Welcome to Pause Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Eaton. On today's show, Trump starts staffing his administration with some of the worst people you know. And he also wants a Senate majority leader who will let him appoint whoever he wants for his cabinet, administration, and even the judiciary without any Senate confirmation.
We'll also get into what we know and still don't know about Trump's plans for a second term, including the prospects for exacting revenge on his political enemies. Then New York Congressman Pat Ryan, one of the Dems who hung on in a very tough district by quite a lot, stops by to talk to Tommy about how he pulled it off and what lessons the party needs to learn if we want to actually hold power again. Wouldn't that be nice? That's how it's pronounced power. Power. Power. But first, votes are still being counted in key Senate and House races. Here's what we know as of Monday afternoon California time. In the Senate, Ruben Gallego has just about won in Arizona, though the race hasn't been officially called by anyone but Decision Desk HQ.
I think Kerry likes to run out of runway there with the votes coming in. Yeah. Bob Casey is still behind in Pennsylvania. And while the AP has called the race, many other outlets have not. And Casey hasn't conceded because of the amount of votes still out there. There's like 100,000 votes. A lot of votes. A lot of votes. Take your time. Take your time.
California's districts are like 38%, 45%. What's going on here? I know. Well, you know, it's Northern California. That's the real problem. LA County is doing much better than Alameda's at 40%. What's going on up there? I don't know. Consequently, Chuck Schumer did not invite Casey's Republican challenger, Dave McCormick, to Senate orientation, though he didn't invite Gallego either. I'm not even going to get into that. Again, we're talking here about a 47-seat minority versus a 48-seat minority for Democrats. In the House, unfortunately, the fight to eke out a Democratic majority is...
All but over, Colorado Democrat Yadira Caraveo conceded her race. The count right now, according to the AP, is 204 Democrats to 214 Republicans, with 17 seats still undetermined. Democrats might still win a bunch of these uncalled races, but right now it's looking like a very narrow Republican majority. Maybe even just one or two seats, smaller than last time, but still a majority. Anything you guys have seen out there about the race counts that's particularly hopeful or interesting?
Nothing hopeful on the majority front, to be honest. I mean, there's a glimmer of hope in one of the California races we're waiting on, which is George Whitesides is a little ahead of the moment. The Republican incumbent, Mike Garcia, won that seat by six points in 2022, which gave me a little hope maybe that like Derek Tran, Dave Mann, Will Rollins, and the other California Dems that we're waiting on vote totals for might pull it out, but we don't know. I know. I saw that like Derek Tran had a couple good ballot dumps, and then I think he fell behind again against Michelle Steele. I do think one just like, look, there's been a lot of quick and dirty takes about does field matter? Does organizing matter? And then you look and you see that like...
Dave Minn may eke it out. Some of those races in Nevada, we're going to eke it out. And you just think like those house races where a bunch of people from that listen to the show got on buses and went knocked on doors, like it will make a difference and it will make Republicans jobs harder. Also with Danny Baldwin in Wisconsin, in Michigan, we had a number of Senate candidates who just, you know, Jackie Rosen in Nevada, who hung on by the skin of their teeth. Good candidates, good campaigns do matter. I mean, Carrie Lake is going to underperform Donald Trump by eight points.
That's an enormous margin. Which is some of the worst underperformance of any other Republican except Deb Fischer, who underperformed in relation because of Dan Osborne, and Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz underperformed Trump by more than Carrie Lake. I want Colin to run back in an off year. Exactly. That's what makes you think if Colin Allred was running in a midterm, he could have done it. So we saw how difficult it was for Mike Johnson to get things through the last Congress, and his margin this time might be even tighter. A two or three seat majority in the Senate isn't that big either. How are you guys thinking about how much the final numbers matter here and sort of the margins that Republicans will have in both houses?
I mean, a very slim majority is tough to manage. And we've seen Speaker Johnson fumble the bag over the last couple of years a few times. That said, I'm worried that Johnson's job gets easier when he feels that he is implementing the Trump agenda or when Trump feels like he is implementing the Trump agenda. And he has a bunch of members who are worried primarily about Trump figuring out a primary challenger to them if they don't go along with what he says. Now, long term, that means that you could have a bunch of moderates taking a lot of bad votes that hurt them in the midterms. So that's a reason to be hopeful two years from now. But in the short term, it feels like they will be a little more pliant.
Yeah, I don't know. I'm not sure. Look, I think a slimmer majority is better. There will be, I think. It also, I think, depends on what happens with Trump's popularity, right? Like what happens if he starts to implement other policies that start to draw a backlash? I also think just how pliant the Senate is matters, right? Because you could imagine House Republicans kind of just passing things along and then the hope is that they get killed in the Senate. But I'm not as sure of that this time. And you have, we'll get to it, but Republican candidates for majority leader kind of bending over backwards to suck Trump's conch. So it's very like, please, please, please, sir. You know? And so I don't know. 2024 is a different vibe.
Just trying to be the liberal Joe Rogan over here. Classic. Such a bro. Such a bro. Do you think that I wouldn't? I guess I wouldn't have said that to Kamala one. But I would have said it before. True. Yeah, Trump is basically, we'll get into this, but he's basically going to be running the House and the Senate. He's never been known to be a master legislator, so that's a cause for hope. And I do think, like Tommy said, a lot of these Republican, I don't even want to call them moderates, we'll call them frontline members. But they are going to be very vulnerable in 2026. And it's going to be, you know, either like the rest of the House.
and Senate bend to their will to try to keep them from losing in 2026? Or what's more likely in the Republican Party, they just make them take all those bad votes? Well, I think what I suspect, because I do think they're going to be very worried about drawing the evil eye, as Tommy mentioned, but at the same time, they're going to be afraid of taking some really hard votes, as you see kind of behind the scenes wrangling to try to kind of take out the most offensive parts of some of these proposals and then and then get them through. And Trump doesn't give a fuck. So it's clear victory. Until Trump makes them pass the no elections until I say so act of 2024. Yeah, I do think in the Senate is 47 versus 48 here. So you got to think.
The Republican majority in the Senate is built on having Susan Collins, who's going to be up again and maybe retiring and has always been more moderate than the rest of her colleagues. Lisa Murkowski, same thing. So on some of the real crazy shit, you may lose Collins and Murkowski and Tom Tillis, right? Who's going to be up in North Carolina, a state that when all is said and done, looks like it performed better than some of the other swing states like Arizona and didn't swing. nearly as much to the right as the rest of the country. So, you know, those three are senators to watch on some of the, again, they're going to go along with most of the shit, but on some of the truly crazy shit, I would watch those three and figure out the final count is just really see how much trouble we're in. One thing we do know about the new Trumpier Republican Senate is that it's going to be very easy for Trump to get his top positions filled with whoever he wants. Trump has already made.
quite a few staff announcements. Campaign manager Susie Wiles will be his White House chief of staff, a position that does not require Senate confirmation. Essentially, Wiles has already served as Trump's chief of staff since 2021 when he was in political exile in Florida, even from Republicans in the wake of January 6th. She's a former lobbyist known for working behind the scenes. She's like a very well-known, very well-respected political operative in Florida, maybe one of the best political operatives in Florida. Even Democrats have praised her skills. Yeah, but second place is just an alligator with a hat. And of course, she's being given credit for running Trump's most disciplined campaign yet. How are we feeling about Susie Wiles, guys?
I'm going to take away. I think he chose a confidant and a MAGA insider versus a relative outsider. Like even Reince Priebus, John Kelly, Mick Mulvaney, Mark Meadows, previous chiefs of staff. Those guys were seen as knowing how the party worked or Congress worked or being a general that could like install discipline in some way. And she's just, you know, she's a well-known Republican, but someone who is a part of MAGA world and respected. And apparently the Don Jr. and the kids wanted her to get the job. So I could view it two ways. Like the glass half full version is she's not a total right wing ideologue. Could have been Stephen Miller, who will be her deputy. That really sucks. But, you know, it could have been worse. Wiles was once a moderate. She started working with Jack Kemp at the beginning of her career. I don't know what she...
believe now. The glass half empty version, though, is that she has proven to be incredibly effective and she can be the kind of person that helps them get done things they failed to get done last time because Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner were fighting in the news or whatever. So I don't know. We'll see. It's also a question of whether she survives all of those other assholes and the knife fighting and all that kind of stuff. Yeah, that was sort of what I went back and looked at what the write-ups were when Reince Priebus.
