The First (and Last?) Debate
2024-06-27 01:36:38
Pod Save America is a no-bullshit conversation about politics hosted by former Obama aides Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Dan Pfeiffer, and Tommy Vietor. It cuts through the noise to break down the week’s news and helps people figure out what matters and how they can help. They’re regularly joined by journalists, activists, politicians, entertainers, and world leaders. You can watch on YouTube or listen to new episodes every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. Ad-Free Pod Save America episodes available NOW through Friends of the Pod subscription. Head to crooked.com/friends to join today! For a transcript of an episode of Pod Save America, please email [email protected] (edited)
If you're a regular Pod Save listener, you've heard us talk about the partisan right-wing echo chamber that enables conspiracy theories, nut jobs, and, oh yeah, Trump. The truth is, we should all get out of our bubbles a little more. That's why we have to recommend you add the Bulwark podcast to your rotation. Tim Miller, my pal, and a former Republican operative, turned anti-Trump crusader, interviews a wide range of guests, from celebrities to politicians to everyone in between. It's non-tribal news and opinion, not for Team Red or Team Blue, but for Team Democracy.
He's also joined by other members of the Bulwark crew, like Sarah Longwell, Will Salatin, and former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Watch on YouTube or listen and subscribe to the Bulwark's podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
What's up, Brooklyn?
Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau.
I'm Stacey Abrams.
That's a little insulting. I'm Jon Lovett.
Playing for the crowd. there. I'm Tommy Vitor.
I'm Dan Pfeiffer.
We have a great show for you tonight. Strict Scrutiny's, Melissa Murray is here to break down all the latest Supreme Court decisions and non-decisions. Our pal, Amanda Littman, founder of Run for Something, is here to talk about yesterday's primaries in New York and the amazing roster of progressive candidates running up and down the ballot this fall. And of course, we are incredibly lucky to be joined by Stacey Abrams in her first appearance as a Pod Save America guest host. What a dream.
Thank you.
Thanks for doing this.
Thanks for having me.
Huge get.
Huge get.
Huge get.
Alright, before we dig into the news, we are here in New York because it's publication week for our book, Democracy or Else.
Yeah.
How to Save America in 10 Easy Steps. Raise your hand if you bought a copy.
Alright. Pretty good.
Thank you.
Pretty good. Thank you.
Pretty good.
By the way.
The rest of you, what's going on?
Raise your hand if you didn't.
Raise your hand if you planned to, but he got you a little early.
Huh?
Huh? There you go.
Alright.
We are trying to get this thing to the top of the bestseller list.
Hey, expectations game. On the bestseller list.
Somewhere near the top. I don't know.
I'm sorry, I did that.
We're looking to do this not just to fill our insatiable hunger for public affirmation, which is even more insatiable for some of us than others, but because the more people who see this book and buy this book, the more money goes to Vote Save America and 2024 campaigns that are doing the real work to save democracy. And luckily, Brooklyn's own Greenlight bookstore is here in the lobby selling copies.
Stacey, you're a bestselling author of both political books and seven actual novels. You got any advice for us?
Writing words down works.
But I will say this. Having actually had a chance to read a bit of this, you should tell your friends because this is a book that lets you read fast and look really smart. And that's the best kind of book. I mean, if Dostoevsky had figured that out, he may have made it some time. But that's what this does.
It is a fantastic primer on what's happening, but it's an even better way for us to feel good about what we can get done. So I would just tell people that.
Best pitch I've heard.
That's incredible. I mean, Dostoevsky is rolling over in his grave, but for us, good.
Thank you. All right. Let's get to the news. I don't know if you guys have heard. There is allegedly a presidential debate Thursday night in Stacey's hometown of Atlanta.
Most important moment of the campaign so far. The current president versus the former president. Jacked up Joe versus Don the Con. It's a rematch that nearly 60% of Americans claim they'll watch, even though 0% want to.
And can you blame anyone? Because this is what happened the last time these two met up.
I look at New York. It's so sad what's happening in New York. And I'm not sure it can ever recover what they've done in New York.
I want to make sure.
You graduated last in your class, not first in your class.
I want to make sure. Mr. President, can you let him finish, sir? He doesn't know how to do that. He has.
You'd be surprised. You pick the wrong guy the wrong night at the wrong time. My son was in Iraq. He spent a year there. He was not a loser.
He was a patriot. And the people left behind there were heroes. Really? And I resent.
Are you talking about Hunter?
I'm talking about my son, Beau Biden. You're talking about.
I don't know. I don't know, Beau. I know Hunter. What do you want to call him? Give me a name.
Give me a name.
White supremacist. White supremacist and right.
Stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what. But why didn't you do it over the last 25 years?
Because you are president. Because you aren't president, screwing things up. You're the worst president America has ever had. Let people know. We're senators.
I'm not going to answer the question.
Why wouldn't you answer that question?
Because the question is.
The question is. Radical left.
Will you shut up, man. It's hard to get any word in with this clown.
Whew.
Democracy is cool.
Democracy in action, folks. Who's excited for these two to give it another go?
Anyone know?
That clip, like, makes me want to throw up. But I'm also, like, hearing despacito. And I don't totally know why. It just puts me in that head space. And from that time.
You know what I mean?
Did everyone else get the pit in their stomach when they watched it? I got the pit.
So this debate will be 90 minutes. Two commercial breaks. Two moderators. CNN's Dana Bash and the man that Trump lovingly calls fake tapper. There will be no opening statements.
No prewritten notes. No talking to advisors during the break. Two minute answers. One minute rebuttals. And when your time is up, your mic is muted.
Yeah, sure.
Muted mics. Stacey, we have all talked probably too much at this point about our experiences preparing candidates for debates. You're the first guest host to have actually participated in a debate as a candidate. Can you talk a little bit about what it was like, what your prep was like, and how much staffers like us annoyed the shit out of you?
Given that some of them still work with me, no. I will say, I was resistant to the rigor of debate prep. In part because I don't like sounding stupid out loud in front of other people. And part of debate prep is admitting all of the things you don't know to a person who judges you. If I want to do that, I'll go and look in a mirror.
But I will say part of what I learned about debate, and it was the best debate advice I ever got, it was that I wasn't debating the other person. It was an opportunity to talk to the people. And it's hard to ignore the person that you vehemently disagree with when they're standing that close. But when you can focus on telling people what they need to know, it's a lot easier to do it. But debate prep sucks.
