Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. And House Republicans have voted not to
Speaker 1: release the met Gates ethics report, surprising no one. We
Speaker 1: have a great hill for you today the Focus Group podcast.
Speaker 1: Sarah Longwell stops by to talk focus groups. Then we'll
Speaker 1: talk to Senator Chris Murphy about how Democrats can win
Speaker 1: on economic populism.
Speaker 2: But first the news, Somalie, the TikTok ban just got
Speaker 2: struck down by a lower court and now it's heading
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court. What are you seeing here?
Speaker 1: So they can't ban it? Or they can ban.
Speaker 2: No, they can ban it.
Speaker 1: And want me to do some explaining, Yes, Jesse, you
Speaker 1: since you are the TikToker in the relationship here and
Speaker 1: you send me tiktoks and I can't figure out how
Speaker 1: to watch them. And I am the boomer and you
Speaker 1: here are the zoomer. I'm the boomer, is eight months
Speaker 1: older that you're. Yes, Yes, it's explained to us, I'm
Speaker 1: the boomer. Yes, explain to us how the Chinese government
Speaker 1: controls what we see on TikTok go.
Speaker 2: Okay, So Now this lower court has said that TikTok
Speaker 2: has to sell if they want to remain in the
Speaker 2: United States or else they will be abanned in mid January.
Speaker 2: So what now happens is the Supreme Court decides whether
Speaker 2: they will take up this case or not. If they do,
Speaker 2: that buys TikTok a whole bunch of time potentially, if
Speaker 2: their will lawyers do the right maneuvers. If they don't
Speaker 2: take it up, which is entirely possible, TikTok will be
Speaker 2: forced to sell. There's many, many, many rich people and
Speaker 2: corporations salivating at the idea of buying this, including people
Speaker 2: like mister Wonderful from Shark Tank and Microsoft.
Speaker 1: That's more than I have ever wanted to know about TikTok.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what happens. Hard to imagine that anything
Speaker 1: good happens with a Trump presidency about to start, but
Speaker 1: we will see, right, Jesse Cannon, we will see, and
Speaker 1: TikTok will still exist for many moons to come.
Speaker 2: Yes, Somali, two friends of ours, Noah Schuckman and a Swin.
Speaker 2: They have a very Actually, this was the funnest article
Speaker 2: I read all week about how Eric Adams is doing
Speaker 2: anything we could all see, which is kissing trump sass
Speaker 2: for a pardon.
Speaker 1: As someone who interviewed Eric Adams this week on Morning Joe,
Speaker 1: he's very fit. And also, yes, it seems very clear
Speaker 1: that Eric Adams has realized that he can get pardoned.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the thing you have to remember
Speaker 1: about Eric Adams and also about everyone else. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is completely transactional. If you say on television, oh this
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. He's kind of a good guy and so handsome.
Speaker 1: He sees it and then you he'll let you do
Speaker 1: what you want. So like we saw this at the
Speaker 1: deal Book conference. We saw Jeff Bezos being like, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is going to be great. This is all going
Speaker 1: to be great. You know, this is just trying to
Speaker 1: manipulate him into getting what you want. Will it work?
Speaker 1: Maybe in the short term, it'll work for Jeff Bezos.
Speaker 1: As we all know on this podcast. We all know,
Speaker 1: like ask Rudy Giuliani, how it works out for you?
Speaker 1: It never works out. Well. Everything Trump touches dies. You know,
Speaker 1: it may take a little longer now that he's going
Speaker 1: back into the White House, but this is absolutely one
Speaker 1: hundred percent the case. And you know, but anyway, Adams
Speaker 1: has decided, and look, Adams is a guy with not
Speaker 1: a lot of options, right, He's got these federal indictments.
Speaker 1: He supposedly has more indictments coming though, who knows. He's
Speaker 1: clearly up to no good and he really wants to
Speaker 1: stay Mayor. So you know, he's thinking that if he
Speaker 1: can get Trump to pardon him, he can stay in
Speaker 1: the arena a little longer. And you know, it's not
Speaker 1: an insane I mean, it's morally an ethically very corrupt,
Speaker 1: but it's not an insane theory. And I think in
Speaker 1: my work for him.
Speaker 2: It's a funny thing because it serves both sides effectively,
Speaker 2: as Adams wants to keep on cry big and he
Speaker 2: wants to not go to jail and Trump be loves
Speaker 2: when somebody gravels and kisses his ass.
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny because it's like I was listening
Speaker 1: to him on the show when I'm watching him and
Speaker 1: I'm thinking to myself, he's like explaining about how these
Speaker 1: federal indictments are twisting the law to come after him,
Speaker 1: and you know, we've had all these conversations about like
Speaker 1: should the law be the same for everyone. I actually
Speaker 1: listened to this very smart New Yorker podcast that had
Speaker 1: this lawyer. I'm not sure she's right where she was
Speaker 1: talking about maybe it would have been better just not
Speaker 1: to even try to prosecute Trump because it just, you know,
Speaker 1: it had it because as the appearance of being political
Speaker 1: in itself. Again, I don't know what the answer is.
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer, but it just struck me that
Speaker 1: what Adams is doing is he's really trying to manipulate
Speaker 1: what is him doing illegal stuff and make it sound
Speaker 1: political in order to appeal to Trump and make this
Speaker 1: case that it's all the same. And you know this
Speaker 1: is we're down this posts post truth rabbit hole.
Speaker 2: So, Malia, you know who I want in charge of
Speaker 2: making elector overform. It's definitely not Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I know who you don't want to try so Donald
Speaker 1: Trump again, Like, this guy just wants to get his
Speaker 1: hands on elections so badly, and should we be surprised
Speaker 1: this is what he says to Trump. Okay, so he's
Speaker 1: in New York and he is he is accepting an award.
Speaker 1: By the way, the idea of giving this guy awards
Speaker 1: like that is what it is. If you want something
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump, give him an award. He was accepting
Speaker 1: an award from Fox Nation. The award is called Patriot
Speaker 1: of the Year. That's Patriot of the Year award. Okay,
Speaker 1: he is the this year. There is no patriot. Who
Speaker 1: is a bigger patriot? Then Thrice indicted, Right, fine, you
Speaker 1: know that guy. He's the Patriot of the Year. It
Speaker 1: was a long island event, it was not even in Manhattan,
Speaker 1: organized by Fox Nation. On Thursday, he accepted the award.
