote Save America in support of the highest impact down ballot

races and state level grassroots organizing voter protection efforts. So please join us. If you go to vote save America dot com slash Trek, please buy tickets. You can come see it live or you can watch the stream. It's all going to support vote save America. We got a really incredible line. It's going to be a really fun show. So do me a favor and sign up at vote save America dot com slash trek. This message has been paid for by vote save America. You can learn more at vote save America dot com and this ad has not been authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. When we come back. Jessica Tarlov. Joining us now, Fox News' own Jessica Tarlov. Jessica, welcome to the show. Thank you for having me. Super psyched to be here.

So I make a podcast a couple of times a week with dear friends who basically agree with me on everything. And there's still mornings I wake up questioning my life choices. Did you do a hit and run in a past life? What happened? Been lots of chatter about Stockholm syndrome, like what may have happened.

No, I don't think so. I believe in past lives. I think I've been pretty good. Maybe I was a squirrely animal of some kind, but no, this is just where I ended. And I think it's a bit of good fortune actually. Why is that? Well, A, I have a lot of fun at work and I think a lot of people don't have a lot of fun at work.

B, I get to advocate for things that I believe in and I think will make the world a better place. C, I get to do it things that I believe in and I think will make the world a better place. C, I get to do it in front of 3 million people every day. D, actually I haven't done it in an ABCD format yet. I have a lot of reasons. D, persuadable voters are the ones watching Fox. Obviously there are a lot of conservatives, but a lot of liberals and a lot of persuadables. E, I will never feel like I did in 2016 again because I know what's going on on the other side. There's no surprises to come.

Like during the debate, all of my friends who aren't really tuned into politics and the way that we are texting me saying like, what is he talking about? The cats and the dogs and the transgender surgeries for illegals in prison. And like, I knew what all of it meant. I don't know if that's an advantage,

but it's what's in there now. So I wanted to ask you about this and persuasion, like the strange part about your role on the five is what it seems to me, and you can tell me if I'm wrong here, but that your sparring partners are unpersuadable. And even in the rare cases where you kind of gain ground, it feels like you're having an argument you can't win as a way of getting to people who might actually be persuaded by what you're saying. So how do you think about that? Like you're basically talking to people

whose job it is to not be convinced. Well, I think that there's actually two parts to the mission. So the first part and something that I think that it's really important is to show people that folks with different points of view can actually get along. And if you watch the entire show, you see that, that there is a camaraderie, there's a collegiality to it. There's a lot of personal information that's floated around, people talking about so-and-so's pet, my daughter's,

I've had two kids in the last two and a half years, so been pregnant a lot on the show, things like that. And I think that that's something that really resonates with the audience and something that connects differently actually about Fox as a network as a whole. The second part is that you can persuade them in so far as they can take your point or say, I agree with a piece of this,

but that people at home aren't necessarily as dug in as the people that they see on television. So they're somewhere in between, right? They're obviously gonna be the diehard MAGA folks and they're gonna be diehard liberals that, you know, Monday night, nine o'clock, they're like, oh, it's Rachel night, right? And they're gonna sit down and they're gonna hang on

every single word that Rachel Maddow has to say. Those people aren't persuadable, but the vast majority of people, their views are somewhere around the center. Some are center right, some are center left, especially now that we talk about issues like abortion all the time, which has motivated so many center right people to end up voting for Democrats. And so I don't think it necessarily matters as much what happens on screen as what happens on screen affecting the people at home or how it makes them feel about the type of argument

that you're making, the way you're putting it together, the type of persuasion, I guess, that you're using. So for a long time, there was this argument that basically said like Democrats shouldn't go on Fox News because they're just gonna be punching bags. And there was a, Al Franken famously wrote about Hannity and Combs and he put Combs in a really small font. Like the tiny font, yeah.

Tiny font. And Combs was a punching bag. And I wanna put that aside. Like, obviously I don't think it is valuable for progressives to go on Fox News, be, have the ever loving shit beat out of you and then go home. But I wanna talk about the best cases, right?

I think you are the best case, I think, when Secretary Pete goes on and does a great job, that's a best case. I think John, my co-host, went and talked to Jesse and gave as good as he got. But even in those cases, I personally worry that, like, hey, like, this is a network that exists, that has a goal, right?

