Election Reflections with Jen Psaki

Jen Psaki knows a thing or two about politics. The former Obama communications director and Biden press secretary has spent nearly 20 years in politics–now she’s breaking down what happened in the 2024 election and what she thinks the next Trump administration could look like. Katie and Jen talk about how the media ecosystem impacted the election results, what can be done at the state level to protect against some of Trump’s policies, and the future of the Democratic party. Their conversation wasn’t all doom and gloom–Jen has some words of wisdom that will leave you hopeful about the weeks and years to come. (PS–Tune into her show on MSNBC, ‘Inside with Jen Psaki’, which airs Sundays at 12pm ET and Mondays at 8pm ET.)

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hi everyone, I'm Kitty Kuric and this is next question.
Oh my. Here we are a little more than a
week after the election by the time this podcast drops,
and I don't know about you all, but I'm still
kind of shaking my head, wondering how this happened, what

(00:25):
went wrong or right for depending on where you stand,
what the Democratic Party did wrong? What did the Harris
campaign perhaps do wrong. I've read so many analysis pieces
I can't even tell you from all different publications. Probably
some of my followers will think, well, Katie, you're reading

(00:45):
publications that confirm your pre existing beliefs, and if that's true,
guilty is charged. I probably have been reading those publications.
But I felt like one of the best people we
could talk to about all of this is my friend Jensaki.
Jen of course, served under two administrations, the Obama administration

(01:06):
the Biden administration, and now she is crushing it over
at MSNBC. I think she's a really welcome and much
needed voice. Although we can talk about the media as
well with Jen. Jen, gosh, Hi so much to discuss.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
How are you?

Speaker 3 (01:22):
I mean, Hi, I have spent the last several days
just as ever. Probably anyone listening has really thinking about
all of the things you just said, reading so many pieces.
There's a lot of takes out there. A lot of
them are bad, but some of them are interesting. And
what I've tried to really force myself to do in
this moment is be humble about what I misread and

(01:46):
what I didn't see, what many of us misread. I'm
not the only one, and what it tells us about
a huge disconnect out there from the party with There
are a lot of reasons.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
Why yes, but I have so many.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
I've tried to be very introspective about that and not blame.
I think there's also a lot of blame gaming going
on out there, which I don't think. That doesn't mean
you can't be critical. It just means people who say
this is the fault of all white women, it's like
we're fault of Latinos. It's like, as you know, Katie,
that's not how democracy works. I mean, people decide who

(02:19):
they want to vote for based on who they think
is going to best represent their views. You either move
people to do that or you don't. So that's what
I've spent the last couple of days. For me, it's
like digging into it and studying and being in the
research phase, and that's where I feel like I am
in this moment.

Speaker 1 (02:33):
I also think it's going to be helpful, Jen. I
think when you started at MSNBC, correct me if I'm wrong.
I have this bonehead idea. I was like, Jen, why
don't you do your show every weekend from a different location.
Why don't you go to the middle of the country.
Why don't you do the show from Dayton, Ohio. Why
don't you do the show from Houston, Texas. Why don't

(02:56):
you better references what the American people are thinking and feeling. Now,
of course I'm patting myself on the back for that idea,
but honestly, I think you're right. I think that the
media is occupied by coastal elites who pretty much all
went to pretty good schools. They don't represent a real

(03:18):
diversity of backgrounds socioeconomically anyway. And that's not true. You know,
I'm making a generalization here, but for the most part,
and I just feel like they're also not reporting out
in the field as much. I mean, one of the
things that bugs me when I watch cable news, and
by the way, we're talking about very small percentage of

(03:39):
the population that's actually watching cable news these days. Is
I never see them talking to real people. They're always
sitting at a desk, you know, doing a lot of
naval gazing. I mean that's not to say I don't
really appreciate hearing what these very smart people have to say.
You know, I love your show, Jen, I love hearing
you talk to people. But it does feel like it

(04:03):
is just not touching and not talking and not sharing
stories of people's lives. And it's just gotten very super
high level, and nobody seems to be really rolling up
their sleeves and getting out there in the country and
talking to voters.

Speaker 3 (04:23):
Yeah. There's a lot of reasons for that too, as
you know. I mean, one thing that's expensive. It's expensive.
That's one of them. And I remember us talking about that.
And I have tried to go out as much as
I can and actually spent I mean, I was in
Michigan a week before the election. I've gone out on
the road with candidates. You do have actual I was
in New Hampshire for days around the Republican primary, and

(04:46):
to your point, you do have actual, real conversations that
make you question and think. One of the things I've
thought a lot about And I can only speak for
myself and how I approach things moving forward is that
you get into an easy cycle of what is your
reaction to this crazy thing Trump said? What is your
reaction to that crazy thing? Trump said? And as you know,
and I'd be interested in your thought on this, for

(05:07):
given your long history, he is still a story. He's
the president elect of the United States. People can't not
cover him or not talk about him. But I do
wonder if the react to the crazy thing he said
is the most informative and right way that we should
be approaching things.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, I think a lot of people are looking at that,
did journalists And by the way, you know, we'll talk
about this. Media is so fragmented. I always say mass
media is now at oxymoron. So when you even say
the media, who and what are you talking about? But
I see your point. I think often they missed the
forest for the trees, because I think the focus was

(05:43):
probably a little bit more on the candidate and his
outrageous behavior instead of the fans and the people who
were gravitating and attracted to him and why. But wouldn't
it have been interesting if you had taken a Trump's
support order a week and really gone home with that
person and talked about their lives and talked about, you know,

(06:06):
what they were worried about, and talked about how they
were struggling to raise their kids, or talked about all
kinds of things. You know, this feeling of global insecurity
and pain for all these wars when we have so
many problems at home. I think it might have been
really illuminating.

Speaker 2 (06:23):
Jin Well.

Speaker 3 (06:24):
I also think certainly longtime Trump supporters are part of it, absolutely,
But I also think for the Democratic Party and also
for the media in a different way, And I want
to come back to that in a second. It's people
who left the Democratic Party who had long supported Democratic
candidates or Democratic policies and decided they weren't being heard anymore.

(06:45):
And those people maybe they stayed home. Maybe they voted
for Trump, but maybe they didn't vote at all. And
there's a group that I feel like wasn't heard or
listened to either.

Speaker 1 (06:54):
But that's not a new phenomenon, Jen, I mean, we've
seen sort of this, this shift by blue collar, working
class folks in this country moving towards the Republican Party.
And maybe it would have looked hollow. But I have
a friend and we talk about this stuff all the time.
We were like, why isn't Kamala Harris going out and
talking to more factory workers. Why isn't she like putting

(07:18):
on a hard hat and really talking to people everyday
people a little bit more. I think she could have
done that throughout the administration. But what were we talking about.

