What Would A Second Trump Term Mean For Democracy?

This is a recording of a Twitter (X) space; We're joined by Tom Nichols, Staff writer at
The Atlantic, and Washington Reporter Olivier Knox to take questions from listeners about how the Republican party has changed socially the past ten years and how a second Trump term would change it further.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/is-it-just-me-or-have-we-all-lost-our-minds--5869817/support.

Episode Transcript

(00:02):
Is it just me? Or havewe all lost our minds? It's a
question I've been asking myself on repeatfor the last eight years, and I
know I'm not alone in that.Is it the politics, is it the
culture? Or am I just gettingold? Hi? I'm Jennifer Horn and
I'm a former Republican strategist and partyleader turned independent sanity activist. I decided

(00:25):
to do this podcast so we couldexplore these questions. I'll bring experts to
the table from politics and media andculture. We'll have raw, insightful conversations
with the clear goal of getting tothe bottom of it all. One way
or another. We've all lost ourminds, and I hope you'll join us
on the journey to find them again. It's been a while since we've been

(00:47):
out here with one of our spaces, so I'm grateful to everybody who is
joining in Welcome. I was reallystruck this week by two things. The
first Tom's article in The Atlantic aboutwhat to expect from a second Trump term
What it could look like I thinkis what the title said. And then

(01:11):
also yesterday in This Morning, listeningto former Congresswoman Liz Cheney talk about her
book and her experiences and in particularher concerns for what a second Trump term
could look like as well. AndI think it's really really important. I
think it's really easy to kind oflose sight of what's the most important thing

(01:36):
here as I am interviewed on variousshows on TV or for print articles,
I'm strict by the fact that theykeep asking me things like what does Nikki
Ally have to do to beat DonaldTrump in the primary? Or you know,
what do you think you know,it'll just kind of the what will
it take? You know, whatcan Trump do that would actually turn off

(01:59):
his hist or diminishes support, andother similar questions that are just so average,
so as if this is just anyold presidential primary, the same question,
you know, did you see thepoll from Iowa, did you see
the poll from near y Hampshire,you know that sort of thing. What
do you think voters are going tobe thinking about on election day? This

(02:22):
is not just any old Republican orDemocrat for that matter, presidential primary,
And it is so much more thanthat that it really kind of boggles my
mind. It's one thing to talkto folks who are, you know,
working all day and maybe have twojobs and you know, they have a

(02:44):
sick kid or an elderly parent oryou know, all these really, you
know, very common all of us. These experiences we all experience taking care
of our lives, taking care ofour families. Like if that person says
to me, oh, so,you know, what do you think is
happening? I sort of understand it, but it scares me. But when

(03:04):
the news is asking me those questions, they're the folks that I'm depending on
to inform those busy moms and dadsand two job working Americans. When they're
asking those kinds of questions, itreally really frightens me, and it suggests
that there is a lack of understandingout there of exactly what it is that

(03:24):
we're confronting. This isn't about,you know, oh, a more extreme
Republican versus a less extreme Republican.There's nothing that Nikki Heally can do to
defeat Donald Trump in this primary.Someone asked me that on TV just this
morning. You know, unless toturn that around and say what if the

(03:46):
question was what can what would DonaldTrump have to do to lose his current
support? And the answer is nothing. There's nothing he could do to lose
his support, which means there's nothing. It doesn't matter what Nikki Healey says
or does. She can't defeat DonaldTrump. None of them can. Donald
Trump is going to be the nomineeunless something dramatic happens that none of us

(04:08):
are imagining right now. He's goingto be the GOP nominee. And it's
going to be a close race betweenDonald Trump and Joe Biden, and those
of us who have a voice whotreat it as if there's an equivalency between
those two or like this is just, you know, let's just talk about
the same old things we always talkabout presidential primary. Then we're either being

(04:30):
lazy or we're being irresponsible. AndSo because my belief, and I think
that my guest today will back meup on this, is that the most
devastating thing that could happen in ourcountry, that could happen to democracy as
we know it, would be forDonald Trump to take the White House again.
And it's so much deeper than that, and there's so much more to

(04:51):
it than that. And with theholidays coming, the other thing I was
thinking about, we're already sort ofinto the holidays here. I'm baking a
Christmas cake for a party tomorrow,people putting their lights up. When we
come out of this and we comeinto the first week of January, it's
going to be hit the ground runningtime. You know. There's not going
to be any opportunity to try toreset the narrative at that point. So

(05:15):
it's really important that everybody have asmuch information as humanly possible right now.
And that is why I am reallyvery grateful that our guests have made time
for us tonight. I know youfolks already know them, but just in
case there's one or two of youwho don't. Tom Nichols is a staff
writer at The Atlantic, and he'sthe author of the Atlantic Daily newsletter.

(05:39):
He's a professor emeritus of National SecurityAffairs at the US Naval War College.
He taught there for twenty five years. I can go on and on about
his experience and his background. I'veknown Tom for several years now, and
I will say, frankly, heis one of the smartest guys out there
when it comes to understanding some ofthis stuff. And Olivia has been with

(06:00):
us before as well. Another oneof my favorite, Olivier, I want
you to make notes that I pronouncedyour name properly. Today, and Olivier
is a national and political correspondent andthe author of the daily two to two
at the Washington Post. I lovethis, Olivier, that your bio on
the Washington Post website says languages spokenin addition to English, French, Spanish

(06:26):
and a smattering of Italian, andI can't speak in Russian, Japanese,
Arabic and German. I think that'sterrific. But I am just so grateful
for your experience and your insights aswell. So we're going to jump right
in, and as always, gentlemen, please make yourselves comfortable, cut me
off if I'm wrong, jump inwith each other as need be. Let's

(06:47):
make sure we get as much informationas possible. We already have two people
requesting to ask questions. We're goingto do our best to include even more
than we normally do today. SoEmily we can use text and stay stay
on top of that, make sureeverybody gets to be heard. Tom I'm
going to begin with you because justthe headline of your story from this week

(07:09):
in the Atlantic, and folks,it's at the Atlantic dot com what Trump's
second term could look like. TomMy belief is that that is that that
is the core of all of this, but that it's also the issue that
the majority of American voters just don'thave a practical or depth of understanding of

(07:32):
what we're really talking about. Ithink when I say that democracy is at
risk, that it just sounds itjust sounds too fluffy. And you know,
she thinks she's a high minded,big deal person talking about democracy.
But it's very real and it hasvery practical direct impacts on every one of

(07:53):
us, and it's and it's dangerous. So I want you please to give
us the nutshell version of the articlewhat Trump's second term could look like,
and I kind of kick things offfor us here. Well, great to
be with you, and yeah,first, the important thing to say about

(08:13):
the article is that it's really anoverview of a special issue of The Atlantic,
where twenty four of us plus oureditor in she Devy Goldberg, talk
about individual areas of American life thatwe think would be changed by a second
Trump term, And you know,Adam Sewer talks about the courts, David

(08:35):
Frumm talks about a kind of thegeneric revenge presidency overall, Mickay Coppins talks
about staffing, and you know,the cronies that would come back. My
piece will drop later this week.It's about how I think Trump will change
the US military. So I think, you know, part of the problem
is that we've all, I thinkmillions of people in this country have had

(08:58):
a failure of imagination, part becausewe have a normalcy bias that you know,
we say, no, tomorrow's goingto be a lot like today.
Yeah, things could change, andit all sounds crazy, but nothing really
changes that fast. And I thinkpart of what's convinced people that to think
that way is that we had sucha close shave the last time around that

(09:20):
Trump failed. He failed so manytimes in what he tried to do while
he was in office, and thenof course January sixth failed. In January
sixth, you know, there weresome horrifying tableaus from January sixth, horrifying
pictures, but it also was kindof a you know, a chowderheaded cluster.