Speaker 1: Oh no, this is even I'm sorry, this gets worse.
Speaker 1: Accepted the award designed to resemble the American flag because
Speaker 1: he is, after all, the Patriot of the year. After
Speaker 1: a live performance of what other song could it be?
Speaker 1: This guy's his favorite. I even didn't have any idea
Speaker 1: who the fuck this was, but now I know, and
Speaker 1: I wish I didn't live performance of Lee Greenwood's God
Speaker 1: Bless the USA, and that is Donald Trump's favorite song.
Speaker 1: If you have a phone, you should google Lee Greenwood
Speaker 1: because he is either twenty or one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: years old. It's impossible to tell. He has had some
Speaker 1: kind of incredible facial whatever, and he looks like he
Speaker 1: could be twenty five or eighty.
Speaker 2: Well, I like that, mister Trump. Did his usual speaking
Speaker 2: ambiguously at saying nothing of We're going to do things
Speaker 2: that have really needed for a long time.
Speaker 1: The man murders English. But he did mention. He complained
Speaker 1: about the California law. In California, they just passed a
Speaker 1: law that you're not even allowed to ask a voter
Speaker 1: for voter ida. Think of that. If you ask a
Speaker 1: voter for their voter Ida, you're committing a crime. We're
Speaker 1: going to get the whole country straightened out. Yeah, no
Speaker 1: better way to get the whole country straightened out than
Speaker 1: the stop corruption. Police are going to make sure that
Speaker 1: all the corruption doesn't happen, and you just have to
Speaker 1: pay them.
Speaker 2: Somali. When I think of people who earn things in
Speaker 2: a meritocracy, you know what I think of Donald Trump's cabinet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is nepo nepo And again, nothing wrong with nepotism.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump wants his cabinet nominees to earn their confirmations
Speaker 1: on their own. That's how he works, right. But on Friday,
Speaker 1: he was wanted to give an adaboy to Pete Hagsas
Speaker 1: you'll remember Pete heggsas a weekend morning television host and
Speaker 1: also multiple divorcee likes a couple beers. He's got the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh just like beer situation.
Speaker 2: I really liked the detail of him drinking ten warm
Speaker 2: flat beers at ten am. That was a really good story.
Speaker 1: You know how many panels I've been on or places
Speaker 1: I've been where people have been like repeating that thing
Speaker 1: about him drinking all the flat beers. I have been
Speaker 1: sober twenties at seven years. I don't think it's not bad.
Speaker 1: Like I get it, man, like I get it.
Speaker 2: Maybe you've forgotten how bad flat war beer taste. But
Speaker 2: as somebody who tasted at this summer, let me tell you,
Speaker 2: I don't want it.
Speaker 1: It does a job. Nobody is drinking for a taste here. Okay,
Speaker 1: that is not true.
Speaker 2: I love the taste of a Budweiser a Corona this summer.
Speaker 1: Well that's because you're not an alcohol But the rest
Speaker 1: of us will drink our beer. I mean we won't
Speaker 1: because I'm sober. But flat beer not flat beer? Who cares?
Speaker 1: But anyway, Trump is very excited that Haig Seth is
Speaker 1: fighting back. He told an advisor beats biting like cow.
Speaker 1: I wonder if he said fighting or fighting. He's a
Speaker 1: fighter again. I want to point out that, from what
Speaker 1: we understand, and again this could be reported wrong, was
Speaker 1: not in the room, but that Donald Trump picked him
Speaker 1: because he looked like he should be director of the
Speaker 1: d D. Now they're saying he's not going to jump out,
Speaker 1: that hag Set is going to make it through. We'll see.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, it is still December and Trump
Speaker 1: is not even president yet, so let's see what happens.
Speaker 1: Sarah long While is publisher of The Bulwark and the
Speaker 1: host of the Focus Group podcast. Welcome back to Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: Sarah Longwhile.
Speaker 3: Well being here.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: The first thing I want to talk to you about
Speaker 1: is I have so much I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about. Was that after this selection happened, I went
Speaker 1: through this process of like trying to figure out what
Speaker 1: I got wrong and how my own wish casting sort
Speaker 1: of clouded my judgment, and how, you know, just sort
Speaker 1: of the litany of ways in which I could perhaps
Speaker 1: like get information more clearly. I thought everyone was doing that.
Speaker 1: It turned out that everyone was just trying to tell
Speaker 1: each other what they had gotten wrong. I feel like
Speaker 1: you are thoughtful, introspective in a way that not many
Speaker 1: people are. Is there something wrong with us for being
Speaker 1: that way.
Speaker 3: Look, I do think that there are some real hopium
Speaker 3: merchants out there. Yeah, And I think that because the
Speaker 3: hopium merchants were a little more right in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 3: most people over listened to them in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: And I will say, I mean, I'm happy to do
Speaker 3: my own sort of pundit accountability.
Speaker 1: I feel like you have. I just remember the two
Speaker 1: of you, and even and Tim especially was like, you know,
Speaker 1: he was like, we sort of know she's better off
Speaker 1: than he is, but it's not entirely clear to me
Speaker 1: that either of them can win.
Speaker 3: Yeah, going into the election, I was like, look, if
Speaker 3: I'm using the focus groups, I could make the case
Speaker 3: either way, because part of what happened was it was
Speaker 3: so dismal when it was Joe Biden that we saw
Speaker 3: this huge uptick for her, but it was never clear
Speaker 3: whether that was going to be enough because the hole
Speaker 3: that they were digging out of with Joe Biden, and
Speaker 3: this is where look at people were mad when I
Speaker 3: was like, he's got to drop out, He's got to
Speaker 3: drop out. But I cannot tell you how much the
Speaker 3: data going back to like twenty twenty one like after
Speaker 3: basically Afghanistan and the Delta researchers like Joe Biden never recovered.
Speaker 1: He was deeply unpopular.
