Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Mollie 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. We're on vacation this week, but that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean we don't have an amazing show for you today.
Speaker 1: Emily's List President Leafonza Butler It talks to us about
Speaker 1: electing pro choice candidates in twenty twenty four. But first
Speaker 1: we have Princeton professor Julian Zelizer here to talk about
Speaker 1: the historical president for third party candidates.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Fast Politics, Julian.
Speaker 3: Thanks, it's great to be with you.
Speaker 1: Delighted to have you, your fancy historian. We love our
Speaker 1: fancy Princeton historians. We try to get them on as
Speaker 1: much as possible. I want to talk to you about
Speaker 1: the cage match that we are about to spend sixteen
Speaker 1: months or more covering, and that is what it very
Speaker 1: much looks like will be a rematch between Biden and Trump.
Speaker 2: Is there any historical precedents for this?
Speaker 3: Not really, This is very unusual to have this configuration,
Speaker 3: to have this matchup. You know, it's not just the
Speaker 3: matchup of these two guys who have run, but it's
Speaker 3: also the matchup of a president and former president who's
Speaker 3: indicted many times over, and so it's one of those
Speaker 3: very unique configurations that I don't know how it's kind
Speaker 3: of unsault.
Speaker 1: It's funny because when we were texting before this, you said, well,
Speaker 1: what do you want to talk about? I said this
Speaker 1: and this, and then I said, you know what a
Speaker 1: candidate with multiple indictments running for president? And you were like,
Speaker 1: there's not a lot of president for that. I mean,
Speaker 1: is there there is some like hinky weird precedent, but
Speaker 1: not mock try it?
Speaker 3: No, absolutely, Like So in nineteen twenty Eugene Debs ran,
Speaker 3: he was the Socialist and he was in jail, he
Speaker 3: had been put into prison for the Sedition Act, and
Speaker 3: he runs. You know, he doesn't win, but it's a campaign.
Speaker 3: And I think that's one kind of model people talk about.
Speaker 3: Rick Perry, who was the governor of Texas, was also
Speaker 3: indicted when he ran. His campaign was a little like DeSantis.
Speaker 3: You know, it was the next big thing until it wasn't,
Speaker 3: and that wasn't why it failed. So there are those
Speaker 3: kinds of examples as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The thing that with Trump, which I feel like is
Speaker 1: really important to talk about is that he sort of
Speaker 1: takes advantage of the fact that there is no historical precedent.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean that is true, or at least to
Speaker 3: create that impression. I mean, when there is no precedent,
Speaker 3: people just can't figure out where this all goes. Is
Speaker 3: not that normal roadmap people follow or in politics have
Speaker 3: about how this plays out because you literally don't know
Speaker 3: what's coming next. And by creating the idea of unprecedented,
Speaker 3: he shakes people up. I think he's trying to scare them,
Speaker 3: and often they don't know exactly how to reactor. They're
Speaker 3: worried that things will unfold in ways you don't think
Speaker 3: they will.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that is such an interesting and to such
Speaker 1: an important data point when we're talking about this for
Speaker 1: a minute.
Speaker 2: I mean we're seeing.
Speaker 1: Now Trump is trying to kick down the can with
Speaker 1: all these indictments. See if he can kick the can
Speaker 1: down the road, trying to keep all this stuff from
Speaker 1: you know, be able to run without these things hurting
Speaker 1: his campaign. Obviously that will, you know, I mean, he
Speaker 1: can't control some of this, but.
Speaker 2: He really can.
Speaker 1: Like I mean, I think what's sort of interesting about
Speaker 1: Trump is that fighting accountability is something that he's quite good.