(09:43):
I guess we're gonna yes, souse the rest of it. But
you know, there was just thiskind of violent and incompoopery on the loose
where real knuckleheads ended up going tojail and people said, well, you
know, how dangerous could that be? Well, had things gone, had
even one point of failure changed atthat moment, If Mike Pence had made

(10:07):
a different decision, if Trump hadmanaged to show up at the Capitol,
if a couple of guys had gottenpast the Capitol police, there's no telling
what kind of world we would havelived in. But to try to talk
to people about this now, they'relike, oh, that's the path and
everything turned out okay, And I'mstill making the same payments on the same
car I had two years ago andstill in high school. And groceries are

(10:30):
expensive, and so one of thethings we've tried to do with this issue
is to say, no, stop, really think about this in detail.
Here's exactly how he could do this. And I think people just have a
hard time getting their arms around that, especially because then the media, you

(10:52):
know, when I say this nowyou know is part of the problem,
I guess, but that the modernAmerican media cannot let go of treating this
as a normal election. And Ithink in your instroduction, Jennifer, you
really did a good job just layingthat out that it just it's a horse
race, and where do they different. I while back, I saw something
about I think I saw someone onone of the networks saying, and here's

(11:13):
where Trump is trying to sharpen hisdifferences with Biden on these things, right,
you know, And I'm like,oh, come on, right,
that is not what this is about. Not what this is about. Agreed,
that's not what it's about. AndTrump doesn't think that's that's what it's
about. Uh right, they're they'reone of my colleagues, Barton Gellman.

(11:35):
He had a great line and hispace. He said, you know,
people lay out this whole way ofthinking about the limits of the power of
the presidency and what Trump could dowith the legal powers of the presidency.
And he said, but Trump isn'tthinking that way. Trump Trump is just
gonna say I'm just gonna ignore thatstuff. I'll turn those aspects of the
Constitution, I'll ignore the courts.I don't care. And once he's in,

(12:01):
he's not going to I think thisis the other thing that Americans just
don't can't rock the notion of apresident who's going to come back to power
and say and once I'm in,that's it. I'm not. Last night,
Liz Cheney said, if he getssaid, he's not leaving ever,
and I can to make sure thatdoesn't happen. So I think what I

(12:24):
wrote about was trying to set thestage for people to read the other twenty
four pieces in the magazine. ButI think all of us are saying are
trying to get people to understand,here are the concrete ways once the adults
are gone, once the guardrails aregone, because I think people are drawing
all the wrong lessons from the firstTrump term. There will be no Mark

(12:48):
Millie, there will be no MarkEsper, there will not be a John
Kelly. None of these people aregoing to be there. And so we
really have to think this through toshake ourselves out of this, you know,
kind of notion of well, youknow, I know Trump says some
nutty things, but eggs are expensiveand Biden's old. Uh, And I

(13:09):
think it's just it's it's it's justinsane that we're even having that conversation.
And again, I'll just stop bysaying I think it's a failure of imagination.
I think it's a real attachment tothe idea of normalcy and that the
world you know around you simply cannotchange that fast. Well, and let

(13:35):
me also say quickly, as Iwas reading through some of this this morning.
I was just just head it inmy head that you were all sort
of writing co writing a lot ofthis stuff. And as I'm looking at
the site right now, clearly thereare multiple separate authors on these pieces.
And I apologize for giving a misimpressionon that, I think, and a
little I'm going to ask you tokind of start by commenting on this.

(13:58):
Tom was just talking about, youknow, it's a failure of imagination and
and the idea of you know,that people just don't want to let go
of the sense of normalcy. Ithink that that actually is a big part
of what we see unfolding here.That again, to Tim and I both
sort of references the average American hasa very busy burden some life. Uh,

(14:22):
they're they're worried about one hundred differentthings, and there are at least
two hundred things out there they shouldbe worrying about, and it's like they
just it's it's almost like they've justturned it off in their heads. They
don't want to believe that it couldbe what these people that they hear on
the news every now and then aresaying that it is. I and I

(14:43):
also think that kind of what feeds. This is this idea that's been building
for decades now that it's just politics. They're all the same. All those
guys go to Washington, they're allthe same. They get there and they
become corrupt, or they lie,or they cheat or they deal. The
talking heads are just trying to uptheir ratings, you know, and I
think people have just become kind ofnumb to it. And now we've reached

(15:09):
this point where it actually is acritical the election, you know, the
most critical election in America's lifetime,and I think people are just tuning it
out. And so I'd like youto kind of just run with it from
there, you know, sort ofset the stage for us a little bit,
and then from here I will moveon to kind of more specifics,

(15:31):
more details. I'm glad you saidwhat you said about the disgust for politics,
because I think I don't think thenormalcy bias is sufficient on its own.
I think the hostility to politics,the idea that they're all corrupt,
the idea that they're all terrible,I think that's extremely important. In fact,

(15:52):
if you've been watching the Trump campaign, you know that that's been one
of the things they've been trying todo. They try to do it in
twenty twenty, they're doing it now, you know, maybe work up,
look at the Biden crime family,all that kind of stuff. So I
think normalcy is part of it.But I definitely think that discussed with politics
is a is a huge piece ofit. And so I'm glad you.