And the goal is to elect Republicans. And even if there are moments where you are pushing back inside of that organization, the organization has a purpose and by lending credibility to it, by participating in it, you are helping that organization succeed in its larger mission. And I don't say that with judgment, I say that to like, to wonder like,

how do you think about that? Wanting to win the battle that you're in, but maybe contributing in a negative way to a larger war. So I wouldn't say that that's necessarily the mission of the organization. You know, News Corp operates like a lot of major corporations across the country. They have great benefits packages.

They have tons of people who work there that don't necessarily subscribe to the political views of the hosts that are on air. In fact, most of them don't, right? People who work in television tend to be pretty liberal. So that's the same there as it would be anywhere else. The hosts or a majority of them, sure, they want Republicans to get elected.

But as we've seen in the last series of elections, so 20, 20, 20, 2022, all of the referendums that we've seen on the Dobbs decision, special elections, Democrats have been overperforming. And they've been able to do that because persuadable voters have been hearing from Democrats. Now, I don't think that I've changed the course of history in any way, but I do think it's meaningful for people who enjoy center-right viewing, let's say.

Again, I'm excluding diehard MAGA fans that are not going to listen to anything, but when they see a reasonable and data-driven representative of the left who can also get along with their colleagues, that makes them sit up and listen. And I've had that experience all across the country when I run into Fox viewers. You know, everybody, not an unkind word, I've had someone actually apologize to me for how they behaved online. They can't, they can't said, you know, I've been calling you the C word online for like three years and I'm like, well, I wouldn't have known that. So I'm not sure why you're telling me.

She said, I just want you to know that I've watched you now and the way that you interact with people and I feel really bad about it. I haven't taken down the tweets. I'm like, I don't care, you know, add it to the pile, but people do recognize. That I have a different mission in all of this, but that I can still be part of the fabric and I think an effective part of it as well. And what are you going to do? So you're just going to sit around in an echo chamber, right?

You're going to go to safe places that are not representative of the electorate to get your message across. That doesn't seem particularly useful. I'm not saying there isn't a place for it. And I'm not saying there aren't certain days where I'm like, you know what? I would just really love to sit around the Pod Save America table, right? And we could just all make fun of the same. I mean, it sounds great.

You guys are always having a good time. Um, but I see meaning in it. And I don't think that you should agree with everything that the people that you work with represent or are espousing and you want a good check on things that are out of line. Yeah, no, but I, and I agree with all of that, but I still feel like that,

like I wanna come back to this other problem because you talked about how valuable it is to model, oh, look, we have a different set of views. We have a different outlook on life, but we can still be friendly. We can still talk to one another. I think that's a good thing, that obviously is a good thing. But that is meant to be... When people tell pollsters, when we all have a naturally positive response,

just our feelings, when we see Republicans and Democrats getting along, it's not because that's a good in and of itself, or it's not only a good in and of itself. It's meant to represent something about the kind of politics we want to see, which is a politics in which both in our interpersonal relationships and in our policy preferences, in the kind of world we want wanna build,

we respect each other, see each other as human beings, value each other, even the people we don't see face to face, right? And the issue I have, and I think this gets to the larger question I'm trying to get at, and again, not like just out of genuine interest in how you see this, is you will have a lovely personal interaction, jokey interaction.

I also think, by the way, sometimes progressives who only see clips of the five sometimes do not understand that there's some tongue in cheek joking going on for sure. But at the same time, some of the most despicable views are espoused against people who aren't at that table

about whether it's immigrants or gay people or non-binary people or trans people or lefties or whoever it might be. And like that makes me like, are, is the modeling of we can all just get along kind of lending, I don't know, good vibes to people trying to do something pretty terrible. Well, first of all, I just wanna say that the vast majority of people that you would come across,