We forget how far the Republican Party has shifted to Trump because a lot of that discussion was about how Priebus was an olive branch to House Republicans and Senate Republicans. He was an establishment person. And my fear about someone like Susie Wiles is in the first Trump administration, you had the establishment types that were there in their minds to kind of straightjacket Trump. And then you have the kooks who were there to let Trump loose, but were pretty incompetent. And I feel like now, not only does Trump have control of the Republican Party, no olive branch is needed. In fact, the branches are coming the other fucking direction. It's more competent.
advisors who believe it is their job to implement Trump's vision. And that to me is what's scary about Susie Wiles, because she does. She is just a behind the scenes operator. She is a former lobbyist. And by the way, that's a word that I would be using more. Susie Wiles is a lobbyist. But yeah, that was my concern.
Pending all my hopes on Suzy Wiles, it shows you how bad everything is, you know? I'm like, it is. It's like, would I rather Suzy Wiles in charge than Stephen Miller or Stephen Bannon? Yes, of course. Michael Cruz at Politico had a great profile of her in April, a very long profile in Politico. She also worked for Romney, Mitt Romney at some point. She's a self-described moderate working for Trump. First woman to ever be chief of staff. That is shocking. Oh, wow. Also, Pat Summerall's daughter. Yeah. Crazy. A lot of that profile was about sort of her relationship with him. And Carlos Cabello, who's the former Republican congressman from Florida, who like lost and then became sort of a never-Trumper, said if Donald Trump is going to be president, I want Suzy Wiles involved. So, you know, on the scale from...
Inmates running the asylum to Committee to Save America. Remember Committee to Save America? They're back. You know, the first time around, I'll tell you, though, we all did this. We're like, oh, the Committee to Save America. Why don't they just come out and say he's awful and resign and all their excuses about we're just there to try to prevent the bad stuff from happening. I've had a bit of a change of heart. Now, if there's people there who want to be the Committee to Save America and want to try to stop bad things from happening, you stick around. Stick around. Do your best. Do your best.
One of Susie Wiles' deputies will be Santa Monica's own Stephen Miller, Trump's former head speechwriter, who will now have the title Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. He'll be in charge of Trump's deportation agenda, along with Tom Homan, who's Trump's former acting head of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, who will now be Trump's Borders Are. Homan is out there acknowledging that the deportations will be large scale, but he told Fox News on Sunday it's going to be a, quote, humane operation, and the Sunday Times of London that they're first, quote, going to concentrate on the worst of the worst, and that it's going to be a lot different to what the liberal media... is saying it's going to be. Any idea what you guys think this might look like in reality? I mean, I think this is sort of the worst case when it comes to immigration. I talked to Jacob Soberoff a couple weeks ago on Pod Save the World. He is a great NBC reporter who did a lot of reporting on a book about the family separation policy. And he said that Tom Homan was one of the main drivers of family separation in the Trump administration. And the combination of Tom Homan and Stephen Miller make me fear the absolute worst when it comes to immigration and mass deportation. And I think it's just good to remember that mass deportation is family separation on steroids. And Homan has vowed to run, quote, the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen.
So they're not scaling this back. It's not also reassuring that the person who was a champion of family separation is describing this as humane. A former acting director of ICE under Obama just noted that there aren't a million quote unquote criminals to get. If you're starting to talk about those numbers, you're talking about separating families. There are 4.5 million mixed status households. These are people that will be swept up in it. I do like they are there. Donald Trump has said every.
single version of what this could look like, right? He's described it as targeting the worst. He's describing it as getting all undocumented people in the country out. And my fear about how this unfolds is they start with more targeted approaches. They try to excite a liberal backlash that they can paint as being a bunch of out-of-touch progressives trying to defend the worst criminals. They kind of inure the public to slowly rising numbers of mass deportations until we are seeing far more people being removed from the country and it becomes almost routine. So that is my fear. And the way they're talking about this, they're trying to gin up that kind of...
The liberals are losing their minds. We're not going to do anything. That's my fear. Yeah. So just to dig into what they've said so far, what he said, what they said, he has said.
that, he told 60 Minutes this in an interview before the election, that they don't want to do family separation, that families can be deported together to avoid separation. And he wants to go into sanctuary cities, go after sanctuary cities, said that if state or local officials block them and won't offer help from the police, that he said, that's fine. ICE will just do it alone without police help. He didn't say anything about it. He said no military police needed, just ICE. He's got a lot of faith in ICE. Obviously, he's a former ICE guy. He said, quote, to CBS, it's not going to be a mass sweep of neighborhoods. It's not going to be building concentration camps. I've read it all. It's ridiculous. And then, of course, he said he classifies the worst of the worst as people on the terrorist watch list.
criminal threats get prioritized. Which, by the way, the idea that the Biden administration is allowing undocumented immigrants who've committed violent crimes to just run free by choice and not because they haven't been able to be found by law enforcement is insane. But anyway, so that's what he says. And then, you know, Project 2025, they specifically cite the first round of undocumented immigrants they want to go after are people who committed felonies, crimes of violence, DUIs, and previous removals. So if you have been removed once before. Obviously, then Remain in Mexico will come back, which is Trump's policy of if you are going to come here and ask for asylum instead of coming over the border and being detained here or allowed to stay here, you have to
to say in Mexico, Biden rescinded that. So they'll bring that back. What's still unknown, and this is the big stuff here, what happens with TPS status? Vance and Trump both said they were going to rescind TPS status. That's what a lot of the Haitian migrants have in Ohio and Springfield, but also a lot of other places. So they want to basically rescind. So they have said in the campaign they would rescind TPS, but we don't. Just to clarify what TPS is, TPS is temporary protected status, which is something that's given to a group of people that are coming here from a country that is so dangerous, you cannot return them to that country.
So like Haiti, ever since the assassination of the president was in 2021, has descended into war zone like levels of violence. And the idea of just plucking people out of Ohio and sending them on planes back to Haiti and acting like they're going to be OK there is ludicrous. And these people are, you know, they're legal again. And Trump advanced and the rest of them say they're not legal because they think that the action of giving them temporary protected status was illegal, is what they're saying, which is insane. Also unknown what happens with the dreamers, undocumented children of immigrants. Also just the working law abiding undocumented immigrants who've been here for years, decades. We don't know what's going to happen with people served in the military. Yeah. So those are all.
big question marks. They, of course, haven't said anything about them yet, but we will see. But just like that CBS interview is such bullshit. The idea that this process is going to be neat and tidy and families are going to go together as a package and people are going to do everything they can to protect their kids, to hide them, to give themselves up, to protect their families. Like, give me a fucking break. This is going to be family separation everywhere. Right. It's sort of a, well, if you don't want us to separate your family, your child who speaks English has never been to Mexico, can leave with you and start a new life from scratch in a country that your child does not know. Or you can leave your children behind and your spouse, potentially. Look, I think this is...
This is where, like, really good reporting is going to come into play here because, like you said, they are, like, if they start deporting and making a big show of deporting people who have committed violent crimes here, then, you know, the liberal backlash will only help them, you know? But what we're going to have to really watch for is, you know, them making a big show of that but then quietly deporting, you know, children and other people who, you know, any other Democratic administration or even normal Republican administration would, you know, provide a path of citizenship for. Trump rescinded the family separation order. Yes. Under backlash and scrutiny and negative press. And just, you know, sometimes we act as though gravity doesn't apply to him. He didn't like I looked on TV. Right. Yeah.
Trump announced over the weekend that he will not be inviting either Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo to join his administration. I guess because he enjoys publicly humiliating people who ran against him or fought about running against him in Pompeo's case. He will instead be nominating the sycophantic moderate turned MAGA Congresswoman Elise Stefanik to be UN ambassador. The New York Republican is currently the House conference chair. That's number three in the House. And her departure would narrow the House majority even further and trigger a special election. Tommy, what do we know about her foreign policy views? And what does this signal, if anything, about Trump's foreign policy writ large? I don't know that we know that much about her foreign policy views. I mean, there's part of me that thinks that Trump naming Elise Stefanik to the UN might be the first and last time he ever says her name, you know, just forgets that she exists.