Speaker 3: At No, he's good at it. I mean there's an
Speaker 3: element of Trump where he can survive these meaning he's
Speaker 3: had a long career politics where he's evading the law,
Speaker 3: he's evading problems, and he's figured out how to skirt
Speaker 3: the line. He also has a little bit of Richard
Speaker 3: Nixon and meaning not just what he does, but he
Speaker 3: loves to pit himself against an establishment. And Nixon did
Speaker 3: that all the time. When people attacked him, it was
Speaker 3: the system that was broken, not him. And it wasn't
Speaker 3: simply him being attacked, it was his supporters. As Nixon said,
Speaker 3: the silent majority was who he stood for. And Trump
Speaker 3: does that as well. I think at some level he's
Speaker 3: been effective at each indictment coming his way. Somehow it
Speaker 3: becomes a way where he can rally support, he can
Speaker 3: define himself as an anti establishment person, and you know,
Speaker 3: he can also use all of this to threaten the
Speaker 3: people investigating him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's such a sort of interesting thing.
Speaker 1: I would like to get to Nick, get back to
Speaker 1: Nixon for a minute, because when you listen to Trump,
Speaker 1: so much of what Trump sounds like is like Nixon
Speaker 1: and Spureau I knew. Talk to me about where this
Speaker 1: Trump ist, racist, nationalist otherism comes from.
Speaker 3: It's a mix. I mean, he is one of the
Speaker 3: few politicians who wants to emulate Richard Nixon instead of
Speaker 3: away from Nixon. It's fascinating, but I think his rage
Speaker 3: against Washington, his rage against coastal elites. Nixon did that
Speaker 3: all the time. Nixon, even though he was as establishment
Speaker 3: as you could be he'd been vice president, senator, he
Speaker 3: always presented himself as this guy who was continually under
Speaker 3: attacked by the Harvard educated, you know, State Department kind
Speaker 3: of officials who didn't appreciate what he was and I
Speaker 3: think that was his mantra. I think Trump has picked
Speaker 3: that up. And then there's another element of Republican politics
Speaker 3: that was there in the sixties. For sure. It's a
Speaker 3: kind of reactionary strand of American politics that's against civil
Speaker 3: rights legislation, that's against changes in the country that created
Speaker 3: more diversity, and those have allly intensified since Nixon was
Speaker 3: in office. Nixon was not as eager to totally jump
Speaker 3: into that kind of politics as Trump is. But I
Speaker 3: think both strands have been there since the sixties and seventies,
Speaker 3: and Trump has just both brought them together and elevated them,
Speaker 3: and he does everything in broad daylight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but there's certain like they're coming for you, but
Speaker 1: they have to go through me to get to you.
Speaker 1: That kind of weird, like somehow I'm being prosecuted for
Speaker 1: your persecuted and prosecuted for your sins. It's like almost
Speaker 1: a kind of bizarro Jesus thing. I mean, is there
Speaker 1: a president for that? I mean, was that from the Nixon?
Speaker 1: Is that at George Wallace? I mean, where does that
Speaker 1: come from?
Speaker 3: No, I mean in terms of actual investigations. Yes, Nixon
Speaker 3: until the end when he resigns in August of seventy four,
Speaker 3: he and many Republicans are adamantly defending the White House
Speaker 3: and they were arguing, this is just a partisan way shunt.
Speaker 3: It's an effort by Democrats to undercut what they hated,
Speaker 3: meaning that Republicans were the ones who won at the
Speaker 3: end of the sixties. And so he did make that
Speaker 3: argument until the very end. Bill Clinton did a little
Speaker 3: of this, you know, when he was being impeached. One
Speaker 3: of the ways in rally support was to say this
Speaker 3: is partisan Republicans not untrue, such as Nude ging Ridge
Speaker 3: as the Speaker of the House, who were trying to
Speaker 3: go after not just him, but what he stood for.
Speaker 3: They were trying to reverse the legacy of the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 3: So it is a strategy we've seen before. I don't
Speaker 3: think either Nixon or Clinton came anywhere close to what
Speaker 3: Trump has done and is able to kind of use
Speaker 3: the ways he's able to use these moments to his advantage.
Speaker 2: I am struck by that.