I think even in Republican circles, don't hold those views. Like Donald Trump's views, I think are actually an outlier for the average Republican. Like talking about immigrants as vermin and echoing 1930s rhetoric. And, but I guess I return to the point that I just made and say, I don't want to necessarily model a white picket fence situation

and that this is like the best Thanksgiving dinner you ever went to. There's friction and that's very real friction. Judge Piero and I get along very well in real life and have very real fights on air that are rooted in deeply held beliefs that we've both had for a really long time. And that is also part of what the audience gets to see and understand. Like no one thinks that I'm faking it

and no one thinks that they're faking it. And I think that authentic back and forth is what's important. It creates content that resonates with people, but I think that also moves hearts and minds. Cause the number one thing that people hate is inauthentic communication. And just being inauthentic in general,

that's why people hate politicians, right? Their approval rate in Congress, it's like 13% or something. And I mean, I don't know what my Q rating is, but I know that the audience believes that I believe what I'm saying and that that's a key component of this. So it might be that for some liberals, this is not an environment that they can work in, they take it too personally. And I think that

that's something that does happen. I happen to not take it personally, born with the thickest of skin or just the fact that I've really only worked at Fox. So I've never been in a non-adversarial media environment, but I don't like, my mom will text me and she's like, are you okay? And I'm like, well, what happened? And she's like, were you not alive during that last exchange? And it just, it's commercial break, checking my texts, looking at, you know,

whatever piece of overpriced jewelry I won't be able to afford that I want, you know, and then you move on to the next segment. And I don't think that that undermines how passionate people are about it or how passionate I am, but just a capacity to be able to have those tough conversations and move past them. Yeah, I mean, but I like- I get it.

I would bet I am not going to persuade you of this point. And I do know a lot of liberals who feel that way that it's not the right place for it. But I really think that it is. I don't know that I disagree with you. Like I think you do an excellent job pushing back on this. I'm like more interested in just sort of how, like how has it changed how you view like politics? Like how has it changed how you view persuasion

to be surrounded by these views all the time? I think it's made me a lot more tolerant of people. I grew up in New York City in Tribeca, the most liberal of bastions, went to private school. I have a PhD. I am the prototypical liberal, like limousine liberal. I don't have a limousine, but like open that door and here I am.

And it has made me think differently about people who vote differently than I do, especially in the Trump era where going into 2016, I just couldn't wrap my head around it. The second he said bad hombres, I was like, I'm out. Like Mitt Romney, I could understand. This was completely different. So I think that it's created a tolerance and an affection for a different way of life or

a different way of looking at the issues than I can understand. Gun ownership is one place where, you know, sensible gun reform, I think it's one of the most important things in the world. I used to work on Mike Bloomberg's polling team and gun safety was top priority, but I didn't know any real gun owners in my life. I just, I grew up where cops were the ones with guns or people who are the bad guys. Knowing people who actually live in gun culture

has made me different. Knowing people who believe, who are pro-life because of religious beliefs has made me different. Knowing people who believe who are pro-life because of religious beliefs has made me different. It has made me more dug in in my political beliefs, but it's made me smarter and it's made me more sensitive to the way that I argue. And you know, I still obviously get accused of being a bit of professorial about things because I try to use so much data to do it like it's a lecture, but I do try to humanize it as much as I can and use human stories as well

when I'm trying to make the point. And even about my own transformation, but it's not one of those things, like there's been an indoctrination. I think if anything, I'm actually more liberal for having been here. What has it taught you about, like where are places where you think Democrats,

not on policy, but just on communication, are missing in reaching the persuadable chunk of people that you're trying to reach on Fox? Well, I think that they tend to go for themes that just don't resonate with persuadable voters. So there's a ton of polling out there, especially from Blueprint, you know, Reid Hoffman's polling outfit,

where they test every message, every type of policy, and things like threats to democracy don't matter to persuadable voters. Like they've ingested January 6th, however they feel about it, they feel about it. But things that test really well, like lowering prescription drug prices, banning junk fees, I got almost laughed off the set

when I brought it up one day last year. I said, banning junk fees is one of President Biden's most popular policies. And they were like, are you out of your mind? Who gives a fuck about that? I was like, well, everyone who's paying $10 a clip, right, at when they get a junk fee or has to go back to their banks to say,

I don't want to pay 3.75 every time I use an ATM that's out of network. And that's real money to people. So those kinds of issues, the bread and butter of it is what I try to argue. And an issue like abortion, I try to make that also an economic issue or a health care issue, not necessarily, you know, I slipped up and I got pregnant issue.

And I think the Democrats have done a good job with that, but especially on economic issues, there's so many better ways I think to be talking about it that would help the message resonate. I think Kamala has actually been a bit better even than Joe Biden on this. And you can see her cutting into Trump's lead on the economy. I saw you guys were talking see her cutting into Trump's lead on the economy.

