Speaker 1: Hey, Brian, Hi Katie. Well, Brian, you know I love
Speaker 1: to play music or sing it times during our podcast,
Speaker 1: and for this week's episode, I found just the ticket.
Speaker 1: Let me take you back to nine three. This got
Speaker 1: to be a mooning enough. If we can hold on,
Speaker 1: not we have a chance to find the sun shot.
Speaker 1: Let's keep on. Very well played, Katie, Thank you, very
Speaker 1: well played. With a hat tip to Maureen McGovern, Thank
Speaker 1: you Maureen for that tune and Brian. Today we're going
Speaker 1: to spend some time looking for the light to try
Speaker 1: to understand what happened during the mid term elections and
Speaker 1: what they mean for the future of the country. As
Speaker 1: we know, the Democrats took the House, flipping dozens of
Speaker 1: Republican districts, but the Republicans kept control of the Senate,
Speaker 1: gaining a number of seats by beating incumbent Democrats. Well,
Speaker 1: this is like Christmas Morning for me, Katie. So I'm
Speaker 1: so excited about this show, and we've invited one of
Speaker 1: the people I most admire, Amy Walter, a terrific political analyst,
Speaker 1: to talk with us today about what happened where we
Speaker 1: go from here. She's the national editor of the Cook
Speaker 1: Political Report, which by the Way is my favorite beach read,
Speaker 1: highly recommended to all of you. Then we're going to
Speaker 1: be hearing from some of you are listeners, because voters
Speaker 1: from all across the country are calling in with questions
Speaker 1: or interesting perspectives, and I'm very excited about that as well.
Speaker 1: And in the second half of the show, we're gonna
Speaker 1: hear from presidential historian Doug Brinkley. He's going to talk
Speaker 1: about the big picture, how the midterms will change the
Speaker 1: trajectory of Donald Trump's presidency, and also what lessons he
Speaker 1: can learn from the way past presidents dealt with opposition congresses.
Speaker 1: Doug Brinkley one of my favorites. But first let's talk
Speaker 1: to another one of my favorites, Amy Walter. We got
Speaker 1: her on the line yesterday morning, fresh off the mid terms.
Speaker 1: Amy Walter, Welcome to the podcast. It's great to have you,
Speaker 1: who I'm very glad to be here. I it's the
Speaker 1: my day after the election. UM mood and mood, which
Speaker 1: is a just um really subsisting on adrenaline, caffeine, a
Speaker 1: little bit of sugar, and a lot of peanut butter.
Speaker 1: And that's it. That's all that's keeping me alive right now. Nice. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it seems to me that both sides are
Speaker 1: claiming victory. Certainly compared to two thousand and ten, when
Speaker 1: Barack Obama famously self described his experience as a shellacking,
Speaker 1: it seems to be more of a mixed verdict for
Speaker 1: President Trump. In fact, he portrayed this way quote tremendous
Speaker 1: success tonight, thank you to all. So how can we
Speaker 1: see such different perspectives on the same results. They both
Speaker 1: actually can be correct, that both sides can find something
Speaker 1: that they really liked out of this midterm election. And
Speaker 1: it's something, Katie, that we've been talking about the Cook
Speaker 1: Report for quite some time because of two things. One
Speaker 1: just how polarized we are as a country now. Um
Speaker 1: we saw it obviously in the difference between the popular
Speaker 1: vote and the electoral college vote and how it's playing
Speaker 1: out in a mid term year. Is that the House vote,
Speaker 1: which it looks like Democrats will have won by about
Speaker 1: nine points somewhere north of thirty seats. But in the Senate,
Speaker 1: where the map was decidedly read, Democrats defending ten states
Speaker 1: that Trump carried, uh five of them that Trump carried
Speaker 1: by double digits. The president remained popular and his success
Speaker 1: his popularity helped to boost or publican candidates there, and
Speaker 1: so we had two different elections take place on Election
Speaker 1: Night in two very different Americas. As I'm beginning to
Speaker 1: break down in my own head, it seems like we're
Speaker 1: just seeing an acceleration of all the trends we've witnessed
Speaker 1: in the last few years in politics, kind of culminating
Speaker 1: in the election of Donald Trump. This big educational divide
Speaker 1: between white collar, college educated whites and blue collar, non
Speaker 1: college educated whites, a divide between cities and close in
Speaker 1: suburbs on the one hand, and excerpts in rural areas
Speaker 1: on the other, whites versus minorities, etcetera, etcetera. Is there
Speaker 1: anything new or different that we learned in this election
Speaker 1: that we didn't know going in. I don't know that
Speaker 1: we learned anything particularly new, And I think that this
Speaker 1: is what sort of fascinating about this election is that
Speaker 1: if you look at the exit polls, for example, of
Speaker 1: the election that basically told you the story of the
Speaker 1: eighteen election, We've had an incredible amount of stuff happen
Speaker 1: in between eighteen and yet we ended up essentially in
Speaker 1: the same place. And the amazing thing for the President
Speaker 1: again is as as you noted earlier, go on to
Speaker 1: say that he was successful, right, the places where he
Speaker 1: campaigned the candidates one, that is true. The places where
Speaker 1: he was popular candidates one, absolutely true. But there a
Speaker 1: whole lot of places that we know that the president
Speaker 1: carried in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania where Republicans didn't do very well. Um,
Speaker 1: those are going to be uh to me. Those are
Speaker 1: the sorts of places I'm going to be spending a
Speaker 1: lot more time looking at as we get into And
Speaker 1: the other question I think is whether this is a
Speaker 1: permanent realignment that we're seeing or whether this is one
Speaker 1: that is really unique to President Trump. Are these districts that,
Speaker 1: for example, in the Houston suburbs that went for Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney by double digits and then flipped to a Democrat
Speaker 1: this year, are these now permanently in the Democrats camp
Speaker 1: or are they going to move back to their sort
Speaker 1: of Republican DNA once Trump's no longer in office. And
Speaker 1: we're not going to have the answer to that right now,
Speaker 1: but I do think that what we have today, instead
Speaker 1: of a president with a broad coalition, he has a
Speaker 1: narrow but deeply committed coalition. One more thing just to
Speaker 1: recognize is again the president definitely had some successes. It's
Speaker 1: always better to have a bigger Senate majority than a
Speaker 1: smaller one, and it will be a more committed Trump majority.