Speaker 1: We find Trump very like this sort of partisan rhetoric. Yes,
Speaker 1: it definitely, you know, we definitely saw Clinton had issues
Speaker 1: with this, We saw Nixon had issues with that. You
Speaker 1: know that they both sort of did to a certain extent.
Speaker 1: I mean, Nixon obviously is not comparable to Clinton and Clinton.
Speaker 1: You could say there's no one on God's Green Earth
Speaker 1: who doesn't think that Ken Star was a partisan. So
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, he definitely, you know, he definitely committed
Speaker 1: a crime, but as also partisan leading. What I think
Speaker 1: is interesting I'm thinking about is like, so Ron de
Speaker 1: Santis or de Santis, because no one knows how you
Speaker 1: pronounce it, because he won't clarify.
Speaker 2: And he pronounces it both ways.
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis was saying in an interview, like the
Speaker 1: thing that he did, which I actually think is quite
Speaker 1: smart and is why he's much much more dangerous than
Speaker 1: Trump is. He said, well, you know this is a
Speaker 1: partisan because and he pointed to the Alvin Bragg which
Speaker 1: is the least very much the least strong indictment. Right,
Speaker 1: I mean there are real you know, the classified documents.
Speaker 1: I mean you have stuff where you really have him
Speaker 1: on tape saying like, I have a classified document here,
Speaker 1: let me show it to you.
Speaker 2: It's a little bit smart. I mean, do you think
Speaker 2: it flies with the right or no?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean there's two different strategies. The Santis strategy
Speaker 3: is in some ways more familiar. You kind of pick
Speaker 3: at the weakness of the case or theest parts of
Speaker 3: the case. You highlight those and you say that's what
Speaker 3: this is all about. And people are realiz know, the
Speaker 3: I think the Hull Alvin Bragg case, it's not as
Speaker 3: clear to people what the it is, and even legal
Speaker 3: people say it's a little weaker. And so that is
Speaker 3: a strategy you ignore the rest. Let's not talk about
Speaker 3: the overturning the election that seems to be coming. Let's
Speaker 3: not talk about stealing classified die Let's talk about that one.
Speaker 3: I think it can be effective. I mean I think
Speaker 3: what DeSantis and other Republicans have is this incredible conservative
Speaker 3: media ecosystem which will amplify that message. They will make
Speaker 3: the case after DeSantis has Trump's strategies different. It's just
Speaker 3: like flood the whole public with just a lot of smear,
Speaker 3: untruth lies, and just to characterize the whole thing, from
Speaker 3: brag to the January sixth investigation as one big partisan
Speaker 3: hit job against him. And I don't know which is
Speaker 3: more effective in this day and age. Look, the polls
Speaker 3: suggests Trump is onto something at least compared to DeSantis.
Speaker 3: But I think both can work, and I think sometimes
Speaker 3: Democrats underestimate how these counter attacks can undercut some of
Speaker 3: the political damage. You'd expect either of these two candidates
Speaker 3: to suffer.
Speaker 1: From all of this, right, I mean, the game here
Speaker 1: is to try to sort of kick the can procrastinate,
Speaker 1: make it seem like it's a false equivalency, like there
Speaker 1: was a political There's always this feeling, and it may
Speaker 1: just be among a certain group of people, but I
Speaker 1: definitely always sense that there's a feeling that the American
Speaker 1: electorate is getting dumber?
Speaker 2: Is it getting dumber?
Speaker 1: What is the phenomenon that we're seeing right now.