I saw you guys were talking about it a couple of days ago on the podcast. That's because she's using the message testing and she's seeing what is actually hitting these persuadable voters versus just talking about the things that you and I might wanna say at a dinner party. So, you talk about bringing up this issue that really resonates with people

that your co-hosts sort of laughed at. Are there other ways in which you see the right paying a price for the bubble that they're in, that you're in? Well, definitely post-Dobbs, yeah. I think that that's the smartest of Republicans and that this includes Kellyanne Conway, who you could say

whatever you want about her, but she certainly gets it and she knows what electorally works. They know that sending it back to the states is not the win that they expected. So it's a win for the pro-life movement and the activist class is happy about that, the Lila Roses of the world. But Republicans who actually want to try to govern have essentially been shitting their pants since this happened. And we've been good at capitalizing on it and making sure that it's an issue and that's on as many ballots as possible. But that's one where, you know, I think that was that was done at their own peril. And, you know, Republican women get pregnant too. I think I've said that on air.

It's, this is not just a problem for Lucy Goosey Democrats. So you talked about having real arguments with Jeanine Pirro. When the lights come down, when the cameras are off, are there ever moments where the kind of facade breaks a little bit where like, just in watching you on the five, I take you as being sincere. My honest feeling is that I think a lot of the objections

and pulse and views that are expressed in your direction are sincere, but a lot of it just feels like bullshit, right? Just feels like defending Trump because that's their job or kind of attacking Democrats because that's their job. Does that facade ever break? I wouldn't say, I don't think it's fair to say facade. I think that people who are arguing on TV

and this is wherever you're doing it, are going to be as dug in and passionate about it because that's also how you create the best content and how you get people to be tied into your show and to feel like this is a place that they can go to hear passion and that that's lacking in a lot of the communication that people are absorbing. But it's not a facade.

I'm sure people are more reasonable about things maybe in their daily life. And I'm talking about like a real extreme kind of fireworks thing. But the thing that Janine and I fight the most about is the character of Donald Trump. She's very personally close with him. She swears that he is the kindest, most generous guy, that he is the grandpa that shows up, you know, sometimes one day to take pictures of him with his kids.

Or like he was on Gutfeld last week. He did the whole hour, I think Thursday night. And I don't know if you watched it, but he was pretty charming. He was very at ease. He was with people who all liked him. It was a live audience who didn't even know that he was going to be coming on.

And they got surprised. Like they showed up and thought they'd get Brian Kilmeade or something and they got Donald Trump for an hour. And when he's at ease, he was not- It's a good trade, I think actually. If I were a Trump voter, I would have been thrilled with the swap for sure. And Brian's great, but he's no Trump.

But if you saw him in that kind of environment, you could understand a Trump voter a lot more than seeing him in a rally environment, at least for me. I'm not a persuadable, but I saw a kindness to him that Janine is always talking to me about. It didn't change how I argue about him or what I said the following day, but it was notable to me.

And a moment of confirmation that the world that they live in is a real world too. I think that liberals sometimes, and perhaps I'm guilty of it as well, just saying, well, this is exactly how world too. I think that liberals sometimes, and perhaps I'm guilty of it as well, just saying, well, this is exactly how it is. This is what the numbers say. How could you possibly think this? And it's a lot more complicated than that,

especially with a figure like Trump, who is so polarizing and the number of people who say, I don't like him personally, but I like these policies, or he has the kind of attitude that I think a world leader needs to have. Yeah, I mean, I do think liberals sometimes ignore how charming Trump is. Like I don't disagree.

I've said that before. I think I get some shit for saying it, but like, yes, he's charming. He can be very funny. But I think that sort of gets at the problem, right? Like, no, no, no, he's actually very funny. He's actually very nice. Well, does it really matter?

What matters is- No, it doesn't. And I know you don't think it matters, but it is not a, oh, we just don't understand their world situation. It's, Trump is a despicable figure, like a sort of, and we know that, I think most independent voters know that personally, his character, right? Everybody's kind of come to the same conclusion.