Speaker 1: Remember some of his biggest critics, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker
Speaker 1: from Tennessee, they're no longer in the delegations and have
Speaker 1: to worry about the Mavericks so much anymore, potentially denying
Speaker 1: him Supreme if there's another Supreme Court opening or other
Speaker 1: judicial openings. But I don't think we have any idea
Speaker 1: how this president is going to react to Democratic Congress,
Speaker 1: the subpoenas, the oversight, and at the same time, we
Speaker 1: have no idea how Democrats are going to react to
Speaker 1: not knowing how Trump is going to react it. It
Speaker 1: feels to me a little bit like you're handling a
Speaker 1: very uh unstable substance. You know it's nitroglycerin or something,
Speaker 1: and you're passing it around between each other and at
Speaker 1: some point you know that something's going to explode. I
Speaker 1: just don't know who's going to be holding it when
Speaker 1: it explodes. Well, you know, it's interesting, as Brian and
Speaker 1: I have listened to the analysis at nause um um.
Speaker 1: You know, one one side posits that it actually is
Speaker 1: helpful to President Trump to have an enemy. And now
Speaker 1: that enemy obviously will be the democratically controlled House of
Speaker 1: Representatives and Nancy Pelosi, which you can only imagine sort
Speaker 1: of the vitriol that's going to be coming her way.
Speaker 1: A S. A. P. So you have no idea in
Speaker 1: terms of the dynamic we might be witnessing between the
Speaker 1: House and the White House, right because the President is
Speaker 1: so unpredictable, Well, he's predictably unpredictable, right, I mean, we
Speaker 1: I think we know that he's going to punch back
Speaker 1: at any subpoena or oversight or question by Democrats. But
Speaker 1: the Democrats could also put in front of Congress some
Speaker 1: of the cabinet members or the administration officials who quite
Speaker 1: frankly haven't had to answer any questions for the last
Speaker 1: two years on some pretty significant policy, whether that's healthcare
Speaker 1: or immigration or trade, and they're answers to those questions
Speaker 1: could be a bigger problem for Republicans than the President
Speaker 1: can acknowledge right now. And I think he's focused very
Speaker 1: specifically on well, if the Democrats try to impeach me,
Speaker 1: they're going to go too far, or if Democrats try
Speaker 1: to impeach Judge Kavanaugh, that's not what the American public wants,
Speaker 1: so show their just obstructionists. But what if they start
Speaker 1: bringing folks from HHS or DHS up to the Hill
Speaker 1: and start asking questions about the immigration process on the border.
Speaker 1: What about asking questions about the e p A and
Speaker 1: some of the deregulatory efforts. What if they start asking
Speaker 1: questions that Republicans and the administration don't have very good
Speaker 1: answers for, or uncover scandals that previously had gone unknown
Speaker 1: or unremarked. This is you know, again, this is not
Speaker 1: just theoretical. These folks in Congress do have subpoena power.
Speaker 1: Amy pray your point about impeachment. I think it's pretty
Speaker 1: clear that the Democratic leadership at least has no interest
Speaker 1: in that from a political perspective, But they may not
Speaker 1: have a choice if and when Robert Mueller issues his
Speaker 1: report and there's some pretty damning accusations in there, um
Speaker 1: which there might be, there might not be, but if
Speaker 1: there are, um, can't you see a process like that
Speaker 1: derailing whatever the agenda is now that the Democrats are
Speaker 1: trying to absolutely and I think there are a lot
Speaker 1: of question marks about that, as well as requesting the
Speaker 1: president's tax records, which they can do, but I don't
Speaker 1: know what legislative accomplishment comes from that, you know, like,
Speaker 1: what's the what's the reasoning behind that for Congress, And
Speaker 1: they're going to have to be able to to make
Speaker 1: that case pretty cleanly and clearly for it to look
Speaker 1: like it's substitutive rather than just phishing expedition. Uh, that's
Speaker 1: focused on just embarrassing the president. Speaking of that, Amy,
Speaker 1: I was going to ask you about you know, there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of debate internally, Amy, about the direction
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party, with a sort of fight over
Speaker 1: the heart and soul. Should it be the moderate middle,
Speaker 1: should it be the party of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: Did the results of the mid terms give us any
Speaker 1: insight into that? Yeah, it's an excellent question. I think
Speaker 1: there are many Democrats hoping that there would be a
Speaker 1: definitive answer to that, especially from places like Florida or
Speaker 1: Georgia or Texas where Democrats were running not just as progressives,
Speaker 1: but their message was we can win in these diverse
Speaker 1: states by pumping up turnout among voters of color, younger
Speaker 1: people who traditionally don't show up to vote in midterm elections.
Speaker 1: And to do that, you know, we need candidates with
Speaker 1: interesting stories and they need to be unapologetic and unafraid
Speaker 1: to to run as progressives. Well, it looks like all
Speaker 1: three of those candidates UM will have lost. And I
Speaker 1: think there is going to be something of a pushback
Speaker 1: among national Democrats to say, if that message isn't working
Speaker 1: in Florida, a state that is a battleground in if
Speaker 1: that isn't working in Georgia or Texas, to states that
Speaker 1: Democrats have been saying now for years demographically are are
Speaker 1: turning their direction, then it makes it really hard to
Speaker 1: say that that's the right message up against Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: At the same time, some of the most centrist candidates
Speaker 1: lost in Indiana. Damn, you're sort of damned if you don't, right,
Speaker 1: that's the centrist candidates lost in fairness in much more
Speaker 1: difficult states, in states where Trump had like a approval rating,
Speaker 1: where he won with a much larger margin, but in
Speaker 1: the closer states that Trump won in two sixteen, but
Speaker 1: the Democrats one on Tuesday in the Midwest, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: and Wisconsin, for example, the three states that made a
Speaker 1: difference in the presidential race. Moderate Democrats or relatively center
Speaker 1: left Democrats were the ones who were able to prevail,
Speaker 1: and they were able to show the Democrats can still
Speaker 1: win in those places, which I suppose was a little
Speaker 1: bit in doubt before this. Yeah, and I think you know,
Speaker 1: Tammy Baldwin is a great example of this senator from Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: No one is going to call her a moderate. She
Speaker 1: is one of the more liberal members of the United
Speaker 1: States Senate. And yet there is and I hate this
Speaker 1: word because it gets overused, but I'm going to use it.