Speaker 3: I don't know if we're getting dumber. I mean, I
Speaker 3: think we all of us live in this atmosphere where
Speaker 3: it's very hard to discern what's true and what's not,
Speaker 3: and overloaded with information, and the good news, there's a
Speaker 3: lot of that information actually makes us smarter. I think,
Speaker 3: you know, politics is less secret, we know more about
Speaker 3: what's going on. It's hard to be as public. On
Speaker 3: the other hand, there's so much out there unfiltered, unedited
Speaker 3: that I do think it's easier to kind of trick
Speaker 3: people or distract people today than it was in the
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies or nineteen eighties. And secondly, I do think
Speaker 3: a lot of people are disengaged from politics, and so
Speaker 3: it's not the dumber, but they're not really as interested,
Speaker 3: sometimes justifiably in being totally engaged and sorting through the
Speaker 3: kind of information that comes their way. And politicians relate
Speaker 3: both of those to kind of move forward or to
Speaker 3: di seminate ideas that just aren't true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it is interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean I think about this sort of fake news phenomenon.
Speaker 2: This is not a new phenomenon fake news.
Speaker 1: I mean, there is a historical precedent of fake news.
Speaker 2: Will you talk to us about that?
Speaker 1: All the things I didn't tell you I was going
Speaker 1: to talk to you about I am now talking to
Speaker 1: you about.
Speaker 3: Sorry, No, I mean fake news is always the and
Speaker 3: there's the level of fake news where you know, conspiratorial
Speaker 3: ideas make their way into the public. In the nineteen
Speaker 3: fifties and sixties, there was you know, conspiratorial ideas about
Speaker 3: how Carthy the Karthy, or how the Soviets were putting
Speaker 3: fluoride in our water. There's a famous seating in Doctor Strangelove,
Speaker 3: which comes out in sixty four, where that's a main
Speaker 3: part of the story. And those were circulating ideas about
Speaker 3: race and race riots. I mean that always was out there.
Speaker 3: It didn't get as mainstream as it does today. So
Speaker 3: there wasn't a Fox News that was the fake news,
Speaker 3: and I think that's the kind of marriage of two
Speaker 3: forces which has been pretty destructive.
Speaker 2: But you had tabloid journalism.
Speaker 3: I mean you had things like that, right absolutely, But again,
Speaker 3: the National Inquirer was not kind of hitting the same
Speaker 3: audience as the people who read the New York Times
Speaker 3: or the Washington that's no longer true. There's also been
Speaker 3: high level fake news, so you know, anyone who studies
Speaker 3: Vietnam and the war can go through that Lyndon Johnson
Speaker 3: Richard Nixon presidency and see how much misinformation the public
Speaker 3: was being called about what was going on in the wars.
Speaker 3: Things that were just categorically not accurate, not capturing what
Speaker 3: was on the ground, ultimately led to a lot of
Speaker 3: the distrust we have today. I had a lot of
Speaker 3: the public sentiment that's susceptible to these other ideas.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is such an interesting thing.
Speaker 1: I mean there were certain things like didn't the public
Speaker 1: not know how sick FDR was.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they didn't know how sick FDR was. They didn't
Speaker 3: know about all of Jay John F. Kennedy's relation. So
Speaker 3: there's that level also of that wasn't hiding it, though,
Speaker 3: so much as there were things that reporters just weren't
Speaker 3: interested in covering, or they didn't think it was needed
Speaker 3: or right to cover. The fake news is different. Information's
Speaker 3: being pumped out that's just not true, and I think
Speaker 3: that in some ways is even more dangerous because the
Speaker 3: hidden stuff could be found, They could be discovered. This
Speaker 3: becomes much harder to push back against.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it really does.
Speaker 1: And it's interesting because it is like that is the
Speaker 1: same thing with Trump. Right, this uncharted territory, the place
Speaker 1: where there just isn't pressed on you can't look back
Speaker 1: on it and say this is like Nixon, this is
Speaker 1: like this. I wonder, like with this third party candidate stuff,
Speaker 1: you clearly see a lot of people on the right
Speaker 1: nervous that their guy who is likely going to be
Speaker 1: the nominee unless something really huge happens, and even if
Speaker 1: something really huge happens, I mean I think it's going
Speaker 1: to be the nominatee. That there's really a push on
Speaker 1: the right to get a third party candidate going because
Speaker 1: they know that's really the only way they can win.