In reality, she will probably use the perch to do a bunch of high profile things to defend Israel in various ways and like reaffirm her bona fides there. Like she did at the hearings with the college presidents about anti-Semitism. What this signals to me about foreign policy, I think is important. Like the Nikki Haley thing didn't surprise me. She ran against him. She stayed in a long time. She didn't kiss the ring. And he knows he can't trust her. Yeah, totally right. He doesn't trust her. He's not trustworthy. Right. Pompeo, though, was like, he's a MAGA loyalist. And I think it's an important signal about the direction they're going. And I reached out to someone who's a very close Trump watcher to say, like, what do you think this means? And this person said, this means that Don Jr. and J.D. Vance are in charge of personnel right now.
The Pompeo in particular to me felt like those guys taking like a neocon establishment head, cutting it off and sticking it on a pike for all others to see as they think about applying to jobs in the administration. And it suggests that this time around, the national security team will not be retired four-star generals and Jim Madison, like squishy business guys like Rex Tillerson. It is going to be America first. Ideologues. And all those people are going to be like, that's just don't even come near here. That's yeah. Like last time, he was America first on the streets, establishing cuck in the sheets. I mean, so it doesn't go well for Ukraine. It suggests Trump will pull U.S. troops out of Syria, Somalia. If I lived in Taiwan or South Korea, I would be nervous. And not all of this is bad. I mean, I think there is popular support for some parts of this agenda. There's clearly some of the like.
you know, war on terror, U.S. military establishment, you know, infrastructure that should be sunsetted at some point. But I think also silver lining that John Bolton is not going to be an administration silver lining that ultra hawks like Tom Cotton are not even applying for jobs. But I viewed it as a big signal. I was sort of surprised that Marco Rubio keeps getting floated for a potential national security job because I'm like, I know he is now extremely Trumpy, but he's still a neocon enough that I feel like he does not quite fit with the America First. Yeah, but he's been brought to heel. I mean, at least Stefanik would, I think, had she been around longer before she made her turn, been a Marco Rubio type, at least by instinct. But they've shown themselves to be quite
Just on the U.N. piece, the U.N. relies on the U.S. for about a third of its budget. There's all these component parts to it that matter a lot to people like us. We do half the funding for the World Food Program. They'll probably pull out of the Paris Climate Accords. UNRWA, which does all the humanitarian relief in Gaza and the surrounding areas for Palestinians, will probably get gutted again. Guess an RFK Jr. is not a big fan of the World Health Organization, which is a part of the U.N., so there could be a lot of changes. You know, Elise Stefanik vacating that seat. Now, she won the district by quite a bit, but I don't know. It's 80 days by New York state law to schedule a special election after she officially vacates the seat.
you start off your first 100 days of the administration with one less seat in an already very thin House majority. Also, that's before any other potential Republican House members. It's a little dicey. It's getting close to the House majority there. Yeah, yeah. I can see why she wants the job, though. Oh, yeah. It's just sort of like being in opposition is fun. She loved being in opposition to Democrats. Now she gets to be in opposition to the UN and all that it represents to the right. It was also, it's funny to think, too, like...
That was Nikki Haley's job. Yeah. And now we've shifted from him putting in place kind of more establishment type Republicans to someone who is completely loyal to him. So Trump just announced he's nominating another New Yorker who was in Congress, a former congressman, Lee Zeldin, to be the EPA administrator. A lot of New Yorkers get the nod. Tom Homan also from New York. His lifetime score from the League of Conservation of Voters is a whopping 14 percent. 14 percent better than a lot of Republicans. What do we know about Zeldin aside from the fact that he's a Trump loyalist and lost the governor's race to Kathy Hochul?
I don't really know that we need to know much. He's expressed some climate skepticism, though he did join a Climate Solutions Caucus. Interesting that we're going with Lee Zeldin, who's not like, doesn't have a big record on environmental issues. The previous head of the EPA was a coal lobbyist. That was who was there the first term. But I think we can just expect, there's also somebody who voted against certifying the elections, a Trumpy guy. And don't worry, coal enthusiasts, you'll still have your, you'll be fine. But I think he is being sent there to gut climate and clean energy regulations with gusto. And that is what he will do, right? That is the plan. Again, what the people asked for in the election. One last top government job to cover.
Trump and Fed chair Jerome Powell famously did not get along. After appointing Powell in 2017, Trump reportedly spent the rest of his administration second-guessing the decision. That's new. And in 2018, per the Wall Street Journal, Powell even considered footing his own legal bills to hold onto the job if Trump fired him. Now the question is whether Trump is still flirting with firing Powell, whose term ends in 2026. Some of Trump's supporters want him to. Powell has a different idea. Here he is at a news conference last Thursday. Some of the president-elect's advisors have suggested that you should resign. If he asked you to leave, would you go? No.
Can you follow up on, do you think that legally you're not required to leave? No. I believe the president has the power to fire or demote you, and has the Fed determined the legality of a president demoting at will any of the other governors with leadership positions? Not permitted under the law. Not permitted under the law. I love that that's it. That's all he gave. No, no, not permitted under the law. What do you guys think Trump will do here? Fucking nuts. What can he do? Well, I mean, look, Republicans believe that Democrats can't fire anyone. Republicans can fire whoever they want, right? They believe that federal power rests solely in the executive and that if Congress has tried to limit that, that's an unconstitutional use of their power. So I'm sure they would want to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if they could. The question is, does he want that fight? I have no fucking idea. I love a scrappy nerd. Yeah. You know, battle back. I feel like there's three options. Trump says, I'm firing you for a cause. They battle it out in a conservative court. Trump probably wins that.
Second, he could ask, you know, supporters in Congress to put forward legislation, putting the Fed fully under his control. I think Mike Lee, Republican senator, has put forward such a proposal in the past. Or the like super authoritarian version is have some Treasury staffers go down to his office, pack up his shit, put it on the sidewalk and be like... You're gone. I think that my guess on this one is that Trump doesn't do it. Well, so a senior advisor told CNN he's likely to let Powell stay. But, you know, it's Trump world. So who knows what the senior advisors take them out there, take it with a grain of salt. I think that the Supreme Court has ruled before that if Congress has created the agency that's independent, the president doesn't have the authority to do this. But we'll see. And I think that Trump probably doesn't want the fight. Although.
You know, just wait until people are pissed that interest rates haven't come down fast enough, even though he's going to do, you know, another rate cut and people are still pissed about high mortgage interest rates and car loans and all that kind of stuff. And then Trump gets mad. And, you know, I guess then we'll see. I guess my Trump like Trump. That's what he did as president. We've lived through this already. He likes to work the refs at the feds. He wants to kind of push them and push them and push them. So we'll see if that gets him what he wants or if he feels like he's done enough or if he wants to go further. But I take the markets. Right. Does he want to have the fight? Does he want to have the fight? Right. Right. Knowing that the fight could affect the markets and he doesn't want he doesn't want that.
On election night, we will all be feeling a lot of feelings. Do not spend it alone. Spend it with me, Alex Wagner, for Crooked Media Presents Live Election Results. We're going to have Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vitor, Stacey Abrams, Dan Pfeiffer, Aaron Ryan, and many more special guests to be announced. And they're all going to help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3rd at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.
One position that Trump's trying to exert control over is Republican Senate majority leader. Rhino Trump hater Mitch McConnell is stepping down. Not going to have Mitch to cook around anymore. And going into the weekend, it seemed like the frontrunners to replace him were South Dakota's John Thune and Texas's John Cornyn, both of whom have served in Senate leadership for quite a while. But then Trump posted over the weekend that whoever becomes leader needs to be willing to adjourn the Senate so that Trump can staff his cabinet and administration without Senate confirmation, a maneuver known as recess appointments. Thune and Cornyn kind of sort of agreed, but not as enthusiastically as Florida Senator Rick Scott, who had been a dark horse candidate until MAGA World decided that he's their favorite, and the other two are now rhinos. Scott has now gotten endorsement.
from Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr., Charlie Kirk, Vivek, the whole gang, the whole gang. Benny Johnson even posted a whip count to pressure Republican senators. So far, Scott has actual Senate endorsements from five senators, including Marco Rubio. Playbook reported this morning that the outside pressure to elect Scott is creating a backlash among Senate Republicans who will be voting for this position via secret ballot. But what do you guys think? Does the secret ballot save the people who don't want Scott?