(16:14):
I'm glad you paired both of those. You know. In terms of the
uh, well you know the firstname, that's good. You owe me
what good you know. In termsof the rule of the press, it's
it's kind of complicated. I think, without turning on my entire industry,
the American press is usually pretty goodabout telling you whether something will happen,
and not necessarily as good at helpingyou decide whether it should happen. And

(16:38):
I think that was one of thebig failures of the run up to the
Iraq War, where because the Americannews media decided that the center of gravity
of that story was at the WhiteHouse, it turned the story into when
will Bush do this right? Thatwas that was kind of the dominant the
dominant storylines for for you know,late twenty late two thousand and two,
early two thousand and three. Soto some degree, we're seeing it corrective

(17:02):
to that the Atlantic, Washing Posts, the New York Times and other places
are sketching out what a second termwould look like. And I think it's
very important to underline that this isnot these writers just coming up with this
randomly. He has a track record, but in his first term and in
his public utterances, and that iswhat reporters and that's what journalists are are
relying on. When he says,you know, he's going to go after

(17:26):
the quote unquote Furman, you know, that's his word. When he says
he's going to go after Mark Millie, and he's going to go after Esper,
He's going to go after Bill Barr, is going to go after notably
a whole bunch of senior officials fromhis presidency. That's his own words.
I suppose we can get dragged intothe tedious debate over whether it's take him

(17:48):
seriously or literally, but these arehis words, and this is what we're
working with. And let's talk justfor a minute about his words, and
both of you can kind of takeyou know, well, I'll start with
you Ola day, but Tom beready to jump in as well. His
words in this election are vastly differentthan they were in twenty sixteen or even

(18:11):
in twenty twenty. He is literallycalling as Tom kind of referenced for the
destruction of the Constitution for a kind, And he's not We're not just kind
of presuming what he means. Heis straight out saying it. You know,
he believes the concept. I can'tremember his exact words. I should
have pulled him up before we started, but he believes that they're parts of

(18:33):
the Constitution that should just be discarded, and he believes that as president he
would have the power to do that, or that he could just sort of
execute it and it would happen.So his words are much more dictatorial,
much more authoritarian, to my wayof saying it, much more disconnected from

(18:55):
reality, but at the same timejust as energizing and just as effected at
speaking to this broad base of voters. So talk to me a little bit
about how that there has been atransition or there's been a development of what
he says, how he says it, where he's kind of gone with this

(19:18):
messaging. We in twenty sixteen,I was mortified at the idea that people
believe that Donald Trump was going tobe able to get Mexico to pay for
a border wall, or that wewould ever actually build a fifteen foot tall
concrete wall completely across the border.Now, I am mortified by the idea
that people are believing and embracing theidea that if Trump becomes president, he

(19:42):
should just stay president. So I'mgoing to give that to you, Lyvier,
and like I said, Tom,you jump in and join and whenever
he's done or whenever you're ready.Well, I think just to grab one
example of the rhetoric that I thinkis really really important. Obviously, we're

(20:02):
all extremely familiar with his constant barrageof false claims that twenty twenty was rigged,
that he was cheated out of hissecond term. But I think the
important shift in the rhetoric has beento go from being slightly somewhat kind of
publicly chastened by January sixth to nowlionizing the people who ransacked the Congress,

(20:23):
broke into offices, chanted hang MikePett's right. He's gone from sort of
not mentioning that part to now mentioningit a lot on the campaign trail,
you know, based promising to pardonall these folks. That's been for me
one of the most remarkable shifts inthe rec rhetoric over the last couple of
years. He has really gone fromsort of understanding that this was something of

(20:48):
a liability for him to now againhe's elevating these folks, promising to pardon
some of them or maybe all ofthem, you know, celebrating them at
campaign rally. And that's that's notjust that's not not just symbolic. I
mean, he seems to have wonover a lot of Republicans. If you
look at the polling on what Republicanssay about January sixth, you know,

(21:11):
the the number numbers that say thiswas a you know, a reasonable response
to the election has grown since inthe two going to happen nearly three years
since. And so that's that's gotthat's got a lot of ramifications. I
mean, if if that kind ofpolitical violence is Boukay with his base,
that has some pretty ominous ramifications forpolitics in America in twenty twenty four or

(21:34):
twenty five, that's scary he couldI mean, there's all kinds of cannery
he could resort to and claim,you know that he can serve two terms
consecutively or you know that I don'tknow he could do a putin and try
and get the constitution changed in enoughstates, who knows. I mean,

(21:56):
the problem is he's so vindic andyet so stupid that you just can't put
anything past him. And the peoplewho normally would have said, you know,
either that's a bad idea or that'sjust too stupid an idea to even
attempt, are not going to bethere. And I think this is something

(22:17):
that really just has to be emphasizedover and up, just over again.
Before I before we started, beforeI came on, you know, I
was getting links about how he wantsto make cash Ptel the head of the
CIA, you know, an ideathat yeah, we all laugh. I
mean, the guy is, theguy's unqualified basically for anything in national office,

(22:38):
but he'll he'll do it, andthe Senate, assuming the Senate is
has still has fifty rational human beingsin it, will refuse to confirm,
and then I he'll install him asan acting anyway. I mean, we're
going to have an entire government ofacting you know, third stringers and misfits,

(23:00):
and he'll he won't care. Andso the idea that you know,
well, he can't do these things, I think this is the other thing
that people have really got to getpast that, well, you know,
he can't really do these things,and the guardrails, you know, are
weakened, but they're there. Imean there there is no telling, especially

(23:22):
because he and I want to saysomething encouraging at the end of all this,
especially because he really does have peoplewho are committed to breaking the lawn
doing violence if he tells them to. But the encouraging thing is I wrote
a piece a few weeks ago saying, look, he really has crossed the
line in his rhetoric into fascism.The one thing he doesn't have is you

(23:45):
know, three or four hundred orfive hundred thousand crack, you know,
shock troops and street fighters and allof that. So you know, it's
possible that he will just get boggeddown in his own stupid and nefarious plans
and country will spiral off into chaosfor four years. I don't know how
we would recover from that. SoI will give that much of people say,

(24:08):
well, it can't be done.If it can't be done, it'll
be because he simply doesn't have themanpower and the brain power. Because the
other thing is these people he bringswith them they'll be ruthless, they'll be
vicious, they'll be you know,willing to do anything. But most of
them are not particularly bright and notparticularly brave, and so that that may

(24:29):
be a saving grace in the shortterm, but it's still going to leave
a lot of chaos, and it'sstill gonna leave America, you know,
kind of out in the cold asthe leader of the of the free world,
I mean, the the authoritarians ofthe world will will run rampant while
we're sitting around, you know,doing this insane comic opera at home.