Speaker 3: People thought he was too old, and whether you like
Speaker 3: that or not, it's just true. And him running and
Speaker 3: not allowing for a robust Democratic primary that could separate
Speaker 3: from him was I think the fatal error. And I'll
Speaker 3: tell you, the focus groups were so different going into
Speaker 3: twenty four than they were in twenty. Like in twenty twenty,
Speaker 3: I felt sure he was going to win, and actually,
Speaker 3: you know, Trump overperformed I think our expectations back in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty. But here's one of the things that I
Speaker 3: also would point to as just a It wasn't a
Speaker 3: blind spot because I knew about it, but I wasn't
Speaker 3: quite sure what emphasis to put on it. So I
Speaker 3: was spent a lot of time talking to Trump to
Speaker 3: Biden voters. So people have voted for Trump and sixteen
Speaker 3: and then Biden in twenty to see if they were
Speaker 3: going to stick with him, And the thing was the
Speaker 3: majority were, but we were always losing one or two people.
Speaker 3: I'm sure we talked about that last time, because that
Speaker 3: was like the dominant piece of evidence, was there was
Speaker 3: always a little bit of backsliding, and so the question was,
Speaker 3: then could Kamala Harris pick up some new people to
Speaker 3: offset that backsliding, And that didn't happen, and in fact,
Speaker 3: Trump picked up a bunch of sort of newish people
Speaker 3: or low info or people are just are low propensity, right,
Speaker 3: they don't vote in a lot of elections, or they
Speaker 3: just turn out for presidentials. That is who he has
Speaker 3: always dominated with. And on the election day, when I
Speaker 3: saw how high turnout was, that used to be a
Speaker 3: good sign for Democrats, but it's not. It was I
Speaker 3: knew it was like, oh, no, turnout, super high. That's
Speaker 3: better for Trump because Democrats are kind of maxing out.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: They got these college educated suburban voters in their trade,
Speaker 3: but they're maxing out on those voters and there's only
Speaker 3: so many of them. There are way more non college
Speaker 3: working class voters who vote just in presidential elections. And
Speaker 3: that's where Donald Trump and Donald Trump overperformed this time.
Speaker 3: Any other Republican, like other Republicans aren't turning those people out,
Speaker 3: but Donald Trump does.
Speaker 1: And in fact, you had states like Arizona where there
Speaker 1: were real Diego Trump voters. Oh yeah, absolutely, and in Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: tammy Ball went, you know, which is wild.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but those are people who look at her and say,
Speaker 3: or look at Diego and say, I don't know, this
Speaker 3: person seems like a working you know that they will
Speaker 3: be a good sort of for the working class. But
Speaker 3: they also like Trump. Look, the guy's been a celebrity,
Speaker 3: he's been with us for decades. People have voted for
Speaker 3: him now many times, and so they feel slightly different
Speaker 3: about him. He pulls in a real cross category a
Speaker 3: voter and including you know, one of the things that's
Speaker 3: been in that we've been doing a lot of postgame
Speaker 3: with the focus groups. And I also want to just
Speaker 3: say from the qualitative side, I felt like, look, I
Speaker 3: felt like both the polling and the qualitative side sort
Speaker 3: of told us on all guys, this could go either way.
Speaker 3: And it's like tough sledding, Like tough sledding for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: When I've been writing about my own accountability, what, I've
Speaker 1: been surprised that the polls were really underestimated Trump. They
Speaker 1: underestimated Trump in every election he's run at now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but the polls just they can't model for like how
Speaker 1: the turnout's going to be, and so when he's able
Speaker 1: to sort of supercharge these low propensity voters. That's what
Speaker 1: he's done every single time.
Speaker 3: And also I do think the polling was picking up
Speaker 3: on a lot of the things that we saw, oh,
Speaker 3: which was like the massive slide with Hispanics, the somewhat
Speaker 3: slide with black voters, and she was able to shore
Speaker 3: something up. And let me just say a word about
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris. She saved Democrats from an absolute wipeout. She
Speaker 3: really did. Joe Biden was going to lead Democrats to
Speaker 3: a historic wipeout, and she fought it back to a
Speaker 3: place where now Republicans are going to have maybe a
Speaker 3: three seat majority in the House, like they can't do
Speaker 3: anything with a three seat majority, and they're going to
Speaker 3: have a few seat majority in the Senate. But like
Speaker 3: in terms of Republicans doing sort of big things together congressionally,
Speaker 3: they probably are going to have a really tough time.
Speaker 3: She kept it really narrow. But anyone who says, oh, well,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden, you know, would have won, let me tell
Speaker 3: you something, there's literally not one shread of evidence to
Speaker 3: support that, not a shred. I think the only shread
Speaker 3: of evidence there is to support is that if Joe
Speaker 3: Biden had gotten out a lot earlier and either allowed
Speaker 3: for a Democratic primer or given Kamala Harris more time
Speaker 3: to sort of get better at it, to let people
Speaker 3: know her more, that that might have made a difference.
Speaker 3: But that's the only real difference that I think could
Speaker 3: have been made.
Speaker 1: I wonder a lot if some of Joe Biden's problem,
Speaker 1: not a governing problem, but a re election problem, started
Speaker 1: with his administration's intentionally boring doing no media, don't write.
Speaker 3: About us thing like I wonder if that mushroomed. Well,
Speaker 3: here's the thing Democrats going forward, if they learn one
Speaker 3: lesson from this, people are going to sort of try
Speaker 3: to categorize thing that I should have gone on Joe Rogan,
Speaker 3: it was the podcast election, Okay. Sure. What it really
Speaker 3: means is you can no longer do politics without being
Speaker 3: very good at having a communication strategy. There is no
Speaker 3: way that you and I weren't talking about this on
Speaker 3: your show, because I have been beside myself for the
Speaker 3: entire Biden administration about the fact that they are not
Speaker 3: out there talking. I was like, look, and Joe Biden
Speaker 3: was allows the communicator, right, he was too old, and
Speaker 3: so he didn't have the ability to like communicate Strong'm like,
Speaker 3: but I was like, where are all the surrogates? Where
Speaker 3: is everybody? Else? Where's the mountain of people? Like the
Speaker 3: way that JD. Vance and Donald Trump just went on
Speaker 3: everything were everywhere talking to people directly, Like that allowed
Speaker 3: the mainstream media like they can't define Donald Trump and
Speaker 3: you can people say, you know, he did this or that.