Speaker 3 (07:28):
I have so many things on my headshet and I
don't want to get off topic of What we were
talking about is like having the conversations with the people
who really I mean. The other thing I think and
I don't want to get off the topic of working
class voters because I think that is a big Yes,
you're right, the trends have been moving. In the trends
they've been moving. I do think this was a very
startling outcome in terms of the big shifts among many

(07:50):
different demographic groups, Latino men, young people. I mean, it
was not just one, it was not just white working
class voters. It was beyond right, which I think is
something that's important to be part of the conversation. The
other thing I think that's important to reflect on is
just a misread of abortion politics and what I mean
by that is, the majority of the country does believe

(08:12):
in a woman's right to make choices about her own healthcare,
bodily autonomy, whatever you want to call it, abortion whatever.
Seven states voted to protect abortion rights and still voted
for Trump, right, and there was this assumption. I'm not
the only one, but I'm just reflecting on my own
assumptions that were inaccurate, that both people who voted to
protect it or felt strongly about it would recognize that

(08:34):
he was a person who opposed it, and that's not.

Speaker 2 (08:36):
True, and why didn't they?

Speaker 3 (08:38):
I am also a believer. We don't know all the
answers yet. So this is how I've thought about it
to day. How I've thought about it to date is
either there is a belief that he wasn't a believer
in abortion band and he sort of said different iterations
of that over the course of time, despite his role
in nominating Supreme Court justices who did implement that policy
or did rule that way. People may have just this

(09:01):
is why it's interesting talk to these people, and I
don't know. This is why I don't know the answer yet.
May have made had the view that I can protect
abortion rights this way, but I still think the economy
is nobody's hearing me, and he hears me better, so
I'm going to do both. I'm not sure. I don't
know that we entirely know, but I think there was
an overconfidence because of these special elections and because of

(09:23):
the midterms where there is a smaller turnout, So perhaps
the more exercised, excited people turn out, and a belief
it was going to replicate itself. It didn't. There's a
lesson in that somewhere. And I don't think we know
all the answers yet.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
I don't think he does give out the vibe, if
you will, which seems to be the word of the year,
that he feels super strongly about limiting abortion rights.

Speaker 3 (09:46):
Right.

Speaker 1 (09:46):
I think people see his lifestyle, but then you do
look at the Supreme Court, then you do look at JD.
Vance and you're like, how can you not be worried
about this? And you know it's interesting. I know Ronald
Reagan is how old I am, jen and you know
he campaigned a lot on restricting abortion, I think in
order to win over the evangelical vote, and then once

(10:07):
in office, he basically made it Priority number seventy nine,
like nothing was really ever done about it, So maybe
people just since from Donald Trump, this wasn't an issue
he cared about. But on the other hand, Jen, I mean, hello,
you look at the Supreme Court justices and you look
at you know, Dobbs, and you're thinking, wait, how can

(10:30):
you compartmentalize these things?

Speaker 3 (10:33):
That is my question. And in what's different now from
the Reagan administration is, of course that the DBS decision happened.
So states have the ability, as you know, and you've
been talking about, to put in place their own laws,
and we've seen the impact of those. So when Trump
or Jade Vans or whomever it may be, says it
should go back to the states, well we see how

(10:54):
that goes. What it means is we have a country
where half the states have restrictive laws that could lead
to deaths in some cases women having sepsist, doctors being prosecuted,
and half the states that don't. And that's what's also different.

Speaker 1 (11:08):
But why didn't that resonate with more people? Which brings
me back to the information ecosystem. Yeah, you know, I
mean I think it is so fragmented. You can create
your own digital diet or media diet, and you know,
I heard so many people saying, well, it's fine to
let the states decide as if the people of those
states would be in a position. Well, they were in

(11:32):
some cases right with a referenda that were voted on
this go round. But somehow these stories did not penetrate
or did not get through a lot of voters about
the dangers of leaving it to states who would prohibit
abortion even in cases of rape, incest or when the

(11:52):
mother's life is in danger. There are states like that
out there, right chen.

Speaker 3 (11:57):
Now, I think I have some ends I don't have,
but I'll just be like a kumble about the place
I don't have answers. And this is the place I
feel like I need to do more studying and understanding.
Is the disinformation space. I do think that unquestionably to me,
you know, one of the things that's changed even since
I got involved in politics is just the rise of
the percentage of people who get their information off of

(12:20):
platforms that have no fact checking mechanism and no accountability
for having disinformation spread right right, And as you know, well,
and I mean when I got started in democratic politics,
you know, most of it was like local TV ads.
That was what it was about. Obviously national TV, local print,
local TV is held to a higher standard of accountability

(12:43):
than social media platforms in terms of having accurate information
on their platforms. That is crazy, And so it is,
how does it change, How are people held to account?
Laws have to change. I don't even know the total
answer to it, but that seems to me to be
a core issue. The other issue I think that is
a real one is I don't think Joe Rogan deserves

(13:05):
like one hundred percent credit of love Donald Trump being elected,
but it was a misunderstanding of kind of also how
people are getting their information and an undervaluing of some
of those platforms that Trump was doing that either don't
really exist on the other side or not in those

(13:26):
not in the numbers exactly exactly.

Speaker 1 (13:28):
Yeah, Yeah, And I also think, I mean, again, my
head is swimming with so many with so many things
that I've been trying to process over the last few days.
You know, there's this whole theory about a huge backlash
by young men and some older men, and perhaps that
explained some of the Latino vote to this idea that

(13:51):
women are making so many more strides. I mean, ostensibly,
you look at medical schools and law schools and that
you know, there was me too, there was Black Lives Matter,
and suddenly I think people were still angry about affirmative
action when it was in place, and they're sort of like,
I thought this country was a meritocracy, and now I'm

(14:12):
feeling screwed.

Speaker 3 (14:14):
Yeah, And I think the feeling screwed takes many forms, right,
And maybe people who it is sexism for wouldn't even
admit to themselves that it's sexism, right.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
I think that's so right, Jen.

Speaker 1 (14:27):
I think that some people don't even recognize their implicit bias.
I have a friend who said, I'm just worried that
Kamala Harris doesn't have the stature to deal with world
leaders And I thought, wow, this was a very successful woman,
and I thought, maybe just replace stature with penis.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yes, I was so honestly so.

Speaker 3 (14:49):
That maybe replace stature with phenis got the mate out there.

Speaker 1 (14:54):
But it was so it was so perplexing to me,
and I was like, Oh, this this is someone who
doesn't realize her deep seated implicit bias against female leadership.

Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, and that is of it's so hard to measure
because people don't even admit it to themselves, right, and
it is I mean, in my on the Latino men
part of this, which I think there's not one answer for.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
But I agree, and I think we have to be
careful stratifying society and the way we do with polls.
I think Mike Murphy, I heard John Heilman say this
on Bill Maher. So I'm quoting a quote of a quote,
but Mike Murphy said, you know, when are we going
to just call Latino men men? I mean it almost
underscores or exacerbates this notion of identity politics, right.

Speaker 3 (15:47):
Yes, And I think you know it depends on also,
like no group is monolithic. Women are not monolithic. Clearly
white women are not monolithic. But Latino men are not
monolithic either. And the thing that Latino men in Florida
might be grappling with, including like this notion of you know,
socialism and communism and what it means if you came

(16:10):
from a country where that was a dominant issue like Cuba,
right in Cuba. And also Christina Landon, I'm going to
quote someone now who sits next to me. She's a Telemundo,
longtime Telemundo reporter, and I had dinner with her maybe
three nights before the election, and she said to me
something that stuck with me, which is like, sometimes the
issues that democrats think are going to work for them,

(16:30):
like democracy and abortion rights, work the reverse way amongst
someone because there's sometimes more conservative social values. Anyway, It's
my point is there's not a monolithic take here. I've
also in my kind of research studying phase of this
because this is my coping mechanism. Yeah, I've been reading
Foala Ramos's book. It's called The Defectors, and it's about

(16:54):
the Latino men who have become maga and why now
it's not She's very, very humble in the book, but
it's not conclusive. But part of it she talks about
identity and identifying as an American versus identifying as an immigrant,
and that's an interesting part of the conversation too. But
I don't know the total answer, but I think it's
one that is worth everyone continuing to learn and explore

(17:18):
and listen more about.

Speaker 1 (17:19):
I think that's true because I think often these pundits
make these pronouncements right that are too general, that treat
communities as monolithic and not as separate people, you know,
separate even individual people and families, right, who have had

(17:40):
very different experiences, as you said, certainly within the Latino community.
If you want to get smarter every morning with a
breakdown of the news and fascinating takes on health and
wellness and pop culture, sign up for our daily newsletter,

(18:01):
Wake Up Call by going to Katiecuric dot com. What
do you think about all the finger pointing at wokeness?

Speaker 2 (18:17):
Now?

Speaker 1 (18:17):
First of five, I hate that word, and I feel
like it's been a bit overstated, but there does seem
to be an increasing intolerance for being told how you're
supposed to think and being told you're less than because
you don't think a certain way.

Speaker 3 (18:36):
I think that's it for me, and again I don't,
But how I've thought about it is nobody likes to
be condescended to or told that they have to hit
a certain litmus test of things to be welcomed and
invited in the party. And I think sometimes people feel
that way about the Democratic Party. And I do think
that some of the positions that Vice President Harris took

(18:57):
when she was running for president in twenty nineteen, which
I actually don't think are her positions because they weren't
before and they weren't after. And there's an inauthenticity to
that six months of her life, right, But which is
a lesson for lots of people running for office. Be
authentic to what you believe.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
Yeah, my sister used to say. I don't know if
you knew my sister was running for lieutenant governor with
I think you and I have talked about this with
Mark Warner. And then she got diagnosed with pancreatic cancer
and had to drop out, sadly tragically. And you know,
Emily used to say to me, when you run for office,
you have to be willing to lose. I think what

(19:33):
she meant is you have got to adhere to your
core values who you are as a person, and if
you lose, then you're not meant to win. And you know,
and I so respected that, and I think it speaks
to as you were saying the twenty nineteen positions. But
can I just add something, Jen, because I wonder if
you've also thought about this. Seems to me people kind

(19:56):
of forget that moment in time too. I mean it
was sort of right on the heels of me too,
right on the heels of Black Lives Matter. I think
there were forces that were pulling everybody and I don't
want to necessarily to say to the left, but maybe
it was to the left. But this kind of realization,

(20:18):
this feeling that you know, if you're a white American,
you're to blame and there's something wrong with you, and
that you're part of the problem, and you know, the
whole Karen thing and all that. I wonder if her
positions were in a way informed by that environment that

(20:39):
we were experiencing, and that this election in a way
was a repudiation or an expression of some of those feelings.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
Does that make sense at all?

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Yeah, Look, I think there is a huge swath of
the population voters, voters i should say, who didn't feel
heard or connected with the Democratic Party messaging and the
top of the ticket. And that is not it's a
divided country all the things. But there are policy issues

(21:13):
that should be helpful to the very same people who
voted against the Democratic Party platform and ticket right, including
advocacy for a minimum wage, including like raising taxes on
the highest income in corporate America. So that disconnect tells
you it's about something bigger, Right, It's about feeling left

(21:34):
out of the party, not feeling heard, feeling ignored. There
are lots of things that could be the reasoning for it.
But yes, I do think that is certainly a part
of it. You know, I also think there have been
some major shifts, and immigration is one of them. And
this is where I'm kind of like my personal views aside.

(21:55):
You'd have to put them aside when you're looking at
the political spectrum, right, immigration and the issue has become
the country has become increasingly conservative on that issue, right.
And I look at even the bipartisan border bill that
obviously didn't move forward, that was an incredibly conservative bill.

Speaker 2 (22:15):
I know.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
I wish they had made a point of how Trump
convinced Republicans not to even vote on it because it
would weaken his ability to weaponize immigration.

Speaker 2 (22:25):
They've made me so mad.

Speaker 3 (22:28):
I may yes they tried. It always felt like a
hard message to me, not in a fair way, but
because you're explaining, like how he prevented a legislative process
from moving forward. But what stuck out to me about
that bill is I think only five or six Democratic
senators voted against it. I think it would have been
twenty or twenty five a couple of years ago. So
to your point about where kind of the shifts have been,

(22:51):
that's one of the areas. And remember that same twenty
nineteen primary was when nearly everybody on stage raised their
hand that they would decriminalize border crossings. Right. The politics
on that have changed a lot, and I think it
is also related to feeling ignored, left behind by a
broad swath of working class America. That's part of Also.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
I think it might be reflected by you know what
was mostly derided by some of those border states and
governors in terms of taking some of these immigrants and
putting them on planes and sending them to New York
City and sending them to other areas around the world.