(24:51):
Well, and I'm also strict.As I listened to you, to both
of you, actually, a coupleof things you both said just now makes
me think about Mike Johnson today,the people who in Trump's first term where
we all sort of assumed we're behindthe scenes trying to rain him in,
trying to you know, just becauseTrump said it, didn't mean McConnell was
going to do it, you know, that sort of thing. Mike Johnson,

(25:15):
the Speaker of the Republican Speaker ofthe House today did this, said
this crazy thing about the January sixteenth, say they're going to release all of
the all of it, but Hisexact words were that we have to blur
out some of the faces so thatthese people don't get charged. So he
has now made himself and essentially themajority in the House a co conspirator or

(25:41):
a you know, trying to Ican't have the phrasesn't coming to me and
try to trying to move up,thank you, accomplice that. Yeah,
they're becoming accomplices in all of this. And that's what I think when I
listened to the two of you talkabout what this kind of a second Trump
term could could look like. We'regoing to go it's bad enough that the
Republican Party was as weak as theywere in that first term in this if

(26:03):
he has a second term, they'regoing to be all in with Trump because
Tom, you just said something about, you know, hoping we have fifty
irrational voices of the Senate. Whenwas the last time we had fifty rational
voices in the Senate? You know? But I mean there were there were
people that didn't. There were thereare were Republicans who didn't. For example,
want you know, Rick Grennell tobe the d N I you know,

(26:30):
and and Doug McGregor to be theambassador to Germany, and you know
stuff like that. I mean,there are people like even there are even
Republicans who will say that some nomineesare over the line. And I think
the bigger problem is not how manyof them there are, It's that if
there are enough of them to denyconfirmation, Trump will just say okay,

(26:51):
acting right. And that's exactly whathe did with Anthony Tatas, as I'm
going to point out in this piecelater in the week. I mean,
you know, he tried to putthis this kookie one star, this kookie
retired one star who you know,thinks that Obama is a secret Muslim,
and that John Brennan was trying tokill Trump and get all this all this

(27:14):
kind of strange conspiracy stuff. Andwhen the Senate declined to confirm, he
said, okay, go across theriver and sit there as a as the
acting and and slotted him into thesame job. Anyway, at some point,
I want I want to talk alittle bit about what happened after the
election with Trump and when he startedremoving people and replacing them with the you

(27:38):
call them third stringers, but Iwould say the crazies, you know,
the crazy supporters and all us hewas preparing for what he was hoping he
could pull off on on January sixth. You know that's because what you're talking
about is just, you know,an extension of that kind of mindset.
We have several people who would liketo join our conversation, Emily, you

(27:59):
want to call up our first ourfirst guest. Yeah, I am bringing
Joanne up on the stage right now, so Joanna you can start whenever.
Well, thank you so much.I am really blown away just listening to
this today. I feel like y'allhave been in my head because I've been

(28:19):
thinking about this so much lately.And I had the opportunity to talk to
staff Sergeant Ganell the other day andtalked to him about his experience of J
six And one of the things thatis really horrifying to me is the what
happened today and the downplaying of like, oh, look at those tourists wandering

(28:41):
around in the halls. And Ithinks what is really important for us to
look at at this point is thatit was we were bare. We barely
made it out of that one.As incompetent and crazy and as much of
a clown show as it looked.There were a lot of different layers of

(29:06):
attack happening that day that I thinkreally some of them won't be clear even
for a while. I think interms of looking at Project looking at the
future too, the idea that Projecttwenty twenty five is out there is something
that you know, it's hard todistill. But like, right, I
didn't have this conversation about these realities, especially with people who are like burn

(29:32):
it all down or none of itworks anymore. I don't think they have
any idea what they'll be left withif it's burnt down, like on the
left and the right, like ifthey get what they want, it's going
to be like they chase the carand caught it. You know, hard
to build democracy. So what dowe do? What do we say to
people that don't understand that we're insort of democracy inertia right now? I

(29:57):
think I want to have with Onething I advise people is to stop having
toiless arguments I have found with someof my friends in real life. I
mean not these are not just youknow, Twitter spats, but with people
I've known a long time who havesaid things like, well, you know,
and we don't really know what happened, but and I just said look
stop, you know better than this, and you know you know better than

(30:21):
this. You know. It's kindof like when Liz Cheney said, look,
you're when Trump's gone, you're shameover remain you know this, I
mean Cheney. I think Cheney hasreally been good about basically saying, look,
cut the let's cut the crap here. You know exactly what's going on,
and you're not really confused or uncertain, uh, you know. And
this is I think this is partof the problem that the Pro Democracy Coalition

(30:45):
has when dealing with a lot ofthese folks, because they say, I'm
just asking It's like dealing with anyconspiracy theorist and I'm just asking questions.
I'm unsure, I don't know whatthe right thing is. And I think
we have to be the adults inthe room and say stop, just stop
up with this. I'm not havingthis discussion with you. I'm not going
to argue with you. You knowabout Hunter Biden's car Loans, right right,

(31:08):
it's that what's wrong with asking questions? Are you afraid of questions?
You can't answer it? You know? It makes my blood boil well,
and that's what it's meant to do. It's meant to draw the foul.
It's meant to make you so angrythat you don't know because it's such a
badgering, what a dishonest, disingenuousjust you know, sort of And you

(31:33):
can almost see people smirking when theysay that, I'm what's wrong right questions?
Right, Well, there's nothing wrongwith saying that because you know better.
And it's it's this thing where thatit's like lobbing balls that you and
you're chasing balls around. Don't doit, Oh no, I have to
don't do it back, and it'slike, no, it's we need our
overarching narrative. I absolutely agree.We need to stick to an overarching narrative

(31:57):
that is very much like you know, please Hunter, you basically you lose
the argument when you whenever you sayHunter Biden's laptop basically right, right.
And and remember that a lot ofthis started up, a lot of this
is designed simply to draw emotional energyout of you. And so all those

(32:22):
balls, all those different things.You know, I have a close family
member who basically will just turn theconversation to these things, and he does
it because he enjoys it, becauseit's just engagement. And I think that
the thing that the better example Ihave to be is a safe and your
feelings on this. I'm not havingthis argument with you. If you feel

(32:44):
that I've sent to people online andprivately, look, if you really want
to vote for Donald Trump, doit. Go ahead. And they stop
and they said, why didn't sayI was going to do that? Well,
then you know the shut up,that's what I want to say.
Then shut up trying to you know, suck energy out of me so that

(33:04):
you can have a conversation partner.And I think that's more effective than people
realize. I also think it goesvery much to the point. It goes
very much to the point because withmost of these people, especially on social
media, who are just existing forthe thrill of the argument as opposed to
trying to solve a problem or advancea principle. Right, this is not

(33:27):
going to be very satisfying, Joe, I have. But I think one
of the challenges is to figure outas quickly as you can or whether you're
having a good faith conversation with goodfaith questions, or whether you're having what
you guys are describing right. Ihave a number of past Trump voters that
I that I'm in contact with fairlysmall number, and I've always found the

(33:50):
most fruitful path is to have themask me questions. When I was when
I was covering the White House underGeorge W. Bush, i covered them
all eight years, went all overthe country, and I assure you that
hostilllity to the White House Press Corpsis a vigorous bipartisan phenomenon. And I
always found that one of the waysto sort of get through some of this
stuff was to say, you know, well, you know, you've got

(34:12):
a living, breathing White House PressCorp person here, what would you ask
me? And that typically diffused alot of a lot of the problems when
you're talking to folks, though againthis is not satisfying, But when you're
talking to folks, there are peoplewho say, you know, the national
security elites didn't stop nine to eleven, they didn't stop Iraq, and they