I don't think so. I mean, we're talking about 100 people. That's what I think. Not about 53 people. Yeah, right. Sorry, you're right. I mean, the 100 senators. I mean, this is not going to be that hard. Like, journalists do whip counts. They're going to ask, who did you vote for? That's what's going to happen. They're going to haul them on TV. You go to in front of Sean Hannity, you tell us who you voted for. Yeah, so I don't know. And I don't have any faith in these guys finding a spine because, you know, again, Trump can find someone who's up in 2026, float a primary challenge to them, they freak out and move on.
One of the rhino cucks that the mag world went after for his support of John Thune, Josh Hawley is getting shit. I love it. I really like it's all just sort of like they've decided Rick Scott is better versus these other two. Part of me at some point thinks like Trump is going to have to brush back the Elon Tucker public kind of wrangling to make clear the decisions are coming from him. I bet it's coming from Don Jr. to those guys. Do you think Elon Musk has, we'll talk about this in a second, do you think Elon Musk has ever thought about recess appointments before he tweeted about the other day? I'm guessing zero. No, he's being fed this for sure. It feels coordinated. I mean, also, could you talk one second about what a failure?
Mitch McConnell is. Because he was like, he didn't vote to impeach. He turtled at every Trump demand because he said he wanted to protect the institution of the Senate and protect the party. Well, now your power is getting gutted, buddy. Great job. Now your boss is going to be Rick Scott. Maybe. Because we did a fair amount of blaming Joe Biden, and I'm glad we did that. But Mitch McConnell deciding, he is the reason we're here. Because I do think, like, if Nikki Haley had been the candidate or one of these other Republicans had been the candidate, I'm not sure they would have done worse. I think they probably would have done it a lot better, and then we wouldn't be dealing with Donald Trump's bullshit and chaos for four years. That is on Mitch McConnell. Practical difference between Majority Leader Thune or Cornyn and Majority Leader Scott?
I mean, I think it's like, I think with Scott, it's just, well, first of all, Scott's an idiot. But it's also, it would be like, there's zero daylight between Rick Scott and Donald Trump. And I don't think there'd be much daylight between John Thune or John Cornyn and Donald Trump. But again, when we're talking like, if we're talking really crazy shit from Donald Trump, like at the extremes, like you could imagine a Thune or a Cornyn not wanting to default on the debt or something like that. I don't know. This goes back to what I mean. There's one point I just wanted to make too, because this is why the KCC matters. But if KCC doesn't eke it out, you can't imagine votes where they let a Tillis, a Collins, and a Murkowski go and bring J.D. Vance in to break the tie, right? And then it really is about...
what the Senate majority is willing to do with his majority, right? And I do think Rick Scott is, for that reason, I think a little bit more sleazy than the other two, which is probably what Tucker and the rest of them have figured out as well. Yeah, I mean, look, I think it's the difference between having a leader in the Senate who has respect for the institution and respect for himself and one who does not. And there are probably some very fringe, unqualified people that could get through a Rick Scott-led Senate, but not a John Thune. led Senate, like a lot of even NAGA types think Laura Loomer is toxic. You know, whenever she was on a plane with Trump at the end, apparently, according to Tim Albert is reporting, there were lots of even NAGA people that were like, hey, get her off. She's toxic. Rick Scott recently went on her podcast and defended her. So, you know, the maybe some bright side for Democrats is Rick Scott is a repellent figure. He has proven himself to be very bad at politics. And at a time when there is this big populist surge, this is a dude who ran a company that defrauded Medicare. You know, I mean, he's like, he's like the richest member of the Senate or one of the richest. He fined $1.7 billion at the time. He also put forward that plan.
to gut Medicare and Social Security. That became a huge liability that all these Republicans had to run away from. I realize that Trump is the billionaire rich guy who doesn't code as a billionaire. But we've got Elon, Rick Scott. It's getting really... Lobbyist Susie Wiles. A lot of oligarchs out there.
I do think, you know, I'm looking forward to hopefully all of these people eventually knifing each other. The Elons, the Trumps, the Don Juniors, the Rick Scotts. The honeymoon can't last forever. Elon jumping on calls with Zelensky. Jesus Christ. He did such good work at Twitter. Let's talk about the recess appointment thing, because maybe it doesn't matter who is the majority leader in the Senate, because Trump gets everyone confirmed without the Senate. Anyone want to briefly explain what a recess appointment is and whether Trump can actually staff his cabinet and confirm judges without the Senate? So, recess appointment.
The Constitution allows the president to fill vacancies when the Senate is in recess. It's been something that, what does it mean for the Senate to be in recess? That has been something that's been litigated and controversial. The Obama administration tried to use recess appointments when the Senate was adjourned, but they had technically not been in recess because Republicans were trying to stop the Obama administration from filling vacancies. The court ruled against the Obama administration in that fight, but basically it boils down to, this is what you've seen Cornyn and Thune and Rixcon talking about, is basically what happens if Democrats don't allow the Senate to adjourn.
keep it in a kind of pro forma session because they don't have enough to break a filibuster to get the Senate out. What will Donald Trump do and what will Senate Republicans do? And the question is, will Senate Republicans use kind of procedural maneuvers to get around this rule to allow Trump to fill cabinet vacancies, fill lower office vacancies and potentially even fill judicial vacancies up to and including the Supreme Court? Steve Ladek, who is a legal expert, been on strict scrutiny a bunch. He thinks that.
the motion to adjourn is not subject to filibuster and that you don't need, that it doesn't matter what the Democrats want because all you need is a simple majority. You need the Senate majority leader, who in this case would be Thun Scott or Cornyn, to just say, we're in recess, adjourn the Senate, and then Trump can just confirm anyone he wants. So what's interesting about that is... That may be what they get to, but that's not like even Cornyn was saying if the Democrats try to keep the Senate in session, we'll make them vote. We'll make them stay. Well, I just like, yeah, like maybe let's keep Vladek's fucking peace away from Cornyn. But the filling judicial vacancies thing is scary because there's even that Vladek was talking about how long those appointments would last. And even if those appointments that just last until the end of the next congressional session, because that's what they're supposed to. If you do a judge, you know, it's not the judge gets a lifetime appointment through recess appointments. It would they would have to eventually be confirmed once the Senate adjourns, which would be in the end of the next session.
Or recess appointed. Right, if Donald Trump just keeps winning. Right, so that would just be the ability of Donald Trump to put anyone on the court without any check whatsoever. As long as the Republicans in power, basically. Once a Democratic Senate or a Democratic president came to power, all those judges would then have to be. Yeah, of course, for the next two years. Oh yeah, oh yeah. The thing you need to know is recess appointments made sense when the Senate was first formed and the Senate was not in session for months at a time and people were riding to Washington on horseback, right? So the president needed to be able to fill slots. That authority has been narrowed over time, as Lovett noted. But I think in practice, what this means is all the people running for Senate Majority Leader, all these Republicans, are just handing over.
a giant part of their job. They're just taking the knee, bending the knee to Donald Trump on day one, saying our advising consent authority to vote on your nominees and vet them and hold hearings. We'll happily give it up if you'll be nice to us. Yeah. And you know what? I'll say this is in terms of public outrage or whatever. I think it is a smart thing for them to do because I do not think.