Speaker 1: Is there's an authenticity to Tammy Baldwin. People know exactly
Speaker 1: who she is. Same with Shared Brown in Ohio. He's
Speaker 1: sort of a populist liberal in Ohio, a state that
Speaker 1: not only did Donald Trump carry, but Republicans carry the
Speaker 1: governorship there. They have uniqueness to their state and an
Speaker 1: attachment to their state that really sets them apart. Again,
Speaker 1: not because of where they you know, it's it's they
Speaker 1: didn't tack necessarily to the center ideologically, but personality wise.
Speaker 1: And there the attention that they paid to the state
Speaker 1: pays dividends and and so I think really, and Katie,
Speaker 1: I've been thinking about this for a while that you know,
Speaker 1: folks like me in Washington, for so many years we've
Speaker 1: been looking at the presidential primary process on an ideological scale, right, Uh,
Speaker 1: do you have the more left or the more right? Candid?
Speaker 1: How conservative? How liberal? Um? Do you need to be?
Speaker 1: I think normal people and so I'm not a normal
Speaker 1: person I recognize as normal people. Primary voters are not
Speaker 1: looking at these ideological scales and and sort of checking
Speaker 1: off a list, right, Well, they've put on these six criteria.
Speaker 1: They're looking for the personal attachment, the personal story, the
Speaker 1: way that they feel that they can connect there. And
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was a perfect example of that. He Uh,
Speaker 1: he was not a straight down the line conservative Republican.
Speaker 1: On so many issues he broke with Republican orthodoxy, but
Speaker 1: there was an authenticity to him. And Bernie Sanders. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you all heard it on the campaign trail too.
Speaker 1: When I would talk to people who liked Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: some of them were really conservative people, and they said,
Speaker 1: I don't agree with anything that he says, but gosh, Dart,
Speaker 1: I like that he stands up for it, he believes
Speaker 1: in something. Well, that's such an anti establishment vote, whether
Speaker 1: it's Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. And I was having
Speaker 1: breakfast with a friend of mine this morning, and she
Speaker 1: was saying she thinks we're witnessing a massive realignment, not
Speaker 1: from left to right, but more populist versus elitist, you know, more,
Speaker 1: as Brian mentioned, sort of rural and ex ex urban
Speaker 1: voters versus urban and suburban voters, and that we're more
Speaker 1: divided on those lines, along those lines than ideological lines
Speaker 1: per se. I agree with that, And a lot of
Speaker 1: it is cultural, right, the sense that if I live
Speaker 1: outside of a major metropolitan area, I have a whole
Speaker 1: set of life experiences and viewpoints that people in the
Speaker 1: suburbs and the cities don't appreciate and they don't understand.
Speaker 1: And you go into the cities and the suburbin areas
Speaker 1: and they look out at the rural areas and they say,
Speaker 1: why don't you understand? This country is diversifying. This country
Speaker 1: doesn't look like it did fifty years ago. It's not
Speaker 1: going to look like that anymore. Stop trying to bring
Speaker 1: us back there and that push and pull between you know,
Speaker 1: the transformative right, here's where we're going in the future.
Speaker 1: And the restorative Here's who this country is and we
Speaker 1: want it to remain. Is that fight that is going
Speaker 1: to be with us, certainly for the next four year,
Speaker 1: isn't The real question is how much longer will this
Speaker 1: tension be the central force in our politics. The one
Speaker 1: ideological element I would add to this discussion, though, is
Speaker 1: that the Democrats you mentioned in the Midwest didn't give
Speaker 1: their Republican opponents an obvious line of attack by saying
Speaker 1: they were going to abolish ice or b for impeachment,
Speaker 1: or take some of the kind of harder edged positions
Speaker 1: than a number of the more liberal Democrats and the
Speaker 1: Sun Belt took, which their Republican opponents seemed to use
Speaker 1: very effectively against. It's an interesting point, and look in
Speaker 1: those suburban districts. What you found were Democrats who did
Speaker 1: the following one. They stayed away not just from some
Speaker 1: of the divisive issues like ice um, but they also
Speaker 1: stayed away from impeachment. I didn't hear anything about Russia
Speaker 1: or Mueller. In fact, the word Trump rarely came up
Speaker 1: for many of these Democrats who won in these suburban districts.
Speaker 1: They focused much more in healthcare. But I do think
Speaker 1: that this is the ideological fight within the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: to come on the issue of healthcare. Democrats made that
Speaker 1: a centerpiece of their election this year, specifically looking to
Speaker 1: Republicans and their votes in Congress to repeal Obamacare, the
Speaker 1: decision by the Trump administration to continue to fight for
Speaker 1: um in the courts to overturn the law, and you
Speaker 1: saw sort of a split within the party and whether
Speaker 1: they're in conservative districts more moderate districts about the question
Speaker 1: of medicare for all and what that means for some voters.
Speaker 1: I think they interpret it in one way. Other voters
Speaker 1: interpreted another way. But at some point Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to have to actually explain what Medicare for all does mean.
Speaker 1: And what you saw in many of these competitive states
Speaker 1: was at Republicans were ready to pounce on this issue
Speaker 1: by labeling Democrats as socialists, right, they want socialized medicine.
Speaker 1: They're going to take away your access to your doctors.
Speaker 1: It's going to be trillions of dollars of taxes. And
Speaker 1: I think in many cases those attacks didn't work, in
Speaker 1: part because people don't quite understand what this whole Medicare
Speaker 1: for All thing is about. But they did very clearly
Speaker 1: understand what the pre existing condition fight was about, what
Speaker 1: drug cost fight was about. That's a day to day
Speaker 1: concern for them. But I think come this debate over
Speaker 1: expanding healthcare to include this Medicare for all or single
Speaker 1: payer versus the President wanting to repeal Obamacare and what
Speaker 1: would be in its place is going to be a
Speaker 1: central argument. We asked some people to call in with
Speaker 1: their questions concerns, and we have a few people who
Speaker 1: are nice enough to do just that. So we don't
Speaker 1: want to keep them on hold indefinitely. And Amy, I
Speaker 1: know they benefit from your insight UH as well. So
Speaker 1: let's go to Julie from Kansas, who has a question.