(34:32):
pulled us into it. They've failedin Afghanistan. The financial elites gave us
the Great Recession. Some of usare still digging out from under that.
And so they do want to thinktheir instinct is to lob a grenade into
the system. They don't they don'twant to see cash, but tell as
head of the CIA and they don'twant to see Rick Granello's d and I
or as ambassador to Germany, theydon't. There are a lot of these

(34:55):
they don't want. But the resentmentsand the concerns are real, you know,
one of the inflation. I knowa number. I've got a couple
of trump photers that I've attached withwho are on fixed incomes, and from
them the last couple of years havebeen really rough. And so again I
think challenge every one is to figureout to whom you are speaking. I
say this as a passionate believer inthe block, but I used to mute

(35:19):
people. I waste no time Nowit's I usually just click on the account,
read the last five tweets. Ifthere's not one that has at least
a scintilla of of of good faithout they go. So I'm not.
I'm not. I'm not the totallythat's the pulp at rule. Yeah,
I'm not. I'm absolutely not.You know, I'm not saying conciliation for

(35:44):
conciliation's sake at all. But thereare a lot of people out there,
you know, who are deeply frustratedand they don't like what they see from
Washington, and they think the bestway to respond to that is by by
electing Trump. And I think thosethose are folks that that deserves you time
and energy, not the people whoare like, you know, do your
own research or I'm just asking questions. Those are typically not the good Chase

(36:07):
books. Aleanna, thank you,But can I can I pick a fight
here with Olivier for a minute?Yes, hang on one second, Joanna,
thank you very much for your question. We appreciate it. We're going
to answer the next one in aminute, and now we're all going to
pop our popcorn and listen to Tompick a fight with Olivier. Go.
Well, first, I think there'sI totally take Olivia's point. Know who

(36:28):
you're talking to. I have hadpeople say, look, I'm just concerned,
and I say, okay, that'sa different question, you know,
especially and I think Olivier, you'reright. Older people especially, they're like,
look, I'm you know, fearful. I don't know what's going to
happen. But there are two thingsthat I want to throw out here.
One is it's important not to getsucked into accepting the premise of the question

(36:50):
when people say, but Tom,what should we do the economy is horrible,
and you have to just stop themand say, wait, you know,
I understand that you're fears, butyou know, at some point you
have to live in the real world. You know, you can't just shake
your head and say you're right,the economy is hard, because then you're
you're kind of nurturing this alternative universe. And I think then it's okay to

(37:14):
say, well, you know,nobody does well the time, but what
do you what is it you're concernedabout it? And you know, do
you understand? You know? Andyou'll actually find that most people, and
we see this in the research andsurveys, by the way, most people
will backtrack and say, well,I'm not in that much trouble, but
clearly the economy is a mess,right, And and you know, you

(37:36):
can kind of open up that narrativea little bit. Whatever it's about.
You say, well, you knowAfghanistan, okay, should we have stayed
in Well? No, okay,Well then what And my point is it
Eventually, early in the conversation inperson, I will get to somewhere where
I say, look, I understandall this, what is it you want?
And that stops most people I say, okay, you win, what

(37:59):
is it you want? And theydon't know. They stop and they say,
okay, you know, and thenyou can kind of get to a
more productive conversation. The other thingI would say is when you're talking about
not dismissing that and said, youknow that they want to lob a grenade.
Hey, that was the approach Itook with Trump voters in twenty sixteen.
The people who said, look,I feel like that, you know,
I want to shake things up.I can't vote for Hillary Clinton,

(38:21):
and I you know I would not. I'd say, until Trump became really
bad late in the campaign, wherehe basically said I'm not going to accept
the outcome, I was going tovote third party. I wasn't going to
vote for either one of them.But I that I think was an effective
way to approach twenty sixteen twenty twenty, I said, okay, well,
now you know, you know whatit was like to have this guy,

(38:43):
you know how bad he is,And people said, well, basically,
what I found is that a lotof the people said I don't care,
and I said, okay, wellthat's the end of that conversation. I'm
sorry, but I am a moralistabout this. If you are heading into
twenty twenty four with everything you knownow and say, well, I have
concerns about inflation, so I mighthave to vote for the guy who talks

(39:05):
like a fascist. I just I'mnot. I can't. I can't really
carry a lot of that conversation.That's when I shake my head and I
say, look, I understand thatyou felt that way four or eight years
ago. That is not the thatis not the answer now. And you
know, either just explain to mewhat it is you really want or tell
me that you want to vote forTrump. I can't walk you through this

(39:28):
for the third time. And andso I disagree. I think everything Olivia
just said makes perfect sense eight yearsago. I don't think it gets us
anywhere in twenty twenty four. Well, and you're very you make a very
impressive point, Tom when you sayfor the third time. You know,
in twenty sixteen, when it wasnew you know, I mean I was

(39:52):
chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Partyat that time. I sat on the
executive committee of the RNC, andthere was no way that I was going
to vote for Donald Trump. AndI finished out my term refusing to publicly
say anything positive about him at all. When you know, if somebody had

(40:13):
to had to speak, you know, at an event or something when Trump
was there, I wouldn't go.I never attended a Trump rally. And
and so in that in that cycle, I was I was just upset that
there were so many other leaders inthe Republican Party who didn't want to stand
up and defend what I thought werethe principles of the GOP. And then
twenty twenty comes along, and Ifelt then close to what you just said.

(40:37):
Now, having watched him for fouryears, there'd be anybody party much
less in our country who thinks thatreal him is a good idea. And
now here we are four years later, and he's actually out there calling for
an authoritarian, you know, leadershipmodel, what's supposed to be the leader
of the country that leads the freeworld. And we're doing it again.

(41:00):
There are still people out there whojust want to find that meason to make
it okay to vote for Donald Trump. So as impressed as I'm ams by
what the Atlantic is producing here,as far as you know, taking a
real deep dome on what a secondTrump firm can look like work for you

(41:21):
and a living, and I andmost of the people on this call are
going to be having the same conversationswith our the friends and family over the
next you know, twelve months thatwe had the last two cycles. That
blows my mind that there is thatlevel of deep rooted you know, I

(41:44):
am going I am not I amnot going to change my mind. I'm
not going to technoledge being wrong.I am not going to you know,
look at the truth, and Iwill not allow myself to be informed of
what is true. You know,That's how I feel like voters are thinking
right now. So I think youand Olivia are both right to different degrees
in different ways. But I canunderstand Jane, there's a lot of trustration

(42:08):
for cure. I think of alot of it depends, and I think
Olivier's framing this is right. Youneed to know who you're talking to.
There are younger voters or disengage voterswho just haven't paid attention to the last
eight years, and I can understandthat. You know, I have a

(42:30):
lot more patience with somebody who youknow, I mean, the people I
really lose my patients with are peoplecloser to my own age. Truthfully,
who you know have been through this, but I mean even there's just no
mystery here. I mean, it'sit's not like twenty sixteen, where you
could say, well, maybe it'san act, or you know, maybe