It is over and over again, like you're giving an answer, and much as you're probably thinking, like, shut up, slow it down, cut it off, and you're trying to count in your head to 30 seconds, 90 seconds, and did you remember that pithy phrase you were going to use? that was going to make everyone, you know, tweet you the next day? And if not, you just pretended you said it anyway, so there you go.
If you were in debate prep at Camp David, what would you be giving Joe Biden in terms of either advice or pharmaceuticals?
He's debated a lot more than I have. He has acquitted himself well. I think I will say in grave seriousness, the biggest and most important piece of this debate is remembering that most people watching it already know what they want, what they need is to remember why they want it. We have selective memory in this country, which is why we have to do this every four years, every two years, trying to remind people to vote. But the challenge and the opportunity that President Biden has is to tell people that this isn't about just what has happened.
It's also about what can happen, not the, you know, fascist storm that is heading our way, but he's put a lot on the table, and, I mean, I grew up in the South, so he's planted a lot. Now it's time to let those things grow. And I think if he talks to folks about what's possible and why, he's the person we want tending the garden. so I can completely butcher this metaphor, that's the best way to get people to do this. But as much as that clip was interesting, watching the fisticuffs is not going to be what changes people's minds, but what will get them motivated and engaged is the belief that if they go and do something, things will sprout and grow and life will get better.
Yeah. That's good advice.
So, Dan, a lot of smart, well-meaning organizations, from the left to the center left, have been releasing memos and polls about what they're hoping to hear and see from President Biden tomorrow night. I'm sure you've read every word, looked at all the numbers. What's most persuasive to you in terms of the message that Biden needs to drive at the debate?
Well, John, I have read every word of all the memos and you're not going to believe this, but just coincidentally, their advice for what Joe Biden should say at the debate lines up perfectly with the policy agenda of their organizations.
That's amazing.
And what are the odds, right?
Very weird.
Look, in all seriousness, there is good advice in there, particularly around how the president should talk about immigration and the economy. But I think that the best way for the president to do this is to take it a little bit bigger, right? Which is the story that people leave here, leave the debate with, is that every single day, Joe Biden wakes up and he's thinking about you. He's fighting for you. What does Donald Trump do?
Thinks about himself, right? He's running for president to avoid going to jail, give himself a giant tax cut, go back in power so he can exact vengeance on his enemies. He's not thinking about you. If he gets reelected, there's going to be no one in the White House who's fighting for you, right? And that is the right message, because that is the most obviously and essentially true message.
Joe Biden's superpower is his empathy. The most obvious thing about Donald Trump is he's a narcissist who cares only about himself, right? What is so interesting about him is that he is a grievance politician, but the grievances are all personal. It's people who wronged him, not people who wronged you, right? People who took your job away, shipped your job overseas.
It's about the deep state and the New York Times and the CNN and all the people who go after him. And that is absolutely true. Now, this part is very hard for people like us, who have spent over a decade now screaming about how the press obsesses over optics. But what Joe Biden says in this debate is less important than how he says it, right? It is going to be, does he come off as forceful,
strong,
energetic? Does he answer the questions of, according to the New York Times, Siena poll that was released, hopefully three hours before this podcast, three quarters of the country who think he's too old for the job, right? Is he going to address that? Because that, to me, is the whole kitten caboodle. That's what this is about.
This is why the Biden campaign wanted this debate this early on this day, because they thought this was their single best opportunity to address that. Because once they address that, that opens up everything else, right? It makes people listen to him more on the economy, makes people trust him more to protect them and keep them safe. We'll trust them more to keep the border secure or to pass legislation that covers immigration reform, because you have to do that. And so you're going to get the right message out, but how he delivers that message is going to be more important than anything else.
Yeah.
And what people are like waking up worried about is not necessarily Joe Biden's age. They're worried about cost of living, affordability. People are saying they worry about immigration. They're worried about abortion access, worry about democracy. And what they're looking for from Biden is that he is strong enough that he can do something about this, that he's.
and then that's where the age issue, I think, comes in. And so I do think, like a lot of strong value statements, up when he's up there is going to be like really important to like, let people know he's going to fight for them. And when it comes to the economy, like really digging in on. here's what I have done. It's a, it's a down payment on what I want to do for the next four years.
And if you give me another chance, we'll keep working in this direction. If you go with this guy, he only cares about himself and he's going to take us back.
The worst mistake the president can make at this debate is to turn this into a defensive, his record over the last four years, just can't do it, because what you're doing and I get it right. This is the mistake every incumbent makes. It's the mistake. Barack Obama made in that first day with Mitt Romney in 2012 is you're proud of what you did. You're not getting enough credit.
This other guy across the atrium is lying about what you did. And so you want to defend it. You want to do that. But when you do that as the incumbent, you're accepting the premise that your opponent wants, which is this, this is a referendum on the past. So you've got to make it about the future, but you can mention the things you did, but as proof positive that you're going to do this in the future, because the best comparison with Trump is not the economy during Trump's presidency and the economy.
Now it's what they're going to do the economy over the next four years. Right. And Donald Trump's going to cut taxes, the rich people, he's going to pay for it by cutting social security and Medicare. And he's going to overturn the affordable care act. Like that's his agenda.
So like go, future agenda versus future agenda is a good place for the president debate.
Tommy, you weirdly decided to rewatch the first Biden Trump debate from 2020.
. You guys did without, without being asked. Well, it's just a little. Tommy and I flew here on Sunday. Our flight was delayed five hours.
So we spent the day at LAX. We did. We finally got on the plane and it was pretty late. And Tommy spent the flight watching the first debate.
It was a good time.
And then now we all felt bad. So we all started watching it today. And let me tell you, it's not a fun watch. Tommy, what were your takeaways from that? Undoubtedly enjoyable experience.
We had a great time on the plane.
Biggest takeaway. Unfortunately, it's an optics one, which is Joe Biden looked a lot younger, and I know no one wants to hear that, but he looked younger and he sounded younger. And so I totally agree with what Dan is saying, that there is a threshold question about his age, that he has to answer. that we saw in the New York times poll, where 68% of voters were concerned about his age and fitness to do the job. So I think what he says might be, at some points of the debate, less important than how he says it, or the vigor with which he sort of prosecutes the case.
The flip side of that was Trump was so much angrier in redder face, in angrier, that just, he was so enraged in that moment. And I almost forgotten how just caustic and nasty he was. And of course we did later learn that he had COVID and he wound up in the hospital. So I guess on some level it's like kind of an impressive performance,
you know,
to get out there and just rage for 90 minutes with COVID.
He played through it. He's like, he's like Michael Jordan in that game. The one fact about sports I know.
That was good.