(23:34):
And I remember I have a friend who's pretty conservative
who lives in Florida, and I said, what do you
think of that? And she said, I thought it was great.
And I think the point is that, you know, listen,
we can't have completely porous borders, right, you know, there
has to be some system for immigration. And I think

(23:54):
one of the other things that was undercovered was the
strain on social services that a huge influx. And now,
of course it's not they're eating the dogs, they're eating
the cats situation in that gross, you know, bigoted way,
But there is a genuine concern for I think a
lot of these communities that can absorb the number of

(24:16):
people who are coming in, and it can lead to
more homelessness, you know, as you know, and I think
it constrains school systems and hospitals. So, you know, I
would have liked to have seen that story be told
and then talk to the candidates about like what should
be done and along those lines. Since you were in

(24:37):
the Biden administration, why didn't they do more? And why
when he was elected jin was there almost a reversal
almost to come on in This is my impression and
you can correct the record if I'm wrong. Sort of
this overreaction to the build the Wall rhetoric that led
to too big of an influx immigrants, you know, getting

(25:01):
rid of the remain in Mexico policy and all those things.
So was that kind of an f you to Trump?
And in retrospect, was that not the right thing to do?

Speaker 3 (25:12):
Well? So a lot of things on this I think
sort of everybody's at fault in Washington in some ways
because immigration is such a politically charged issue that people
are unwilling to compromise on it and have real negotiations
and discussions about it. I mean, Biden proposed an immigration

(25:32):
bill that included increased border security and a more humane
asylum processing the first day, right right, no one would
discuss it, No one would come to the White House
and meet with him about it. I'm not saying that
he's blameless. I'm just saying like that tells you a
lot about politics. Often brought that up during the campaign. Yeah,
that is true. What is also true is that because

(25:53):
the COVID restrictions were in place for so long, that
was in many ways artificially keeping the numbers lower until
they were flipped back. And then during that period of time,
there was the negotiation with Mexico about re implementing the
Remain in Mexico program, which was there was a lot
of criticism of and a lot of people who hated that,

(26:15):
especially from the left. So I think there was a
delayed reaction to where clearly the country was moving on
immigration by I don't actually not really Joe Biden, but
a lot of people in the system and the Democratic
Party within the caucuses, and it wasn't very clear to

(26:39):
me that it had moved massively until that bipartisan border bill.
So yes, hindsight's always twenty twenty. But I think looking now,
there are aspects of how the party should proceed from
here which I think this election should be partly informative about,
including acknowledging that the bore and having a secure border

(27:02):
is a part of what the Democratic Party messaging needs
to be proactively, you know. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
On the other hand, though, I think we should point
out how Donald Trump and the party exploited the immigration
issue with false information about the crimes that were committed
and really misrepresented the fact that actually immigrants commit fewer
crimes than native foreign citizens in this country. But I

(27:29):
think it just got so twisted and exploited, and the
fear and the you know, fentanyl and all that stuff.
I think it got mixed up in one big bowl
and made people just terrified, and to the point where
for a lot of Americans, rounding up people and having

(27:51):
a mass deportation of thirteen million immigrants sounded like a
good idea, which.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
Is wrapping my head around that particular conclusion is one
that's been a particular, a very perplexing one to grapple.
I mean, when you also listen to focus groups and things,
people will when they learn more about it, they don't
love it, right, So, which is a relief, I suppose.
But I'm glad you brought all of that up. And
I think that the pieces of this that this is

(28:20):
a perfect disinformation example, right. I mean, actually, the border
numbers have been down over the last couple of months.

Speaker 1 (28:27):
And I even looked up last night, you know about crimes,
you know, the crime rate among the immigrant population, and
I thought I would see what I saw with my
own eyes, but that it was just incredibly and cruelly
manipulated by the Trump campaign to a point that it
was really grotesque.

Speaker 3 (28:46):
Yeah, as has crime numbers in major cities, which is
not where actually crime has gone up. And there is
also we are still the United States of America, where
we are a country of immigrants, right. There is still
a humanity side of this that I know.

Speaker 1 (29:01):
But it's it's really it's perplexing and disturbing that. You know,
I saw something on social media. You might have seen
it too, Jen, because I have a feeling we're probably
fed the same content. But it was I think it
was an Asian comedian who was interviewing a white guy,
probably in his sixties at a Chinese restaurant and the

(29:24):
guy basically said I don't want the white race to
be replaced. I mean it was sort of white nationalists
rhetoric that has been somewhat normalized.

Speaker 3 (29:34):
I want to know how it is for Donald Trump
when you're so into facts, because his entire campaign is
not based in facts.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
It was all based in propaganda and emotion.

Speaker 4 (29:46):
I voted for Donald Trump for one reason only. His policies,
if implemented, would slow the dispossession of whites in the
United States. If you were to deport all illegally, if
you were to think very hard about letting in any mushoms,
all of this would slow the rate at which whites

(30:09):
are becoming a minority.

Speaker 1 (30:11):
I did a documentary series for NATCHIU in twenty eighteen,
and one of the subjects was white anxiety. And you know,
I think there are a lot of people when you
think of the fact that there is going to be
a majority minority population by twenty forty four in this country,
really feel like that as a white American, I'm losing

(30:32):
my place in this country.

Speaker 2 (30:34):
And I don't think.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
People people are excited, or a lot of people are
not excited about a pluralistic society.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
Yeah, in this group and it just breaks my heart.

Speaker 3 (30:46):
It breaks my heart too. It is where the country
has been headed for some time, right, And there is
the left behind aspect of this, which there's lots of
reasons for, but social media is one of them right
where people are looking at social media and thinking everybody
has it better than me, right, and that includes I

(31:08):
think a lot of communities where the factory where their
grandparents worked, right, No longer is the factory that's driving
an amazing life right where.

Speaker 2 (31:18):
No, totally.

Speaker 1 (31:19):
I talked to somebody in Nebraska about this who worked
at a meat packing plan. He was paid, you know,
a good salary where he could raise his kids and
have a middle class life in this small rural town
in Nebraska. And then union started losing power. They started importing.
The company started importing lower wage workers from Mexico and

(31:42):
other countries. And then another guy talked to in Nebraska
was like, they're doing jobs that a lot of Americans
don't want to do. They don't want to work in
a meat processing plan. And a lot of the employees
who are immigrants are grateful to be able to, you know,
have a full time, steady job.

Speaker 2 (32:02):
So it's so complex, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (32:04):
Jen, It is incredibly complex. I think lots of different
communities see this differently. The business community obviously sees this
differently from people in communities that have changed massively. Even
the communities that have changed massively, a lot of people
in those communities and may not want to do those jobs.
To your point, you know, there's also issues which I
think we're going to see, not exact replication, I hope not,

(32:26):
but some of. I mean, the person who Trump just
named to be his borders are is the person who
is responsible for family separations. Is that what people want?

Speaker 4 (32:35):
Well?

Speaker 1 (32:35):
Did you hear that guy on the podcast I forget
his name who said, Yeah, we're going to round up
We're going to deport grandmothers, were going to deport wives
and husbands, We're going to put children in cages. It's
going to be glorious. Do you know who I'm talking Oh?