(42:52):
it's the people around him, ormaybe it doesn't really mean there is no
doubt anymore. And so I getI find myself worn out by saying,
well, right, let's start,let's talk about Trump's economic plan and whether
or not he can really make gascheaper. I think that is a I
think that is a rabbit hole,and I think it's fly paper that's meant

(43:14):
to drag you into an argument thatreally is just designed to rationalize the other
person's choice that they've already made.Yeah, I think we I mean I
was promised to fight I you know, I obviously as a report there are
things I cannot take sides on.But one thing I would say is we've

(43:34):
gone through a few news cycles whichwe've realized that many young people can't say
who attacked the United States on nineto eleven. Many young people are unfamiliar
with really the basic facts of theHolocaust. And so what I would say
is, having been back to myhigh school Reigan this summer, I can
tell you there are people who followpolitics not one iota, and so it's

(43:59):
a little when they are I mean, they're really just tabula rossa. They
really are. They really have notfollowed any I mean, it's like it's
a little bit like getting angry atsomeone who's never heard of warrantless wire,
which you know, Cheney was justfine with. It's you can get upset
about that. But the fact thatthere are a lot of people there are
two sets of people that I wantto think about. You think about the

(44:21):
people who really don't follow this atall, and then the people on this
is a little more complicated. Oneof the one of the ones I have
with blame the media on a lotof the stuffies. You might be horrified
by that member of Congress over there, but that member of Congress over there
might perfectly represent their district. Andyou need to think about people have an
agency and not just being molded byby what they're watching the evening news.

(44:45):
There are people who who profoundly agreewith the politician you hate the most in
the world, and you just haveto think about that as you as you
navigate these these waters. Yeah,and and I think, well, actually
I'm not going to go there yet. It's both very, very smart and

(45:06):
valuable contributions. When we come we'regoing to take another question, but after
that, I'd like to talk alittle bit about Liz Cheney and her book,
you know, some of the thingsthat she's had to say in the
press over the last twenty four toforty eight hours, and how I think
it really relates to what we're talkingabout here. Stuart go ahead. Hi,
thank you for taking my question.And I really enjoy listening to you

(45:30):
guys talk about this. It's areally stressful period of time, so it's
come found and helpful to hear expertsand people who are very familiar with the
topics to really kind of hash itout and talk about all the different nuances.
My question kind of comes from amore political science of perspective. I

(45:50):
think, you know, I wonderhow did this affect in the long run,
and maybe this is a difficult questionto answer at this time. The
coalitions within the country, within bothparties, I know, a lot of
focuses on the Republican Party because Trump, you know, rose to the Republican
Party, and I think there's alot of discussions about what the coalition was
made up of and what some peoplethought was more you know, of a

(46:13):
viral energy within the coalition than otherparts of the coalition. But there are
also Democratic voters who also see,you know, have a populist tinge to
them. They also kind of seethe Trump shake up as something that needed
to happen with the larger you know, quote unquote neoliberalism policy culture within the
country within my lifetime at least.I'm a mid nineties baby. So I

(46:34):
was just wondering what you guys thoughtabout it, from how this whole experience
with Donald Trump and with the Trumpyears we'll do for political coalitions going forward,
or if we're just in a timewhere there will be a shakeup and
we don't really know what the coworksons will look like. Thank you,
Thank you for the question. That'sgreat. I'm not sure I understood the

(46:55):
last part of that question about theshakeup, but I think might you know,
it's a long time student of MarxismLeninism. You know, there are
people on the very far left whobelieve in sharpening the contradictions, which which
means that people things have to getworse before they can get better, and
so they they there are people onthe far left to kind of welcome a

(47:20):
disruptor like Trump on the assumption thathe'll make everybody so miserable that when when
it all burns down and falls apart, comes the revolution and they will,
you know, be the inheritors ofthe earth. This is really some of
the dumbest stuff in the world.It almost never happens that way, and
it doesn't last for long. ButI think this goes back to the problem

(47:43):
that the people who advocate this kindof populist uh stuff, who who think
that you know, Trump can betheir sort of bank shot vessel to you
know, to universal health care andbasic unemployment, basic income and all that
stuff. They don't realize what itwould look like. And this goes back
to the thing that we're all writingabout the Atlantic, that what it would

(48:05):
look like, and they're not it'snot going to work out that way for
them. They they they think thatthey're somehow going to be untouched by it
all and that there will be thisbig opening for them to kind of remake
society when everybody gets so sick ofTrump, and it's just it just doesn't
ever work like that. And Ithink many of these folks are still furious

(48:29):
that the guy who was able tobring the coalition together and beat Trump was
Joe Biden. In some ways,they hate Biden more than Trump because they
feel like Biden sort of betrays theirdreams by being the centrist who kind of
balances the whole coalition and gets themover the finish line in the election.

(48:49):
So I think this is I tendto think of that whole approach on the
on the far left as juvenile.I mean, I think it's really just
it's sort of three am dorm stuff. And I think, but I you
know, it's partly how we gotTrump in the first place, where a
lot of those folks peeled off andthought that there, you know, should
vote for Jill Stein or Carrie Johnsonthis time around. You know, we'll

(49:13):
see how many of them gets producedaway by Stein who's running yet again,
or Cornell West or you know,whoever else is going to throw their hat
in the ring. But I thinkit's just generally silly, but it's also
pretty dangerous. Well, and yousaid juvenile, I was thinking adolescent as
you were talking about it, Tom, But if not just the bar left,

(49:34):
you know, from a different perspective, I would I very much blame
to a great degree the farthest right, not the not not folks who back
in might have been considered crazy,crazy, you know in twenty sixteen or
even before that, but the folkswho I can tell you as somebody who
was a conservative, pro life Republicanthat there is this whole population within the

(50:00):
Republican Party, this whole coalition wasit was talking about these coalitions who never
got their way in the party andbecause they were too far right, they
just did not represent enough of thepeople who show up on election day to
vote, and they were radical ina lot of ways. And so when
Trump came along, he was theirsavior, you know. He it did

(50:23):
sort of turn out the way thatthey always kind of fanticized. It would
turn out that somebody came along whowas willing to give them whatever they wanted
in exchange for their votes and kindof confirmed for them that the problem wasn't
that they were too too far rightor too extreme. The problem was that,
you know, voters just didn't understandwhere you know, didn't understand them

(50:46):
and was hurting their feelings and stufflike that. You know, But they
became this They were always existed asa failed coalition until Trump came along and
they had somebody who would give themany thing they wanted in exchange for their
votes, because he couldn't win overthe more smaller group I suppose of rational

(51:07):
thinking voters. So I think theidea behind the question about correisions and how
they're going to change and develop overthe next not just us next year,
but you know, the next severalcycles is really interesting. We don't want
to go down this rabbit hole.But when you think, take that those
thoughts and that question and then startapplying you know, the Mike Madrid stuff