Speaker 1: Julie High, how are you? Hi? Katie? Hi, Brian, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for having me all. You're welcome. Thanks,
Speaker 1: what's your question? I'm some campus and UM. I was
Speaker 1: so heartened and so excited last night that we did
Speaker 1: not elect Chris Kobach to be UM our next governor.
Speaker 1: We actually went Democratic with Laura Kelly and we had
Speaker 1: one other district UM where we elected Sharis David's for
Speaker 1: the House UM. But this morning, as I really started
Speaker 1: to think about it, I started feeling more like these
Speaker 1: were exceptions. These were two people that were absolutely horrible
Speaker 1: candidates and they went Democrat because the Republican option was
Speaker 1: so incredibly awful. I'm curious what your take is on
Speaker 1: what this means of the country with a with a
Speaker 1: red state going Democratic in a couple of different areas.
Speaker 1: I don't think this is a blue wave for US.
Speaker 1: I think that these are small exceptions. Amy, what would
Speaker 1: you say, Yeah, it's a really good point because Democrats
Speaker 1: were hoping that they could have similar success in other
Speaker 1: red state governorships where he had an unpopular governor in
Speaker 1: the case of Oklahoma, just like Kansas that was retiring.
Speaker 1: Oklahoma and Mary Fallon, who left office I think was
Speaker 1: something like a fifteen point favorable rating um in that state,
Speaker 1: and uh, the race got very close, but ultimately Republicans
Speaker 1: prevailed in Oklahoma. South Dakota another place that has had
Speaker 1: Republican governors for quite some time, but Democrats had a
Speaker 1: really appealing candidate in a former rodeo writer um who
Speaker 1: had been paralyzed in a rodeo accident, who kept that
Speaker 1: race very competitive. Ultimately that race tipped to the Republicans.
Speaker 1: And Iowa, another state where Republicans have bit a charge
Speaker 1: for a long long time. They kept the governorship in
Speaker 1: that state. And so Kansas really of of of the
Speaker 1: red states where Democrats saw an opening. They had good candidates,
Speaker 1: they had unpopular governors, or at least maybe a cent
Speaker 1: from voters in that state that it was time to
Speaker 1: do something new, you know, they they could turn a
Speaker 1: new leaf, try out another party. Only Kansas really delivered
Speaker 1: on that promise. Wisconsin was a big win for Democrats.
Speaker 1: You know, they've been trying now this is a fourth election,
Speaker 1: they've been trying to unseat Scott Walker. But that's not
Speaker 1: really a red state. So of the of the dark
Speaker 1: red states, Kansas does definitely stick out. Julie from Kansas,
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling. Julie, Thank you. Okay, we've got
Speaker 1: Jonathan from Texas. Uh, thanks for calling in and what's
Speaker 1: your question? Hi gaty Hi, Hi Brian. It's so great
Speaker 1: to be speaking with you guys. Um. So my question
Speaker 1: is um. I'm a um the border. I'm a second
Speaker 1: generation Texan born and raised on the border. From the radio. UH.
Speaker 1: Immigration has always locally been talked about as a positive thing,
Speaker 1: and betso as someone from the border El Paso, I
Speaker 1: believe understood in articulate this issue better than anyone I've seen,
Speaker 1: and so after looking at the margins in the race
Speaker 1: last night, it looks like a lot of other Texans
Speaker 1: agreed to even though it wasn't obviously enough to get
Speaker 1: him across the finish line. But are there any lessons
Speaker 1: that national Democrats can be learning from how Betso talked
Speaker 1: about immigration and any lessons that can be applied nationwide
Speaker 1: for um the elections in the future. I'm really interested
Speaker 1: in this, Jonathan too, And I'd love to hear Amy
Speaker 1: and Briant's take on this, because obviously the cornerstone of
Speaker 1: President Trump's last ditch efforts to do well in these
Speaker 1: mid terms was to talk about the caravan pretty much
Speaker 1: seven and two Stoke, I think some fear about immigrants
Speaker 1: and the people who were escaping poverty and violence in
Speaker 1: Central America through Mexico. So um, and I was pretty
Speaker 1: surprised how well Betto did. Um. I guess I had
Speaker 1: read some premature obituaries about him prior to election day.
Speaker 1: But but what about the way that immigration is being portrayed?
Speaker 1: Does this, you know, go right along party lines? Brian
Speaker 1: and Amy? And what lessons can national candidates learned from this.
Speaker 1: I mean, I just view that as such an interesting
Speaker 1: race because Cruz was about as narrow a red candidate
Speaker 1: as Texas has produced for a major statewide office in
Speaker 1: a while. Um, and Texas is still just Republican enough
Speaker 1: that by consolidating the people who like what Trump's doing,
Speaker 1: who identify as conservatives, he was able kind of just
Speaker 1: to get over the line. Um what Betto did. That's
Speaker 1: differ weren't than you know, any Texas Democrat pretty much
Speaker 1: for the last twenty years. Is he was able to
Speaker 1: take a lot of moderate suburban voters in places outside
Speaker 1: Dallas and Houston and convinced them that he's bigger and
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit different than a typical national Democrat.
Speaker 1: And even though he was pretty liberal per Amy's point
Speaker 1: about authenticity, people liked him. And a lot of those
Speaker 1: people just didn't like Ted Cruz. They thought he had
Speaker 1: taken his eye off the ball by running for president,
Speaker 1: spending more time in Iowa than in Texas. So, you know,
Speaker 1: he was able to come close, but I think some
Speaker 1: of the ideological positions that he took probably resulted in
Speaker 1: him being you know, just short in the end. And
Speaker 1: before Jonathan goes Jonathan, what do you hope is in
Speaker 1: Bettos future? Do you think that you know, he got
Speaker 1: a huge influx of money from National Democrats. Uh, he
Speaker 1: was sort of the it guy of these mid terms
Speaker 1: in many ways. What do you think is in his future? Well?