Speaker 2: We've seen I mean I remember, like I mean, you.
Speaker 1: Think about all of the third party candidates. I mean,
Speaker 1: can we just have a two second on third party candidates?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean third party candidates can cause damn and
Speaker 3: I think people underestimate what they can do. It is
Speaker 3: true that the odds of a third party being victorious
Speaker 3: are you know, as simile as they get, and we
Speaker 3: don't samples of it is other than the Republican Party.
Speaker 3: That's really it in terms of success. But third parties
Speaker 3: have a long history of damaging one of the other two.
Speaker 3: So the most famous recent memories obviously Ralph Nader in
Speaker 3: two thousand, who many people think definitely hurt al Gore
Speaker 3: in Florida in particular cut some of his vote. George
Speaker 3: Wallace in nineteen sixty eight medically when he ran, he
Speaker 3: actually took Democratic votes away from Hubert Humphrey by kind
Speaker 3: of playing to racial backlash and fears in the newer
Speaker 3: they're and ethnic, white working class electorate. That hurt Humphrey
Speaker 3: in a very close election.
Speaker 2: And Ross Barreau right are here.
Speaker 3: In nineteen ninety two. People dispute kind of how it worked,
Speaker 3: but a lot of Republicans think his focus on the
Speaker 3: deficit and his issues hurt George H. W. Bush. So
Speaker 3: there's a long history of these parties being significant, not always,
Speaker 3: but those are some examples that we see. And so
Speaker 3: this year, I think both Republicans and Democrats have their
Speaker 3: eye on people like Joe Manchin. They have their eye
Speaker 3: on primary challenges like Robert Kennedy Junior. And because we're
Speaker 3: in this unprecedented world, no one's is comfortable decisively saying
Speaker 3: this won't matter. Because through that in twenty sixteen, and
Speaker 3: it mattered.
Speaker 2: Julian, Thank you so much. I hope you'll.
Speaker 3: Come back, of course, always a pleasure.
Speaker 2: Lafon's Butler is the president of Emily's List. Welcome to
Speaker 2: Fast Politics, Lafonza.
Speaker 4: Butler, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Very delighted to have you so explain to us a
Speaker 1: little bit about what your organization does.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, Emily's List is a thirty eight year
Speaker 5: old organization that has worked to create the legacy of
Speaker 5: changing the face of politics.
Speaker 2: We helped to.
Speaker 5: Elect democratic, pro choice women to office at every level
Speaker 5: of the ballot. Our first race was helping Barbara Mkowsky
Speaker 5: get elected to the US Senate in nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 5: being the first woman elected in.
Speaker 4: Her own right.
Speaker 5: From there, the organization story really has taken off and
Speaker 5: has had great impact. From the first Year of the
Speaker 5: Woman in nineteen ninety two to the sort of second
Speaker 5: iteration of the Year of the Woman in twenty eighteen,
Speaker 5: it has been this organization that is the largest political
Speaker 5: resource for women in politics.
Speaker 2: That is very cool. So talk to me about what
Speaker 2: you're working on right now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Molly, there is so much happening in the world
Speaker 5: in US politics right now. Some things that we are
Speaker 5: focused on now include the elections that are happening in
Speaker 5: Virginia this year twenty twenty three. The Virginia State legislature
Speaker 5: is going through its first elections after redistricting, and it
Speaker 5: is a critical state, bellwether state for what the kinds
Speaker 5: of conversations and issues that are top of mind for
Speaker 5: voters and elected officials in.
Speaker 4: Preview for twenty twenty two.