Speaker 3: But like if people will get to hear him directly
Speaker 3: and they say, well, he doesn't sound like Hitler, Pamla
Speaker 3: Harris needs to be able to be like, well, I
Speaker 3: don't sound like somebody who can't form a sentence, right,
Speaker 3: You've got to be there to puncture the way the
Speaker 3: other side is trying to define you directly with voters
Speaker 3: and so sort of the everything everywhere, all at once
Speaker 3: strategy has to be how people communicate and they have
Speaker 3: to be able to do it authentically. And so if
Speaker 3: you can't walk shore footed into all kinds of spaces,
Speaker 3: non traditional spaces, unfriendly spaces, like you can't do politics anymore.
Speaker 3: Like you've got to be able to do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's really the issue is Like by
Speaker 1: the time he had gotten there, that that White House
Speaker 1: didn't really do a lot of communicating. They one offer
Speaker 1: up either the president or the vice president very much.
Speaker 1: And so in that vacuum, Trump was able to fill
Speaker 1: that vacuum throughout the entire Yes.
Speaker 3: Trump had constant counterprogramming, and he also locked up the
Speaker 3: nomination so early, like man was he able he was
Speaker 3: able to run a campaign early he dominated that primary.
Speaker 3: And yeah, there was I mean, like Joe Biden took
Speaker 3: a pass on like.
Speaker 1: A Super Bowl interview. No I don't we do it here?
Speaker 1: Why we do it?
Speaker 3: But that communications problem and this is the other thing,
Speaker 3: like you have to be able to communicate sort of
Speaker 3: twenty four to seven, Like you can't just run a
Speaker 3: campaign right at the end and be like, well this
Speaker 3: is when people pay attention. You also have to be
Speaker 3: able to say, Okay, why didn't anybody know what the
Speaker 3: Biden administration did? Why didn't they know about Because I
Speaker 3: get yelled at on Twitter sometimes they're like, well, Joe
Speaker 3: Biden was a great present. Hear jblast my buddy. So
Speaker 3: as you know, Joe Biden passed all these big legislatives.
Speaker 3: And I was like, yeah, but nobody knows about him.
Speaker 3: And that's the problem.
Speaker 1: The idea that these people don't know about any stuff
Speaker 1: that happened is in itself, you know, that ultimately is
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's why Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Didn't get reelected, right, Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: It's why he was unpopular.
Speaker 3: It's why they were able to push him out once
Speaker 3: it became clear he was absolutely not up to the job.
Speaker 3: But there's also a bunch of other reasons I just
Speaker 3: want to throw out there that I hear all over
Speaker 3: the focus groups, and some of them are things like
Speaker 3: people didn't like the fact that there wasn't a primary,
Speaker 3: Like the fact that it just went from Joe Biden
Speaker 3: to Kamala Harris without sort of input rubbed a lot
Speaker 3: of people the wrong way. The other thing is, even
Speaker 3: though RFK was only getting you know, two or three
Speaker 3: percent nationally, there was this cross section of voters that
Speaker 3: I think ultimately might have been kind of determinative. I've
Speaker 3: heard a lot of this where people are like, you know,
Speaker 3: I voted for RFK and for Elon and for Tulsi
Speaker 3: and like Trump last, but like, there is this red
Speaker 3: pilled voter. It's not a Republican voter. It is a
Speaker 3: red pilled voter who honestly probably was like kind of
Speaker 3: a Democrat for a long time, a casual one who
Speaker 3: was brought over by the anti establishment sort of red
Speaker 3: pilled people that Donald Trump was surrounding himself with. He
Speaker 3: was able to pull just enough people away from Democrats.
Speaker 3: With those sort of people, at the end of the year,
Speaker 3: you curve of politics. And look, this has long been
Speaker 3: a feature of Trump where I talked to a lot
Speaker 3: of Bernie voters who voted for Trump after voting for
Speaker 3: Bernie in a Democratic primary, and he has just been
Speaker 3: able to pull those voters away by being a really
Speaker 3: unworthodox candidate.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I mean, I hate it, but I think
Speaker 1: that is absolutely correct. Democrats were the establishment party. It's
Speaker 1: not just establishment, I think in terms of them trying
Speaker 1: to be defenders of democracy, they got a little bit
Speaker 1: wrapped up in kind of the defenders of the status quo.
Speaker 1: And then also though one of the things you hear
Speaker 1: from voters all the time, which is a shift in
Speaker 1: voters where they now say I don't want a regular
Speaker 1: politician like they like Trump because he's not a regular politician.
Speaker 1: And even when Kamala Harris to them like technically sounded
Speaker 1: good and she was, they were like, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: she doesn't sound like the way they stay sound, but
Speaker 1: they did. She did sound like a regular politician to them.
Speaker 1: She didn't have a clear message that broke through to them.
Speaker 1: And so that's where it was a Now now, as
Speaker 1: a result, we're in an extremely dangerous place. What now
Speaker 1: right now is we're going to look at four more
Speaker 1: years of Trump. Now.
Speaker 3: I want to say a couple things though, really quickly.
Speaker 3: One is that Trump is going to be a lame
Speaker 3: duck president. And I'm seeing a lot of fear from people,
Speaker 3: a lot of pre surrender, a lot of chilling effect,
Speaker 3: and like the and that is a thing we cannot
Speaker 3: allow to happen, Like people are going to have to
Speaker 3: find It's funny. I've heard that the phrase all my life.
Speaker 3: You know, the only thing we have to fear is
Speaker 3: fear itself. But I don't think I ever understood it
Speaker 3: until now, watching the way people are engaging with the fear,
Speaker 3: and the fact is like, we don't need hashtag resist,
Speaker 3: We need like real courage and strength in this moment
Speaker 3: to push forward. We got to find a way to organize.
Speaker 3: And I was just talking to George Conway for the
Speaker 3: pod and I was asking him, like, should Biden issue
Speaker 3: blanket pardons for people like Liz Cheney or Fauci And
Speaker 3: he said no, No, like that is that's not a
Speaker 3: good way to use use the pardon power. But what
Speaker 3: we should do is get on war footing, like we
Speaker 3: need to raise money for we need to get make
Speaker 3: sure people have access to lawyers, and we need to
Speaker 3: fight the fight. And I personally believe that offense is
Speaker 3: always the best defense, right, Like, they got to govern now,
Speaker 3: especially with these guys. Yeah, these are a bunch of
Speaker 3: ego maniacal narcissists who are going to fight with each other.