Speaker 1: As as someone that's that's so inspired by watching the
Speaker 1: type of effect that he's had on grassroots organizing in
Speaker 1: the state. UM, I think that his ability to inspire
Speaker 1: people to act and to get moving is really really
Speaker 1: inspiring for the future of Texas. I'd very much like
Speaker 1: to see him run his race because I think he
Speaker 1: still has a race and a message that he's still
Speaker 1: ready to share with the rest of America. Well, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for calling in. It's really nice to
Speaker 1: talk to you, and thanks for listening to the podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. I appreciate that we're going to
Speaker 1: talk now to Bailey from Nevada, not Nevada. From Nevada
Speaker 1: is on the on the line. Bailey, Hi, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for calling in and welcome to our podcast. Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you good? Good, nice to hear your voice.
Speaker 1: What is your question or concern? Um? Well, I was
Speaker 1: wondering your take, so in Nevada we've had a blue
Speaker 1: wave now twice in both sen UM. We almost had
Speaker 1: a we might have a super majority in our legislature
Speaker 1: as of twenty nine vote, so we'll find out. But
Speaker 1: I'm wondering why what you think is different about Nevada
Speaker 1: where we've had the blue wave that we've kind of
Speaker 1: expected nationally as a repuation of Trump politics, and other
Speaker 1: states haven't. Well, you know, Brian is probably a good
Speaker 1: person to answer that question because his mom is Hailes
Speaker 1: from Las Vegas originally. And Brian, you spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time in Nevada, and Amy, I'm sure you could
Speaker 1: weigh in, and I'm just going to keep quiet and
Speaker 1: listen to you both. Yeah, I claim status as an
Speaker 1: honorary Nevada and UM. Well, the big difference in Nevada
Speaker 1: that has really transformed the state's politics in the last
Speaker 1: few cycles is the diversifying electorate, particularly in Clark County,
Speaker 1: which is Las Vegas, also in Reno UM, and we've
Speaker 1: seen a surge of Latino voters and also urban and
Speaker 1: suburban voters who are just voting a heck of a
Speaker 1: lot more democratic than they used to. It's also a
Speaker 1: state where Trump lost UM in two sen where his
Speaker 1: approval rating isn't great, and the approval rating of the
Speaker 1: president has been a pretty good predictor of elections all
Speaker 1: over the country. The fascinating thing to me about Nevada
Speaker 1: is it it is different from some of these other
Speaker 1: Western states. All the Western states are unique. They're all beautiful.
Speaker 1: I wish I could live in one of them. Um.
Speaker 1: But uh, but you know, Colorado looks very different than
Speaker 1: many of its neighbors, not just because it um, it
Speaker 1: has a more diverse population, especially Latino and African American,
Speaker 1: but also it has had, especially in the last ten
Speaker 1: fifteen years, a huge influx of college educated, UM, white voters.
Speaker 1: You have a whole bunch of tech companies moving into
Speaker 1: Colorado sort of a you know, a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: folks from other states moving to Colorado, especially young people
Speaker 1: into the Denver area, and that's really transformed Colorado from
Speaker 1: being a swing state or red leaning state to one
Speaker 1: that is more purple. Nevada, on the other hand, is
Speaker 1: one where you do have again huge influx of population,
Speaker 1: but it's not um the same kind of voters. UM.
Speaker 1: You have a higher proportion of white, non college educated
Speaker 1: voters in Nevada, they make up a really significant base
Speaker 1: of vote. What keeps Nevada from being a Republican quite frankly,
Speaker 1: are the Latino vote and the ability that Democrats have
Speaker 1: to really energize and turn out and organize and turn
Speaker 1: that vote out. And that is really a vestige of
Speaker 1: former Senator, former Majority Leader Harry Reid, who put that
Speaker 1: infrastructure in play. You know, Nevada if it looks much
Speaker 1: more like more of a working class blue color state
Speaker 1: than a state like Colorado. Bailey, I'm just curious. You
Speaker 1: sound a little young, am I am? I right about that? Okay,
Speaker 1: well then you're young. So I'm just curious if you
Speaker 1: don't mind my asking, um how you voted, and if
Speaker 1: you don't want to tell us, that's fine too, But
Speaker 1: how you voted and how you're feeling about the results
Speaker 1: of the mid terms. Um, yeah, I voted blue. I
Speaker 1: typically always do, although I think prior to Trump's I
Speaker 1: would have done Nevada as a state where we do
Speaker 1: tend to vote Nevada first. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats would have loved a third term from our Republican
Speaker 1: governor that is leaving. So I did vote blue, and
Speaker 1: I am excited about that, and I the only question
Speaker 1: I had as a response was the Harry Reid machine
Speaker 1: that you alluded to, we really credited as a culinary union.
Speaker 1: So I'm wondering what you got from other unions. Yeah, states,
Speaker 1: did they go blue or read last night? Because both
Speaker 1: of our swings, I think we can credit to the
Speaker 1: culinary unions or the unions just not as powerful. And yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a that's a really excellent point. I'm glad that
Speaker 1: you brought that up. And Um, in other states, you're
Speaker 1: right where labor has especially states that where Republicans have
Speaker 1: been in charge, labor unions UM have been undercut by
Speaker 1: some of the legislation that has been passed in those states,
Speaker 1: places like Wisconsin, for example. I think Michigan is one
Speaker 1: place where labor remains a very potent force. But you're right,
Speaker 1: it is Nevada that has some of the best organizing
Speaker 1: And it wasn't that unique twenty years ago to have
Speaker 1: this strong of a labor presence being able to quote
Speaker 1: unquote deliver a state. Um, that's how Pennsylvania and Michigan
Speaker 1: and Ohio worked for years. But in Wisconsin, but that's
Speaker 1: no longer, that's no longer the case. Bailey, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for calling. Really appreciate it, and thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the podcast. It was fun talking to you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you, Amy. Thank you so much for spending some
Speaker 1: time with us hashing this all out. It's complicated, as
Speaker 1: you said, I think further complicated by no simple narrative
Speaker 1: and no kind of clear cut takeaway, sort of all
Speaker 1: over the map, but we always appreciate your perspective and insight.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for doing this Aime. There's a ton
Speaker 1: of fun. Thanks so much, Brian. I loved hearing from
Speaker 1: all those listeners, and I want to thank them again
Speaker 1: for calling in. That was a lot of fun and
Speaker 1: we really do appreciate their time. Yeah, I do too,
Speaker 1: And remember you can always call in with your questions
Speaker 1: and comments on the show. Our number is nine to nine,
Speaker 1: two to four, four, six, three seven. Now we're going
Speaker 1: to take a quick break and coming up presidential historian
Speaker 1: Doug Brink that's right after this. Now let's get back
Speaker 1: to the show, Brian. As you know Harry Truman what said,
Speaker 1: there's nothing new in the world except the history you
Speaker 1: do not know, So we thought it would be helpful
Speaker 1: and instructive to help us better understand recent events by
Speaker 1: talking about the past. And who better to do that
Speaker 1: with us than Doug Brinkley. Doug is a history professor
Speaker 1: at Rice University. He's written several books about presidents from
Speaker 1: FDR to Gerald Ford. Happens to be an incredibly nice
Speaker 1: guy as well, and when I was anchoring the CBS
Speaker 1: Evening News, I brought him in as our resident historians.
