Inside the MAGA Mindset with Astead Herndon

New York Times reporter Astead Herndon has spent years embedded in the world of Trump voters. He joins Katie to explain what he’s hearing now—why economic fear, media distrust, and cultural resentment still fuel Trumpism, how tariffs and Elon Musk are playing with the base, and why the Democrats’ message just isn’t landing. If you think you know what’s driving voters in 2024, think again

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
At this point, if you're a person who surrounded yourself
with Trump, you've blown through January sixth, You've blown through
and getting indicted.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
You've blown through a lot.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
The people around him now are much more and I
know this even from our reporters who deal with them
day to day, are much more unified than the first term,
where he was cobbling together a team of rivals based
off of an election they did not think they were
going to win.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Now that's much different. In this time around. They have
been planning about what they would do when they would
come back to Valor.

Speaker 3 (00:32):
Hi. Everyone, I'm Kittie Couric and this is Next Question.
Hi everyone, and welcome to this episode of Next Question.
So if you want to know what Americans are really thinking,
not just what the polls are saying or what coastal
columnists are opining, you have to talk to voters face

(00:53):
to face, travel to where they are, and find places
where they are gained to talk. That is exactly what
Asteed Herndon does. He is a national politics reporter for
the New York Times who makes it his business to
hear what voters are thinking. How are they feeling about
Donald Trump? What are they thinking? About the Democratic Party today,

(01:17):
and all this made me wonder, how does the Stead
get so many people to open up to him and
tell him what they're thinking? A Steed Herndon, Great to
see you again.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
Great to see you also, thank you for having meus.

Speaker 3 (01:30):
Oh my gosh, we're so happy you're here. And I guess, Astead,
I feel like you have officially become the man on
the street, a correspondent for the New York Times, because
you spend so much of your time talking to real Americans,
and I'm curious just about the logistics of that. A.
How do you manage your schedule? How do you decide

(01:52):
where to go and who you're going to be able
to talk to? And are people willing to talk to you?
So I just asked you four questions in one.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
Just kind of where that lens came from. Like for me,
since so much of my kind of entrance into national
political reporting was coming after the twenty sixteen election, it
felt as if there were things happening on the ground
and kind of outside more than it was being dictated
by parties in candidate It's actually remember when I was
in DC working for the Boston Globe.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Is when Charlott's will happened.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
I was there for thinking, I kind of want to
be out there, and I think that that's my best
use is like some kind of change that's happening in
this country. And frankly, I think in the experience of
the twenty sixteen election, feeling like not enough political journalism
had taught me about my neighbor and my communities and
these other kind of places and the diversity of the electorate.

(02:39):
And so when I got the opportunity and come into
the Times to cover elections, I made it pretty clear
that like, that's where I thought my best use was
was in kind of telling stories from bottom up rather
than top down.

Speaker 3 (02:50):
Why do you think there's such a disconnect.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
I think that, you know, for a lot of people,
there was a lot of assumptions about the ways that
the country was changing that were coming from the parties.
Right if we remember that Obama era, you know, the
idea that the country was having more immigrants, more black
and brown people were supposed to kind of inevitably move
it and this assume direction. And I just think some
of those assumptions really flatten the differences in those folks

(03:13):
and flatten the ways they were changing the country, and
so when I got the opportunity to go out there,
it became really clear to me that, hey, some of
this stuff that people are assuming about these people and
about the way our politics would be sorted doesn't really
seem true. And so that really was informing me at
the time, and I really just get the most energy
from it too. You have a natural curiosity to those

(03:34):
folks and really feel like bringing people into the process
and bringing their voices into the process is really a
value add. But to your questionon of like how do
you decide, I think that's a real big onus I
put on myself. It's like, if our elections are going
to be decided mostly by me and be people who
don't trust the New York Times inherently or aren't following
the news all the time, you can't just go to
that traditional rally, You can't just go to the campaign

(03:57):
event because they're not there. And so we tried to
think of more untraditional events where we can find people
and bring politics to them. So I think of an
example of the Iowa State Fair a couple of years ago,
where you know, the traditional thing to do is to
follow the candidates. Now, as we had done multiple times before,
but instead of doing that this time around, we went
to the Jason al Dean concert on the last day
of the Iowa State Fair because he had that song

(04:19):
try that in a small town that was kind of
going viral among Republicans, and we thought that asking people
there what the song meant to them and what kind
of royal identity meant to them was more fruitful than
just saying, you know, what do you think about this candidate?

Speaker 2 (04:31):
What do you think about this campus? It's so smart,
That's so what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
We just try to think differently about where to go,
and it really I think gives different results. And so,
you know, I think of another example about we wanted
to cover masculinity and young men in this election, so
we went tailgating with rat boys in Madison and talk
to them about why they identified with Donald Trump, as
you know, on a day in which Charlie Kirk was
coming to campus and a lot of them were going

(04:54):
to that event. And so to your point, it really
asked us different questions. I think brings different people into
the political conversation. But I think you can always have
a problem of just finding two or three individual voices.
So I always want to make sure we're lining up
with polling, we're lining up with the reporting that the
rest of the Times is doing too, because we just
have one person who seems like an outlier.

Speaker 2 (05:13):
That makes me a little nervous, you know.

Speaker 1 (05:15):
And so I think the real power of the work
is when you're giving the why behind a reason why
someone's voting, and then poling's telling you, you know, the
Matt aggregatet numbers, or you know, are folks like Maggie
Haraman Johnson Sma telling you what's happening on the inside.
I think all of those things add up to a
better political picture. But we try to bring the voter
and the electorate, bring them into it because I kind

(05:36):
of feel like, particularly in this moment, they've been the
ones who have been most outside of that conversation.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
Is it hard for you to get people to talk
to you, to open up and be truthful with you.
I mean, you are from the New York Times that
for a lot of people in the middle of the
country or even you know, all over the country, for
a certain set of people, that's sort of the enemy
of the people, if you will. So proclaimed President Trump,
but you know, you're a young black man, you're with

(06:03):
The New York Times, and you're talking to frat voice
at the University of wiscons about male anger.

Speaker 2 (06:09):
I'm out of Trump rally.

Speaker 3 (06:10):
I'm curious. So I'm one of those frat boys. How
do you approach me?

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Well, the first thing I try to do is tell
you why I'm there, and be really open and kind
of vulnerable about the process, and tell you the reason
and framework that kind of brought us to it. And
oftentimes I think when you acknowledge people's concern like I
don't have a I don't think I'm owed anyone's time.
I don't think I'm owed anyone's voice or their beliefs.
And I kind of acknowledge the ways in which I

(06:36):
understand it would be skeptical by it too. And so
if someone says I feel like the New York Times
doesn't represent voices like me or hasn't included those people,
I don't really try to talk them out of it.