Speaker 3: Like governing's hard sometimes when you're in the opposition, it
Speaker 3: can be a little easier, and you just let them.
Speaker 3: Let them own this. They've got to pass a budget
Speaker 3: bill right out of the gate. They got to fund
Speaker 3: the government. Let me tell you what, that's good luck
Speaker 3: with your three vote majority though, Mike Johnson and so Democrats,
Speaker 3: But Democrats should not bail them out. Look, I'm a
Speaker 3: big norms values institutions person, but I also believe that
Speaker 3: you can play political hardball, and Democrats should and they
Speaker 3: should not build Republicans out voters ask them to run
Speaker 3: the government, so let them. I think that Democrats should
Speaker 3: be thinking about what their red lines are. Where are
Speaker 3: the places they should fight, and where are the places
Speaker 3: they should let voters get the full experience of what
Speaker 3: they've asked for.
Speaker 1: It's true. I think that's a really good point. Blame
Speaker 1: to us sort of what you think Democrats should be
Speaker 1: focused on? Like it in my mind it's norms and institutions.
Speaker 1: But what do you think the red line should be?
Speaker 3: Well, I think it should be rule of law on elections, right,
Speaker 3: like you want to make sure on the other side
Speaker 3: of Trump's four years we still have free and fair elections, right.
Speaker 3: We want a correction in twenty twenty six. I think
Speaker 3: we can get it. You want to protect the rule
Speaker 3: of law as best you can, because this is going
Speaker 3: to be the most corrupt administration of our lifetime.
Speaker 1: People need to.
Speaker 3: Get familiar with the word cacistocracy because I'm not sure
Speaker 3: the answer to this, and I don't want to be
Speaker 3: pollyannish at all about what we might be facing. I
Speaker 3: think cash Betel is a very scary thing. I think
Speaker 3: Pete Heggs that's very like these are scary people, but
Speaker 3: they're also all like dopes out to enrich themselves, and
Speaker 3: so the extent to which retribution might quickly become just
Speaker 3: a big sense of corruption and them all trying to
Speaker 3: sort of get what's theirs is something I think we
Speaker 3: very much could see. But I do think that Democrats
Speaker 3: need to pick new leaders right, like the new next
Speaker 3: generation has to rise up here, should define themselves in
Speaker 3: opposition to what's about to happen. And I'm talking about
Speaker 3: picking really smart people to lead the DNC. Like I'm
Speaker 3: a big fan of Ben Wickler, know him personally. I
Speaker 3: think he's really good strategically and we're not even I'm
Speaker 3: not even with them on some of the policy stuff,
Speaker 3: but I just think he knows what he's doing and
Speaker 3: knows how to bring the factions of the Democratic Party together.
Speaker 3: I think there's a lot of deep bench and rising stars,
Speaker 3: and I hope they all start to stand up and
Speaker 3: show an alternative Like the Republicans did this. They spent
Speaker 3: the four years of the Biden administration in an opposition
Speaker 3: that allowed people to be like, this is what the
Speaker 3: opposition look like, It's who the players are. Democrats need
Speaker 3: to do that too, and so leaders need to emerge now,
Speaker 3: and I hope that they are smarter yet than just
Speaker 3: sort of hashtag resistant that they figure out how to
Speaker 3: really do the important stuff on guardrails, but also like
Speaker 3: rethinking their communication strategy, Like you've got a few really
Speaker 3: good communicators, but the way in which communication is going
Speaker 3: to go down as the biggest failure of the Biden years,
Speaker 3: and they got a correct that real fast.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Communication, it's not a legislative problem, no, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, look, Joe Biden did a bunch of good, big
Speaker 3: bipartisan things, Like if I had to go back and
Speaker 3: relitigate the Democrats coming out and doing HR one as
Speaker 3: one of their big attempts at legislative stuff rather than
Speaker 3: reigning and executive power after we had just seen that. Like,
Speaker 3: I just think there's a lot of failures in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty one, the biggest ones being on the Republican side
Speaker 3: who refused to hold Trump accountable after the January sixth
Speaker 3: insurrection and his attempt his refusal to engage in a
Speaker 3: peaceful transfer power. But I also think Democrats chose a
Speaker 3: bunch of boneheaded legislative things to do out of the
Speaker 3: gate that were not that like sort of missed the
Speaker 3: fact that we could end up in this snapback moment.
Speaker 3: But look in terms of infrastructure and some of the
Speaker 3: other things Joe Biden did, those were good bills that
Speaker 3: they should have gotten credit for that they just couldn't
Speaker 3: communicate to the voters about you know, is going to
Speaker 3: get credit for it. Trump Trump's going to get the
Speaker 3: benefits of all the infrastructure money as it rolls in.
Speaker 1: If you're wanting these Republican senators and you're trying to
Speaker 1: think of, like who are the ones who, like you
Speaker 1: feel like have spine and might stand up for things.
Speaker 3: I think Collins has been not always good, but I
Speaker 3: think she's been overly maligned, and I think we're going
Speaker 3: to see some good things from Rakowski and Collins. But
Speaker 3: there's also a bunch of senators you don't know their names.
Speaker 3: That's they are the ones that sit in the back
Speaker 3: and like try to keep their heads down and do
Speaker 3: decent things.
Speaker 1: Mike grounds Langford too, I mean he's famous, yeah.
Speaker 3: Langford, who's very conservative, but he's like, oh, he's an
Speaker 3: institution's guy. And you're even already seeing I think there
Speaker 3: was an overly defeatist attitude about Trump's nominations, and like
Speaker 3: they are now quietly killing them. And so I think
Speaker 3: that that is good and that you know, they don't
Speaker 3: want to do it publicly. They're not you know, profiles
Speaker 3: and courage, but they are right now putting their foot
Speaker 3: down in some places, or at least and I even
Speaker 3: Joni Ernst, I think when she said we had a
Speaker 3: frank exchange of views with Pete Hegseth, I hope he
Speaker 3: told her about how women shouldn't be in the military,
Speaker 3: since she is herself a military veteran. So like I
Speaker 3: just I think there are ways in which the Senate
Speaker 3: might be a little better than what people originally thought.