(51:28):
to it, the you know,the demographics and how our country is changing
demographically in a dramatic fashion. Likethat's a that's a that's a fascinating political
conversation in and of itself. I'mgoing to start with Olivier and time I
want you to join this conversation aswell and talk a little bit about about

(51:49):
Liz Cheney. Nothing that I've heardher say so far is particularly shocking to
me, and a lot of peopleare acting as if it kind of is
shocking and to me, whether youknow she has inside stories that certainly I
didn't know about, or you knowher anger with the least stephonic and stuff
like that. But she's she's justvoicing everything you know, Tom, that

(52:13):
folks like you and I have talkedabout and been concerned about and warning about
for many years now. So like, it's great that she played the role
that she did in the January sixthinvestigation. I'm actually thrilled for it because
having the incredible, respected Republican leadervoice, just like with Adam Pinsinger in

(52:35):
that role, was critical and itwas very important to the process. But
as she comes out now and peopleare saying, geez, she should run,
Maybe she should run for president.Maybe she's the independent candidate that can
beat everybody else and bring well,I'm reminded of the fact that until January
sixth happened, she didn't want todisrupt the apple cart. You know,

(52:57):
she was trying to. She thoughtshe could handle things just like the parties
always do on the inside without comingout, you know, and be very
vocal against. She was not vocalagainst vocally against Donald Trump for four years.
So I just I look at heras being very valuable, very insightful.
I have a lot of respect forher, but I don't want to

(53:17):
see Liz Cheney for president. Ithink that would do more harm than good.
And Olivia, I'll start with you, Am I missing something here?
Well? I think you know,I think you're right that that in the
in the in the times that welive in, what she is saying,
he does not have a ton ofshock value, right, I mean,

(53:39):
the some of the most interesting stuffis she basically alleges, you know,
widespread hypocrisy where people criticize Republicans inthere in the house, criticized Donald Trump
behind the scenes, and then votewith him. Oh no, really,
Oh no, you know, sothere's not a ton of a ton of
shock. I mean, to thedegree there's an old surprise. It's imagine

(54:00):
how Democrats would respond to, uh, to live Cheney generally speaking ten years
ago. Right, Democrats, I'mgonna put this model. They don't didn't
much like Vice President Dick Cheney,and they didn't want to care for the
Cheney brand of politics. And soone of the really interesting developments is how
much she's being celebrated on on theon the left, as you know,

(54:23):
a brave truth teller who's break brokenwith her party paid a political a very
steep political price for it in termsof in terms of a third party bid.
I tend to think that giving peoplewho were uncomfortable with Donald Trump a
place to vote that is not JoeBiden helps Donald Trump. But I don't

(54:45):
know. I don't know who she'dpull along with her. I have not
seen any reliable assessment of you know, where she would pull well. Obviously
not well among Trump Republicans, ButI don't so I don't know yet.

(55:06):
I just just to go back tosomething Stewart said. Let me let me
say something nice and then something somethingless nice to Stuart. Stuart, thank
you. I'll start with less nice. You called me. You call those
experts. I cannot claim that,Mantle. I'm a student of this stuff.
I try to follow it as Ican, but I would never call
myself an expert. The nice thingis, I think your question really is
about whether the party system is doomedand whether the forces in American society up

(55:34):
to and including technological advancements will meanthat the two parties no longer serve a
great purpose. Since it's it's alot easier to get on the ballot than
it used to be. It's alot a lot easier to get really sophisticated
get out the vote machines that itused to be. And I do think
that the parties are in crisis.Obviously, the Republican Party was the subject
of a hostile takeover, so therethey've got more problems. But I agree

(55:57):
that I agree with that. It'sa really interesting question. It was interesting
ten years ago, it's gotten evenmore interesting, So thank you for asking
it. And I agree with everythingthat you just said as well. So
Tom, do you want to jumpin on this or should we go to
our next question. I'll just saythat, excuse me. I think any
third party candidacy pretty much hurts Bidenat this point because it and I think

(56:25):
it's because people. I think almostany third party vote is a vote that
would have gone to one of theothers or perhaps not voting. And I'm
just not convinced. I think Mikejenn Am I right, Mike. Did
Mike Madrid make the argument that Cheneywould actually hurt Trump more? I think

(56:47):
so? I think so, ButI don't want to. We got to
get Mike in here next week.But I'm not sure. But I but
I the problem is that you knowthat there's this big aggregate that you look
at, But I would like toknow in the electoral college, state by
state who he hurts more. Youknow, sure she might all votes away
from him in Utah. Well,and that just means that Trump wins Utah

(57:12):
by a smaller margin than he wantedwould it than he than he would have
won it anyway. But in theswing states, I don't I don't think
it's obvious to me anyway that inArizona, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin that having
her on the ballot, you know, helps, although maybe, I mean

(57:32):
maybe you know, evangelicals in Wisconsin, can you know, show their anger
or something. The thing is thatyou and I both know, speaking of
gen here, you and I bothknow how disciplined Republican voters are. You
know, the people that really lovethird party candidates are young people and sort
of squishy Democrats who want to youknow, do this kind of performative voting

(57:54):
stuff and to kind of you know, voting as a form of self expression.
And Republicans in the end, theymay say all this, but they
are remarkably disciplined and they show upand they know exactly who they're supposed to
vote for because they do a lotof work ahead of time. And I
just I'm just not convinced. Imean, I I don't I admire Liz

(58:16):
Cheney. I don't agree with heron everything, but I was once a
conservative, and you know, likedher more than I like a lot of
her congressional colleagues. But I thinkrunning third party, you know, this
is this is the time for astark choice, and I think trying to
fudge the difference so that people canfeel comfortable not having to pick. I

(58:38):
think it's just a strategic mistake.But you know, Mike may have a
different view on that, and youmay have data that I don't know about.
Right if you're wrong, Yeah,And I you know, as I
I, we got to get Mikeon here. We get I was thinking
this would be our last conversation beforeChristmas, but we need to get one
more set up. MLA. Butbut I kind of I can see both

(59:00):
sides of it, though, becauseI also look at I can also look
at this channing and say, Okay, if she ran at as an independent,
who would vote for her like thepeople that folks are suggesting would vote
for her? That I hear someof the talking heads on TV in the
last you know, last twenty fourhours suggest are folks that they're there.
It's like they're trying to come upwith a candidate for people who don't want

(59:22):
who would normally vote Republican but don'twant Trump, but who would they vote
for instead of Biden. But mostof these people they're talking about have already
voted for Biden in twenty twenty,so the likelihood that she's going to be
able, so they've become comfortable withthe idea of voting for Biden. I
don't see where she builds a largeenough coalition to win at all. But