And this is why we are big on getting rid of the filibuster, because it's one that I do not think the public will care about or there'll be backlash to. People don't usually give a shit about process stuff. And so a bunch of people screaming, they're like, oh, the Senate has been adjourned. What are we going to do now? It depends on who he nominates. The scary thing here is the idea that Trump has a 53 or 52 seat Senate majority and still needs to do all these recess appointments. Like he should be able to confirm a lot of these folks with just a majority vote unless he wants, you know, Mike Flynn to come back and some of the real fucking kooks. So I yeah. So then the question is, right, like these guys are bending over backwards because they want this.
job. They are leaving themselves out when they, like at least Thune and Cornyn did when they, when they, when they talked about this to basically say how fast they want to move and to lay it at the feet of Democrats. They want to blame Democrats. I think there will be some nominees that Republicans genuinely would like to stop. And then there are some nominees that Republicans don't particularly like, but are more worried about the politics for themselves and would happily allow them to be a recess appointment. That said, we went this, we went through this before. And also Donald Trump can also do a lot of acting positions, right? A lot of options. So I like, I'm worried about it too, because I don't, it's not very, it's.
very disheartening to see these guys immediately just say like, no, no, no, the Senate doesn't exist anymore. You know, you can govern by fiat. We're fine. But at the same time, he has a lot of ways to get around this without ever having to get to recess appointments. And I assume that's what they'll want to do in most cases. Yeah, it's just instructive. I think that like hour one is just filled with these power graphs. Oh, I'm taking the Fed, taking recess appointments. I want all these things. I mean, it sort of confirms a lot of the worst authoritarian concerns about him. Yeah, yeah. Trump also truth that he doesn't want Republicans to approve Biden judicial nominees in a lame duck session before Democrats lose power. Like, OK, there was no danger of that anyway, but he can't control that. No, I mean, the only the only.
thing he can do, right? I saw some questions like, will Republicans be absent during this time? And that will allow Democrats to get to some votes quicker. And then there's Joe Manchin, who said he will not confirm anybody that doesn't have Republican support. So this would prevent... Basically, there might be some judges that could have garnered some kind of Republican support. Donald Trump saying this makes that nearly impossible. So then it really comes down to what Kyrsten Sinema is willing to do in the last couple of weeks. But I also think with Manchin, too, if there's been a bunch of judges in the pipeline that haven't gotten a vote, and, you know, a lot of them probably may have gotten support from their home state Republican senator, I would bet Manchin counts that as part of his support, even if they renege on it. But that's just Trump saying, you know...
his bullshit stuff. One other big topic before we get to Congressman Pat Ryan, whether Trump will make good on his threats to use the federal government to investigate, prosecute, or audit his enemies. Peter Nicholas at NBC News had a lengthy story about this. Today, there was some justifiable hand-wringing of folks like former Trump national security official Olivia Troy, who appeared in ads against him. She said she's pretty nervous, worried about threats to her or her family. Trump, of course, talked a lot about using the military on the enemy within in the latter stages of the campaign and identified Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi as being on that list, whatever that means. Trump, of course, has also said...
that success would be his revenge. On the other hand, J.D. Vance seemed to say on Joe Rogan that they'd be revoking the security clearances of the national security people who signed a letter in 2020 questioning some of the Hunter Biden laptop stuff. Might not sound like a huge deal, but it would mean a lot of people potentially losing their jobs. The NBC story also quoted Mark Zaid, a prominent D.C. lawyer who represented one of Trump's impeachment witnesses and various other anti-Trump whistleblowers, as saying he's advising certain clients to leave the country until it's clear what the new administration is going to do. First of all, just for the sake of everyone's blood pressure, what do we think counts as an enemy? Who do we think counts as an enemy here?
Seems like people who turned on him, who he views as directly responsible for something around the 2020 election. I mean, I think if I were Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, I'd be pretty worried about lawfare. But, you know, there's a more expansive list depending on who's in charge of, you know, which personnel gets picked. There's this guy, Cash Patel, who was a sort of hardcore MAGA sycophant. He has said on a podcast with Steve Bannon, quote, we are going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens.
who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly. We'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice. Cash Mattel, someone who's been floated for CIA director, FBI director, top national security jobs. Mike Flynn, former national security advisor, tweeted a threat at Barack Obama. Trump has threatened retaliation against Michelle Obama. So we don't know. It's the honest answer. Yeah, I just want to take a second. One week ago, we recorded our pod before the election about how hopeful we were. And it's one week later, and we are trying to figure out who exactly...
constitutes an enemy. And that is terrifying. And so, like, I don't know that we can't take the blood pressure down just yet. And I don't know that we should. Like, what strikes me from what they've been saying is basically going after people's clearances is something they can do pretty easily. And I think one thing we have learned over the years is when you start going after somebody's clearances, it's true of Donald Trump, also true of Hillary Clinton, also true of Joe Biden. You find lapses. You find mistakes. You go through what Olivia Troy has said in every media appearance for a year. You know, they can drum up something to claim she violated some security clearance and revealed some classified information. And so I do think that, like, that alone is pretty terrifying, right? Because there's, I don't know how many...
hundreds of thousands, millions of people that are clear. Too many people have clearances, as Tommy's talked about. And that like the chilling effect of this, all these people who's either their jobs depend on having a clearance because they're inside the government or outside of the government or they're outside of government now and commentating and afraid of what happens if they speak honestly about Donald Trump for fear that they'll be targeted for abusing their clearance. I think that that is just that before you get to some of the more outlandish and wild accusations is pretty scary. Yeah, there's also a version of this where it's like Trump at his events started making a part of his stump speech, this litany of complaints about Nancy Pelosi and stock trades. So you can imagine him directing DOJ or the SEC to investigate.
her for insider trading. But there's a softer version that's similar to what you're saying about it, which is like, I don't know, you just put out word to all the big law firms in town that anyone who worked for Jack Smith or for the Biden TOJ, you shouldn't hire them if you want any, you know, business before us, stuff like that. So like, there's a less authoritarian version that's just sort of intimidation. Yeah, which is still pretty authoritarian, right? Because I do think, right, all this could happen. Let's talk about like the politics for the Trump administration, right? Because let's pretend that let's just stipulate that Trump doesn't have a change of heart and decides to lay off everyone because he's, you know, he's seen God now that he's almost been assassinated twice, right? But there are political considerations too for doing this, right? And
If you were the Trump administration, you would probably want to not generate too much sound and furor by going after too many people or too many high profile people at once. Like, I'm just trying to think of various guardrails that could if we look back and be like, oh, he didn't end up doing all this stuff. Why not? I think it would be because you don't want to backlash from going after high profile people like the Obamas, the Bidens, people, stuff like that. Or, you know, it's there's a bunch of people in the Justice Department that are still career officials and they don't get rid of the whole Justice Department and they don't want to do this. I don't know. What do you guys think? Already, though, right?
You're just describing the people that have already tried to hold Donald Trump accountable for his malfeasance in the past. Donald Trump is running an ongoing criminal operation. This is going to be the most corrupt administration in history. And so already, just by having this gun on the mantle of threatening people and threatening enemies, even if he doesn't act on it, even if he waits, he is already going to prevent the whistleblowers that came forward in the past. They may be much more reluctant to do it this time. Because think about the people that spoke out against Donald Trump at great personal risk, testified before Congress testified at impeachment.
inquiries only to watch him be acquitted and then elected president again. We let those people down specifically. And I don't know who is going to stick their neck out. Everyone's ready to toss her over the side because Kamala dared to campaign with her once. Right. Right. Right. You know, it's fucking I mean, look, no, I totally agree. And it's very this is all operating within the realm of like it's bad. Yeah. Like it could be it could be it's like, is it going to be bad? Is it going to be worse? Is it going to be the worst? What do you guys think about potential political backlash? Do you think it wouldn't generate that much? Do you think it's not who it is? I think it's a person people haven't heard of.
It's a one day story. And then that person deals with legal bills and scary meetings with FBI people. And no one gives a fuck. Yeah, that's what I worry about. Yeah, I just, you know, we did round after round after round, which is very cynical. But we did these rounds of stories. Like we did this already. We did this already. Trump going after his enemies or his enemies going after, you know, whistleblowers going after Trump. And it generates tons of headlines, generates tons of attention, generates hearings. It even generated two impeachments. But ultimately, I think millions upon millions of people dismiss it as noise. Right. He is a convicted felon who's about to be president again.
All right, when we come back from the break, you'll hear Tommy's conversation with Congressman Pat Ryan about how he pulled off a 13-point win in a heavily targeted swing district. But before we do that, in case you missed it, the host of Strict Scrutiny, we have a new episode breaking down what last week's election means for the future of the Supreme Court and state courts. We all love Strict because it helps us make sense of how the legal system works without needing a law degree. It's smart and funny, focuses on really important issues without feeling like homework. So subscribe to Strict Scrutiny wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. When we come back, Pat Ryan.
On election night, we will all be feeling a lot of feelings. Do not spend it alone. Spend it with me, Alex Wagner, for Crooked Media Presents Live Election Results. We're going to have Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Tommy Vitor, Stacey Abrams, Dan Pfeiffer, Aaron Ryan, and many more special guests to be announced. And they're all going to help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3rd at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.
On election night, we will all be feeling a lot of feelings. Do not spend it alone. Spend it with me, Alex Wagner, for Crooked Media Presents Live Election Results. We're going to have Jon Favreau, Don Lovett, Tommy Vitor, Stacey Abrams, Dan Pfeiffer, Aaron Ryan, and many more special guests to be announced. And they're all going to help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3rd at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.