But like Janine's time at dinners with Trump aside, I think even most of the people advocating on behalf of Trump on Fox News know that this is a despicable human being that they've thrown their lot in, that they're trying to justify. And I guess I wonder if that ever comes across, if like that truth,

it's not a liberal or conservative truth, but like this man is unfit for office. You've made your deal and he has some policy positions or qualities or he has the right enemies, whatever it may be. But like, you're not actually being honest about Trump the man. You're not actually being honest

about what you think about him as a human being. Well, I don't think someone's gonna sit up there and say he's a despicable human being. What they do say is, I wouldn't have said that necessarily. And people even like Jesse Waters will say that. And I think it's part of why Jesse's able to have conversations like with John at the DNC,

and both of them actually come out looking pretty good. Or you take someone like Kayleigh McEnany, who has been through a lot with Trump and has offered some of the most honest commentary about how he's running his campaigns, like how he's resonating with women. She's the one who goes the deepest into the internals of the polls and brings it out and says,

okay, well, this is something that's resonating with white men, for instance, but you see this as really hurting him with minority voters or with female voters. So I don't know. It would be tough for me and they're not comparable. This is what happens and I don't know if you get this as well. not comparable. This is what happens. And I don't know if, if you get this as well. Someone says, well, what would you do if there was a Trump on the left? I'm like, well, what is that? Like Bernie Sanders? Like, that's the most extreme person that we have, like a really nice guy that wants free health care. But there would be a lot, I think, of center left

Democrats, independents who are left leaning, for instance, that would consider a normie Republican on the other side, like a Mitt Romney, if there was someone that they felt was an extremist on the left. But again, we just don't have a comp. But yeah, well, I think that points to the issue here, right? There isn't a comp because obviously these are not like equivalent movements.

In many ways we are, and I know you know that, I'm just sort of like, Donald like, oh, like let's look at the cross tabs. How can Donald Trump do a better job appealing to women? Like the, even this, what you're, even what you're describing, right, is lending kind of nuance and complexity to what is ultimately a very simple choice here, right?

Donald Trump has promised mass deportations. He has threatened to overturn the election. He talked about just the other day, jailing people for criticizing judges. He is promising something very, very dangerous and very, very dark. And on the other side, we have a traditional center left democratic figure. Right? And any effort that is about kind of trying to figure out ways to put a, to make that into any kind of a difficult choice is an effort to obfuscate what's actually going on in our politics.

Okay. So I don't want to come off as an apologist for Trump or Trumpism because I dislike him at the top tier, like the top 1% of people. And I have dug into basically every single thing that he has said in the political arena to make sure that I have informed opinions about this. And I know the couple of things that he's done that I think are decent.

And I know that the vast majority of them are complete garbage. But when you paint that picture as clearly or as black and white as you just did, I think you missed the fact that there are policy preferences embedded in what he's saying that appeal to a lot of people. So not mass deportation.

I was just having this conversation with someone actually who I had no idea how they voted. I actually thought that they were pretty nonpartisan. I didn't know if she voted or not. Suddenly we start talking. She felt comfortable. I was glad that she did. It turns out she's voting for Trump and she's voting for Trump on the immigration issue. Her sister lives in Queens, kids public school is flooded with migrant kids who don't speak the language. She feels like goods and services are being taken away from Americans to benefit a population

that came here illegally. Now I said, well, how are you gonna round up 13 million people and throw them out of the country? And is that what you want to do? Because this is someone else, an urban person who lives and works and respects people who are here for a better life and have been for years and pay into social security, et cetera. She goes, well, he's not really going to do that.

And that has always been the issue with Trump, because people can just say, he's not going to do the things that I don't want him to do, but he is going to do the things that I want him to do. And what I want him to do is build a wall. Or what I want him to do is to make sanctuary cities go away. And I don't know if I can really fault them for that. Or if I guess I don't feel like I can talk down to someone in the terms that I naturally feel, which are just as you put out there by saying he tried to

overturn the election. He you know, the racism, the sexism, the misogyny, the anti-Semitism, all of it is real. But it's it gets to a point where it's not even useful. And I guess that's a lesson that I've learned. But I, so that's what I, but this is what I think, this is, I'm glad that's what you land on, because that's sort of what I was coming to as well.

Like I think in part because we're all, our brains have all been, I think, pickled by decades of the way politics is covered. We jump straight from what is true, what is ethical, what is desirable to what is useful, what is pragmatic, how we persuade. I think you're absolutely right. I think painting this as some kind of Manichaean choice is probably not the best way to reach independent, persuadable voters. probably not the best way to reach independent, persuadable voters. Kamala Harris has come out in favor of the bipartisan border security bill that's ultimately,

I think, a conservative bill. Democrats are coming to realize that we need to separate the debate about the border from the debate about immigration reform. People want a more secure border. They trust Donald Trump on the border. At the same time, they continue to tell pollsters that they want a generous immigration system. They believe immigrants are good for the country, not bad for the country.