Speaker 2 (06:46):
I really just say what am I here for?

Speaker 1 (06:48):
Otherwise it's but I'm here because I want to bring
your fore but your perspective to the forefront. So I
think going is really the thing that gives me the
best opportunity because you've already proven you care about out
bringing them in if you're there, right. And then the
other thing I think about is I don't really feel
the need, you know, I don't feel the need to
talk people out of their media distrust. I sometimes empathize

(07:10):
with their media distrust, you know. And it really wasn't
kind of trump bowlders or conservatives that taught me that.
Back when I was a local crime reporter for the
Boston Globe and I was going to Roxbury and Dorchester
and those communities, they would look at a Globe reporter,
even though I was all black or whatever, and say,
your paper only shows up here when there's a murder.
You're not here consistently and all through that time. And

(07:32):
so I actually really empathized with that viewpoint. But I
would also argue, I remember then, saying, you're gonna want
an empathetic record of what happened today. You're gonna want
facts and accuracy about what is going on, and you
were going into the worst day of people's lives all
the time. And so that was really my training in
terms of learning how to try to create trust. But

(07:52):
I really think it's not like a science more so
than it is. I try to be honest, I try
to be understanding, listen, and I just link. And I
think audio helps too because I don't have to tell
them I'm just picking a quote here or there. Right,
They get to be a more full person and they
hear that personhood reflected. And so we've had pretty good

(08:12):
returns with Republicans, honestly partially because I think they feel
more confident that they will be.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
Heard in full.

Speaker 1 (08:19):
And so we almost to a person get responses saying
I like, did not expect this, but I really feel
like represented in what I heard.

Speaker 2 (08:30):
And that's to me the best part.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
Like I'm not there, particularly with voters to force accountability
or to indict their beliefs. I really am there to
get to clarity, and so once they're clear and kind
of honest, that's good for me.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
You know.

Speaker 1 (08:43):
It's not like a politician interview or one of those
where you're trying to need accountability or you're fact checking
or things like that. With individual people, I'm just trying
to get them to be most honest and most open.

Speaker 3 (08:53):
So what has been the most surprising thing for you?
Instead being on the ground in terms of your preconceived
no yep, of how Americans are feeling or even specifically
Trump voters and what you have found when you actually
go and speak to them faced dice.

Speaker 2 (09:12):
Yes, I would say, I guess I.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
You know, we talk a lot about polarization in our
country and the split between dn R and the ways
of which our electricate has been divided, and I think
my interpersonal experiences are more kind than people would expect
across the bore. It actually makes me think that the
polarization it might be more driven by system, might be
more driven by the fact that they have to sort
themselves in two parties, or jerry mandering has changed Congress

(09:38):
to mean that they don't have to look at it,
they don't.

Speaker 3 (09:40):
Have to Algorithms.

Speaker 1 (09:41):
Yeah, I like algorithms on the Internet, and it makes
me think more about the ways divisions imposed on us,
because when I have those interpersonal interactions when I'm.

Speaker 2 (09:49):
Actually there, I very rarely have.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
The type of contentious moments They've happened every now and then,
but I have them a lot less than people expect.
And so that's one thing that really comes to mind
almost in meeting. But the other one was kind of corny,
but like I've gotten to go everywhere. I'm sure you've
had this experience too, where Like I've gotten to travel
so many places in the country too, and I just
think I've had a better appreciation of the diversity, the

(10:13):
beauty like things there are places like and think about
the Deep South and my kind of Chicago upbringing, like
I thought of it was kind of like you know,
Slavery Land, to be honest, or like past and all
of this stuff. And I think that my experiences there
were so different than that perception that you can't really shake.
It makes really clear how that was your own biases.

(10:36):
And so I've had that a number of times in
a lot of places, and I feel like it really
just makes me feel like with intention and with thought,
you can find connection wherever. And I know that's not
like fully a political answer, but I do think it
reminds me about the polarization question we face and how
much of that is like electorate that's divided, and how
much of that is a political system that's dividing an electorate.

Speaker 3 (10:57):
That's so interesting because I think, you know, I get
fed a lot of algorithms that reinforce sort of my
own point of view, and I often wonder like, how
can people so blindingly support Donald Trump at this moment
in time? And we'll talk about where we are as

(11:21):
a country in general, but do you go in like
how could you in any way? Or you never have
that frame of reference. It's always why do you?

Speaker 2 (11:33):
Yeah, it's way more why do you?

Speaker 1 (11:35):
And then go back to the Boston and local experience too,
because I remember when I would do those stories, you
would have to emotionally center yourself kind of before you
went in to that tough situation. And I kind of
still do that outside of the rally or outside of
the event. And I think whatever happens over the next
couple hours is not about me, you know, And I'm
really just trying to draw folks out, and I'm really

(11:55):
just trying to follow.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
My own curiosity, right.

Speaker 1 (12:00):
I think that, you know, I remember the complaints about
the diner stories, you know, Rump in the first term,
where people are so sick of going back to people saying, oh,
do you still support them? They would say I still
support him. They're like, why are we doing this? And
I guess, to me, those are just poorly executed. You're
not asking the right questions. Right, And I don't want
to let people get away with the same things that
we hear all the time. So because of that self

(12:20):
selecting media you're talking about, we hear the same phrases
over and over. Oh he's a businessman. Oh he says
what other people are thinking. And so I, you know,
me and the folks I work with were always pushing
past that. We're trying to say, what is it that
he's saying that others won't say, you know, like, what
is the actual issue? What is the moment that brought
you to him if you were skeptical before, Like, let's

(12:41):
get actual pieces of themselves that highlight that rather than
the kind of I think, more neutral phrases that folks
are used to getting to. And I think when you
break past that barrier, there is actual interesting stuff that
I can trust myself to just follow. And so if
I'm bored, I trusted everyone else is gonna be bored too,
write and so in the own and I'm in that

(13:01):
conversation thinking well, what parts of this do I find
interesting and how do we get deeper there? But you know,
some of the experiences are wild, you know, like I was, that's.

Speaker 3 (13:10):
Your wildest experience if.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
We were talking Trump and Trump voters.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
In twenty twenty, right after the election, when Biden was
finally announced the winner, I was in Wisconsin. Now I
remember telling to my editor because of these experiences I
had had, I've been talking to all these Trump voters
along the way, going specifically to like Maga places. In
twenty sixteen, when Trump won, I joined all these Trump
Facebook groups and prioritized them on my news feed so
I would live in kind of trumpness.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
And so I was telling him, I'm pretty.