After this brutal election, we are trying to talk with as many smart people as possible about what the hell happened and how we can fix it. That is why we invited Congressman Pat Ryan to the show today to discuss his experience running and winning, overwhelmingly, I should say, in a swing district in New York. Congressman, great to see you again. Thank you guys for having me. I think it was after another election win over two years ago you had me on. And so it's awesome to be with you. Huge fan. And especially in this moment, appreciate that we're all going to do some soul searching here. Yeah, it's soul searching time. And I do want to note that we schedule this interview around your kids' nap time, which is how you know Pat is a real one and not one of those elites that we're all mad at. So you represent the 18th district.
of New York. Joe Biden won the 18th by, I think, eight points in 2020. Kamala Harris only won it by two points this cycle, while you won it by about 13 points. One of the counties you represent, Orange County, swung nine points to the right at the presidential level, but you won Orange County by seven points. So obviously you were doing something right that the presidential level was not. But just to start, can you give us a sense of the makeup of your district and who you think your voters are? Yeah, I mean, so we're an hour and a half to two hours straight north of New York City, and it's a mix of...
The southern part of my district is essentially the northern suburbs of New York City. You have NYPD cops, FDNY firefighters, a lot of folks that work in and out of New York City. And then the further north you go, you have more ex-urban, more rural, a lot of agricultural communities and farms. But we also have along the sort of tight corridor of New York City, some very affluent cities like Beacon and Rhinebeck that are highly educated and quite progressive. And then we have nine universities from Bard and Finister to West Point, my alma mater.
I think a good bellwether of the complexity of our great country, you know, and and, you know, it's about slight, slight Democratic enrollment advantage, but a huge number of independent, you know, not party aligned voters. So that's interesting. You wrote this really interesting thread about how you feel like you were able to win in this, you know, eclectic makeup, swingy district in this political climate. It was obviously terrible for Democrats. And I do want to get to that in a second. But first, I mean, I'm curious what you make of why Biden and then Harris lost so much support from 2020 to 2024, both in your district, but also across New York state, because, you know, on election day.
It was less surprising to me to see Trump win a bunch of highly contested, swingy battleground states. But it was very surprising to see Trump make huge gains in non-battleground states like New York and New Jersey. And I'm curious what you made of that. Yeah, and it's a little more complicated in New York. I think there's a huge difference between like the New York City numbers and results versus actually these battleground house districts, which we can talk about that if you want. But at the macro level, I think it's like there's two pieces. There's substance and style. On the substance, we just completely miss where people are.
Everybody, not Democrats, Republicans, not Latinos or white, not young or old. Everybody is dealing with this essentially existential affordability crisis. And if we weren't talking about that every day, I just think you weren't connecting with people around their major, major pain point that they've been dealing with for many years now. On the style too, though, I think like, I mean, I really prioritize. You talked about our Orange County numbers, which I'm super proud of.
We had lost this county by seven or eight percent two years ago. We won it by seven or eight percent. And it was because we just worked the district. Like I prioritized going to every single community there, especially the red or more Trumpy communities. We did this mobile cares van, which my staff made fun of me for. But it's like we went to all 82 of our towns over and over and over and did constituent services and did listening sessions and just really showed up and like truly listened and then did everything we could to deliver and really show the fight like that we were fighting for people. So I think like anything, it's a combo of substance and style and neither alone are both necessary. Neither alone are sufficient.
Yeah. And I want to get into both the substance and the style debates and also just be honest and acknowledge that kind of some of the tactics available to you as a member of Congress representing a district are not available to Kamala Harris, right? Because she can't go to every county or every part of the country all the time. But in your Twitter thread, you wrote, quote, it's not enough to throw these seemingly disparate policies at people. We must articulate a unifying principle and clearly tell folks who's at fault. For me, it was freedom and patriotism. And the fault lies with the same elites in both parties who have run this country for too long. First question, can you unpack the kind of freedom frame a little bit so voters know what that means or so listeners know what that means? And then second, I mean, again, just in fairness to Kamala Harris, like, do you think she could credibly deliver that kind of message?
after spending four years as the VP. Yeah, and I was feeling pretty feisty in that Twitter thread. So forgive that. I think we're all feisty right now and some other efforts. But yeah, I mean, to me, I've been obsessed with.
especially my district being the home to FDR and spent a lot of time as presidential library, got to hold his four freedom speech in my physical hands, which as a huge nerd was awesome and very impactful for me. And I think that this, in fact, I know freedom is the most unifying American value at a values level, setting aside politics and we could debate what freedom means. But if we don't start from a place of like common values alignment where people can feel they have a home to come to, even if they don't agree on every single component, we're just already. I think, hurt out of the gate. And so I talked about reproductive freedom, of course, given everything that happened in the last few years. I talked obsessively about economic freedom and echoing FDR's freedom from want. Talked about freedom to breathe clean air and water, freedom from gun violence, a lot of other freedoms. And we really, I think, gave a place for people to feel like they could come out and vote for something instead of just against something. I know all this feels like a little cliche, obviously, but we really felt that on the ground.
I think you're right. It's obviously much harder at a presidential national race to do constituent services in the way we did. But I think we have to think about that. Like it's a team sport, right? We have a team, we have a brand. And if we all work together, you can see.
People should know, oh, hey, that Democrat who's representative did a pretty good job. And I can kind of project that other Democrats would share that sort of ethos and understanding and work ethic. And I think we have a lot of room to improve clearly in that area. But I also just think it's a message discipline thing. I mean, we were just, I was obsessed with affordability and costs and talking about all the dynamics and localizing it with specificity. Like the single biggest issue I talked about was a battle with one of our local utility monopolies that had totally screwed up their billing. Like thousands of people were irreparably harmed.
savings accounts wiped out by autopay. And we actually helped people with that in a very tangible, visceral way. And I think those things matter and also show our willingness to take on big corporate power, but in a way that's not just bumper sticker, but real. Right, right. Well, staying on this economic piece and speaking of spicy statements, I'm sure you saw Bernie Sanders' statement, the Democrats have abandoned the working class. I read that statement from Bernie and on some level felt like, yeah, he has a point. Democrats need to do more to deliver for working people in this country. But on the other hand, we all know the reality is that Biden worked with Bernie to do a bunch of populist stuff, including the child tax credit.
capping insulin at 35 bucks, support for unions, the list goes on. And voters decided, no, we're going to vote against the Democrats who did the populist stuff and for the Republicans that fought against those accomplishments and voted against those accomplishments. Similarly, they saw Joe Biden walk on a picket line with unions and they voted for Donald Trump, who says he's going to put Elon Musk, a guy who once said, I disagree with the idea of unions in charge of government efficiency or spending. And I'm wondering how you make sense of that disconnect. I still think it's a little bit, particularly for voters feeling torn or paying less attention because of all the other pressures in their lives.
it's still a little bit too policy deep and not enough sort of upstream of politics values level alignment first. And I just think we lost a group of people around not really connecting with them, whether that's the in-person ways that I talked about at a congressional house level, whether it's just actually what we choose to focus on from a message discipline perspective and what we don't choose to necessarily focus on. But I think you've got to start with the people trusting that you're for them. And if they don't think you're for them, all the rest just doesn't matter. I mean, so it's like, what can you do to really show, not tell, but show that you're for people? And in a lot of cases in my district, that was like literally helping them recover money from the IRS or getting them a passport. Or we have to figure out how to make government actually deliver for people, even if in small ways to start from a place of trust. Then you can work on the bigger complex pieces, whether that's addressing climate change, infrastructure, economic inequality. Like we can't expect people to trust us on those if we can't just like actually do the blocking and tackling well and show up over and over. And I think it's like, there's no,
shortcut here. We just actually have to rebuild ground up. Yeah. I mean, on this cultural front, you know, Andrew Breitbart, I think, famously said that politics is downstream of culture. Democrats are soul searching and attacking each other on that front, too. Some people say Democrats are elitist and annoying, and that's why we lost. Others blame COVID policies and lockdowns and masking. Others say Democrats are too focused on identity politics. Your colleague, Seth Moulton, said Democrats were too worried about offending people and not honest about voter concerns about transgender athletes and youth sports. Do any of those buckets or this broader critique seem relevant to you based on the conversations you had with real voters? I'm not like a big finger pointing negative person. Obviously,
It was a devastating loss, not just politically, but I would argue morally in the country to have Trump in the White House again. And I say this as somebody who, you know, a lot of people voted for him and voted for me in my district mathematically, but I've always been very clear and upfront about who he is and I think the threats and risks and the harm that he will do viscerally. But I just think we got to move forward. I mean, we just have to take the energy we have and talk about how to do better rather than the finger pointing and the blame. And to me, it's an actual opportunity. I know that maybe it's a little too soon to say that, but I'm trying to be glass half full and to really lean into something.