There's a conflict there that you have to respect, you have to meet people where they are, right? That is the politics, that's the pragmatism, right? But we're jumping to that because that's the conversation we have to have, that's where the equity is. But that doesn't change the underlying reality, right? We shouldn't lose sight of the underlying reality.

Donald Trump stopped that border bill, right? We shouldn't lose sight of the underlying reality. Donald Trump stopped that border bill, right? Personally, he did not successfully build the wall or secure the border. He is not gonna keep any of his promises. He has no idea what he's going to do on immigration, right? He said everything about actual immigration reform, likely would not, would, you know, like he's promising a vast deportation

force that most Americans don't want. Well, he's gonna destroy the economy with his immigration bill. And destroy the economy. If he gets his way, which he's not going to, which is what people think. Right, so I guess what I'm trying to do is separate out what's useful, right, the arguments,

why it is valuable to kind of give credence to Trump, to like go, to get into the details here, to try to sort of like coax some people over to our side. While at the same time, you're sort of, we all are, right, collectively, part of a big media ecosystem that is sort of creating nuance and dynamism where really what we have is a pretty simple and stark

and ultimately static choice. A center left Democrat versus an authoritarian and extremist right. I agree, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground that, you know, we can mock persuadables or you're like, who's actually, how did Stephanie Ruhl put it on Bill Marsh? She's like, I've been wondering who that person is, right, that watches the debate and says, you know, I just don't know. And then it's Brett Stevens. And I think Brett Stevens will probably end up voting for Kamala when push comes to shove. He's not going to vote for Donald Trump. But my guess would be after doing the Latino town hall, more interviews, etc., that he'll get enough of a picture or confirmation at least

that she is this normie Democrat. And I've been saying on air, you can like Kamala Harris, but you can also just like generic D. And Kamala Harris is doing her best generic D impression. And she's been doing a really good job. And she has to get around a lot of the things that she said in 2019 and early 2020 in the primary when she ran, you know, to the left of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and that kind of stuff is what haunts her, especially in a

conservative media ecosystem. But the neat bows about all of this doesn't reflect the reality of how complicated humans are. Even just not in terms of politics. Think about relationships. Why we fall in love with somebody. Why we can't get over somebody. Because they're hot. Yes, but then why do we stay? Because people get less hot.

Yeah, but they're scared to leave. Not us, just everyone else. Yes. Maybe that was a bad example, but it's just a lot thornier and people have been a part of a group for decades and we're just asking them to give that up. So let's say they voted for Trump in 2016,

they dabbled with the Democrats in 2020 and a lot of that I, was due to the pandemic. I really feel like Donald Trump, odds are he was going to win in 2020 if we hadn't had COVID. Like if it was a normal campaign and they were both out there doing their thing, that Trump would have been able to get reelected. I hope Biden would have won. We'll never know.

It was a special election. So we got these four amazing bonus years where Biden accomplished more than I think anyone expected that he ever would have been able to. And we ended up with the right thing, which is a new nominee for 2024. But for us being on the good side, right? Like if we, on our shoulders,

we have the angel and the devil, we get to be on the angel side, right? To say we're on the side of the person who respects the rule of law, the side of the person who believes in everyone getting a fair shot and an economy that works for all Americans and for getting more people healthcare, not less healthcare, whether we're talking about reproductive healthcare or just expanding Medicaid. And Republicans are sitting there thinking, like, I got into this

for Reagan or something like that, or I thought I was the party of Lincoln. And now I'm stuck with Donald Trump. And it's a lot to ask of someone to come over and to come over in a sustained way. You know, these are loners at this point. And I think that this election. Will really signal whether we're getting a long-term lease or this was just for a few cycles. And that's a harder job to close, right?

To get, I was in Iowa for the caucuses, and I met a lot of women who had traveled from all over the country to caucus, well, to get out the vote for Nikki Haley. And these are women that are not going back, right? These are suburban women from outside of Atlanta, some who are there in Iowa, coming from Arizona, all of the places that you wanna see these people.