Speaker 1 (13:39):
Sure a group of these people will not recognize Joe
Biden as legitimate, that there's no way that they would
actually see him as which have been president. So he
was like, okay, follow up with some of them. And
so I go down to Texas and I'm with this family.
I spend this day with this family. I go to
their church, and I went to this county specifically because
it had the biggest swing to Trump in the country.

(14:01):
And so I go to this church. I have spent
this whole day with this church. And then at the
end of the day we start talking about BLM. And
you know, at this point, they've been really kind to me.
They brought me into their home, they made some food,
they gave me some lemonade, all this stuff. But at
this point they also start talking about if these people
come to their town, they're going to string them up.
One of them set the end word like, and all
of this stuff is happening at the same time the

(14:25):
kindness existed twenty minutes before and existed twenty minutes after.
And so what I remember about the print version of
that story is you can't fully feel all of those
things changed, right. I included in the string them up quote,
and that gets all this buzz and attention, and I
remember kind of feeling bad for them because we had
had this whole day that really just got swallowed up

(14:46):
in a very dramatic and bigoted thing that happened at
the end. But that's why I liked audio is because
I thought, I don't have to choose. You can actually
hear that whole interaction, and you recognize the new once
and complexity much more without me picking and choosing, and
so like, I don't want to act like I actually

(15:06):
felt bad, but I felt like it did not fully
represent my own experience there, and I wanted to be
in a place that can more do that three dimensional,
like storytelling.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
That's so interesting.

Speaker 2 (15:18):
Like there's a.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
Couple others too, Like there's moments I trust people when
they told me like we don't want you here, I'm
like sure and I leave. You know, like I'm not
like fully unhinged, but in most ways I often think
like if you say, if you phrase it in the
right way, and if you present yourself in the right way.

Speaker 2 (15:33):
I've mostly had people come to you.

Speaker 3 (15:46):
Hi, everyone, It's Katie Couric.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
You know.

Speaker 3 (15:48):
I'm always on the go between running my media company,
hosting my podcast, and of course covering the news. And
I know that to keep doing what I love, I
need to start caring for what it gets me there,
my feet. That's why I decided to try the Good
Feet stores personalized arch support system. I met with a

(16:08):
Good Feet arch support specialist and after a personalized fitting,
I left the store with my three step system designed
to improve comfort, balance and support. My feet, knees and
back are thanking me already. Visit goodfeet dot com to
learn more, find the nearest store, or book your own
free personalized fitting. You know, I'm thinking about a statistic

(16:40):
I read recently that fifty six percent of Republicans viewed
January sixth as legitimate political discourse now in the hands
of astet Herndon. How do you talk to a Trump
voter about that?

Speaker 1 (16:58):
Well, one, if you are showing up to a Trump
voter and you don't live in conservative news, you're already
way behind. So already in those interactions, they can tell
if you actually read or listen or watch or the
world that they're in.

Speaker 3 (17:17):
And so do you have to immerse yourself in conservatives?

Speaker 1 (17:19):
And that's why I say the thing about joining Trump
Facebook grooves, watching Fox News, following you know, kind of
maga influencers, like you have to actually know because there's
a separate stories that go viral, there's a separate news cycle.

Speaker 2 (17:32):
They have a different language.

Speaker 1 (17:33):
And so if you're in that in person interaction and
you're talking about things and you seem like this the
first time you're hearing about it, they know already that
you're already at a distance. And so I would say
the first thing I would do is follow what they
follow right to form those connections. And so story I'll
tell about this is I remember in the period after

(17:54):
the twenty twenty election, but before January.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
Sixth, so right after I did that Texas story.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
I was a signed to go through the Georgia runoff,
so I was in Georgia's a whole time, and I
remember like again me, someone who has done that work
has followed has nos. I remember thinking this is more
feral than usual, Like this isn't the usual conspiracy crowd.
I'm at in Levanka Trump event and the Georgia suburbs,
and these moms are talking to me about dominion voting machines,

(18:23):
like something different happening here. And so because I live
in it, you can tell the moments that are outside
of it too, And I think it had me prepared
for something like the six I mean not prepared as
in I think those scenes were shocking to everybody. But
the possibility of violence, the possibility of illegitimacy of results,
the possibility that they did not see the term democracy.

(18:45):
They thought democracy was under threat too, just in a
completely different way. I knew all that stuff, and so
that's where following really helps. The other thing I do
is I'm not shocked. You know, there's usually a moment
when I'm there they push you and are expecting you
to react, and are pressing a button almost intentionally, and

(19:08):
I've always found act like look at the skot like
act like nothing's happened, and it really helps you get
over sample I would say about this, I was in
northern Arizona and I was at what was called trump Stock,
which was just like Trump fans Woodstock, which like had
a whole bunch of people there who are.

Speaker 3 (19:25):
I never.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
That what means you were living like a really fringe
space like this wasn't even like the normal influencers. These
are the folks that like can't even get on Fox News.
And I was trying that. I was doing the story
about really about conspiracy. And what I do when I
get there is I don't want to be secret, so
I wear my badge openly.

Speaker 2 (19:44):
I go to the organizer first.

Speaker 1 (19:46):
I try to win them over and tell them, you know,
here's what I'm here to do. And I remember when
I got there, the organizer says, okay, let's talk like
it comes in since down and the first thing that
is put his gun on the table, right, And so
I just keep pushing and just keep going. And so
my experience there's that's a dramatic version of that, but

(20:07):
people do that verbally and kind of rhetorically all the time,
or they'll mention your own blackness, or they'll mention something else,
and I'm saying, blow through it. And so those are
my strategies. And there's little ones too, Like crowds are bad.
So if you're at a rally, find them one on
one when they're going to get a concession or when
or when you can talk to them directly. If you

(20:28):
talk to them in the line and the whole bunch
of people start watching, you're going to be a spectacle.
And so like there's little things you learn too. But
really I just think like I care. Like sometimes when
people ask me, how does this work, I'm like, well,
if you don't care, well it won't work, you know.
And so I have a lot of identities, you know.
I'm also from the Newst. I grew up in a

(20:49):
fairly religious family. Like some of the stuff they say
it those things feel familiar, you know. I tell people
that the Trump rally often feels sec football game or
megachurch just as much as it does political rally. And
those things aren't shocking to me. Those are things I
have been to and you know, And so I guess
I would just say an aggregate like I try not

(21:10):
to make it feel as othering as they expect you
to make them right.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Right.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
They expect the black person at the New York Times
to be treating them like a kind of experiment, right,
And so if you are the opposite of that, I
think it helps the interaction.