Speaker 1: So we go way back, Brian, and that's where I
Speaker 1: first met Doug. He's a great guy. So here he
Speaker 1: is with his take on what happened on the first
Speaker 1: Tuesday in November. Doug Brinkley, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: the podcast. We're super excited to have you. Well, thank you, Katie.
Speaker 1: So surprise, surprise, We're gonna look at the mid terms
Speaker 1: from a historical perspective with you. Um. On average, since
Speaker 1: World War Two, presidents lose twenty five seats in their
Speaker 1: first mid term in the House. Obviously, President Trump performed
Speaker 1: worse than that, and at a time with a booming
Speaker 1: economy that sixty percent of voters say is good. So
Speaker 1: how do you explain the Republican losses at a time
Speaker 1: when the economy seems to be doing really, well, well,
Speaker 1: it's a great question. Um. You know, Donald Trump isn't
Speaker 1: just a Republican president. He is a movement person, a
Speaker 1: right wing movement figure, and because of that, he's had
Speaker 1: a limited box office appeal. It's been very hard for
Speaker 1: President Trump to get anywhere around in public popularity. He's
Speaker 1: usually around forty four percent. That's low. So he only
Speaker 1: he has a freneticum appeal to um a certain segment
Speaker 1: of the American public, but he doesn't seem to be
Speaker 1: able to grow his box office any and hence some
Speaker 1: urban areas in particular seem to be disgusted with President
Speaker 1: Trump's leadership. If you really just mapped this midterm election,
Speaker 1: looked at cities and suburbs, you will see that they
Speaker 1: they're not buying into the Republican program, but rural America
Speaker 1: is in love with President Trump. It's interesting. James Carville says,
Speaker 1: it's the economy stupid, but the economy will only take
Speaker 1: a leader so far. Doug, exactly, Katie. I mean, the
Speaker 1: economy is important. In fact, some people are are saying
Speaker 1: Donald Trump should have just run on Kavanaugh and the economy,
Speaker 1: not Kavanaugh. In the caravan that may have been a mistake.
Speaker 1: Hindsight's easy and will never know. It's not an empirical
Speaker 1: fact we can make. But it's teams that President Trump
Speaker 1: made a mistake. Not just sticking with his economic message.
Speaker 1: He thought he had to fire up his base on
Speaker 1: this caraman of Hondurans, you know, marching towards our border.
Speaker 1: He did put out a racist ad that even Fox
Speaker 1: News how to take down. But how do you know
Speaker 1: that didn't work, Doug, How do you know that didn't work? Well?
Speaker 1: It didn't work because he lost congress Um and it
Speaker 1: did it help him pick up a Senate seat or
Speaker 1: two perhaps, but the Senate math was pretty much in place.
Speaker 1: So what he did was discussed a lot of young people,
Speaker 1: and you're seeing the numbers of young voters coming in.
Speaker 1: I'm here katiean in at Rice University in in Houston, Texas,
Speaker 1: and it was bet Omnia in the state of Texas.
Speaker 1: Now he lost, but their Democrats are making picked up
Speaker 1: congressional seats in in Texas. Trumpians like Will Heard, who
Speaker 1: were like should have never lost lost in Texas because
Speaker 1: people don't like particularly people at universities of America don't
Speaker 1: like the idea of the wall, and particularly don't like
Speaker 1: racist infused rhetoric that we've heard too often from the president. Doug,
Speaker 1: I can't think of an American president in recent history
Speaker 1: with so narrow an appeal who sort of never seems
Speaker 1: to get beyond Am I missing someone? No, I mean
Speaker 1: we've had presidents that have done badly in polling. I
Speaker 1: mean Harry Truman was particular moments, of course, Yeah, at
Speaker 1: particular moments, Harry Truman was at like twenty seven percent.
Speaker 1: But um in in of course, he's now considered one
Speaker 1: of our great American presidents. So it means Donald Trump
Speaker 1: can do something about his predicament. But he would have
Speaker 1: to pivot to get above that forty four. It's frozen
Speaker 1: with the economy this well, and we haven't engaged in
Speaker 1: a major new war, and he's frozen at forty four.
Speaker 1: To get up to fifty, he would have to do
Speaker 1: a bipartisan deal. This sort of what's almost become a
Speaker 1: mythical idea in the last two years of Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans doing something big on infrastructure would have to happen.
Speaker 1: You know, Jack Kennedy one in nineteen sixty by just
Speaker 1: a margin over Richard Nixon and Kennedy decided I'm going
Speaker 1: to unite the people, and he he adopted let's go
Speaker 1: to the moon. By the end of the decade, made
Speaker 1: technology big and even brought a lot of so called
Speaker 1: pork dollars to place states like Texas and Mississippi, Florida.
Speaker 1: And so in the end, m Trump needs to find
Speaker 1: something that brings in some Democrats and independence, not just
Speaker 1: be a base politician. And I should know this, but
Speaker 1: what happened to Kennedy in the mid terms, Well, you know,
Speaker 1: Kennedy in nineteen sixty two was able to maintain at
Speaker 1: a sixty two approval rating in sixty two somewhere around
Speaker 1: that in the sixties and was able to hold on um.
Speaker 1: They lost a few Senate seats Democrats, but they're able
Speaker 1: to keep control of of the House and Senate. So
Speaker 1: there's an example of a mid term where Jack Kennedy
Speaker 1: united the country. That would have been what Trump should
Speaker 1: have tried for. Instead, he did his own math and
Speaker 1: realized that he wants to be seen as the savior
Speaker 1: of the Senate. He had Mitch McConnell working with him,
Speaker 1: and they've used Paul Ryan as sort of the fall guy.