And they're like, Nikki Haley, Nikki can do it. And I'm like, okay, but Nikki can't do it, right? But that was clear even from the first moment of this race. And Nikki Haley's not gonna do it. And I see her leadership now has endorsed Kamala, like 300,000 of them. But it's still asking a lot of people to take off that jersey that they have loved and that their parents probably loved

for someone that has a lot of positions that are incompatible with the way that they've seen the world their whole lives. Last question, you're talking about identity, the ways in which politics intersects with identity. Abortion ballot measures, union ballot measures, minimum wage ballot measures, weed ballot measures. They do well even in the reddest of red states, but democratic politicians don't.

What do you think Democrats don't understand about political identity that would make us more competitive in those conservative places? I think sometimes we don't understand the complexity of those identities going back to what I was just talking about and that's really present, especially when we're dealing with Latino voters, for instance, and we're doing better this cycle.

I think on that kind of listening to the consultants who have been screaming that your point of origin makes a big difference in all of this. And that abortion is not a topic that can be used to glaze over everything else. For a lot of people it I've been told and you know I'm in a lot of ways a single issue voter on choice and that that is a privilege to be able to do that. That same woman that I was having the kind of immigration fight with told me that she goes well you can do that because you don't have other was having the kind of immigration fight with, told me that. She goes, well, you can do that

because you don't have other problems. And I have problems, but I don't have as many problems as someone in Queens who has a kid in public school where the school is being overrun. So I think that we don't understand the complexity of it. And I think that we also don't understand how much it matters to just act like a normal person. And I say act, and I probably shouldn't. just act like a normal person. And I say act and I probably

shouldn't. So to be a normal person, you know, we're probably going to lose John Tester's seat. But I think that he has been such a great example of just being yourself and that that can connect with anyone. It seems like Tim Walz has been doing a really good job of that. Or even Mark Kelly, who is naturally quite stiff, I find. But if you listen to him talk about immigration issues, you can see that he has listened intently to people on both sides of the debate and understands what's wrong with the Republican position and what's wrong with the Democratic position.

So being normal goes really far, not nationalizing your races. I mean, this was something one of my colleagues pointed out the other day. I haven't heard anyone talk about agriculture on either side. Yeah. And it's a huge problem.

Farmers vote, farmers generate tons of money for the economy. China's buying up our farmland. I think Trump just brought it up yesterday for the first time, which seems like a miss on his side. So thank you, every time he misses something, you know, an angel gets its wings. But we should be leading on that.

Like there's no reason that we shouldn't. There are all sorts of subsidy programs the Biden Harris administration has for farmers. Like, why isn't she leading with things like that and having those kinds of town halls or meet and greets with voters? So the national stuff takes care of itself because people like us will talk about it and that'll get disseminated somehow, whether it's clips or people listening to podcasts. But the underlying issues that are really representative of the core of America,

and a lot of ways the American ethos, I feel like get left out of the discussion. I mean, union stuff has gotten big because of the Teamsters, brouhaha. But otherwise, there wasn't as much conversation about it as I think that there should have been. Millions of people are part of unions. And I feel like we've taken it for granted a little bit. Biden was great, obviously, with the autoworkers and showing up on the picket line. But that's somewhere where Republicans definitely feel like we have a vulnerability. Jessica Tarlov of The Five,

Jessica Tarlov of The Five, taking a break from getting, I don't know, Trump said his debate on ABC was three-on-one. You do four-on-one every single day. Yeah, I do. And it wasn't three-on-one. I can't say that. No, absolutely not. No, it absolutely wasn't. But it was great to be with you.

So thank you for the invitation. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So thank you for the invitation. Thanks. That is our show for today. Thank you so much to Aaron Haynes for cohosting. Thank you to Jessica Tarlov for joining. John and Dan will be back in your feeds on Friday morning. Bye, everybody.

If you want to get ad free episodes, exclusive content and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at Cricut.com slash friends. And if you're already doom scrolling, don't forget to follow us at Podsave America on Instagram, Twitter and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review to help boost this episode or spice up the group chat by sharing it with friends, family or randos you want in on this conversation. Podsave America is a Crooked Media production. Our producer is David Toledo.

Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farah Safari. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor and Adrian Hill is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seguin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeleine Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant.

Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hefkote, Mia Kelman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pellaveve, and David Tolles.