The flu game. Yeah. The flu game. Jordan flu game. It was like the flu game.
Good for you.
And then poor Chris Wallace was just a drunk guy at a bar holding onto the mechanical bull.
Like you, agreed to the rules.
But so we'll, we'll see how this goes. I mean, the takeaway was Trump is going to attack from the very first second until the last second. So you have to be prepared for that, but also Perry, and respond and get him on defense and get that version of Trump, this angry, raging, red faced man, back on that stage. I don't have, I don't think he has learned discipline in the last couple of years, but we've seen the more disciplined campaign. So it is a concern.
I think Biden has to look energetic, as we discussed. He has to be sharp and be on top of things. And then the one thing it really did make me rethink was this, this question about the muted mics when they're not speaking and the impact, because I do think muting their mics when the other is speaking is good for the Republic. Because I think most people watch a debate like that and they shout over each other. And the response is not to blame one or the other.
It's just to be like, politics is awful. Like I'm changed, but ESPN is a channel away. Like, what are we doing here? But I do worry that a muted mic could save Trump from himself and the ugliest side of him coming out. So it made me a little anxious about that.
Yeah. Because I remember, too, like watching that first debate and when they were yelling at each other, it was like, Oh, this is just, it's just bad. to Stacy's earlier point about, like, the most important thing you can do is like talk directly to the people. I do think, to the extent that Biden shows anger or passion, you always want it to be like anger on behalf of the American people, passion on behalf of the American people, and not anger at Trump. Like when Trump tries to kneel him in a personal way, who can let that stuff go.
When Trump tries to say something that you can then come back and be like, look, you, you know, in 2020 you tried to throw people's votes away, right? You, you, you took the, the right to decide women's healthcare away from them. You tried to take 20 million people's healthcare away from them, right? Like. get angry about things that affect people.
Don't get angry about whatever Donald Trump says about, you know, you graduated last in your class, which he seemed really obsessed with in that first debate. Love it. One topic DC is yapping about ahead of the debate has to do with fact checking. CNN's political director said that the debate is quote, not the ideal arena for live fact checking and that Dana and Jake will be quote facilitating the debate between these candidates. They will not be participants in that debate.
There's some reports that this has annoyed the Biden camp. Trump then posted that nobody's as loose with the truth as crooked Joe and accused him of lying about his golf handicap.
What do you make of this? How much of any fact checking should the moderators do?
I, yeah, no, I look, we're a couple of fact checks away from, from having this whole thing locked up, uh, get a couple more Pinocchios out there. Can I get a good night's sleep? Uh, so, yeah, I saw these stories and, and look, I love working the refs. Let's work the refs. Great.
But like we were just talking about what Joe Biden has to do. Joe Biden has to, uh, defy right wing,
um,
caricatures of his performance, assuage people's concerns about his age. While at the same time, reminding people of everything they dislike about Trump as a narcissist and how extreme he is. The moderators can't do that. The moderators can't help him do either of those things. Only Joe Biden can do that.
And that would be true if the moderators weren't Jake Tapper and Dana bash, who were, I think, two reporters who are going to follow up. They're not going to just roll over there, but we've seen them interview both of these people in the past. And not only that, but how does Joe Biden do both? assuage people's concerns about his age and remind people of the threat Trump poses by beating Trump in a debate. That's how he does it.
He will, he will, he will prove that he is up for the job by proving that Trump is not up for the job. And so I am less concerned about whether or not Dana bash has actually inflation is technically down, or Jake Tapper jumps in and says, actually murder rates were higher in 2020 than I am about any circumstance in which Joe Biden is just standing there. And all of a sudden Jake is arguing with Trump. And then Dana bash comes down with a folding chair on top of Trump's head. And Joe Biden is just an observer.
Like. I'm not interested in that.
I'm interested in that.
What are you talking about?
I'm talking to myself into it. I'm talking to myself into it more broadly. Like, there's a lot of reasons to be concerned about misinformation, about Joe Biden's age, about the ways in which the media kind of has normalized Trump. But man, this debate is about Joe Biden answering the concerns that Americans have. And really, I think any conversation about the moderators is a side show.
Stacey, if the moderators don't fact check Trump, how much fact checking do you think Joe Biden should do?
He should only fact check as a way to talk about the future. It's, this is what should actually be understood. This is how we talk about it. Rule number one in misinformation is you don't repeat the lie. And so using the lie as a way to show his strength, to show his future vision, to avoid Dana getting up with the chair.
Those are all, like. he could be doing a lot of services, both for America and for CNN, by using it as a point of entry to a larger conversation, so that people see what possibilities look like. And to the point about being reminded of just how angry Trump is. Not taking the bait ticks him off more than almost anything else. And so being unwilling to take the bait and instead being the grownup on the stage, which is, you know what he is, that's the best way to fact check without having to call the question.
I think that's so important because there is, and I think Biden fell into this in that last debate with the wrong guy, wrong time, wrong place, right? That's, that is a version of strength, right? But Biden needs to be as strong and steady. That's the, like. you're, Trump, people think Trump is strong.
They may view that strength in a malicious way, as many of us do and should, but he comes off as strong, right? It's Sarah Longwell, our friend who's on this podcast. a lot, says he gives off a raving lunatic energy, right? And so that becomes equated with strong. So Biden doesn't show strength by repeatedly punching Trump in the face, literally or figuratively, but by being strong and energetic in his responses, but also seeming steady.
Because that's the difference between the two, is that that's how Biden won, was Trump, like you? watch that debate and it's a reminder of just how chaotic and erratic and alarming Trump is. And that was particularly alarming at a time of national crisis, like we were going through in the pandemic at the time. And so Biden had, and people looked at Biden and they said, that is a steady hand on the wheel in a dangerous time. And Biden has to show that because that's been lost over the last four years.
I mean, I think it's machismo versus maturity. Yes,
that's right.
We need to see maturity, and that lets him lean into age, because you get maturity from someone who's been here long enough to know what's worth fighting about and what's not.
We've got a whole lot of maturity on our side.
Yeah.
We got maturity.
Yeah. We got maturity up the yang. We've got so much maturity.
I think the where it gets a little weird for Jake and Dana is not like, actually, Mr. Former president, 27 NATO countries paid 2% of GDP for defense. You know, it's like, not shit.
It's like, would you cheer?
Yeah, no, it's like, it's like, no, actually, Mr. President, you, you didn't win the 2020 election. And your own attorney general said there wasn't sufficient voter fraud to impact the outcome in any way. Like those are the kind of threshold, like the sky is blue. The sky is red.