Speaker 1: No, that was my take too, and I was happy
Speaker 1: to see it, and I wanted people to stop engaging
Speaker 1: in that defeatist attitude and instead say, you know, this
Speaker 1: is their job and they're expected to do it because
Speaker 1: you know, however, if they want to do it like
Speaker 1: total cowards, which it seems like they do, then that's
Speaker 1: fine too. As long as they do it, that's right.
Speaker 1: Sarah Long, Well, thank you. I was just really glad
Speaker 1: to get to talk this through with you, so.
Speaker 3: Thanks, love it, Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Chris Murphy is the junior senator from Connecticut. Welcome back,
Speaker 1: to Fast Politics. Senator Murphy Grey All, Yah, good. I mean,
Speaker 1: all things considered, I want you to talk about this
Speaker 1: theory that you've been working on about where Democrats should
Speaker 1: go next.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I listen. I don't think any of us have
Speaker 4: the complete case yet, but I mean, my underlying premise
Speaker 4: is that we got skunked, and it'd be a real
Speaker 4: mistake for us to think that there are minor adjustments
Speaker 4: that will fix our brand and try to grow our coalition.
Speaker 4: You know, maybe I'm a little overly focused on the Senate,
Speaker 4: but right now our ceiling is fifty two seats in
Speaker 4: the Senate because we are not competitive any longer in
Speaker 4: places that just a nanosecond ago we were competitive in,
Speaker 4: like Ohio and Florida and Missouri and Iowa. So it
Speaker 4: feels to me like we've got to do a real
Speaker 4: hard assessment of why we claim to be the party
Speaker 4: of poor people and working people, and working people and
Speaker 4: poor people aren't voting for us. That sounds like we're
Speaker 4: not listening to the people we actually represent. You know,
Speaker 4: My early theory of the case is this that we
Speaker 4: have become the party of the status quo. We're the
Speaker 4: party that defends the establishment, and the Republican Party has
Speaker 4: become the party to attack the status quo. That up
Speaker 4: ends fifty plus years of political paradigm. And there's a
Speaker 4: lot of different paths to once again become the true
Speaker 4: progressive change party, but I would argue it starts by
Speaker 4: being a real pugilistic populist party, meaning we attack power,
Speaker 4: we name who has power, and we are really transparent
Speaker 4: in the ways that we call for the elites to
Speaker 4: lose power and for regular people to get it. That
Speaker 4: means naming names, that means making people inside our coalition uncomfortable.
Speaker 4: And then the second part is make that economic populism,
Speaker 4: that breakup of concentrated power the tentpole of the party
Speaker 4: and allow anybody in who is going to fight with
Speaker 4: us to break up the monopolies, to control the tech companies,
Speaker 4: to cap prescription drug prices, tax billionaires. That means, if
Speaker 4: you're not lined up with us on one hundred percent
Speaker 4: of our social and cultural issues as well as other
Speaker 4: hot buttons like guns and climate, we're going to let
Speaker 4: you in the tent. We're going to allow for some
Speaker 4: disagreement and less litmus tests. That's a hard thing for
Speaker 4: our party because we have come to apply a whole
Speaker 4: bunch of litmus tests, and that has meant that our
Speaker 4: coalition has shrunk, not expanded. It has meant that a
Speaker 4: lot of kind of conservative poor people don't feel like
Speaker 4: they find a home with us. So that's my early
Speaker 4: analysis here. And I don't claim to have all the answers.
Speaker 4: I'm not one hundred percent sure I'm right, but I
Speaker 4: don't think we have a lot of time to sort
Speaker 4: of natlegates. I think we got to fix things pretty
Speaker 4: fast because the train's coming.
Speaker 1: You know. It's so funny, because I mean, funny is
Speaker 1: perhaps the wrong word here, but it's interesting because Jed
Speaker 1: here writes for The Nation as very lefty, basically said
Speaker 1: the exact same thing about this election. He said Democrats
Speaker 1: became the status quo party when you look at the
Speaker 1: numbers and you look at the sort of underperformance among
Speaker 1: working people in urban areas. What Harris did was she
Speaker 1: had a lot of policy proposals, and she actually tried
Speaker 1: really hard to talk about a lot of implementation of
Speaker 1: those policy proposals. So my question is, I wonder how
Speaker 1: much of that was his inability to communicate from an
Speaker 1: early on, Like all Trump does is communicate. He doesn't
Speaker 1: do policy, he doesn't do anything else but communicate. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Democrats just did not communicate very much despite doing a
Speaker 1: lot of economic populism. I mean, the legislation was almost
Speaker 1: FDR style.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, there's a couple of things to say
Speaker 4: about that. First, people want you to relate to the
Speaker 4: way that they are feeling. They actually want you to
Speaker 4: spend some time listening to them and talking to them
Speaker 4: about the problem and the injustice. Now Trump is one
Speaker 4: hundred percent diagnosed, complain about the problem, complain about the injustice.
Speaker 4: He offers no solutions, and it's like really frustrating for
Speaker 4: policy wonk Democrats when Trump gets away with it. But
Speaker 4: it's because human psychology wants to be heard, and the
Speaker 4: way that you know you've been heard is to listen
Speaker 4: to somebody be outraged about the injustice that you're experiencing.
Speaker 4: So take prescription drug prices. It's an outrage. People feel
Speaker 4: it's an outrage. Democrats spend like twenty percent of our
Speaker 4: time talking about the outrage, in eighty percent of our
Speaker 4: time explaining the solution, which by the way, is kind
Speaker 4: of a small ball adjust the market solution, a different
Speaker 4: way to negotiate prices with the existing drug companies. We
Speaker 4: should be shooting eighty percent of our time talking about
Speaker 4: the problem, talking about the drug companies who are screwing Americans,
Speaker 4: naming the exact CEOs, the exact companies hauling them before Congress,
Speaker 4: and twenty percent of our time talking about the solution.
Speaker 4: So we just communicate the wrong way. It doesn't match
Speaker 4: up with how people actually perceive the world and think
Speaker 4: about problems. And I agree with you that Harris had
Speaker 4: a lot of really good policy proposals on the economy.