Speaker 3 (32:50):
Yes, Mike Davis. Am I thinking he's the right person?

Speaker 2 (32:54):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (32:55):
And the guy I'm talking about is Holman, who was
announced as the as the border czar, who basically has
said governors others who if you try to resist me,
will come double our numbers of law enforcement who come
to your state. Who's talked about re implementing workplace raids.

(33:15):
Is that what people want in these communities. I think
we'll see, and I don't wish that upon any community,
but I do think that we're going to see in
the coming months what people voted for.

Speaker 1 (33:26):
What do you think about people speaking of that, like
Gavin Newsom and Governor Pritzker trying to figure out ways
to protect their states from certain policies that the Trump
administration wants to enact.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
I think that is going to be one. To me,
it's one of the most interesting spaces to watch, as
much as I think many of the people who voted
for Kamala Harris and mail millions of Democrats independents out
there feel very lost for Lorne looking for property in Canada.
Whatever they're doing right now.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Well there, I think, especially because they're the guard rails
of disappeared, you know, with the House, the Senate, the
you know, judiciary, the executive branch is like, fuck me,
what are.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
We supposed to do?

Speaker 3 (34:07):
Exactly?

Speaker 1 (34:08):
So excuse my French every week, that's all.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
Right, don't worry. Yes, So to me, it is interesting
for two reasons. One is that to me is one
of the guardrails is governors in these states who are
already conveying they're going to push back more heally in
Massachusetts it's another one of them.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
But isn't that dangerous on one level? I mean, it
takes a lot of hutzpa to do that, because I
know Kathy Hokeel got on the phone with Donald Trump,
and you know that isn't without risks in terms of
what retribution he could level at certain states.

Speaker 3 (34:40):
Right, that's true. But I think these governors are showing
who's got the hutzpah right and who is going to
do everything they can to lead and protect to the
best of their ability, the people in their states. I
also think it's interesting because right now there's no leader
of the Democratic Party, and that is a vacuum, but

(35:02):
a good one because people are going to emerge, right
I don't know who they are. We'll see, but some
of them, maybe some of these governors who push back,
we'll see.

Speaker 1 (35:11):
Well, I mean, Gavin Newsom, what a surprise, you mean,
he's has national ambitions. But other than that, But other
than Gavin Newsom, and I guess who are some of
the people Jen You're going to be keeping an eye
on in terms of rising stars we wanted to do
a whole series with and it kind of fell apart.
But I thought it would have been so smart to say,

(35:34):
you know, everyone's bemoaning the fact that there aren't enough leaders,
and I wanted to say, well, here's some people who
are doing great things. Keep your eye on these folks.

Speaker 2 (35:42):
But it didn't. It didn't come together.

Speaker 3 (35:44):
But you still do that. Should do what we're doing it.
We're doing it. I mean, we just had you know,
I think there are a lot of governors. But I
also will say, and I'll come back in a second.
We just had the new mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma on yesterday,
and first African American mayor, and that's city's history, given
the history of Tulsa. A pretty remarkable young guy, so

(36:05):
compelling and interesting. We also had Justin Jones and Mallory
mcmarrow on are those people all going to be president
in four years?

Speaker 1 (36:13):
I don't know who Justin Jones and Mallory are so.

Speaker 3 (36:15):
Well here now I'm going to tell you so. Justin
Jones is a state rep in Tennessee. He was one
of the Tennessee three.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
Oh oh, I know of him, right.

Speaker 3 (36:23):
He is incredibly compelling and powerful and has been fearless
in fighting for INSUC believes in a red state. Mallory
mcmarrow you should check her out on Instagram because she's
been answering reader questions or viewer questions hard ones. She's
a state senator in Michigan. She ran in twenty eighteen
after Trump won in twenty sixteen, and she I talked

(36:45):
to them because I think it is important for people
to see new faces and different faces and inspiring faces
and people who are fighting back. There weren't number of
people who won in states that Trump won, I mean,
including a re election. Dammy Baldwin won reelection right in Nevada,
Jackie Rose in one reelection. Alissa Slatkin is a new
senator from Michigan. There are now two black women who

(37:08):
are senators. Those were not Trump one states, but still inspiring.
But in terms of rising stars, some of it is
we don't entirely know yet. And what's cool about democracy
is we don't actually pick you and I as much
as we've done this for a long time, you know.
But some of the people I think will be interesting
to watch, I mean obviously knew Someome Pritzker more.

Speaker 1 (37:28):
Less more more Maryland everybody and very inspiring life story,
very charismatic guy.

Speaker 3 (37:34):
Very Yeah, he did a full University of Maryland football practice.
That's not the most important thing, but you know, an
interesting thing and shotgunna beer for people who think that's compelling.
Some will obviously Governor Shapiro, but I think it's it
could be beyond that, you know, I think there's mayors
who are interesting, there are younger state members of Congress

(37:55):
who are interesting. And I think it's just going to
be interesting to see who rises, because this is the
vacuum means people rise, some rise who you don't know of,
some rise and fail who you think are going to
be the next thing. And that's what's interesting about this moment.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
And some come out of nowhere, like Jimmy Carter out
of planes Georgia, like who knew, right, he knew.

Speaker 3 (38:14):
And in some ways differently. But Barack Obama, I mean,
he had given that speech in two thousand and four, right,
Carrie lost, but like nobody thought he was going to
be the nominee. No one thought he would have a
chance of winning. He did four years later, So we'll see.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
Do you know, how do you think Joe Biden is
feeling right now.

Speaker 3 (38:32):
Oh, I have not spoken with him, and not that
you were asking me that, but just for clarity for
your listeners, I think sad and probably pretty dark about
this moment.

Speaker 1 (38:47):
Do you think he feels at all responsible?

Speaker 3 (38:51):
I don't know if that's where his head is at.
I really don't know. I think he probably looks at
where working class voters were and wonders if he the party.
I'm not sure Harris should have been doing something differently
and better. I mean, you know, his I like, I

(39:12):
always think about a lot of some of the conversations
I had with him when I was the press secretary,
where he would always tell me that's not how people talk, right.
You know, There'd be language that was spit out of
the bureaucratic system and he'd say, like, nobody talks like
that and scran Pennsylvania. Now, I'm not suggesting I think
Harris did far better than he would have done had

(39:32):
he remained the nominee. So I'm not suggesting that. I
do think that he probably has a mixture of emotions
right now about how the party communicated about I don't
know if it's the timing of when he dropped out.
I don't know if he thinks he could have done better.
I don't know what's going on in his head right now.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
I think he's probably wondering about his legacy too.