Kind of reality-based questions where I wonder if they start to feel like they need to start. Yeah.
I mean, we're, we're talking about this, like it's a regular presidential debate, but one of the candidates is a convicted felon who tried to overturn the last election and then incited a violent insurrection in the Capitol. So it's just like, it's like, so that's the elephant in the room,
you know? Yeah.
But, but, but like right now, if you look at swing state polls, right, Donald Trump is currently leading. Joe Biden is losing. Joe Biden needs to change something at this debate. If we come out of this debate and it's a story about how Donald Trump and Jake Tapper were mixing it up. Well, that that's a problem.
That's a like, and I, and I don't like, I think, just as much as like whatever it is, like, I don't think Jake Tapper or Dana Bash want to be the story out of this debate. All right. But I, at the same time, I expect one way they will avoid any question about being biased is they're not going to go easy on Donald Trump. They're going to go really hard on both of them. Right?
Like everyone's talking a lot about the, about what Jake and Dana are going to do with Trump. Like one of the ways Joe Biden is going to have to, he's going to get some pretty hard questions from the moderators too. And that's going to be, that's going to be part of his test.
The story that comes out matters a lot, right? Because I know 60% of voters said they're going to watch the debate. That would be 90 million people. Zero chance there. So, you know, if you pull people and ask them if you're going to go to the gym this week, they also say yes.
Right?
Half the country is full of shit.
That's right. But so, you know, the, the, that Biden debate that we just saw. 70 million people endured that. Now that's a time in which that was a general election debate in October, at a time in which you really had no other options. It's not like you're choosing between the debate and going out to dinner with your friends or going to a baseball game, right?
You were either watching that or watching something else, right? In that same poll, where 60% of people said they'd watch it, only 41% of quote unquote swing voters said they were going to watch it. And so the people we need most are probably not going to watch it. So they're just going to pick up the vibes off the debate. And if the vibe is, God, that was fucking awful.
These guys yelled at each other for 90 minutes. That doesn't change the dynamics of the race, right? If it is Trump's a giant asshole, that does help a little bit. But the one you really want is, Biden was better than I thought.
Yep.
Right. That's what you want people talking about, right? And then, when people see the clips, because the real spin war is going to be on tick tock after the debate's over, you want the clips to jive. Like, that's what will go viral. is a bunch of people going, Biden was pretty good.
I don't agree with him on everything, but he was pretty good.
You want a hot guy who normally makes pottery to be like, I actually watched the debate and I was pretty surprised.
No, you want one of the clip. guys, like Aaron Rupar being like, I can't believe Maria Bartiromo said this. And you click the clip and you're totally underwhelmed by the results. But yeah, you gotta frame it.
You gotta frame it.
Question for the group before we move on. The president of CNN called you and said that Jake was having a dental emergency and you had to be the fill-in moderator. What is the number one question you're asking Donald Trump?
Jake is ripping that tooth out with his bare hands. Remember the scene in Castaway where he put the figure skid against his tooth and he banged it out of his face with a rock. cut me,
cut me,
cut me man.
Anyone got a question?
It's a rocky joke.
None that don't have curse words in them.
Don't challenge her to swear.
I'm the daughter of not one, but two pastors. If I curse, I have to say bless your heart when I'm done. No, I mean, I think it's a question about.
I don't know, cause he's gonna lie. Like, maybe just ask him how old he is. See if he can get that one right.
Don't you want to ask, like basics sometimes? Like how does a bill become a law?
That,
no,
no, no. How many states are there?
What are the three branches of government? Where,
where is Florida?
Explain the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Oh, that's a good one.
That's a really good one. Look, I wanted to ask this question because we know tomorrow morning when this podcast comes out, Yeah. What about, what about,
but how are you really, you know, like, see if you can get him to open up.
What gives you hope?
What gives you hope?
Drake or, Drake or Kendrick?
Love it. Do you have one?
You know, I, I was thinking about this question and, and I, I really don't like, I,
I,
I feel like, I feel like the questions we actually want him to answer are all so obvious, right? Because, like the truth is obvious. That's, I think, the challenge of being in this time, which is that, like the truth is blitheringly obvious to all of us. And it feels like our job is to go out there and say something that we believe is completely obvious to a country that is, for some reason, inexplicably, unavoidably, 50, 50, no matter what fucking happens. And so it's like, really the question, it's like, you end up at the place where you're like, how fucking, how do you, you mother, how could you?
And that doesn't do anything for anybody.
But I like,
I like questions, though. I do think that, like there have been moments with Trump too, where you ask a question, like, you know, we're so accustomed to it now. Like the Trump, world view is everything he's ever done is perfect. And when he's president, everything's great. And when he's not, everything's shit.
And that flips, that, that's a switch that flips the day he wins or loses. And like, what's your biggest mistake, right? Like, what do you think you got most wrong when you were president? Like what's your biggest regret? I'll say Mike Pence.
Yeah.
But that's interesting, but that's interesting,
right? Yeah.
But I remember early on, uh, Hugh Hewitt, love it's friends, conservative radio host, asked president Trump, then candidate Trump, what is the nuclear triad? Which is like the three means of distributing nuclear weapons. There's subs, there's nuclear silos and there's bombers. And Trump clearly didn't know the answer.
Unlike all of us.
And just fudged his way through it. But Hugh is a right-wing hack who worked for Richard Nixon and now has a radio show. So he just kind of let it pass. But like something like that could just catch him on the basics of government.
Yeah.
He's very good at not answering questions.
Yeah. Yeah.
Like he, like his greatest political skill is that he has no capacity for shame in his body. And so it just does, like any other normal person would get that question, and they would feel more and more uncomfortable as they were like trying to bullshit their way through it. It would be patently obvious. He just like bulls through it. Well, that's,
I think that's why you can't, it can't be a question that he's just going to like lie through. Like I want him to, I would ask him, all right, you have said before that you, this is kind of goes to the Mike Pence thing. You've said before that you hire the best people, but more than a dozen of your most senior aides, last time you were president, are not supporting you, including multiple defense secretaries, multiple national security advisors, your vice president, multiple white house chiefs of staff. And they have said about you that you are a threat to democracy, that you were a danger to America, that you are a narcissistic moron. How can the American people trust you to lead this country?
If the people that you hired, who worked closest with you, aren't supporting you?
I bet he gets that. Yeah,
that's a good question. You said you had a great question. just in your back fucking pocket. You set us up.
He also,
I'm in a fucking contest. I just wanted to,
that was really good. I think that was really good.
Did Chris Wallace ask him that question?