Speaker 1: That Ryan was somebody who wanted to focus on the economy,
Speaker 1: and Trump overruled him and said immigration. It is historically
Speaker 1: when presidents have faced an opposition Congress, as President Trump
Speaker 1: will starting in January, how have they used that opportunity
Speaker 1: to advance their agenda or to advance themselves politically? In
Speaker 1: other words, what lessons should President Trump take from Clinton, Obama,
Speaker 1: Reagan and others about how to work with or against
Speaker 1: an opposition Congress. Well, it's going to be a big choice.
Speaker 1: He remember we talked a lot about Ronald Reagan befriending
Speaker 1: Tip O'Neill and head Kennedy, Um, and they became pals.
Speaker 1: Can Donald Trump become friends with Nancy Pelosi? Can he
Speaker 1: invited for dinner? Can he talked to Pelosi and say,
Speaker 1: look at when the country needs a couple of big
Speaker 1: things that we all do together, can you bring some votes? Um?
Speaker 1: Can we work together? The problem is the Democrats right
Speaker 1: now don't want to be in a photo op with
Speaker 1: President Trump. Um. They're already gearing up for about fifteen
Speaker 1: Democrats are probably gonna end up running for president when
Speaker 1: it's all said and done, and they're running against Trump's persona,
Speaker 1: his big mouth, his Uh, his racist banter. Is that
Speaker 1: sort of depressing? Because what I'm gathering from your comments, Doug,
Speaker 1: is that it's it's to both parties benefit to not
Speaker 1: work together, and that Donald Trump seems to thrive when
Speaker 1: he has someone to demonize, whether it's the media or Democrats,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats want to continue along this path as
Speaker 1: well because it will galvanize their base and Democratic voters
Speaker 1: in general. Exactly right. So we may not have moved
Speaker 1: any the ball forward very much after the midterms. People
Speaker 1: always asked, do you know, are we more divided than ever?
Speaker 1: I was asked that question yesterday when I was being interviewed, Um,
Speaker 1: and I don't know. What do you What do you
Speaker 1: say when people ask that? Do you talk about Vietnam,
Speaker 1: Dutah obviously, the civil ward, But do you think it's unprecedented?
Speaker 1: The polarization we're witnessing now? It's extreme. You have to
Speaker 1: go back to Vietnam when where country was divided between
Speaker 1: hawks and doves, when civil rights exploded, and it was
Speaker 1: you know, George Wallace versus Martin Luther King. Um. The
Speaker 1: problem I see right now is the Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to go after Donald Trump's tax returns and the Muller
Speaker 1: investigations coming, and Trump's gonna say that this is harassment.
Speaker 1: I'm being harassed by the Democrats. That's gonna be the
Speaker 1: big new word, UM, congressional harassment of the president. Um.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats are ionic, isn't it It is. He's
Speaker 1: gonna be complaining about harassment and there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: demand for and the Democrats are saying we want transparency
Speaker 1: and government. Those words transparency versus harassment, I think they're
Speaker 1: gonna be used coming up. But we've seen it worse
Speaker 1: than American history. I was thrilled last evening. I look
Speaker 1: for little things that are As a historian, they jumped
Speaker 1: out of me that there were two Native American women
Speaker 1: that are now in Congress, and that's that's the first
Speaker 1: and there too, and that's quite exciting. So we can
Speaker 1: see they the omni American story, all sorts of different
Speaker 1: types of American zone getting elected. Hundred and seventeen women
Speaker 1: being elected to Congress at last counting that. I mentioned
Speaker 1: that on my Instagram feed, and I was accused of
Speaker 1: being sort of practicing identity politics, and I basically said,
Speaker 1: you know, listen, we want our representatives to truly represent
Speaker 1: the diversity of this country. And that's not to suggest
Speaker 1: you vote for a woman simply because she's a woman,
Speaker 1: but certainly women women's voices need to be heard and
Speaker 1: exercised on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. They're the majority of
Speaker 1: the country, of the population, baby, Yeah, that have been
Speaker 1: really underrepresented, only got the right to vote, as Doug
Speaker 1: well knows, uh in nine twenty. So that's uh, that's
Speaker 1: a little different than being kind of an interest group
Speaker 1: to me. Well, you know what was underplayed is um
Speaker 1: Jackie Rosen's victory in Nevada. She beat Dean Heller, a
Speaker 1: conservative Trumpian Republican. But Nevada now has two women's senators
Speaker 1: in the last you know, say, eight years. Um, Nevada
Speaker 1: has become a blue state. Yeah, we talked all about
Speaker 1: that with a caller, Doug. There were a lot of
Speaker 1: conversations or speculation and accusations about voter suppression, particularly in
Speaker 1: Georgia and in Florida as well. Can you help us understand, uh,
Speaker 1: if these were accusations or if there's evidence that this
Speaker 1: was really happening. Certainly, Brian Kempt, the Secretary of State
Speaker 1: who was running against Stacy Abrams, was kind of in
Speaker 1: charge of these issues with Jimmy Carter said was inappropriate
Speaker 1: he should step down from that role during the election.
Speaker 1: But um, are we going to know for sure if
Speaker 1: there were cases of voter suppression and how can you
Speaker 1: shed light on that for us? I think in Georgia
Speaker 1: they're going to be lawsuits looking into voters suppression and
Speaker 1: ways to disenfranchise the voting in the state of Georgia.
Speaker 1: You mentioned, Katie, Jimmy Carter, you know, back in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty two. I believe he ran for the State Senate
Speaker 1: of Georgia and loss, but he sued and challenged and
Speaker 1: found that it was an illegal vote against him, and
Speaker 1: he ended up getting his political career up in going
Speaker 1: by challenging. Uh. I see Stacy Abrams doing that. She's
Speaker 1: going to challenge this result for the next month. But
Speaker 1: it's hard to do turnarounds and elections, and you'd have
Speaker 1: to find true, you know, voter um suppression, UM causes,
Speaker 1: it's a legal issue at this point. We saw a
Speaker 1: real ratcheting up of racial rhetoric and racial tensions around
Speaker 1: this election. UM. Lots of nasty stuff said about Jewish
Speaker 1: and African American candidates for office, As you mentioned the
Speaker 1: President putting out an ad about Latinos that even Fox
Speaker 1: wouldn't run. When was the last time that we had
Speaker 1: so bitter a racial and cultural divide around an election?