Speaker 4: And again i'm with you, like I think this was
Speaker 4: a hard campaign for her to whim given that she's
Speaker 4: shoved into it with a really short calendar. I'm not
Speaker 4: sure that if she did everything right, she was going
Speaker 4: to win.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have to wonder, like Democrats have run two
Speaker 1: very competent women like there is may not just be
Speaker 1: their personalities, right, It may just be the innate misogyny
Speaker 1: of American life.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean that that might be true, but I
Speaker 4: don't know. That sounds to me like a little bit
Speaker 4: of an invitation to not be engaged in a real
Speaker 4: hard to look at our policy. I mean, you can
Speaker 4: say it's misogyny and racism, and you know what, throw
Speaker 4: up our hands.
Speaker 1: Except the one thing I would say is like, it's
Speaker 1: obviously not racism because Americans have elected a black president.
Speaker 1: So like there's one thing that both of these. And again,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to put you on this because it's
Speaker 1: not relevant to what you're talking about. But I just
Speaker 1: think that the fact that we can't even talk about it,
Speaker 1: and I see it everywhere, and I just wonder why.
Speaker 4: I don't know that there's an inability to talk about it.
Speaker 4: And of course there are voters out there who are
Speaker 4: unwilling to vote for a woman to be president of
Speaker 4: the United States. There were also many young women who
Speaker 4: probably showed up because there was a moment on the
Speaker 4: balance It may be that the misogyny outweighs the excitement
Speaker 4: factor of electing the first woman president. But I do
Speaker 4: think that there's weight on both sides of the balance sheet.
Speaker 4: But there's another similarity between the Harris campaign and the
Speaker 4: Clinton campaign. Neither of them made the economy and populist
Speaker 4: economics the centerpiece of the campaign. The centerpiece of the
Speaker 4: Clinton campaign, and I know this because I got the
Speaker 4: talking points for the last two months. Was Donald Trump's
Speaker 4: recklessness and outrageousness. The tenpole of the Harris campaign was democracy.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: That's why Liz Cheney is campaigning with her in the
Speaker 4: end because in this Chaney disagrees with her on the economy,
Speaker 4: disagrees with her on raising taxes on billionaires, but agrees
Speaker 4: with their on democracy. And so there's also that similarity
Speaker 4: that both of those campaigns decide that they are not
Speaker 4: going to organize the campaign around attacking economic power, and
Speaker 4: I just think we probably need to learn that lesson.
Speaker 1: First talk to us about what that would look like.
Speaker 1: So there's like the status issue, this Hofstadt or status issue.
Speaker 1: Whereas Trump was able to somehow convince voters again that
Speaker 1: he was a working man's candidate, right, that there was
Speaker 1: some of that going on.
Speaker 4: Sure again in a short campaign. I think it was
Speaker 4: very difficult for them to try to unmask his fake populism.
Speaker 4: But somebody was just in my office earlier today giving
Speaker 4: me a good example of how the campaign would have
Speaker 4: been different if you made economic populism and attacking corporate
Speaker 4: power the centerpiece of the campaign. This person was saying,
Speaker 4: you remember the part in the campaign where Mark Cuban,
Speaker 4: who's one of her primary surrogates comes out and agrees
Speaker 4: that Lena Khan to be fired. And it kind of
Speaker 4: was swept under the rug right by the Harris campaign.
Speaker 4: It was an opportunity to create a fight with a friend,
Speaker 4: right right, right right, go after somebody that you know,
Speaker 4: you consider, you know, part of your club and say no, no,
Speaker 4: you're just wrong about this, Like I'm sorry, I like
Speaker 4: Mark Cuban and I'm glad that he's out there campaigning
Speaker 4: for me, but a hell no, I am not dismantling
Speaker 4: the structure that breaks up corporate power. If you want
Speaker 4: to support me, then you got to know that I'm
Speaker 4: coming after the big corporations. And if you want to
Speaker 4: be a part of this campaign, you better sign up
Speaker 4: for kicking the shit out of the corporations that are
Speaker 4: screwing regular Americans. On board, Mark, or you're not on board,
Speaker 4: Like that would have been a moment, right if you
Speaker 4: were organizing the campaign around the issue of attacking corporate
Speaker 4: power and consolidated economic power. And again, I think they
Speaker 4: ran a really good campaign. This is all in retrospect,
Speaker 4: This is all like hindsight. I think they ran a
Speaker 4: really good campaign. But that's an example of how that
Speaker 4: campaign would look differently.
Speaker 1: I also think like separating herself from Biden was okay too.
Speaker 1: There were things possible to do, but it was very hard.
Speaker 1: For a long time, I thought you shouldn't go on
Speaker 1: places like to because of any number of reasons. But
Speaker 1: now I actually believe that Democrats are giving up spaces
Speaker 1: where they could actually win hearts and minds. Those clips
Speaker 1: that Trump produced from Joe Rogan, like almost seventy million
Speaker 1: people watch them, Like that is insane.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is again this idea that we have litmus
Speaker 4: tests right, that we're we're not looking for voters that
Speaker 4: don't line up with us on all of our hot
Speaker 4: button issues. We don't talk to media personalities that don't
Speaker 4: line up with us on all of our issues. You
Speaker 4: and I maybe talked about this. But a year and
Speaker 4: a half ago, there was this conservative song that went
Speaker 4: viral called rich Men North of Richmond, and it was
Speaker 4: this singer who talked about, you know, the soul listness
Speaker 4: of work and low wages and concerted corporate power. He
Speaker 4: had some conservative tropes in that song about welfare queens.
Speaker 4: He had at least one QAnon reference. You could tell
Speaker 4: that this was not a guy who was like lined
Speaker 4: up with all of the progressive priorities, but he clearly
Speaker 4: cared about the shape of the economy in the justice
Speaker 4: of the economy. And I kind of went online and
Speaker 4: was like, Hey, let's talk to this guy. Let's talk
Speaker 4: to his followers, like this sounds like a group of
Speaker 4: people who should be in a conversation with us. And
Speaker 4: I got like shouted down online by the online left
Speaker 4: who was like, no, he doesn't agree with us on everything.