Chris Wallace? Yeah. When?
On Fox News Sunday, I think. Oh,
yeah, recently.
When did he do an interview with, oh, wait, when is the last time he, I was wondering this, because this is the first time that Donald Trump has submitted himself to questions from someone who is not a right wing, like a Newsmax person. When did he do Chris Wallace?
Well, that was a long time ago.
That was years ago.
Caitlin Collins, I think, on CNN was probably the last. Or the 90 minute Time Magazine interview that he did.
Which is wild. well,
that's not live TV.
I didn't think that, like, you know, we talk a lot about, oh, incumbent presidents, you know, they're not used to being questioned. This is a rare time. We have two incumbent presidents who are going to face kind of tough questions. in a way, neither one of them are particularly used to. I also think Trump too, like if you ask him a question he knows is meant to throw him off guard, he's very kind of good at avoiding it, but actually some of the most damaging things he's ever said, like.
I think there should be some punishment for the woman, right? Those are questions that didn't seem dangerous, right? And he tried to bullshit his way through because he didn't know the answer and didn't know how fraught it was. So that's sometimes the most interesting space to get Trump.
Give me your thoughts on tax policy, sir.
Yes. I think like catching him being dumb is, is, is fine, but I also, because that'll happen. But I do think, like some of the questions are like, hey, are we all crazy here? He tried to overturn the election. All these people, like imagine if all of Joe Biden's senior officials were like, absolutely not.
The guy's, a threat to democracy. What are we doing here? Like questions like that,
I think are in the New York times poll. Once again, released this podcast, 6% of likely voters think that Donald Trump should be president and in prison.
Eight. It was,
it was eight.
I sent that out. I saw that. It's like, April, this is, you want to be really sad. 8% of the supporters think he should go to jail. It's tough.
It's tough. Okay. Enough of that. It's going to be a great debate tomorrow night. Wonderful.
It's going to be,
we'll see on the other side,
it's going to be a pageant of democracy. but before we let Stacy go, she has generously agreed to play a game with some spicy pros. that will seem very familiar to you. And I don't know anything about this.
Stacy.
Yes, John.
I don't know if you know this, but, uh, uh, Tommy and I, and John sort of, he helped a little. We wrote a book.
I've heard.
It's called democracy, or else it dropped Tuesday and it's available at fine bookstores everywhere, including, uh, here at this show. And it hits the best sellers list, maybe airports.
You, of course, are not just a person who is helping to change the politics of Georgia while advocating for voting rights and democracy. You are also an author of multiple novels,
which you wrote under your pseudonym, JK Rowling. I read them all. on the plane. It's Selina Montgomery, which is a beautiful name. I really like it.
Thank you.
I love, yeah, I like that.
Now I read, I read them all on the plane here and boy, are my arms tired. So we thought we'd make voting rights sexy. in a segment. We're calling kiss and tell people to register.
And it's very simple.
Okay.
I would just love if you could just say,
a question about it. Okay. And that's all there is to it.
I do not believe you.
No, that really is. They're just going to ask you a question, and that's all there is to it. Dan, you're going to kick us off. Oh, no.
Excellent.
Uh, here is your question for Stacy. Why don't you kick it off and please read it as written. Thank you.
Okay.
Okay. Hi, Stacy. It's me, Dan Pfeiffer.
I lend a little, I lend a certain credibility to this whole operation. Sort of a spectrum, with Levin on one end and me on the other. Anywho. Hey,
don't rush through it.
Anywho. Anywho, an exchange in one of your novels reminded me of the importance of mail-in voting.
Hunger raged inside her, demanding to be sated, that it would mean nothing if he didn't understand. You're all I ever wanted, she said. Ethan froze, stunned and humbled. He kissed her then, slowly, tenderly, a benediction and a beginning. Murmuring into the night, I've only ever been yours.
Republicans in Nevada are suing to block the counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day. Their efforts to restrict voting across the country, in the hope the Supreme Court will issue benedictions for their policies. I see what you did there. But it is the, but. is the hunger for democracy among voters enough to overcome these restrictions?
Well, given that as a line from Hidden Sins,
what we know, thank you, what we know is that the secret to their success was revealing to the world what was happening. So, number one, the way we protect democracy and we ensure access is by pushing hard for the world to see what Nevada has been and what it could be. Because Mars was a story of redemption. And we can redeem ourselves and Nevada in 2022 by making sure that the voters of Nevada believe that not only is their right to vote sacred, but it is a benediction to put a stamp on that ballot and send it in so it gets counted.
Woo!
And John has a question for you as well.
And John, I hate you.
Okay.
Hi Stacey, it's me. Podcasting's Jon Favreau.
Polls show, a lot of voters, especially voters who are less engaged and less likely to vote, are skeptical of democracy itself. Whether it can deliver, that it's worth their time. Which reminded me of how much we admire your leadership and wisdom. Do we take for granted that people understand why a democratic system is best? How do you address that cynicism?
He just got a nice one.
Well, yeah. I was reading it like, oh no.
I don't think we take it for granted. I think it depends on the state you live in, literally. We have 50 different democracies. If you're in Oregon or in California, congratulations. Or Washington State, yay.
If you're in Georgia, God bless you, because the governor won't.
If you're in Florida or Texas, they're trying their best to stop you. And so I think our opportunity is to remember that not everyone has the same democracy that you do, even though we live in the United States. And so a lot of the work that we do, a lot of the work that Vote Save America does, that Fair Fight does, the work that gets done is about trying to ensure that, for as many people as possible, we can start to take for granted how democracy should work. But until we get there, we've got to do the work for everyone who doesn't have a chance to stand up.
That's great. Yeah.
And while I'm talking about Fair Fight, make sure you check out fairfight.
com slash LFGV. F stands for freakin'. Let's freakin' go vote. So go to fairfight.com LFGV, which is being done in partnership with Vote Save America, because we can get this done.
And I believe Tommy has a question for you.
Tommy, I am sorry.
Okay. Hi, Stacey. Tommy Vitor here. And I turn red at the slightest provocation.
Hold for effect.
I was thinking about the franchise while reading this passage in the novel. Hidden Sins. Heat like an inferno blazed in his veins. It's amended that he slide his arms around her, that he trail his hand along her spine to sink into the silver curls at her nape. He wanted to pull away to resist the skeins.
thank you for the parenthetical there that would bind his heart to her again, but he'd forgotten that she tasted of honeyed sweetness.
Thanks. We are trying to resist the skeins of partisan gerrymandering and the purging of voter rolls. But for Republicans, the prospect of choosing their voters rather than the other way around is just too sweet. How do we fight for democracy when it feels like the democracy itself is stacked against us?