Speaker 5: Virginia is of utmost importance for an organization like ours
Speaker 5: because it is one of the few states on the
Speaker 5: Eastern Seaboard where a woman can still access or reproductive
Speaker 5: care beyond twelve weeks, and it is important that we
Speaker 5: elect a legislature that will help to make sure that
Speaker 5: that remains true. And the Governor of Virginia has already
Speaker 5: said that he intends to put forward anti abortion six
Speaker 5: week ban legislation in Virginia. And having a democratic pro
Speaker 5: choice legislature which women will be incredibly important part, is
Speaker 5: a real, real priority for us, just like everyone else, Molly,
Speaker 5: we are looking forward and in preparation for twenty twenty
Speaker 5: four elections and helping women who are running deciding now
Speaker 5: if they are going to run for office, make those decisions,
Speaker 5: stand up their campaigns, hire their staff and sharpen their
Speaker 5: messages and engagement to voters. And you know, we are
Speaker 5: very much focused on supporting Vice President Harris in twenty
Speaker 5: twenty three and twenty twenty four and beyond.
Speaker 4: Our nation has never had.
Speaker 5: A woman break through the doors of the White House
Speaker 5: until the election of Vice President Harris. And because of
Speaker 5: her presence, we are as a nation or having conversations
Speaker 5: about reproductive healthcare, We are having conversations about the black
Speaker 5: maternal health and maternal health generally. We are talking about
Speaker 5: the importance of childcare and sustainable childcare for working class
Speaker 5: families across the country. And so her presence in the
Speaker 5: supporting the role then the agenda of President Biden is
Speaker 5: critically important to continuing to break through glass ceilings that
Speaker 5: have yet to be shattered by women and particularly women
Speaker 5: of color. I'm in elected office across the country and
Speaker 5: we are making that priority as well, so win in
Speaker 5: more seats in the Senate, getting to a democratic getting
Speaker 5: back to a democratic majority in the House, protecting the
Speaker 5: White House, helping to elect.
Speaker 4: Governors, women who are running.
Speaker 5: For governor's offices as well as mayor offices and other
Speaker 5: constitutional officers, and state legislatures.
Speaker 3: We are really.
Speaker 5: Mainly trying to do all the things to advance representation
Speaker 5: and voice of women in a diverse set of women
Speaker 5: all over the country as we work to protect a
Speaker 5: reproductive freedom and restore fundamental rights for all people in
Speaker 5: the US.
Speaker 1: Can we talk about we had some of the anti
Speaker 1: choice Democrats and how are.
Speaker 2: You addressing that? I mean, do you support anti choice democrats?
Speaker 2: Are you able to run against them?
Speaker 1: I mean, I know we interviewed someone in Virginia who
Speaker 1: was running against who was primary an anti choice Democrat.
Speaker 2: Talk to us about that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Look, we're very clear that we only support democratic
Speaker 5: pro choice women. We do not have a problem nor
Speaker 5: do we shy away from challenging anti choice democrats. It
Speaker 5: is so essential to the mission of Emily's List that
Speaker 5: there is a share set of values with the American
Speaker 5: people with every candidate that we support, and you know,
Speaker 5: consistently over decades and at record levels now, it is
Speaker 5: clear that the American people are in favor of women
Speaker 5: and families being able to make their reproductive health decisions
Speaker 5: with them, between them sales and their doctors. And that
Speaker 5: has been the legacy of Emily's Listen, so we were
Speaker 5: proud to be supporting las Cherie's aired in Virginia.
Speaker 2: Yes, we had her on the podcast.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5: She challenging the last anti choice Democrat who happened to
Speaker 5: be a man in Virginia by the name of Joe Morrissey.
Speaker 5: She defeated him in that primary, and we are have
Speaker 5: been supporting La Cherie in her public service for a
Speaker 5: number of years now, and we're proud to be standing
Speaker 5: with her this time around as well. What we have
Speaker 5: learned over our thirty eight years in operation is that
Speaker 5: the way for women to really break through through democratic
Speaker 5: primaries in particular is to challenge and to create a
Speaker 5: real contrast between the positions of democratic pro choice women
Speaker 5: and anti choice democrats. And the way and how we
Speaker 5: have gotten to historic representation number in Congress and in
Speaker 5: state legislatures for women across the country is you know,
Speaker 5: really being in those primaries giving voters a clear contrast
Speaker 5: and doing the work and investing, frankly, to help them
Speaker 5: to win.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about what it looks like
Speaker 1: in Virginia. Virginia is one term gubernatorial. You can't run
Speaker 1: for reelection, So what does the Virginia gubernatorial look like.