I think, unfortunately, in the next two years, we will see Trump's true colors again, as we saw for four years. And people are going to need a place to come to after they really remember and see Trump 2.0 on steroids. And we have a moment now to build that. And to me, it is a patriotic. place that we have to create. And I would argue almost like a patriotic populism. I'm still thinking about the language here. Don't hold me to that one. But I think that is the alternative. Trump is a destructive populist. We need to be, I believe, constructive and unifying and positive while still being clear about the macroeconomic inequality and the immediate economic pain around affordability people are dealing with.
Yeah, the PP party. There we go. You would love that. Well, let me try it this way. Why do you think Democrats got coded as elite? Well, Donald Trump, a guy who was like famous for being rich and elitist and famous and a former president. Because he's just real. And no, I don't know if I'm allowed to curse. Just no bullshit. Like, just be straight up and tell me if I can't curse because I'm a pretty kind of a guy. I just, I mean, there's so many already anecdotes coming out from this campaign and we've all heard them for years. Like, I don't like a lot of things. I mean, I literally read a quote today if someone views him as an authoritarian, but at least he's, you know, real or something. I'm paraphrasing.
It is, again, connecting on that level of are you for us? Or are you part of the elites in both parties and in institutions of business and in other places in this country that have largely failed to help people with the pressure they're dealing with? And he is the one person who, or one of the few, who has really understood that, I think, at a visceral level and maximized on it, obviously. And we've got to have our own answer to it that is not destructive. But it's just I think just be real. Like I talk all the time, especially I think there's this whole conversation about young men. I talk obsessively about a more healthy, patriotic masculinity that isn't selfish, but provides a place for all people, but especially young people and young men to feel like they can be part of something bigger than themselves. I talk to a lot of college age and high school age young people in my district, and they're all feeling like they just don't have a place. And we need to I'm obsessed with the national service and going to be working on national service legislation. I think that's one of the ways we can help get at this. Yeah, just a broader sense of community and being part of something bigger.
Yeah, I think people are desperate for it. And you think about that generation, they just essentially haven't seen it in our politics or in our country in very many ways. And I think the Democratic Party can and must be the place that offers that. Yeah, there's an ongoing debate as well about tactical decisions by the Harris campaign. We had a debate on the show about whether it was a mistake for Kamala Harris to focus at the end of the campaign on Trump's authoritarian instincts and calling him a fascist versus talking about the economy. Now that we have the election results, I feel even more.
confident that talking about the fascism piece was a mistake, but much less confident that changing that message would have made unlike any difference? You know, the related debate is like whether it was a mistake to, you know, campaign with Liz Cheney versus, I don't know, doing some other sort of economic focused event. Do you think any of those tactical decisions mattered with only 100 days to go? I mean, how do you make sense of the broader headwinds that Kamala Harris was facing? The, you know, the hangover frustration at Joe Biden versus what, you know, she could have actually controlled. I think with the time she they had and she had and the constraints to your point structurally.
They did. I think they did a very good job. I mean, just to give you a sense, like in our district, President Biden in June before his debate performance was down 8% in a district he had won by 8%. So like a massive underwater point. And then Kamala, Vice President Harris, won it by about 2%. So you think in a few months, her entering the race moved our party like 10 points, which is remarkable in a few months in a battleground district. I think we can all, I mean, my campaign, lots of things we would tactically could improve on, but I think they did a very good job.
it's it's we got to zoom out and have the more macro conversation we've you know we're having up to this point in my view in terms of um substance and style on connecting with the economic pain people are feeling um and giving them both short and long term hope again that somebody gets it and is on the case just on this cultural piece i mean we're about the same age you know like early 40s i might say mid for me um you served in the military all subjective you served in the military i certainly did not but like i don't know i i grew up kind of bro-y, like I played football and lacrosse and read barstool sports and love the Patriots and the Red Sox. You know what I mean? And it feels like guys who look like us, like sort of white men, are fleeing the Democratic Party. They think we're annoying. They think we care about cancel culture. I don't know. Maybe they hated the COVID lockdown rules. I mean, when you're talking to younger men, what do you hear from them about why they think Democrats are now lame? Because we should be honest, they think we're lame. They think it's lame to be a Democrat. They think Trump is cool and kind of rock and roll and counterculture. And we just like lost that mantle. Yeah, I think it's...
I have a lot of, I'm part of a big Irish Catholic family. So I talk with a lot of my younger cousins and the oldest of like 20 something, we've all lost count cousins. So I talk with them a lot as a little sort of focus group that they don't know they're participating in. And yeah, it is cultural, but it's more the things they've seen in the world they've watched of our two longest wars, a financial meltdown, Trump dominating and the whole tenor and tone of our politics ushered in by Trump, but now spread far and wide. And like, I just think they're deeply understandably turned off, distrustful. You look at voter registration of young people, they're largely registering unaffiliated more than either party. And anyone who presents as counter to that and an agent of change and disruption is cool. I mean, I think I get that. And I've had a very like.
to your point, more traditional, whatever you want to call it, went to West Point, served in the army, did a small business and now doing government stuff. And I think that probably they see as lame too. But I can at least come in and say, look, I love this country and I put my life on the line for this country. And I still think we're better than anyone else by far. And let's start there. And I think we've been able to, by appealing to some higher order.
patriotism, actually. I still think we're a deeply patriotic country. And we were getting there, but we didn't quite have enough time to make that far and widely known. I really worry about the masculinity piece, too. I mean, the fact that, like, Andrew Tate is this dominating force, especially among teenagers, is really worrisome. He's one of the most obnoxious, loathsome people on the internet, on the planet. But also, you know, even just saying, like, we need a more different conversation about masculinity. Like, I imagine me today going to me 20 and being like, hey, son, you want to have a conversation about masculinity? I'd be like, get the fuck away from you, dork. Like, what are you talking about? You know? Yeah, I think, yeah.
I mean, our most popular ad, which we put millions of dollars in this campaign in the New York City media market was basically like. me building Legos with my five-year-old, reading with my two-year-old, wrestling them on the floor, talking about how it's a different kind of Democrat, not necessarily on a policy level, but on that values and cultural level. And I've done a few campaigns and a lot of ads. I've never seen or felt this kind of reaction to this ad where it was actually pretty warm and pretty positive, but felt... I just think people are like, thank you for just not having negative nasty ads all the time. And I think people are actually searching for a healthier...
more, again, I think positive and I would argue patriotic alternative on masculinity, we have to offer it. And I think we can, right? Because I'm just so selfish. And so ultimately isolating, I actually think for a lot of people. Yeah, I agree that he's just a whiner. Like, that's what I don't get why these young guys like him. Like anyone, anyone who whines like that on the pickup basketball court, like that he really won the whole time, like you would hate that guy. But somehow it makes it work on the foreign policy front. I mean, only 4% of voters in exit polls said foreign policy was their top voting concern. But Trump won those voters with 55%. There's some like specific issues that clearly impacted the race.
Gaza and Ukraine. But bigger picture, the thing that's worrying to me is this sentiment now that Democrats are the pro-war party and that Trump is anti-war. And my friend, Peter Hamby, who writes for Puck and does a show on Snapchat, went to a bunch of college campuses and found kids that were genuinely worried about getting drafted, which obviously is not ever going to happen. But the fact that that was a concern that came up over and over again, I think is notable. So, you know, you went to West Point, you served two tours in Iraq, you spent time in Afghanistan, you're on the Armed Services Committee now. Where do we go wrong? And how do you think Democrats get back this anti-war mantle?