(59:45):
I think that if she did startpulling people away, it would be those
soft Republicans that you and I werepart of an effort of targeting for Biden
in twenty twenty. So I worrythat she's going to take away from the
You know, he he can't winwithout them. He needs that, whether
it's five percent, ten percent,whatever, it turned out to being the
end, and he can't win withoutthem. So so, but you're right,

(01:00:08):
like, I don't know either.We got to get somebody in to
talk about the numbers. So,Emily, do we have one more question
before we have to say good night? Yeah? I brought Jackson up on
stage so you can get started.Thank you. I'm good to pick back.
I rose in the election to Novemper. My question is about and I've

(01:00:31):
left and younger, so I've beenvery a lot from progressive brands, even
in the tights and the well we'vebeen talking about term two or just like
well, I didn't sucks like we'retired of going and it's who're just like
you think are bad and who areobjectively and then Sarah Longwell from the board

(01:00:54):
had been running focus group treats andtwenty two year aggressives said there's a lack
of kind of institutional concern for theinstitution of government. And I feel like
I see that a lot they careabout like people having rights, they don't
care about the institution of democracy surviving, so they want so My question is,

(01:01:20):
well, that's kind of another elementspeak at the Stewart's idea of coalitions.
That's one of the sides of theDemocratic coalition theoretically. That's an interesting
question. Who wants to jump in? I need somebody to summarize the question
because I couldn't hear a lot ofthat. Yeah, yeah, there was
breaking up there. I think he'sasking about, you know, these young,

(01:01:43):
younger voters, progressive voters. Butyou know, how do we how
do we motivate or how do weturn out? I think the idea of
these younger voters who tended me moreprogressive, and you're you're not going to
have a rested candidate. There's notgoing to be a truly progressive candidate on

(01:02:04):
any ballot. You know. JillStein is just she's not she's not an
option. She's now that she's nota real candidate as far as the ability
to accomplish anything, to build acampaign and accomplish it. But I think
the question was focused on the ideaof young progressive voters. Sorry, it
was more about like if progress Alot of progressives I speak to just don't

(01:02:30):
seem to trust the institutions and wouldrather trade you know, people having rights
than democracy surviving. So what dowe do kind of in the face of
that. Okay, I heard thata little better, and you had said
something earlier also like they as longas they get what they want, they
don't really particularly care about democracy orif it's called democracy or whatever, as

(01:02:51):
long as they get what they're lookingfor. Yeah, thank you. I'll
be brief and just lose my temper, Okay, all for it. I've
just been exasperated by that position.You know, when people say me,
so we should we should wait longerto get full rights for you know,
minorities, trans people, whatever,and and you know, put up with

(01:03:14):
a look, it's a false choiceand just and if they're not motivated enough
by four years of Donald Trump,who will be worse for every single issue
they care about, then I don'tIt's not a convert This is another place
where I just withdraw from the conversationand say, you know, you're simply
I can't. I can't convince peoplein that because they don't want to be

(01:03:37):
convinced. What they want is apermission slip to vote in some self actualizing,
self gratifying way and have someone likeme in an argument with them ratify
it for them and just not anhonest conversation. And I've had that many
times with younger people, where Isay, on every issue you care about,

(01:03:58):
you think Joe, you know whodo you think? Well, but
I don't like being forced into thatchoice. Well, you know what,
welcome to being an adult. Yeah, well, and welcome to the system.
Welcome to the process. By theway, in the end, you
end up with two candidates on theballot in a general election. That's how
it works. That's how it's alwaysworked. One other great young people who
almost never fucking primaries, right exactlyron They let somebody else order the meals

(01:04:26):
and then when it gets here saythis is all crap. I don't like
any of this, right right,send back a stake. M Yeah,
but Tom, I like how youanswered that. I think you're exactly right.
And there is a certain entitlement andimmaturity to it all. And you
know what you just said. Theother thing the probably want to make very
quickly. You just said about Trumpversus Biden, Like I feel like I

(01:04:49):
cannot say this often enough. Thereis no equivalency between the two. You're
worried about and I'm not trying tois the importance of any other issue.
But you're worried about one issue,or you're worried about this other person's worried
about this one issue. None ofthose issues will matter, and none of
those issues will experience any progress forwardif Donald Trump is president of the United

(01:05:15):
States. And that's what I meansometimes when I say we you know what
it's it's it's partly education. I'vetalked with Joel Rubin about this a lot
when it comes to what's happening inIsrael, but the same thing applies with
these With this demographic we're discussing rightnow, there is a lack of genuine
knowledge, genuine education on what democracyis and what happens when you don't get

(01:05:41):
it. Do they think that youknow that in Putin's Russia that LGBT rights
are all broad and openly embraced,and and you know this is a beautiful
world. It's it's not. It'snot. And that's what that's what is
at risk when we say Donald Trumpversus Joe Biden. And I didn't think

(01:06:02):
I was going to be the angryone today, but you got me and
got me going a little bit.Emily, is there is justin still waiting
to join? Or did I didwe miss our chance? While we're waiting,
Jen, I'll just think what theyreally think is that if they hold
their breath and refuse and crossed theirarms, that the Democrats will relent and
say, Okay, not Joe BrianBiden, here's Bridy or here's Elizabeth Warren,

(01:06:27):
or here's the person you want itdoesn't work that way. I think
that's exactly right. And when Ihear people talk about it, you know,
guests on one of the news showsor something where they you know,
they talk about RFK Junior, oryou know, it's not too late for
for Biden to drop out and haveit be someone else, yet it is.
It's too late. It's like ayear too late for that to happen.

(01:06:49):
And and again it's kind of thisthis immature lack of understanding or this
this immature thing where I want itso I should have it. Whether it's
possible or not. It is notpossible for anybody else to become the Democratic
nominee at this point and have itbe any sort of any sort of legitimate,

(01:07:09):
credible, financed campaign, you know. And and I certainly I'm one
who would have would have preferred thatthey, you know, were grooming somebody
else starting from day one, readyto go with a you know, a
different candidate for other reasons. Butthis is who it is, and and
I guess this is let me say, this is where I'll wrap up,
and then I'm going to give eachof you a chance to wrap up.

(01:07:30):
That's kind of the purpose the thoughtI had behind all of this when we
started this conversation, that's the ticket, It's that's what the competition is going
to be. It's going to beTrump versus Biden. And so, to
me, the most important thing everybodyon this call can do, and I'll
try to, you know, phrasethis as optimistically as possible, it is

(01:07:55):
I believe very strongly that any oneof us has the ability, when we
use our voice in a clear,respectful, passionate manner, that we have
the ability to move people. Wehave the ability to change how somebody else
sees the situation, any situation,any given issue or a topic. And

(01:08:16):
that's what we all have to focuson going forward. That's how we win
and make sure that Trump doesn't endup in the White House again going into
twenty twenty four. There is noequivalency between these two candidates. And I
think this Atlantic, this kind ofin depth look that the Atlantic is taking

(01:08:38):
in all of this, is reallyvaluable as an educational document for all of
us on this call.