Speaker 5: That's a part of the great work that we do
Speaker 5: here at emlisis. We are one of the organization, one
Speaker 5: of the very few organizations who works to recruit candidates
Speaker 5: and help to actually build the pipeline along with all
Speaker 5: of the other candidate services and supports that I've talked
Speaker 5: with you about thus far, and so helping to create
Speaker 5: that bench and pipeline of Democratic pro choice candidates is
Speaker 5: really a part of how we see the horizon of
Speaker 5: future elections and so sharpening the candidates that Emily's List
Speaker 5: is working with. We have been present in a number
Speaker 5: of organizations and allies have been present in Virginia. There
Speaker 5: are many Democratic candidates, pro choice candidates who I think
Speaker 5: are going to be looking to run for governor in
Speaker 5: the state of Virginia, and we're going to be working
Speaker 5: to keep our eye on women who are ready and
Speaker 5: prepared to engage the Virginia voters and the commonwealth and
Speaker 5: talk about their vision for the future. But it's going
Speaker 5: to be I think it's going to be a crowded
Speaker 5: governor's race.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I do think so.
Speaker 5: I think voters are going to have the ability to
Speaker 5: make some clear choices around the differences between those candidates.
Speaker 6: There still are anti choice Democrats in the party, but
Speaker 6: less and less, I mean, are primary in these candidates
Speaker 6: a priority.
Speaker 5: It definitely is for women in this country who thought
Speaker 5: that their reproductive healthcare choices were theirs to make had
Speaker 5: right the first time in almost fifty years had a
Speaker 5: right taken away from them. You are right to note
Speaker 5: that there are still anti abortion democrats, I mean, just
Speaker 5: not long ago. It was a third rail issue in
Speaker 5: the Democratic Party, I think, particularly because people always thought
Speaker 5: that role would always be there. No one ever expected
Speaker 5: that a Supreme Court would take a right away from
Speaker 5: the entire is a priority for Emily's List and the
Speaker 5: candidates that we support is that we put forward candidates
Speaker 5: who stand with the will of the majority of people
Speaker 5: in this country, and whether that is through a primary
Speaker 5: process or leaning heavily in the general election, whether it
Speaker 5: starts with candidate recruitment and helping to build a coalition,
Speaker 5: a winning coalition around that candidate. We are determined that
Speaker 5: we have to do everything that we can to ensure
Speaker 5: that we continue to be a representative voice for the
Speaker 5: will of the American people, and increasingly the Republican Party
Speaker 5: is making sure that people understand that they are anti abortion,
Speaker 5: that they want to strip away women's rights, that they
Speaker 5: want to have the power and control to make decisions
Speaker 5: about people's bodies, their families, and their freedom. Organizations like
Speaker 5: Emily's List and the candidates that we support have to
Speaker 5: stand in clear contrast to that.
Speaker 1: Tell me about a candidate you're excited about. Oh, my goodness,
Speaker 1: there are so many blots, or give me two or whatever.