Thank you.
We fight for democracy by remembering that we're entitled to it. The Constitution does not give us the right to vote, but our citizenship gives us the responsibility to demand the vote.
And so, part of the effectiveness of gerrymandering is that it tries to convince us that our votes don't matter because we don't live in the right zip code or on the right side of the line. My response is that we do our best to erase those lines. We do that by making sure that people who don't, who were unfortunately drawn out of power, understand that there are other ways to gain that power. And we don't use voting as the only thing. It is one of the tools in the toolbox.
And just as the curls of the nape of Mara's head that curled around his fingers, as he pulled her closer, we can, too, pull our country closer together.
Amazing.
Amazing.
So, just so, everyone, thank you so much, Stacy.
Thank you for having me.
Just so everybody here knows, we'll have more to say about it soon, but there is a very exciting project from Stacy Abrams and Crooked Media coming your way soon.
But I won't kiss and tell.
Stacy Abrams, everybody. Thank you, guys. The one and only.
Our guest tonight is the co-founder of Run for Something. Thank you. An amazing organization that's recruited and trained thousands of progressive candidates all around this country to run for office up and down the ballot. She is one of the most inspiring and smartest people in democratic politics. Please welcome to the stage Brooklyn's own Amanda Lipman.
Amanda.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Thank you for having me.
I promise not to make you read anything from Stacy's books.
I've read a few of them. They're very good.
They're very good, yes. Okay. While the presidential race is going to come down to traditional battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, the race for control of the House of Representatives is going to come down to this state right here, New York. Now, last night was a presidential race. We had a very divisive primary.
Income of Jamal Bowman lost.
But going forward, this is going to be where it happens, right? We have two Republicans in states that Joe Biden won, a bunch of really purple districts. What is your view of what's going to happen in the state? And can the party unite in time to take advantage of a bunch of contested, targeted, winnable House races in a very blue state in a presidential year?
I think we're going to have to.
New York is going to be a battleground this year, which is a little unfamiliar for us New Yorkers in most elections. But we have seen what New Yorkers can do when it comes to going out to Pennsylvania and knocking doors, when it comes to going down to Virginia and knocking doors when it counts. And I believe that New Yorkers can understand. this is our time to shine. We can show up when it counts.
We always do.
And there are some really competitive local elections that are going to be happening this year all across the state, including in some of these competitive House districts that are going to make the difference too.
Are there any political races, anywhere on the ballot here in New York that you're watching with particular interest, that you think are inspiring candidates, interesting, important races?
Well, Run for Something. just had a bunch of candidates up on the ballot yesterday that I'm really excited about. We helped Claire Valdez win a union organizer, take a seat in the State Assembly. Up in Albany, Gabriella Romero won a seat. A very progressive, incredible young woman in a very competitive race.
And I think there's going to be some really exciting races out on Long Island this year, so stay tuned.
People often think that it is the presidential race that drives turnout. And that was sort of in the premise of my question that this is a presidential year here in New York, but Run for Something thinks it's the opposite. You talk about something that's called reverse coattails, where local elections can actually drive turnout for the top of the ticket. Can you explain your theory and how it's impacted recent elections?
So traditionally, people understand that the presidential candidate has coattails, that people show up to vote for Biden or against Trump and then also fill out the rest of the ballot. What Run for Something has seen, and we actually proved this out with some research back in 2020, is that contesting local elections, especially state ledge, city council, school board, can increase turnout for the entire ticket to the tune of anywhere between 0.3 and 2.3% within that district, which can be the margin of victory for, say, Biden in Wisconsin or Arizona or Georgia. Now, think about this a little bit. Your local candidates, your state ledge candidate, your city council candidate, is out there, knocking doors, talking to voters. Hey, I'm Amanda.
I want to talk to you about your property taxes or the book bans they're pushing, or how we can fight for abortion access here in this state. You know them. You can yell at them directly if you want, which is kind of fun. You can really build a personal relationship. It's like a field organizer with a ton of skin in the game.
And more recently, we actually tested this out with young voters. in particular. We fielded a question in a poll. We asked young voters in battleground states if there was a young, diverse, progressive running for state or local office near you or in your area, how would that affect your likelihood to vote? 61% of young Democrats said it would make them more likely to show up.
That's huge, especially in a year where, like, let's be honest, a lot of young people, especially young voters of color, not particularly psyched to show up for Biden. So this is a tool in our toolbox.
I was going to ask that because this is, you know, I think obviously reverse coattails works all the time, particularly in, you know, redder parts of the state where Democrats may not run all the time or there's not a competitive congressional race, so you're not seeing ads that turn out, but maybe you're turning out for your local school board or, as you say, your city council or aldermen or local election official, I know, something you guys focus a lot on. But this year, in particular, it feels like, with so many people being unhappy with the choice of the top of the ticket for whatever reason, that this would be most important, right?
You know, we just had a small gathering to talk about some of the work. Run for Something does around school board races. And Luisa Santos, who's a member of the Miami-Dade school board, who's a target for. Rhonda Santos, who's had proud boys like show up at her campaign events, who's been harassed and also has done incredible things for Miami-Dade, bringing electric school buses down there, working for free lunch for kids. She was telling us how she goes and knocks doors and she'll talk to voters and she'll be like, well, are you going to vote this fall?
And they're like, no, psych, not interested. And they'll say, well, let me talk to you about what I've done for your kids. We don't even have to talk about Biden. We don't have to talk about Trump. Let's talk about what I've done for your kids and for our community.
They have a conversation. Will you show up and vote for me? And she's able to get them to say yes. And that times a thousand is what's going to win for democracy this fall.
Right, because people, they turn out, they're unlikely to leave the first question blank, right?
It's just not really what people do. Sometimes people leave the down ballot blank, but what we're doing with the thousands of run for something candidates across the country this year that we've recruited and the hundreds that we're endorsing, is giving people more invitations, more reasons to show up. They'll probably do the rest of the ballot, most of them, because most of them are Democrats. They don't want Trump. They're just like not super psyched about everything else.
In 2022, you guys spent, run for something, spent a lot of time talking about electing the candidates at the local level who are going to help certify the elections, right? That? in some cases, it's the recorder of deeds, right? Could you just talk a little bit about that effort, how you're doing in 2024, and maybe some of this, because when you talk local issues, you think local candidate, school board, potholes, local excise taxes, right? But how local candidates affect some of the national issues we think about, like education, abortion, health care, that sort of stuff.