Speaker 3 (21:28):
So in aggregate, what have you learned about Trump voters?
And I want to talk to you then about how
things have changed.

Speaker 2 (21:36):
If they have that has changed that definitions.

Speaker 3 (21:38):
Okay, well then then let's talk about that. I know
that you took a break after the election just to
kind of I don't know, get.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
Live, yeah, like give my life back.

Speaker 3 (21:48):
Yeah, exactly, and and sort of stabilize everything. And you
jump back into the fray sort of around the time
that Trump announced so called Liberation Day, which you see
is a real threshold moment of his second term. So
tell me what propelled you to hit the road again

(22:08):
at that moment in time.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
Well, you need.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
Moments that cut through. And so sometimes things are major
or big policy, but they haven't necessarily gotten to the
type of news on interested voter that I'm sometimes talking
about here or someone who's not following get day to day.
I think that's particularly true in a year like this,
but there's not a decision on their hands, right, there's
not some imminent choice for these folks.

Speaker 2 (22:28):
But tariffs.

Speaker 1 (22:29):
And specifically because we heard so much about inflation going in,
we heard so much about the price of eggs, the
price of egg over the last couple of years, I thought,
this is one of the things. And I remember even
last year asking folks about the possibility of tariffs, and
they would just assume he wouldn't do it.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
You know, there was a lot of you know.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
Projection or I think nostalgia about first term that was
informing folks vote, and it was much less about the
solutions he was saying. And so even when we would
ask people, hey, on that stage he said he's gonna,
you know, do this, he says he's gonna get tariffs,
like people just kind of well, he didn't do that
last time and or things turned out fine then. And
so now that we had had that kind of moment,

(23:09):
it felt to me like, oh, I can go back
to literally these same people and reference to conversations that
we had now that it's become a bigger reality. And
what we found really matched up with you know, what
the times number said and other things which is that
there's certainly a causal relationship. The White House is created
with this chaos with these tariffs and people feeling like

(23:29):
he's not focusing on bringing prices down and obviously could
bring it the other way.

Speaker 2 (23:34):
And that is own that.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
You know, I saw Trump say the other day the
good parts of the economy or mine the bad parts
are Joe Biden's nobody believes that right, Like, it was
very clear even to those voters, even the people who
voted for him, that whatever happens next, and you know,
in the White House's version that's a return of jobs,
and every economist version that's not, and that's the possibility
of raised prices or even the recession. But whatever happens

(23:59):
next is his fault because he has created that type
of relationship, and the voters were expressing that, they were
expressing fear of what's happening next because of the tariffs.
And I think the way they were administered also reminded
folks of the same problems of Trump administration. Number one
was just bad governance, but lack of expertise increased chaos
in general. And so I think it was not only

(24:21):
the reality but also how it was done really seemed
and even in going back to our people really seemed
to rub them the wrong way.

Speaker 2 (24:31):
Now that's different than saying I regret my vote.

Speaker 1 (24:34):
Right because we talked to I think about twenty ish
people who we had talked to before. A bunch of
those folks expressed disappointment about tariffs and about the presence
of Elon Musk were the things that came up the moment.
The the co presidency of it all was kind of
surprising the folks, but very few of them said that
meant they wished Kamala Harris was president. And so that's

(24:55):
a very distinct answer, right. We see this in recent
favorability numbers too, like Donald Trump has had a decrease
approval rating, but the Democrats is worse, right, And so
that was really reflected and those type of undecided we
were going back to, they were disappointed in Donald Trump,
and I think that could have a big effect in
things like midterms and the like going forward. But that's

(25:16):
much different than saying they regretted voting for Donald Trump,
because they did not.

Speaker 3 (25:20):
At this point, for now, it seems as if they're
giving him some grace. You know, some people you talk
to give him credit for trying right, And so there
seems to be this level of forgiveness for Donald Trump
that might not be applicable to anyone else.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
Anyone else, any other Republican, even we've seen Republicans try
to do the same thing and then not really work out.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
How do you explain that some of that is a
literal brand. I mean, I will say this.

Speaker 1 (25:46):
We were at a plant in Michigan talking to auto
workers who were affected by tariffs directly. Stilantis had closed
jobs early a couple weeks earlier, citing tears, and we
were asking some of those people about, Okay, is this
Donald Trump's fault?

Speaker 2 (25:59):
And you would hear.

Speaker 1 (25:59):
Over and over, ah, he's negotiated art of the deal,
like you would hear some leeway even if they were
kind of unnerved. And I remember the White House Press
secretary saying a couple days later, like, oh, it's just
art of the deal, and a lot of the journalists
were like laughing and like kind of mocking it. And
it is ridiculous, but it's true, Like he has a

(26:19):
brand that is different than anybody else.

Speaker 2 (26:22):
It's specifically on this.

Speaker 3 (26:23):
Issue that inoculates him from criticism, that.

Speaker 1 (26:25):
Inoculates him from some criticism or creates a runway or
an expectation of chaos that's built into him that's different
than other politicians. And so I would definitely say that
part of that comes through. But I would also say
the thing that came up at that plant was he
had named a real problem that Democrats had not named.
They were saying that it is true that, you know,

(26:47):
their jobs have gone overseas. It is true that they
feel like globalization has kind of left them behind. And
so the reason you have the Michigan governor, you know,
saying tariff's are tool, or other people not fully rejecting
them outright, is because, particularly in states that Democrats have
lost in let's say Michigan or Ohio's or Wisconsins of
the world, those are thought of as helpful for American

(27:10):
jobs because they feel as if in the last twenty
years no one's really been talking about it, and that
the parties had a kind of shared agreement before Donald
Trump came around, that this type of globalization just that
their jobs are just the you know, a casualty in
terms of the larger efforts of globalization. And so I
would say, is like that was true even from the
Democrats we talked to as the plan people didn't vote

(27:31):
for Donald Trump at all, say oh yeah, but he
totally is talking about a real thing that I wish
even our party talked about more. And so I think
those are the two things that give him cover for now, yeah,
cover for now, the brand, and then the fact that
he is naming a problem that some folks agree with.
But I would just kind of caution the cover because
I don't think that insulates him from a real raisin

(27:52):
prisis right, or some tangible inflation that comes because of
the tariffs. And I don't think that insulates Republicans from
know what could be a bad midterms in a year
or so. But I just think it's not as black
and white as sometimes it's presented as. And the reason
the White House has some level of confidence here, and
the reason why you know uaw President is not all

(28:15):
against terrors is because even among the Democrats there, the
non Trump voter there, there's a recognition that Donald Trump
has named a problem they wish the party named.