Speaker 1: I mean, just somebody who you're just as top of
Speaker 1: mind right now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, top of mind for me is Prince Georgia's County
Speaker 5: Executive Angela also Brooks, who is running in the state
Speaker 5: of Maryland to be the next US Senator. In the
Speaker 5: state of Maryland, there are no women currently in the
Speaker 5: Maryland Delegation Congression Delegation, not one County executive. Angela also
Speaker 5: Brooks has been elected a number of times. She has
Speaker 5: a story and a lived experience that I think resonates
Speaker 5: in a state of Maryland, and she has just proven
Speaker 5: to be a fighter for the people of the state
Speaker 5: of Maryland. And to be with her, to campaign with her,
Speaker 5: to make phone calls with her, to fundraise with her,
Speaker 5: is just a real source of inspiration for me at
Speaker 5: this at this moment top of mind. You know, her
Speaker 5: daughter is just graduated from high school and he is
Speaker 5: getting ready to go to college. And to know that
Speaker 5: she is balancing both public service and being a single
Speaker 5: parent is another opportunity for the legacy of Emily's List
Speaker 5: to really be on display. Where we are saying, too
Speaker 5: and saying with women who have a passion for public service,
Speaker 5: that their voice matters in the decisions that face this
Speaker 5: country and the future and future generations.
Speaker 2: I was hoping you could talk about how hard it
Speaker 2: is to get women to run for office.
Speaker 4: It's a great topic.
Speaker 5: And Molli, you know, I think in the life of
Speaker 5: Emily's List the reason why women hesitate to run for
Speaker 5: office has changed and evolved. I speak with our founder,
Speaker 5: a woman by the name of Ellen Malcolm, who her
Speaker 5: along with her like twenty five friends in her basement
Speaker 5: thirty eight years ago, decided that they were going to
Speaker 5: help women raise money to prove to the democratic system
Speaker 5: that was run by men that they could raise the
Speaker 5: money to be taken seriously. And that was the greatest
Speaker 5: barrier that they identified for women candidates at that time.
Speaker 4: We know now in the.
Speaker 5: Twenty first century and a year twenty twenty three, money
Speaker 5: remains a challenge. There's data and research by the Barbara
Speaker 5: Lee Foundation and many others who have done the research
Speaker 5: to understand that women get less fundraising investment from people
Speaker 5: who would give men the maximum they give women fraction
Speaker 5: of that. We also know from those research organizations that
Speaker 5: misinformation and disinformation are disproportionately directed towards women and disproportionately
Speaker 5: directed towards women of color. We know that the increased
Speaker 5: threats of violence and attacks are directed towards women. And
Speaker 5: so there is a lot of consideration that women today
Speaker 5: have to be willing to take on in order to
Speaker 5: run for office, in addition to the fact that it
Speaker 5: is so expensive. In the years past, it is men
Speaker 5: who would say, you know, I am going to run
Speaker 5: for office, and my wife is going to stand by
Speaker 5: me and our second gentleman. Actually, we get to see
Speaker 5: a very different example.
Speaker 4: We get to see a husband.
Speaker 5: Who is choosing to stand by his wife as she
Speaker 5: chooses to serve the country. We have women like Congresswoman
Speaker 5: Katie Porter, who all so is a single mom who
Speaker 5: has to make decisions about childcare and think very intensively
Speaker 5: about childcare as she is doing the work of representing
Speaker 5: her constituency in her district. And so the difficulty that
Speaker 5: we face and convincing women to pursue their passion for
Speaker 5: public service has gotten much greater as the years have
Speaker 5: gone by and the dynamics of our political environment have
Speaker 5: shifted and changed. On average, I think the research says
Speaker 5: that a woman says no seven times before she actually
Speaker 5: is saying yes to running for office. And we know
Speaker 5: that there have been occasion where people where men just
Speaker 5: sort of wake up and walk down the stairs and
Speaker 5: tell America that they want to be president. It is
Speaker 5: tough terrain to navigate, but I think the policies that
Speaker 5: come forth, the discussions that are able to be had
Speaker 5: because of the presence of women and diverse women at
Speaker 5: the table, really does move our country forward.
Speaker 4: And that's the America that we want to pursue.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. This is so great. I'm so
Speaker 2: appreciate having you on.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Molly. We appreciate being a part
Speaker 4: of it.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear the best minds
Speaker 1: in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed what you've heard, Please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. And again thanks for listening.