Speaker 3 (39:53):
His legacy, I think is the biggest thing, and this
is you know, I remember I was working for President
Obama when Trump won, and I was his communications director,
and the first twenty four to forty eight hours was
really more on a very personal, visceral level for people
in the building what does this mean for them? And
I'm not trying to be cheesy about it, but people

(40:15):
really were like, I'm a Muslim American, Like, what does
this mean for me? You know, I'm from the LGBTQ
plus community, what does this mean for me? It was
very personal. That was what everybody was doing. We weren't
thinking about the legacy. It quickly moved there, though, to
a point where it felt like so many people in
the country knew that Trump was racist and sexist and

(40:38):
just looked the other way. And it felt disappointing right
not in individuals, but felt like maybe we haven't made
as much progress as a country as we thought we had.
And I think for Biden, he just worked for eight
years as Vice president four years in between four years
more as president worked to make progress on a lot

(40:58):
of things that he has right to be proud of.

Speaker 1 (41:01):
I feel like that could have been you know, I'm
telling the Press Secretary, but I do think Jen maybe
they weren't up to speed on the way people get
information either, I think President Biden, and please disagree with
me if you don't think this is the case, but
you know, and everything is hindsight is twenty twenty, but

(41:22):
I feel like they were kind of operating a twenty
twenty press organization in a nineteen ninety kind of way.
I think they were slow to understand the power of
social media. I think they were still showing up on
Meet the Press and thinking that was really going to

(41:43):
have an impact. And I respect Meet the Press, and
you know, I'm not putting down legacy media, but it
seems like, you know, there was this almost had in
the sand idea or kind of resorting to the same old,
same old that did not serve them well, where they
weren't really able to explain their accomplishments that they didn't

(42:06):
kind of talk where all these you know, people are
getting information on all these fragmented ways. I think they
were kind of slow to pick that up. What do
you think?

Speaker 3 (42:16):
Yeah, I agree with some of it and not some
of it. So I think one they definitely weren't doing
meet the press. You can ask the people doing the.

Speaker 2 (42:24):
Oppress there, right, but you know when they would.

Speaker 3 (42:28):
Okay, okay, so you can ask them, they would tell
you they never engaged with them. I think there are
people on the team, including there's a guy named Rob
Flaherty who ran the digital team for Biden and continued
with Harris, who I think is, no, you don't really
have money of money on the campaign you don't have
in the White House, who built very large followings and

(42:50):
to the best of his ability within his constraints, and
his team did really amazing things.

Speaker 1 (42:55):
Well, I thought the Harris campaign was was doing an
awesome t I'm talking about I'm talking about the Biden administry,
same people doing the stuff. Did they just not have
any money?

Speaker 3 (43:06):
You don't have money in the White House for any
of it, so you have it on a campaign. I also, though,
think that there has to be candidates who have the
agility to do those things right, and I don't know
that anybody who was at a certain age has that.
It real agility, right.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
It's just Kamala Harris did.

Speaker 1 (43:26):
She's younger, right, but I still think but I also
don't as much like.

Speaker 3 (43:31):
Rad Summer, which was cool, didn't work. Young people didn't
turn out. So like I think, there's also like a
lot of things about they can control and things they can't,
including there isn't the same ecosystem on the left, including
you need to have people who are willing to do
a range of things. And yes, she was willing to
do a lot of things, not all of the things,

(43:52):
but a range of things.

Speaker 1 (43:53):
And there was that three week blackout period which I
honestly could not understand.

Speaker 3 (43:57):
That was making me crazy, just as I also what
was that? I think, I don't know. I think maybe
a focus on the debate and the debate being a
moment where but let's just be real, debates are important
for the American people. They do not. This is also
like an outdated view of like how elections will turn.

(44:17):
In my view, you should do this.

Speaker 2 (44:19):
Should have been everywhere everywhere.

Speaker 3 (44:22):
But also Tim Walls, who was this kind of like
so appealing rough around the edges guy during veepstakes where
he propelled himself onto the ticket essentially and then he
disappeared from public view for like four months. I don't
think it would have changed the outcome. I think there's
like lots of factors as soon as I've digested it,

(44:42):
but it is a you have to be fearless and
how you communicate and who and what formats you communicate on,
and that means doing all of the things, including with
people you disagree with who are going to be tough.
I actually thought one of her better interviews was with
Brett Baer, like she liked being on you know, oh,
having a tough interview. You know.

Speaker 1 (45:02):
So I think I always find that people do better
when they're asked really challenging, pointed questions. I always felt
that about Hillary Clinton. If you are giving them these
almost weird like amorphous softballs, it's really hard to kind
of hone your message and be succinct and say what
you really need to say. But I, you know, listen.

(45:23):
I I also felt that, and again I think she
really did well in so many areas, but I was
frustrated by her inability to really succinctly answer questions at times,
jen and to kind of like if she was asked
about changing the Supreme Court at that CNN to Hall.

(45:44):
She had an opportunity to talk about ethics and what
you know Alito and Clarence Thomas were doing, and she
answered like in one sentence and then like went on
to something that had nothing to do with the question.
You know, people notice that, and it's like, answer the
goddamn question, please.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
I mean, yeah, I love this is I'm seeing the
Katie Kirk I watched on TV for so many years.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
And I'm so hungry. I didn't never say God, damn,
I know, but.

Speaker 3 (46:08):
You thought it. This is my kind of like unsolicited
advice to every person who may run for president. And
I'm not picking any ponies. Whatever pony emerges emerge, sit
down and think about why are you running for president?
Right What is the most driving important thing for you?
So you can answer that question and then explore what

(46:28):
you actually think about the hard questions of the day.
It doesn't have to be what's poll tested. In fact,
ignore that. What do you think should happen on immigration?
What do you think should happen in Israel? Every one
of them should be able to for themselves answer those questions,
and this is the time to do that right now.
Explore those things, learn more about areas you don't know
and form your own opinion.

Speaker 1 (47:08):
Well, one of the most damaging things was when she
did go on the View and they made Hay over
this when she said, I really can't think of a
single thing she'd do differently than Joe Biden. First of all, Jen,
you're an insider. Why didn't Joe Biden say, listen, I
know you're going to have to separate yourself from this administration.
Let's talk about areas where you can, where they're legitimate

(47:32):
and godspeed. Because I think somebody wrote that it was
almost as if they were more afraid of hurting Joe
Biden's feelings than winning the election. Okay, help me out here, Jen.

Speaker 3 (47:47):
I wish that would have happened. I don't know that
it didn't, but I think we can all assume it didn't, right,
And I think.

Speaker 1 (47:54):
You mean that come to Jesus conversation script.