Speaker 3 (28:26):
Right. There's a difference, though, between naming a problem and
executing a solution, And I think there are many people
who felt, yes, illegal immigration was a problem in this country,
but we may not want mass deportation without due process.

Speaker 1 (28:43):
And it's the biggest difference between elections and government is
people will vote on the problem, but then that can
be completely distinct from what they say the solution is
and what you're going to realize in the next year. Right,
And so I think so many voters we were talking to,
we're not thinking about solutions. They were thinking about their
distas for the state quo and the Biden administration and
that Donald Trump had kind of named that stuff, but

(29:04):
I don't think it was ever a full endorsement of
the MAGA agenda of Project twenty twenty five, of the
solutions he was presenting on economy, immigration and things like that.

Speaker 3 (29:15):
Well, I'm curious, did you hear that from voters or
are you hearing that astead Like, yes, this was a problem,
but boy, we don't really think this is the best
way to approach it. You know, whether it's the deportation
as I mentioned, without due process, or whether it's Elon
Musk wielding a chainsaw at s pack and saying rip
to you know, USAID, or whatever it was, whether it's

(29:39):
doing these tariffs and they're on they're off, they're on,
they're off. Well, that's what I said, doach with Elon Musk. Yes,
what I was referring to.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
That's totally we heard that on those issues.

Speaker 1 (29:49):
Really clearly was was yeah, there's a part of the
what we talked about. But they did not see teriffs
as a solution. They did not see Elon Musk kind
of running, you know, getting Social Security passwords and giving
it to his teenage minions as a solution, right, or
I think the do process and like specifically how defiance
of courts specifically on immigration, like all of that stuff came.

Speaker 3 (30:13):
Up, and so does it bother voters.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
I think, I guess that's why I go back to
folks not having a decision on their hands, Like it
was expressed as not ideal, but only people who live
in the day to day of politics think about that
as like that's like regret, you know what I'm saying.
Like it's like a show you watch but you don't
like an individual episode. It's not like it's like for

(30:38):
some of these people, I think they're still gonna keep
watching the show and they just didn't like they just
don't like kind of what's happening, right, now they're still
waiting for other shoes to drop, and so I don't think,
you know, I get what I'm saying, like people have,
you know, like there was disappointment that was expressed, but
it's not as if there was a channel for where
to put it, and so they.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
Weren't dealing with it. Really.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
They're like, yeah, it seems an idea, or like yeah,
it seems chaotic, you know, and moving on with their day.

Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (31:04):
So when do you think or do you think that
these independent voters and even sort of people who didn't
like the alternative and didn't want to support Kamala Harris,
do you think there will be a turning point? For example,
we haven't really felt the full impact. Yeah, I think
of these tariffs yet, and I think in the next
couple of months it's going to start trickling down to

(31:27):
the consumer. And do you think then that the runway
that you describe will continue for Donald Trump or will
it come to a screeching halt.

Speaker 2 (31:37):
No, I think you're identifying the key point.

Speaker 1 (31:38):
The tangible impact of inflation is what matters here, at
least in what these folks expressed. They were not saying
that they're willing to not be able to like feed
folks in the name of Donald Trump, right, It's and
I think that's what turns it from just something that's
happening there to something that's affecting people's day to day life.
And so if we see that tangible impact of inflation,
I think we'll see folks And I think think the

(32:00):
Biden administration is actually a helpful correlary to this because
it colors everything. Once that kind of pocketbook issue they
lose faith on. So I think when the Biden administration
was telling people that inflation was not that bad in
twenty twenty one, rather than acknowledging people's concerns about it,
that impacted the way they viewed immigration, That impacted the

(32:20):
way they viewed Ukrainian A. That impact, you know, it
impacts everything else. Once they feel like you're not responding to.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
The direct issue.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
It is very I think the White House is careening
towards a similar problem. I would say the difference, though,
is this White House cares a lot less about public sentiment.

Speaker 2 (32:36):
You know, it's.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
Much more a at least you know, my sense of
talking to them going into election and my sense of
the reporting from folks I know who talk to them
more on insight now. I mean, this is a project
somewhat about insulating yourself from day to day public reaction,
the expansion of executive authority, the reshaping of government. Like
it's kind of an effort to not have to calibrate

(32:57):
yourself to that median voter. I remember asking a person
who's not in the White House, but it's close to
the White House, like a couple months ago, like, aren't
you all kind of you know, this stuff doesn't seem
that popular, like, you know, And their answer was, what happens?
Like we you know, there's only like what thirteen competitive
house seats. They're pretty well set in the Senate, you know,

(33:20):
like and actually, really I thought was really insightful because
the parameters, and this might go back to the political system,
the parameters a blowback for them are kind of small,
and they know that this time, and so I think
of this effort the second term versus first term. They
were reactive to public sentiment a lot more in first term.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
This feels to me.

Speaker 1 (33:40):
Much more like an intentional expansion of executive authority, like
an intentional pressure points of the legal system and the
economic system through tariffs. I feel like it's a much
more three sixty worldview of retribution, and that matters more.
That kind of power projection matters more than like making

(34:01):
sure they're doing the right things to keep them in
a good place for the midterms. I don't think that's
how they're thinking at all. And so I'm like, they
are doing things that make their electoral lives harder.

Speaker 2 (34:11):
I just don't think they care. Is that a guy
say that? I just don't think they care.

Speaker 3 (34:16):
I mean, it sounds to me like they just want
maximum transformation while they can do it, even if it
does maximum damage to democratic institutions.

Speaker 1 (34:26):
Yeah, they don't believe in those institutions, and so the
point of this administration, in my opinion, is to wage
war against them, you know. And so when people talk about,
you know, what's happening with the ivy leagues or these
law firms or I'm like, that was their plan, right,
And so, you know, the thing that was always true
about the Project twenty twenty five discussion last year was

(34:48):
like he never had to say endorse or not endorse
because the group of people around him believe fundamentally in
those principles. And so I guess I just think now
the limits will be tested almost inevitably, because it seems
to me like that was the plan.

Speaker 3 (35:06):
But it's through the system, not through public opinion, right exactly.

Speaker 1 (35:09):
And so you know, so I care a lot about
public opinion, and I care a lot about, you know,
hearing those folks, But I also feel like it's important
to tell them the mandate that politicians and administrations take
from elections is totally disconnected from the actual reasons you
might have voted for, Like they only vaguely care why,

(35:31):
you know, I think so much of what's happening is
now is a white house that is not really you know,
they're looking at the mandate in the macro. Hey, we
won the popular vote, and we won.