Well, I think I actually I don't mean to be so dark here, but I actually think those kids are wrong. I mean, I think people intuitively understand whether you're a young person or someone who maybe even lived through and remembers World War Two, which thankfully we still have a good number of those folks around. Like people get it are way smarter than folks give them credit for. They understand how dangerous, volatile, divided and increasingly authoritarian the world is. And in those moments, again, it's the temptation is to sort of reach for a strongman figure. And I think we have.
both for wonky national security and foreign policy reasons, need to find our voice in a way that projects more direction and strength. And I hate to, you may never have me on the show again by quoting Ronald Reagan in terms of one of his more famous or infamous piece through strength. But I do think That is kind of where the world is, as I think about it. And strength needs to be defined differently and more broadly, and not just militarily, but economically, technologically, intellectually, and academically. And there's a real opportunity for us, I think, to rally the American people behind, again, this view of the world is dangerous. We're seeing China, Iran, Russia, North Korea now all kind of coming together in ways that are concerning. We need to lean in in order to prevent war. And I think that's how we need to be talking about it more, which we don't, in order to prevent war, really reinvest and come together as a country. It might be the last.
hope, I think, to bring us back together in a way that averts a World War III scenario. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of truth to that. And I do think people really vote on base feelings, right? Strong, weak, etc. But I also heard so many focus groups and anecdotal pieces of evidence where young people in particular of all races, genders, etc. were like, why are we sending all this money to Ukraine? That's crazy and stupid. I want to spend that here. You know, and that's just a it's a long explanation to explain why. And that kind of nativism, I think, was powerful for Trump and very effective. Yeah, I mean, I think there is a tight case to be made in terms of, I mean, essentially, do you want to find deterrence?
I'm not saying I'm the expert at this, but I think we have to be making that case less about supporting Ukraine as much as I support Ukraine, more about stopping Putin and stopping the growing cooperation with these other parties. And it's a fine line that I actually really wrestle with this idea of like, you don't want to create a boogeyman to the degree that then creates the inevitable security dilemma and escalates into war. But at the same time, I think not being clear about who the threats are and what the risks are leaves a vacuum for people to misinterpret why we're doing the things we're doing. And they're like, well, just. feels like we're treading water and holding the status quo. And in fact, we're not. And I actually think the Biden administration has got not everything, but a lot right in this regard. And yet no one feels that way, obviously, to your points. And again, it comes back to us and them. And I just don't think we've clarified what is the answer, our equivalent to America first has to be, again, a more or less selfish and more unifying view of reinvesting here at home to keep us safe and strong abroad.
Yeah, I think that's right. I also think people saw, I mean, I think that voters really did not like and reject it was hearing about the United States sending, you know, billions and billions of billions of dollars worth of weapons to be used in Gaza, only to see both the horrific, you know, civilian cost of that war, but also to see it metastasized and spread into Lebanon in these closing months before the election. I don't think those images did the Biden administration and then Kamala Harris. No. Any good? Last question for you. So, you know, it looks like Democrats are likely to be in the minority in the House, which will give...
Donald Trump, total control of the U.S. government. We know that means all committees are Republican. Dems will not have subpoena power. But what do you think the role, what can Democrats do from the opposition in the House from your perspective? What do you want to accomplish in the next two years? Small question. I mean, look, I.
I almost feel foolish saying it, given what happened between 2016 and 2020. But I do think there are a few areas where doing my job as a representative, like maybe there's some space to work with the administration to relieve some of the particular economic pain and pressure we talked about. But I think that's very, very unlikely, just given both past performance and all the promises he's made in Project 2025. And I mean, I believe that is the plan, 100%. And so we got to be manning the ramparts.
holding the line. And I think we're going to have to get real creative and scrappy and be willing to really shake things up in terms of the tactics, in terms of communication. And like, if we're using the current powers of the institutions, we're going to get rolled. We need to be much smarter using new communication styles, using, you know, I don't have the answers yet, but I think we got to put our heads together and think about, you know, I actually thought it was pretty cool. I haven't even read it yet, but one of my colleagues who unfortunately got gerrymandered out, Wiley Nickel, just wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post saying we should have a shadow cabinet and start operating the way they do in the UK. Like, I don't know if that works, but like...
we need to be doing things differently understanding trump is on the march towards um an authoritarian if not fascist way of governing and that requires us to really step up our game Yeah, that's a good point. Well, Congressman Ryan, thank you so much for doing the show. Everyone should check out your Twitter thread because there are even more really interesting ideas and arguments in there for what Dems got right and what we got wrong. And I appreciate you being willing to talk to us today and just generally speak candidly about it because I know it's not easy to criticize your friends sometimes, but it's important. So thanks. Yeah, no, thanks for having me. It is Veterans Day, so I'd be remiss not thanking all those that have served my fellow veterans of all generations.
That's our show for today. One last item. Did you notice, Lovett, you want to talk about this? Oh, yes. The idea has been floated that Joe Biden has the opportunity to do something awesome. And that is to resign and make Kamala Harris the nation's first female president. And this is an idea that I already have endorsed. You have? This came from Jamal Simmons, who is Kamala Harris' former communications director, for those of our listeners who don't know. And I think it's beautiful. And I think you should do it.
Really? No. Look, I think that I think it's treating the presidency like it's a fucking participation trophy. No, obviously, obviously, obviously. I just think I would be so offended if I was. Yes, I don't. I don't think I don't think I obviously don't think that Joe Biden should resign in order to make Kamala Harris a good job, president. Way to go, sis, president. But I will say that if given how hard he was struggling on the sand. No, I just imagine after.
Four years of us pointing out that Donald Trump wouldn't accept the results of an election. Joe Biden appointed the person who just lost to the presidency. What message would that send? I know it's temporary. I know it's a different scenario, but can you imagine what the Republicans would say? But, Tommy.
Isn't it true that there are 15 million missing votes out there? 15 million missing votes? Just everyone, just so we should just knock it down. There's some stuff going around. Even some people who are like reporters, former reporters, I've seen this a couple places, that like, oh my gosh, you've got like 15 million less votes and blah, blah, blah. I've heard it from people out in the world. Just so you guys all know, the turnout numbers, they have not finished counting California yet. And when you do the projections, New York Times, whoever it may be, they think that Trump's going to win by 1.5% and that Kamala Harris probably ends up with...
5 million less fewer votes than Joe Biden. And Donald Trump ends up with 4 million more votes than he got in 2020. And by the way, turnout, almost the same, slightly less in 2024. Probably is going to end up with like 2, 3 million votes less. Yes. Somebody sent me the conspiracy theory. Oh, no. Texted me and said, what do you think about this? And I said, who sent you this? And they said, a very famous person. And I said, tell that person to go for a walk outside. And it actually like...
For the same reason, no, the election wasn't stolen in 2020. No, there's not some conspiracy to steal 15 million votes this time. Actually, another reason that Donald Trump may have some trouble becoming the authoritarian he wants to become. America is big and complicated with various levels of government that make command and control of this big, messy country incredibly difficult, if not completely impossible. And like, that's why our elections are more secure. That's why the conspiracy theories are fucking stupid. And that is my hope as well. But if you want to find those 15 million missing votes, I bet they're in the same place as that 13th key. They would have to print a lot. If Kamala Harris did become president over the next month.
They would have to reprint a lot of hats. It would be expensive. That piece of this is very funny. Just for a day. Just for a day. That's cool. Now, you know what? Now I flipped. Now I'm for it. That's our show for today. I'll be back on Wednesday with a new episode featuring guest host Ezra Klein. Wow. Yeah. Just the two of us and Nancy Pelosi. We're going to talk about all the latest and where Democrats go from here. So talk to you then.
If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. And if you're already doomscrolling, don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review to help boost this episode or spice up the group chat by sharing it with friends, family, or randos you want in on this conversation. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our producers are David Toledo and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor, and Adrian Hill is our executive producer. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.
Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Andy Taft is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Phoebe Bradford, Joseph Dutra, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kilman, Molly Lobel, Kirill Pellaviv, and David Toles.
On election night, we will all be feeling a lot of feelings. Do not spend it alone. Spend it with me, Alex Wagner, for Crooked Media Presents Live Election Results. We're going to have Jon Favreau, Don Lovett, Tommy Vitor, Stacey Abrams, Dan Pfeiffer, Aaron Ryan, and many more special guests to be announced. And they're all going to help us make sense of what's happening as the election results roll in. So here's what you need to do. Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube and tune in on Tuesday, November 3rd at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific for hot takes, catharsis, and as many results as we can possibly analyze.