Speaker 3 (47:57):
Yeah, because I've worked for a lot of people in
different circumstances. I mean, this was an incredibly I'm not
making this as an excuse, but unique and painful summer
for Joe Biden, for everybody around him, for major leaders
of the Democratic Party who he'll probably never speak to
again like Nancy Pelosi, and there was a fragility. There

(48:18):
was also What's also true, and I think this may
have been weighed the wrong way, is that when Joe
Biden made the decision, he did for good reason. He
was beloved by the Democratic Party, and I think in
her mind there's a she navigated the politics of that
in a very tricky way, right right, So, I don't know.
I think that answer on the view was she had

(48:41):
many moments of brilliance. That was not one of them.

Speaker 2 (48:43):
Well why couldn't.

Speaker 1 (48:44):
I mean, it seems to me if I were running
for president, Jen, I would sit down with my you know,
brain trust, and I'd be like, okay, let's play out
these questions. What am I going to say yeah to this?
And I would have had a template that I would
have carried around with me in every interview, and I
would have reviewed them and said, you know, this is

(49:05):
what I believe and this is how I'm going to
handle a question like that. Now, it just didn't seem
like that was done. Am I crazy?

Speaker 3 (49:14):
Well, we don't know, you know. And here's the thing.
Looking at the first biteen debate, this is a different thing.
But I've prepped a lot of people who you know
what they should say, and then they ignore your advice.
So I don't know if that happened, And like she
just in the moment felt like she should just not
not differentiate. She kind of over the course of time

(49:36):
she started differentiating herself, but it was a little bit
on the margins, right, right, and it wasn't something I
think people could bite into now. She also had some challenges.
Any sitting vice president has say on Gaza, right, which
is like, I actually don't know what her view is
on that issue. I don't know, but she's the sitting
vice president. She can't come out with a massively different

(49:57):
position than the sitting president while security people and diplomats
are negotiating a deal. She was kind of stuck on
that right.

Speaker 1 (50:05):
Right, So I don't There was this impression, I guess,
and I guess because of the Abraham Accords and moving
the embassy right. I mean, so there was this I
think pre baked feeling on the part of some voters
that Donald Trump was going to be much stronger for Israel.
And I think when she expressed and which I think

(50:27):
is so sad, the inability to think dialectically and say yes,
and is just been lost in this country. But I
think when she expressed even sympathy for people who had,
you know, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, I think a
lot of people interpreted that as not being strong enough
for Israel.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
Yes, and the politics, I mean, the humanity of the issue,
as you just touched on, is the humanity of the issue.
There's also, of course families that lost loved ones who
were killed by Hamas all. Of course, of course all
is true. I know I'm not saying, but all is true.
I think for her, the politics of it were such

(51:09):
that before she became the nominee, there was a feeling
that the Democratic Party, by some Jewish Americans not all,
was aligning themselves or not doing enough to push back
on anti Semitism. Right. You saw that in focus groups
a lot. I don't think that was talked about enough
as a real issue. And then you also had young people,

(51:30):
communities of color, obviously college campuses, who felt there was
an ignoring of the human humanitarian tragedies and got both
were happening at the same time. And I Trump somehow
screwed it it right, and he his view and we'll

(51:52):
see if this is what he implements is that Netnahu,
she gets to do whatever he wants and should plow
for it and level Gaza, and like that's all fine.
You know.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
I talked to a friend of mine who said her
daughter went to this Ivy League school and a lot
of her friends didn't vote to send a message to
Kamala Harris about Gaza.

Speaker 3 (52:12):
They essentially voted to alec Donald Trump, whose position is
Gaza who Gaza?

Speaker 1 (52:18):
What?

Speaker 3 (52:19):
Ntan Yahoo? Who? By the way, many Jewish Americans and
people in Israel do not like right right, So he's
saying give him free pass that. It does not make
a lot of sense to me.

Speaker 1 (52:33):
I just yeah, I mean, listen, I know people feel passionately,
but it just seems like by not voting, they were
giving the election to somebody who, as you said, you know,
is not going to even listen to their concerns about
what is going on. And one last question, Jen, I
just want to ask one question about Trump's behavior, Jen,

(52:54):
Can you explain why his behavior, his language, which his
coarseness and crudeness, why a lot of people seem to
like that. I mean, every time I'd hear him say something,
and I guess maybe again it's a backlash to quote
unquote wokeness or political correctness. You know, it's part of that.

(53:17):
But when I saw him pretending to give the mic
a blowjob, I was like, oh my god. And then
other people like I looked at the people in the background,
they were laughing. Does it just not matter how somebody
comports themselves in our society anymore? Maybe we're just like,
I don't know, are we out of step?

Speaker 3 (53:38):
I mean, I don't think of myself as prude in
any way, shape or form. I can talk about all
the things, but I the crudeness, I guess. I think
maybe people find funny, and maybe the talking about sharks
and electrocuting and whatever that craziness people find funny. What
I do have a hard time understanding is the cruelty

(53:59):
and the cruelty and why that is okay Because I
don't know. I don't think of myself as naive. I
generally think of people, most human beings, as being kind,
right and rooting for other humans. And you know the
things he says when he talks about Hannibal Lecter, I'm like,
that is weird and creepy. But some people, maybe they

(54:21):
find that funny I don't know, but the cruelty is
what I don't have an answer for, and I can't
really understand.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
I wanted to ask you one of the questions that
a lot of people submitted when they heard that we
were going to be talking. So many people asked if
the Democrats were going to ask for a recount and
why there are twenty million votes missing. I want to
make sure everyone knows that there's been no evidence of
voter fraud and the reason there are fewer votes is

(54:50):
because there was a lower turnout this year compared to
twenty twenty. But are you hearing that from a lot
of your fellow Democrats or a lot of you viewers, Jen.

Speaker 3 (55:01):
I hear that a lot on social media platforms, like
people who and those are valid voices of course too,
but like people who are replying and asking questions like
that and not understanding to your point, there was a
lower turnout and also there were still, at least there
have been and there still are today votes being counted

(55:22):
in California, which is always the case, but people forget
that it takes a couple more weeks because of how
California takes a while to count their votes. That's another
topic for another podcast and why it takes so long.
But there are laws in states that trigger recounts if
it is too close, right, if it is within a margin.
So I have heard that, but I think it's important

(55:43):
for people to understand that the margins of victory were
quite large in a lot of places, definitive, and that
there were fewer people that turned out for Kamala Harris
then turned out for Joe Biden, and there are a
range of reasons for that. It was easier to vote
four years ago. Trump was in their face, he was

(56:04):
the sitting president. There are lots of things, as we've
been discussing, but that's also just a reality of where
things sit right now.