Speaker 2 (35:45):
All all the swing states.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
It does not matter if that was small or for
what reason or whatever. They have a project in mind,
and I think scheme. Yeah, they have an ideological project
in mind, a fundamental belief that government and culture need
to be brought back from what they would say is
the liberal abyss.

Speaker 2 (36:05):
And that's what they're here to do. And I believe them.

Speaker 3 (36:09):
And they don't really care if he has the lowest
approval rating in his first one hundred days since Dwice
the eyes.

Speaker 1 (36:15):
Now at this point, if you're a person who surrounded
yourself with Trump, you've blown through January sixth, You've blown
through him getting indicted, You've blown through a lot he got,
and he's blown.

Speaker 3 (36:25):
Through anybody who challenges your worldview, because if you look
at those cabinet meetings, they're basically going around the tables
saying saying how great he is and how he's doing
everything right. So he doesn't really have any pushback internally,
for sure.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
I'm saying the people around him now are much more
and I know this even from our reporters who deal
with them day to day, are much more unified than
the first term, where he was cobbling together a team
of rivals based off of an election they did not
think they were going to win. Now that's much different
in this time around. They have been planning about what

(37:03):
they would do when they would come back to power,
and so, you know, that was kind of what we
saw on the journey, you know, was like they are
much more organized and they have a much more clarified view.
I will define, as you know, retribution as a theme.
But you know, Trump, I'm like this came up when
gates Greats nomination failed. I remember saying to someone, I

(37:25):
was like, I think so much of political media is
used to dealing in personality. So you know, Gates fall,
So who's coming next? And da la lah, And I'm like,
if I was, I think there's an important thing to
communicate in this term. I'm pretty sure Donald Trump knows
what he wants to do with that Department of Justice,
and whoever's doing it is just an executioner, you know, right,

(37:47):
And so whether it's Gates or Pambondi or whoever comes next,
if you might get mad at Pambondi, they will be
doing that because, unlike last time, he has a view
of how he wants to reshape things.

Speaker 3 (37:58):
Does that view scare you?

Speaker 2 (38:01):
I don't know. I mean I guess, I think. I guess.
I don't think.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
I don't really think like that. You know, that's a
kind of out of like it's just I don't really
think like that.

Speaker 2 (38:11):
I think I.

Speaker 3 (38:13):
Think you're staying in the micro not just that.

Speaker 1 (38:16):
I really think that we get what we deserve, you know,
like do we believe in this or not? I don't know,
you know, And so I think that multi now if
I get really kind of esoteric about it, Like I
think multiracial democracies are not stress tested thing. Really, Like
I think that we tell ourselves we've had this like
two hundred year democracy and even in my you know,

(38:37):
my understanding of democracy that only started, including folks like.

Speaker 2 (38:39):
Me for all the loss of stuff so fairly recently and.

Speaker 3 (38:42):
So and most don't last more than two That's what
I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
I actually think we tell ourselves that our commitment to
these values are entrenched and they're actually to be determined.
And so I guess I don't even know, like what
this has always bothered me about the way they talked
about democracy, they being democrats last year, you know, protect democracy,
you know, all these and I was like, you know,

(39:06):
part of the reason I think they lost is that
trust has already been eroded. And they weren't talking about improving.
They weren't talking about you know, meeting folks where they are.
They weren't talk about the ways democracy had failed people.
You know, they were just saying things are going fine.
And Donald Trump broke it. And so I guess I
think now what I believe about this White House is

(39:27):
they're going to test it, like whether we as country,
and we as institutions and we as systems have pushback
space against that.

Speaker 2 (39:35):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (39:46):
Hi everyone, it's me Kittie Couric. You know, if you've
been following me on social media, you know I love
to cook or at least try, especially alongside some of
my favorite chefs and foodies like Benny Blanco, Jake Cohen,
Lighty Hoyke, listen to Roman and Inegarten. So I started
a free newsletter called Good Taste to share recipes, tips

(40:06):
and kitchen mustaves. Just sign up at Katiecurric dot com
slash good Taste. That's k A t I E c
o U r ic dot com slash good Taste. I
promise your taste buds will be happy. You did. You

(40:30):
talk about Democrats and they have reached their own all
time low in the polling with an abysmal twenty seven
percent approval rating. And it's interesting you have framed the Democrats'
broader challenge and you spoke about this a second ago
as the choice between being quote protectors of institutions and
improvers of them. Can you unpack that for us? Why

(40:53):
you think this choice is so critical for Democrats right now?

Speaker 2 (40:57):
Yep?

Speaker 3 (40:57):
And why they're failing so much.

Speaker 1 (40:59):
One of say, and like is I think Democrats have
a hard, harder electorate challenge on their hands. The Republican
base is much more monolithic, right, and Democrats, I think
as they're coming to learn, you know, diversity is a
strength and it's also a challenge. Like they have a
lot of different types of people who don't all agree
on the same vision of much of anything, you know,

(41:21):
And so I think they have to acknowledge that as
a first thing. And some of the magic wands they
were trying to wave around white supremacy or kind of
like or you know, I think, you know, I think
they just thought that there were things that could hold
things together and we would have the all the people
who dislike the races on this side and your frame
the other side is races, and then they win, and

(41:41):
I'm like, it's not really like that, you know. And
so I think that one they have to believe, they
have to believe they even need a vision. I don't
even know when's the last time they you know, I
was really close to that twenty nineteen, twenty twenty primary,
you know, I remember when kind of Warren was leading
that race of ideas early primary really collapsed because electability

(42:03):
took over. Everything became much more about beating Donald Trump
than it was about sorting through what they believed on immigration,
what they thought healthcare systems should look like. You know,
all those conversations kind of collapse. They've never really reopened them,
you know, And so basically what I think is going
to happen, less so in the midterms because it's kind

(42:23):
of too fragmented, but definitely in the next primary is
they are going to have to reopen those things.

Speaker 2 (42:30):
And I just think.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
That like, part of the reason that they're aut of
twenty seven percent, part of the reason when we're going
back to these voters and they're disliking Trump and they're
still not preferring Democrats, is because they do not have
a sense of the competing vision.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
Right.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
They know what Donald Trump largely believes on immigration, nobody
largely believes.

Speaker 2 (42:48):
On the certain issues.

Speaker 1 (42:50):
And when at this point, when we asked them at them,
what do they believe Democrats? They talk about abortion rights
and they talk about trans women in sports, which is
really I don't even and think is something they're committed to.

Speaker 2 (43:01):
It's something that Republicans have put on them. You know,
and so that to.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
Me is just a sign they're an empty vessel more
than they filled up their own cup, you know.