Speaker 4: I don't want to talk to him.
Speaker 1: He's a racist.
Speaker 4: People that listen to him a racists. They're not part
Speaker 4: of our club. And so I just think we made
Speaker 4: a decision to not convert, Like we made a decision
Speaker 4: that if you don't agree with me right now and everything,
Speaker 4: I don't want to be in a conversation with you.
Speaker 4: That's not how you build a movement. You build a
Speaker 4: movement not by just going and getting everybody who already
Speaker 4: agrees with you, but talking to people who don't agree
Speaker 4: with you and trying to get them in the tent
Speaker 4: based on some area of alignment, and then once they're
Speaker 4: in the tent, trying to convince them to get a
Speaker 4: little bit closer to you on the things that you
Speaker 4: don't agree on.
Speaker 1: I do think one of the things that Trump did
Speaker 1: that was really successful was he took into the tent
Speaker 1: RFK Junior, and RFK Junior brought a lot of women,
Speaker 1: and you know, these are largely again I don't want
Speaker 1: to be patronizing here, but these are women who are
Speaker 1: a little bit skeptical of a lot of the modern
Speaker 1: medicine that I so prize as a person who lives
Speaker 1: in the year twenty twenty four. But I mean that
Speaker 1: was a huge group who had never had anyone ever
Speaker 1: appeal to them, and RFK galvanized them, and then Donald
Speaker 1: Trump invited them into his tent. I mean, now, morally
Speaker 1: this is dicey, but there are certainly less moral groups.
Speaker 1: I mean, this group is I think they're being taken
Speaker 1: advantage of a little bit. But I do think that
Speaker 1: this illustrates the idea.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I do. I'd have to sort of think through
Speaker 4: whether I agree with you as to how much of
Speaker 4: a vote GET or RFK Junior was. There's a judgmentalism
Speaker 4: that people attached to us that doesn't exist in Trump's world,
Speaker 4: and you know, I think that that comes with kind sequences.
Speaker 4: People are a little afraid to be part of our
Speaker 4: coalition because they feel like if they use the wrong word,
Speaker 4: they talk about gender in a nineteen ninety eight way,
Speaker 4: you know, they'll be pushed at to the side of shame.
Speaker 4: So I do think we've got to understand that people
Speaker 4: are a little afraid sometimes to be part of our
Speaker 4: coalition because they're worried that we're too judgmental about language
Speaker 4: and about folks who don't agree with us universally.
Speaker 1: So what would be the solve for that?
Speaker 4: To first of all, just go to groups of people
Speaker 4: that don't agree with us, to be in conversations with
Speaker 4: Joe Rogan's audience. Go to church groups where there's, you know,
Speaker 4: some sense of selflessness and commitment to community, where you
Speaker 4: might find economic populists who want to be part of
Speaker 4: our club. To nominate candidates who don't line up with
Speaker 4: us on the twelve most important issues, to do important
Speaker 4: things that signal that we want to be a more
Speaker 4: inclusive party again.
Speaker 1: So can we talk about that Nebraska Senate candidate?
Speaker 4: Sure? I mean I wasn't deeply involved in that race.
Speaker 1: Certainly not. It was and Democrats were not involved in it,
Speaker 1: and he didn't run as a Democrat, but I did
Speaker 1: interview him, and you know, he was an independent, but
Speaker 1: it was like a purely work the campaign and he
Speaker 1: did ultimately get crushed by the millions of dollars that
Speaker 1: the Republicans put in for deb Fisher. But it struck
Speaker 1: me that this was a guy who was really running
Speaker 1: a totally worker focused campaign.
Speaker 4: A worker focused campaign, a campaign that talked about economic power,
Speaker 4: that talked about government playing a role to smooth out
Speaker 4: the rough edges of the economy, but a campaign that
Speaker 4: was really focused on that message. He ran further ahead
Speaker 4: of Kamala Harris than any other Senate candidate in the country.
Speaker 4: And yeah, maybe part of that is that he had
Speaker 4: that independent brand, but I think a lot of it
Speaker 4: was that he was, you know, engaging in this kind
Speaker 4: of big ten populism that I think is the key
Speaker 4: to winning. I don't get the sense that people who
Speaker 4: maybe you know, didn't supporting us all weapons ban, or
Speaker 4: were a little squishy on climate or you know, maybe
Speaker 4: weren't on board with, you know, our positions on abortion
Speaker 4: or gay rights. I don't think that they felt like
Speaker 4: they couldn't be part of his coalition. And that's what
Speaker 4: I'm gunning for and frankly, I think that had he
Speaker 4: been elected, even with the votes of folks who are
Speaker 4: anti choice or not on board with you know, gay rights,
Speaker 4: it would have been really good to have somebody like
Speaker 4: that representing Nebraska who would be then in a position
Speaker 4: of power to be in a conversation with folks who
Speaker 4: then might be more willing to listen to somebody somebody's
Speaker 4: argument on why climate matters, on why assault weapons ban
Speaker 4: isn't so scary. That's why you should be open to
Speaker 4: bringing people who don't always degree with you into the coalition.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for taking the time, Senator Chris Murphy.
Speaker 1: Thanks n No Mo Execond, Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 2: My junk past. One of the things that has a
Speaker 2: lot of us going hmm is that all the Republicans
Speaker 2: keep saying Elon won Trump the election, and we're starting
Speaker 2: to see some details of why they're seeing that. Of
Speaker 2: all the scummy things he did in this election, what
Speaker 2: are you seeing here.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk. He poured twenty million dollars into a mysterious
Speaker 1: superpack called the RBG Pack, which launched ads, and they
Speaker 1: were ads that were in the name of RBG. Rise
Speaker 1: Bader Ginsburg, who she had a chance to resign when
Speaker 1: she was under Obama when she was eighty and she'd
Speaker 1: had cancer. She did not take it and she stayed
Speaker 1: in She died in office and was replaced by Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett, who is a conservative now, and they were
Speaker 1: able to overturn movieweight. So this is another way the
Speaker 1: Conservatives love to own the Libs by delighting in the
Speaker 1: way they have overturned, you know, just taken away things
Speaker 1: from women, and this will be no different. That's it
Speaker 1: for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: Thursday and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics
Speaker 1: make sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.