Speaker 1: I think nineteen sixty eight when Um Nixon and Hubert
Speaker 1: Humphrey and George Wallace ran. Wallace became the insurgent third
Speaker 1: party candidate and took a lot of Southern Democrats along
Speaker 1: with him and later would bring a lot of Midwest
Speaker 1: voters to him. George Wallace. Wallace is a factor in
Speaker 1: our modern times because Trump has really modeled himself after
Speaker 1: a kind of demagogic fashion like U. E. Long or
Speaker 1: George Wallace of the South stromp Thurman. And Trump's also
Speaker 1: moved in on the Ross Piro vote. You know, Russ
Speaker 1: pro got nine percent of the vote in as a
Speaker 1: third party candidate, and that was all against NAFTA. The
Speaker 1: sucking sound of the jobs you hear are going up,
Speaker 1: you know, going leaving America from Mexico. Trump stole that message.
Speaker 1: So he's created a new identity for the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And I guess if there's an upside for Donald Trump
Speaker 1: last night, it truly is Trump's party. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's anybody within the party structure that's going to be
Speaker 1: able to dent Donald Trump's power. It's going to be
Speaker 1: up to the Democrats to take him down. In Doug,
Speaker 1: one of the long term trends that we saw a
Speaker 1: play out in this election was the defeat of moderate
Speaker 1: senators who can work across the aisle um. On the
Speaker 1: Republican side, we saw some retirements, um because Republican senators
Speaker 1: who opposed Trump couldn't win their primaries. Democratic senators who
Speaker 1: are more moderate couldn't get reelected in Trump e states. Um.
Speaker 1: What does that portend for the Senate's ability to forge
Speaker 1: consensus and craft bipartisan legislation. I think the Senate is
Speaker 1: just going to be a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: they're gonna work hard to do more federal judges in place,
Speaker 1: and if they're lucky, get yet a third Supreme Court
Speaker 1: nominee chosen, perhaps down the line. I don't see much
Speaker 1: coming out of the Senate. Uh. That's why Dick Durbin
Speaker 1: will probably become the leading voice constantly saying that the
Speaker 1: Senate is worthless and does nothing, and they're they're not
Speaker 1: listening to the Democrats in the Senate. The all eyes
Speaker 1: now shift to Congress. The person of the moment is
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, a survivor in American politics. She now is
Speaker 1: going to be having to hurt all the Democratic cats,
Speaker 1: all the different characters together and decide whether they try
Speaker 1: to do an early nineteen deal with Trump or just
Speaker 1: be resist him and and and make Trump the foe
Speaker 1: of the American people. It's yet to be seen, but
Speaker 1: Pelosi is a new power broker. She's been one for decades,
Speaker 1: but I think now we have to look at her
Speaker 1: as a giant in American history because she is the
Speaker 1: one big check on Donald Trump. And I'm sure she's
Speaker 1: going to be his newest, juiciest target. If you will, yes,
Speaker 1: He'll try to do a deal maybe with her, and
Speaker 1: if she rejects it, he will double down, triple down,
Speaker 1: and just pound away at Nancy Pelosi. And if we're
Speaker 1: wondering what Donald Trump's attitude towards her might be, he
Speaker 1: tweeted the day after the election. In all fairness, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi deserves to beach shows and Speaker of the House
Speaker 1: by the Democrats. If they give her a hard time,
Speaker 1: perhaps we will add some Republican votes. She has earned
Speaker 1: this great honor. Maybe a bit of a backhanded compliment,
Speaker 1: you would prefer that she's his foe. Well, I do
Speaker 1: think that it's in Donald Trump's interest right now. And
Speaker 1: he said to try to tone things down to maybe
Speaker 1: try to do one big infrastructure um deal with the Democrats. Basically,
Speaker 1: if he can convince Pelosi to take a time out
Speaker 1: for a few months and then start in early nineteen
Speaker 1: and get one big thing done on the Democrats, might
Speaker 1: be game for that. Um, that's what he's trying to
Speaker 1: do now. He's actually trying to charm Nancy Pelosi. If
Speaker 1: that gets rejected and instead there's this attempt to get
Speaker 1: at as tax returns soon, Um, once Congress goes back
Speaker 1: in a session, then you'll see a war between Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Trump. It's it's unsure which way it will go.
Speaker 1: It'll end up badly between the two. But there might
Speaker 1: be honeymoon there for about four or five months. There
Speaker 1: will be plenty to talk about or listen to on
Speaker 1: cable news, depending on your network of choice. Has all
Speaker 1: of this unfolds, Doug, always great to have you and
Speaker 1: to talk to you. Thanks so much for doing this.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. Thanks, Katie and Brian enjoyed it. That
Speaker 1: does it for us today. The team that produces this
Speaker 1: show is producer Emma Morgan Stern, associate producer Noura Richie,
Speaker 1: audio engineer Jared O'Connell. Special thanks to Andy Kristen's for
Speaker 1: pitch hitting on the mix this week, as well as
Speaker 1: Chris Hoff and Paul Anchor at k KWI D, the
Speaker 1: venerable public radio station here in San Francisco, Brandon Martin
Speaker 1: and Houston, Lizzie Peabody in Washington. We are all over America.
Speaker 1: I was going to say a cast of thousands and
Speaker 1: a big round of applause to my assistant Beth Dems
Speaker 1: and my social media master Julia Lewis. Jared Arnold composed
Speaker 1: our theme music. You can find me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Goldsmith b. You can follow Katie incessant Instagram, and I
Speaker 1: mean that in the nicest way possible. You can follow
Speaker 1: her on Twitter or Facebook. She's on all of those sites.
Speaker 1: As you guessed it, Katie Current. If you want to
Speaker 1: tell us what you think about the show or ask
Speaker 1: us a question, please write to us at comments at
Speaker 1: currect podcast dot com or leave us a voicemail at
Speaker 1: four four six three seven. Thank you so much for listening,
Speaker 1: and we'll talk to you next week.