Speaker 2 (43:11):
And so like, I guess I think that's the distinction.

Speaker 1 (43:13):
I'm really talking about, is a kind of internal decision
among the party about what do we believe?

Speaker 2 (43:20):
And he sees people talking about this, you know.

Speaker 1 (43:22):
I saw Chuck Schumer say the Democrats united and that's
what's important, and Bernie saying, what are we united around?

Speaker 2 (43:28):
Like, that's what the missing piece is.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
And I think that's coming from I don't even think
that just in the ideological left right center. I think
there's other issues that Welders talk about to us all
the time that they don't really deal with. Homelessness, education,
term limits. That's one that Washington doesn't deal with, but
we hear about it all the time from everyone, yes,
all across the money in politics, you know. Like, and

(43:53):
so I think Bernie's actually a good example because in
his races, we focus so much on the kind of
agressive left DSA style when you would meet so many
of voters who were there really because it just represented
a break from establishment. It just represented less money in
politics and a kind of outsider in the same way
to Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (44:13):
Well, I was going to say there was so much
overlap between Bernie supporters and Trump's support because of.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
That kind of outside of establishment thing.

Speaker 1 (44:20):
And so I just think that some of the questions
they have to ask themselves going for is how do
they create a closer relationship and a closer conversation with
their base, and how do they acknowledge that their base
is diverse and that conversation might be a little uncomfortable.

Speaker 2 (44:37):
Right, We in Poland.

Speaker 1 (44:39):
Would see all the time that the softest places of
support for supporting Ukraine among Democrats were among black Silentinos,
about working class folks. So I'm saying there are places
in the party where the universalness in DC is not
really reflected on the ground, and those are the places
where Republicans have picked folks off. And so they don't

(45:03):
have a problem really among you know, news college educated,
they've been doing better and better. They don't have really
problem in like politics. Interested in smaller turnout elections. They've
been destroying Republicans in the way that they were never
doing under the Obama era. What they have struggled with
and Donald Trump specifically exploits for the record, So Republicans
can get nominee and then this collapses. But Donald Trump

(45:25):
specifically exploits is reaching someone who does not followed the
newness and exposing I think, just their struggles with authenticity
and so they've been kind of consulted, in my opinion,
out of being themselves.

Speaker 2 (45:38):
Often.

Speaker 1 (45:39):
Trump is a lot of things, but he's himself, and
so that kind of non traditional politician reaches different types
of people. Can go to different Internet spaces, you know
that are you know when people talk about Kama Harrison
caller Daddy, the problem is not just where you're going,
is that when you go there, you sound exactly the
same that you sound everywhere else, right, And so.

Speaker 2 (45:59):
I'm like, that is just a message.

Speaker 1 (46:02):
Thing like that, that is just like a I think
Trump specifically exploits that.

Speaker 3 (46:07):
But do you think it ever gets so extreme that
it goes from authenticity to bizarre or disrespectful. I'm thinking
about Trump posting himself in papal garb.

Speaker 2 (46:24):
It's disrespectful Trump is I think Trump is.

Speaker 3 (46:27):
Or saying people can get you know, I don't think
a beautiful baby girl that's eleven years old needs to
have thirty dolls. I think they can have three dollars
or four dolls.

Speaker 1 (46:37):
One thing I'm going to say about this, though, I
think sometimes we act as if those things have not
hurt Trump. Trump is an unpopular politician, and when we
are out there in the world, people cite these things
all the time.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
It's problems they have with Donald Trump, and even in.

Speaker 1 (46:51):
The last several weeks, but they forgive him in the
last several years. I don't think a vote for him
is always a forgiveness, right. I think that's why I
go back to the system. Last couple years, they were
wrestling with the fact that they didn't like either of
their options. We would not just hear we were hearing
both sides as bad, right, And so people were working
through their expressing their dislike of Donald Trump. But they

(47:15):
were also wrestling with their dislike of the status quo
and blaming the Democratic Party for that. And so I
don't think we should say those things are forgotten or
forgiven more so than they were tolerated. Yeah, they were
deprioritized on their list and other things were prioritized, and
so when there's not an election, those things stick out more.

(47:35):
That's why his approval ratings going down. That's why you know,
like that's why they might have a tough midterm. So
I don't think they don't matter, you know what I'm saying.
I do think they didn't cost him the election, and
they didn't matter more than anything else, and the democratic premise.
I remember in twenty twenty three, they were fine with
it being a referendum on Donald Trump because they thought
Donald Trump they thought they win. That they thought those

(47:58):
things hurt him and that he would be kind of
invalidate himself.

Speaker 2 (48:03):
And I'm like, that was the bad assumption, right.

Speaker 3 (48:05):
Well, if grab them by the you know what, didn't master.

Speaker 1 (48:07):
I think we should have some examples to tell us
that those where bad assumptions.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
Like That's why I was.

Speaker 1 (48:11):
Thinking, like, are you sure about that, because we've like
have a lot of things that have already happened. If
January sixth can't cost you a Republican nomination, like, that's
something else, you know, happening.

Speaker 2 (48:22):
And so I was on the same page.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
But I'm saying, but sometimes I think people go a
little too far and act like he's teflon don and
nothing sticks to him. I'm like, actually, that's not my
experience with voters either. These things are things they don't
like and wish he did not do in large part,
like there's a certain set of people who will love
whatever he does, but there are Republicans that are underside
all of those people. We hear about those things all
the time.

Speaker 3 (48:44):
So were you headed next?

Speaker 2 (48:47):
I actually I don't know.

Speaker 1 (48:49):
I think I think we have to I kind of
like let things dictate what happens. I think that we
see some of these pressure points, particularly with like courts
and legal system rising. I think we know that the
White House wants to focus on increasing deportations, so I
think that's going to be a big focus of ours.
Is like trying to see kind of public reaction to that.

(49:11):
Do we see the type of scenes we saw on
the first term, where you know, Muslim band and moments that.

Speaker 2 (49:16):
Cause people to really come out and push back.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
That's kind of where I'm interested in, but I don't
know where that leads me just yet, but we're.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
Figuring it out. Well.

Speaker 3 (49:26):
I'm really glad you're doing this. Do you think other
sort of traditional legacy media organizations are catching on to
the need to have more people on the ground, because
I think people pulled back for financial reasons. It's hard
and close bureaus and all that. And I really think
your reporting is so essential because I think the less

(49:47):
that it's done, the bigger the divide.

Speaker 2 (49:50):
Right, Yeah, I appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
And I really think you know, the Times, I know
has you know from us and others has reinvested in
the kind of idea that that's what makes us unique. Right,
Like I think there's so much content, right, there's so
much analysis even or or punditry, But going there and
getting that type of original reporting, I really think is

(50:14):
what makes newspapers stand out. And so even though folks
are investing in it less and may want to pay for.