Speaker 1 (56:11):
And looking forward. Jen, I know these are not your people,
but we've heard names that will be occupying very important
roles in a future Trump administration. Susie Wiles, who was
so important to the Trump campaign, a least staphonic ambassador
to the UN, Stephen Miller, Deputy chief of staff, the

(56:33):
Immigration Customs Enforcement Director. You mentioned Tom Homan. He said,
Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeio will not have a role,
but obviously RFK Junior and Elon Muss are going to
be pretty front and center in a Trump administration. So
this is the Maga takeover of the US. What do

(56:56):
you expect of this new regime? If you will? Maybe
Rashima's right.

Speaker 3 (57:04):
You know I will. There are people a last Stephanic
was once kind of a rising star, moderate member of Congress,
and she became full Maga. I have not thought enough
about what that means for her role as a UN ambassador,
although she has been a person who has been an
eager advocate of Trump's position on let nat Yaho do

(57:25):
whatever na Yah who wants. But I think the two
that stick out to me there the most art that
I've just been thinking about today are Stephen Miller and
Tom Holman, in part because there's Trump loyalists returning, and
loyalists to a greater degree than even we saw eight
years ago. Now. To be fair, every president hires people

(57:46):
who supports them, you know, who are like you are
grateful to be there. This is a different level of that, though,
because these are people who have shown this right, they're
not going to question the other thing that has stuck
out to me. We're going to use this in the
show tonight, But is Stephen Miller did this interview after
in like twenty seventeen. I think it was where he

(58:07):
talked about the perception her his view of power right
and executive power, and a lot of these people, those
two specifically who will be in charge play big roles
on mass deportations and immigration policy, view executive power, the
power of the presidency as all powerful and bigger than
any other power. And that is the part that I

(58:30):
think will be quite telling. You've seen, like Tom Holman
basically has said for states that push back, I'm going
to double up, you know, the number of people who
come into their states and enforce. So I don't know
how that manifests itself. But Trump's view of his own
power of executive power, obviously he doesn't view equal branches

(58:51):
of power, and how the people who he's hired view that,
I think is going to be part of the story
we see in the first at least one I'll be watching.

Speaker 1 (59:00):
Yeah, you know, it's almost as if Stephen Miller is
Donald Trump's new Roy Khane.

Speaker 3 (59:05):
Yeah, yes, one who is who has quite a view
of white supremacy in the world.

Speaker 1 (59:15):
Before we go, Jen, I want to end on a
hopeful note. You have talked about the need for hope
despite everything and the fear that a lot of people have.
You know, let's be honest, there are people listening to
this who are very excited about what's to come, maybe
not every aspect, and maybe they'll be surprised. I guess

(59:38):
it remains to be seen how much of Project twenty
twenty five will actually be implemented if he is going
to get rid of the Department of Education, the National
Weather Service, you know, got the Civil Service, and basically
replace those workers with people who pledge fealty to Donald Trump. Okay,
Having said that, you have said there's reason to not

(59:59):
feel powerless because I think given all the factors, people
are like, well, what am I supposed to do? Yeah,
and I watched you either it was on your show.
I think I saw it on Instagram actually, which is
where I get a lot of my experience.

Speaker 3 (01:00:14):
There. I go like America, Katie.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
Where you talked about the sort of ebb and flow
of political power and how things change. So I thought
maybe we'd end with you kind of talking about how
history can be our guide on this.

Speaker 3 (01:00:31):
Yeah, and I will just reiterate one quick thing you said,
which is I mean I'm not trying to be and
I said this, I think in the video or whatever,
Woe may have been naive.

Speaker 2 (01:00:39):
About Pollyanna, Pollyanna.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
Ish about what Trump says he wants to do, and
he will be successful in doing some of it, at
least we'll see. We don't know yet, but I think
there is an evan flow of history. And you know,
I worked on the Carry campaign in two thousand and four,
which obviously he lost to George W. Bush. And George W.
Bush had brought the country into the war in Iraq,

(01:01:01):
something that was quite unpopular. That John Kerrey had been
a decorated war veteran who ran against him, speaking out
against that, and on paper it felt like he would
be the right person to defeat him, and he obviously didn't.
And it opened up this period of time, and you
remember this well, I'm sure where there was a lot
of speculation, not in a partisan way, certainly Republicans but

(01:01:23):
Democrats too, that maybe it was forever the Republican Party,
maybe the Republican Party and the Party of Bush was
the party of the foreseeable future, and it wasn't. In
part because when you're in office and you're governing you're
held to a different account. And in many ways, the
country always looks for change and wants to hold to
account the people who were in power, and that is

(01:01:44):
a part of the story of twenty twenty four to two.
Two years later, of course, the Democrats won back the
House for the first time in over a decade. Nancy
Pelosi became the first Speaker of the House, and two
years after that, a guy with the middle name Hussain
was elected to the presidency, someone who was not the
establishment candidate, and most people wouldn't have predicted. I mean,
people thought he was like a rising star, but I

(01:02:05):
don't think people would have predicted he would have been
the nominee. So I share that because this is different.
Trump is different. George W. Bush Well obviously didn't vote
for It looks pretty great these days, you know, to me,
but there are cyclical things. Accountability is a thing. People
do have power. I also talked about how the Affordable
Care Act was something Trump ran planning to get rid of,

(01:02:29):
and because of activism, because people showed up at events,
because people said no, I want my healthcare. That didn't happen.
So I know people are exhausted. People should rest for
a minute or ten or twenty minutes. But the thing
about democracy is it's designed for people to have power,
including when you're in the opposition, and you know, once

(01:02:50):
people are arrested. I hope people feel that well.

Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
I love talking to you, Jen, thank you so much
to thank you me and spending so much time.

Speaker 3 (01:02:58):
I love talking to you, I love talking well. Thank
you so much, Katie, I really appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
And congratulations on your success and I'm always cheering you on.

Speaker 3 (01:03:07):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:03:16):
Thanks for listening everyone. If you have a question for me,
a subject you want us to cover, or you want
to share your thoughts about how you navigate this crazy world,
reach out.

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
You can leave a.

Speaker 1 (01:03:27):
Short message at six h nine five P one two
five to five five, or you can send me a
DM on Instagram.

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
I would love to hear from you.

Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
Next Question is a production of iHeartMedia and Katie Kuric Media.
The executive producers are Me, Katie Kuric, and Courtney Ltz.
Our supervising producer is Ryan Martz, and our producers are
Adriana Fazzio and Meredith Barnes. Julian Weller composed our theme music.
For more information about today's episode, or to sign up

(01:03:59):
for my newsletter wake Up Call, go to the description
in the podcast app, or visit us at Katiecuric dot com.
You can also find me on Instagram and all my
social media channels. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
favorite shows.