Okay, so we call this program clerk work, because I love a good rhyme. And the idea is that we should elect pro-democracy leaders who actually oversee elections.
It's revolutionary. That is a crazy idea.
It's crazy. It's something Steve Bannon fundamentally disagrees with and has been running massive campaigns to recruit against. We have been doing this now for about two and a half years. intentionally. We've gotten more than 500 folks to run for pro-democracy positions that actually oversee elections.
My favorite example here. So in 2023, we sent a bunch of text messages out in Pennsylvania saying, hey, have you thought about running for county commission? Because county commissions, among their many other powers, oversee the election, decide where polling places are, and how the election is certified. One of the people we texted was a pastor in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, named Justin Douglas. Justin had been fired from his congregation for being too welcoming to LGBTQ congregants.
He had been working with the unhoused community in the area. And he was like, hey, I don't know if I'm the right person for this, but I'll have a conversation with you. Our Pennsylvania state director and our team there worked with him to get him to yes, and then to help him run this incredible campaign for county commission. in Dauphin County, which is around Harrisburg. He was outspent 10 to 1..
He was running against a Republican who had all the money and all the support and all the institutions. And Justin was leaving flyers on people's doors. that was like, the mayor in Jaws. 1 is still the mayor in Jaws. 2.
local elections matter.
One of the things in his campaign.
That's so funny.
He's great. One of the things in his campaign, besides democracy, was that a number of prisoners had died in residence at the county jail system that the county commission oversaw. And he made that a core part of his campaign. Justin won by just about 150 votes.
Justin flipped control of the county commission for the first time since the early 1900s in over 100 years. One of the first things Justin did was expand the number of ballot drop boxes in Dauphin County.
Justin is making sure that ballots are available in Spanish and Nepalese and Bhutanese. He's ensuring that the anti-democracy and Republican incumbent he beat has no control over whether the election is certified. Justin and the old county commissioners that he is part of are going to make sure that Joe Biden is able to fairly win the election in Pennsylvania this year and win the White House.
When Run for Something started in 2017, right after Trump won, you became a vehicle for this tremendous sense of activism among people. Like, what can I do? And you facilitated people who were looking for something to do to run for office at all levels. And there was a huge burst of people who wanted to do it. In the ensuing years, especially since 2020, there has been this sense that a lot of people have disengaged from politics.
Either they thought Trump is gone and I'm exhausted and I can take a break, he's back. Or they're maybe just burned out, cynical, whatever else. What's it been like trying to get people to run for office this year in this environment?
Would you believe that we have built a list of almost 160,000 young people in all 50 states who want to run for office?
It is, as far as we know, the largest candidate pipeline of the Democratic Party.
Thousands of people have signed up just in the last few months. They believe we're going to still have elections in 2025, and they want to be on the ballot when we do.
That's amazing. You said, you know, a lot of the candidates should work with their young candidates, right? You've really focused on young, progressive candidates. All of the polling, all of the polling, we believe, suggests that one of the challenges for the Democratic Party right now are young voters, progressives, but also young voters writ large. What advice do you have for Democratic candidates running anywhere about how they can bring Democratic voters back into the fold, young voters back into the fold?
Talk about the things young voters care about. It really, in many ways, is that simple. Housing. Young people disproportionately feel the impact of the cost of housing, especially because young people are renters, and we do not have enough renters in elected office, so when we have conversations about housing, it's a lot of landlords.
Abortion access.
You know, I'm still technically a young voter. I'm six months pregnant. Reproductive health is on my mind.
Congratulations.
Mid-October, due date. I'm just going to be crying in my house either way.
You know, think about the things that are really affecting young people now. Even, you know, here in New York, public transit.
could go on a whole rant about congestion pricing, but boy, Kathy Hochul's making it real hard. No, I think it's, in many ways, young voters really want to hear people talk, hear our politicians and our party talk to us about the things that directly affect our quality of life, which is not to say that democracy isn't part of that. It absolutely is, and it's not to say that restoring the soul of America is part of that, too. Sure, kind of. Some of us are hit or miss about what the soul of America is.
Is it good? Is it bad? I don't know, but for most young people, they just want someone to tell them, I can fix the things that are bothering you. I can give you hope. I can show you that there is a path to a better community and a better place to live.
It's why local candidates can really drive us.
Is that recognition that granularity is important, specificity is important? You made a mention of the democracy message. Is there a sense that for a lot of young voters, and I think maybe for a lot of voters, the democracy message may sometimes ring hollow because it becomes an endorsement of a political system that a lot of young people felt has not worked for them?
Yeah, you think about someone who's 18 in 2024.
. They've never known a political environment without Trump. They've never known a democracy that felt like it was reflective or representative of us. I think it's one of the reasons why we've seen young voters, or young candidates, be such powerful drivers for young voters. It's both practical, tangible.
Oh, this is someone who, when I say I'm really pissed about XYZ issue, is going to personally understand it, because they have dealt with it. But also, this is someone my age, my cohort, maybe I play basketball at the gym with them. Maybe our kids play soccer together, whatever it might be, who cares enough and believes enough in the possibility here. I think it's one of the best things about this work is it is so optimistic and so hopeful to see young people who don't believe the system is broken.
Okay. John, John and Tam, we're not the only ones with book news. You have an upcoming book with us for Crooked Media Reads. It's still in the works.
Super not done yet. I hope my editor is not here.
In this book, you're exploring generational leadership shifts. Can you give us a little preview of what you'll be covering in the book?
You know, I'm pretty behind, but I am writing a little bit about what it looks like to be the boss whose employees follow you on Instagram. Or, you know, take me for an example, to try and take maternity leave, as the boss or, like Run for Something does, believe that work-life balance is really important and want to implement, as we have, a four-day work week, and actually put that into practice. You know, when I say, like, you know what, a boomer leader, no offense to all the boomers, although my girls will live in the water wars, so a little offense, but when I say, like, my boss is such a boomer, you kind of know what that means. What I'm trying to do is define what it looks like when you say my boss is such a millennial and my boss is such a Gen Z. So, coming to you next May, please buy copies.
All right, finally, before we go,
Amanda, you've been on our podcast many times. Crooked Media and Posse America are huge fans of Run for Something. I found what you guys started in 2017 and what you've done to be incredibly smart, incredibly impactful. It is exactly what the Democratic Party has needed. In the pre-Trump era, so many times, Republicans were winning races because there was not a Democrat to run against them, because we had no operation within our party to recruit and train people, no point of entry for people who said, I want to run for office.