Speaker 3 (50:20):
It less and local newsrooms are closed.

Speaker 1 (50:23):
Yeah, and like the ecosystem has changed, you can still
feel how vital it is and how much it feeds
the broader media ecosystem. Like I'm like, someone's gotta go,
Someone's got to ask them.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
They don't matter.

Speaker 1 (50:35):
I want to pay for you to go, right, Like
they don't maybe they, but and so all those consecreators
are making stuff off of somebody.

Speaker 3 (50:40):
Going oh now.

Speaker 1 (50:42):
So I feel like, you know, it's an opportunity for newspapers,
but I really think we should also take some other
lessons it's like we can't. I think the era that
we ask people to trust us just because is over.
So I don't think the reason to trust us is
because it's a New York Times. I think think we
have a process, we show that process, you can hear

(51:03):
that process, and I think something that media can take
is that type of vulnerability.

Speaker 3 (51:08):
And transparent is helpful for actually.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
Gaining those things because I think, you know, I tell
the people when they ask me about like the Times
and things like that. I'm like the process of editing
is actually I think would inspire more trust. Like the
difference between us or a random place is that there
is a We are used to going through a fact
checking and context process that helps a story, and so

(51:33):
I think we should open some of that up. And
I feel like that's the work we've been trying to
do and like others, because I think there's nothing to hide, honestly,
and that when we print it out there, folks are
more likely to come to us not less.

Speaker 3 (51:45):
One person asked on social how do you keep your
morale as a journalist when the president and the public
left and right keep bashing the media and you say,
nobody owes you their trust and you have to work
to gain it. On the other hand, when they're loaded
for bear right, When it comes to the media, it
is hard.

Speaker 2 (52:05):
It's different too.

Speaker 1 (52:06):
I've even seen it in my time, like that type
of media antagonism rise and it comes up on the
road for sure. I guess what I think, Like my
morale though, is not based and I think this is
a change that happened for me, Like I had to
remove myself from only caring about impact or caring about

(52:26):
you know, a politician or public acting on it or
really you know, I really started caring more about the
record itself and being like, actually, there's real power in
just bringing these voices here and trusting that in the
end there's gonna be some value to the fact that, like,
whether folks listened or not, there was a record built
that showed a more diverse set of viewpoints.

Speaker 3 (52:47):
Even if you don't necessarily understand, even.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
If you don't understand, even if you don't agree, Like,
bringing those folks to the table has value within itself,
and so really I channel that through the work and
that helps my Marie. Wow, is that like it's kind
of distinct from what folks do with it is to
stink from how folks vote because of it. I love
the process of bringing people in. And the other thing

(53:11):
I try to do is like election wise, it doesn't
help to be a super wrong you know, you have
to have interest because people have other interests and it's
also informing their vote. So I try to make sure
I think about things that are not politics and journalism like,
and I.

Speaker 3 (53:28):
Think it's actually for your own sanity.

Speaker 1 (53:30):
Like it's an intentional effort to be like, you know,
I'm going to go ride a bike today. Yeah, I'm like,
I have to be in places of culture and like
be have a life that is helpfully round it because
actually makes my connection of folks better, Like rotching World
High Wives makes my journalism better, you know, because I
can be somewhere someone can reference something and I understand
it right, Like sports makes my journalism better because I

(53:54):
know kind of what's informing people in communities. So I'm
saying I try to make sure I think about the
other stuff because one I would just be too overwhelming,
but two, like it actually comes up a lot.

Speaker 2 (54:06):
I'll tell a story about this.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
I said this yesterday, But I remember when I was
in Boston and I had to do all those cop
interactions because of I was covering crime and stuff and
I was having such a tough time like just like
connecting with them and also just like you know, not
giving me information. It was just kind of taxing. And
you know, I remember talking to some editor about it
and I was like, all they do is sit around
talk about baseball, and they're like, well, have you considered

(54:30):
watching some baseball? And it actually was so helpful. On
the ride over. I would listen to WI. I would
like hear all the baseball like talk, and then I
would get there and the inn the first ten minutes
we would just talk about baseball, and the whole day
would be better. And so it actually made me remember, like,
just treating him as police officer is making this worse too,

(54:51):
And so I try to think about that in terms
of voters and all this other.

Speaker 3 (54:55):
Stuff is like thinking of that people first.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
Yeah, And I'm like, and if you want to talk
to me about something that's not poled before we talk
about something else, sure, Like, but like that requires me
not being someone I think we all know people in
news who are twenty four to seven news and sometimes
it requires that, like, and I definitely definitely follow news
all the time. I guess I'm just saying I had
to be like that cannot be your whole life, and actually,
if you're gonna be out there, it's actually better for

(55:19):
it not to be your whole life.

Speaker 3 (55:20):
I really needed to hear this today, Stead.

Speaker 2 (55:24):
This would be encouraging interest all around me. Talking to myself,
I have your hobbies.

Speaker 3 (55:30):
Well, thank you so much for coming in and thank
you for bringing so much energy at the end of
what I'm sure it was a long day for both
of us. It's great to see you as dead and again,
thank you for your terrific reporting and also just your
overall intelligence and humanity.

Speaker 1 (55:47):
Thank you for having me. I mean, it's like an honor,
like you're a legend in the streets. So I'm saying,
not even like casually, like any time any place, I'll
be there.

Speaker 3 (55:56):
Thank you with Stead. Tell your mom I said, Hi, Oh.

Speaker 2 (55:58):
My goodness's gonna love that.

Speaker 3 (56:09):
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 send me a DM on Instagram. I would
love to hear from you. Next question is a production
of iHeartMedia and Katie Couric Media. The executive producers are Me,

(56:30):
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 for my newsletter, wake Up Call,
go to the description in the podcast app, or visit

(56:51):
us at Katiecuric dot com. You can also find me
on Instagram and all my social media channels. For more
podcasts from iHeart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Hi everyone,
it's Katie Couric. You know I'm always on the go

(57:11):
between running my media company, hosting my podcast, and of
course covering the news. And I know that to keep
doing what I love, I need to start caring for
what gets me there, my feet. That's why I decided
to try the Good Feet stores personalized arch support system.
I met with a Good Feet arch support specialist and

(57:33):
after a personalized fitting, I left the store with my
three step system designed to improve comfort, balance and support
my feet, knees, and back. Are thanking me already. Visit
goodfeet dot com to learn more, find the nearest store,
or book your own free, personalized fitting.