They didn't know who to call, what website to go to, and Amanda and her co-founders built this organization and have been making a gigantic difference. And so, I want to give you the opportunity to tell the people in this room and listening, not in this room, how they can help support your work, because no matter what happens in November, good outcome, unthinkable outcome, we need to continue to get young, progressive people running for office up and down that ballot, because that's the next generation of the Democratic Party. So how can they help run for something?
Runforsomething.
net slash. donate. One dollar, five dollars, five million dollars, I will take it all. And I say that somewhat jokingly, but also anyone who's been sort of, you know, to your point earlier, existing in the political space right now, is tired, and we are feeling that on the fundraising side too. So if you believe in this work and you believe that building power, sustainable power in all 50 states, at the local level matters, make a donation.
And if you are listening or you're here in the room, and you're like, huh, you know, I really would like to do something about housing or child care, or abortion access, or criminal justice reform or whatever issue it is, runforwhat.
net. Look up what offices are available for you to run for next year or the year after. We would love to help you, because I believe that democracy is going to win this fall and we're going to get a lot of elections next year. And even when Trump is far gone, we're going to have all his little copycats all across the country who are running for school board and city council and state ledge that we have to beat to. And you, either listening or here, can be a part of that.
Please give it up for Amanda Lipman. Thank you so much.
When we come back, Strict Scrutiny's, Melissa Murray is going to join us for some more news.
Please welcome NYU law professor and co-host of Strict Scrutiny, our pal Melissa Murray.
Outstanding ovation for the people at home.
So, today was a day like so many others in June, where sickos like us maniacally refreshed our feeds at 10 a.
m. Eastern, 7 a.m. Pacific, in anticipation of Supreme Court decisions that usually make us angry when they come and angry when they don't come. Wednesday morning was slightly different, in that the court rejected a challenge from Republicans in Missouri that would have prevented the federal government from simply asking social media companies to remove misinformation from their platforms. But, despite the court's term, usually ending in June, which is almost over, despite American democracy hanging in the balance, we still don't have the immunity ruling, or about 10 other important rulings.
So, Melissa, we'll get to all of that, but first, how big of a deal was the 6-3 ruling in Murphy v. Missouri?
Okay, well, thanks for having me. This chair is really deep. I feel like Martha Ann Alito made this, so I could feel like a child. I messed it up.
So,
Murphy v. Missouri is a really important case about social media. It should be understood, in tandem with a couple of other cases, that the court still has not yet decided. These net choice cases, I think those may come down in the next couple of days. But, the case was decided on procedural grounds.
The court said that the litigants, which were two Republican state AGs, and then a handful of social media users who said that Facebook and Twitter moderated their content to root out their COVID-19 conspiracy theories, the court said they didn't have standing. So, it was a purely jurisdictional question. So, we didn't actually get to the substance of whether the government can lean on social media platforms to do better content moderation. But, because it was a standing issue, this could come back at a later time. It may come back in the future.
I think the biggest thing that this case did was that it allowed the court an opportunity to once again smack down the Fifth Circuit, which I always appreciate. And they did it in really excellent form. On strict scrutiny, we refer to the Fifth Circuit as a meth lab of conservative grievance.
the court seemed to agree with us. They basically said that this case, there had been no discussion of any of the facts that might lead to questions of standing whether these were the right litigants to bring this case to federal court. And so, Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority and she said, you know, this is not a fact-free zone. And I guess that was encouraging.
Were there any hints in the decision about how they saw the substance of the case, or was it just purely standing?
Mostly standing. The dissents, though, were really interesting. There was a big dissent by Justice Alito, and, I mean,
wow. Get out. Really?
That guy.
That guy. So he wrote this dissent where he just basically railed on the Biden administration and specific members of the Biden administration by name. So he name-checked Joe Biden, he name-checked Jen Psaki, name-checked the Surgeon General and basically talked about all of these people trying to censor conservatives. I mean, it was almost like a Fox grandpa getting a chance to write a Supreme Court opinion.
You think of them as people who might be upset about someone putting a flag on their house? That kind of thing?
He is deep in the comment section, huh?
He is, yes.
Long-time lurker,
first-time caller. Yes, exactly.
I wanted to ask you about the dissent, because, first of all, you dip into Alito and he's just mad all the time. All the time. He's mad all the time.
But why?
He's 70-something years old. He has the skin of a 50-year-old. This man looks amazing for his age. No, seriously. Check it out.
Yeah, it's like, maybe you get everything you want and then you're unhappy, but.
But, uh, something for him and his therapist.
He doesn't.
These people.
are not in therapy. But, um, what was the... I wanted to ask you about the dissent, because, you know, the meth lab right now is contained to the Fifth Circuit, but in the dissent he doesn't just name-check people, right? He says, ugh, these bozos writing the majority, they didn't even entertain the actual substantive question, but I will, and I actually think on the merit. this is a violation of the First Amendment.
Does that tell you, like, I mean, it does seem like everyone's like, oh, this opinion, this Fifth Circuit opinion is ridiculous, but not ridiculous to three people already.
So, not ridiculous to three people who would be very happy to reach the merits of this case, and a dissent like that is essentially a roadmap to future litigants. Just find better plaintiffs who can actually make out plausible claims of injury. and then here's a path to deciding this on the merits and turning this into a First Amendment violation. So, I think that's a big part of what this was.
Right, because he even says, right, like, they didn't even seek damages. If they had sought damages, we could have talked about the damages. So, it's like, he's like really like, no, no, come back and we'll get rid of any bounds on what you can say online.
They do this all the time. The conservatives are always doing this. In the Miffa-Pristone case, Thomas and Alito were basically asking the Solicitor General to identify who would be a better set of plaintiffs, and thankfully, she was like, I don't work for you. I work for the Attorney General, and so she declined to provide a roadmap for them. but they do this all the time.
These dissents, these concurrences, are often invitations to come back, do it better, do it again.
It does seem like Alito is like Heisenberg and he does want the meth lab to go national.
Who is Jesse in this?
Martha Ann.
Always.
Let's say, someone reads Alito's dissent, they see it's humor damages, whatever, they get standing. What is the actual decision on the merits in Alito's fashion? mean? The government simply can't ask Facebook to take posts down?
We already have a little bit of a kind of inkling of where he's going, because a couple of weeks ago, the court decided another case, NRA versus Vulo, and it was decided much earlier, in an earlier stage of litigation. but basically, what had happened was Maria Vulo, who is a New York State official, leaned on some insurance companies, some banks, to basically stop doing business with the NRA in the wake of the Parkland shooting and the NRA sued, saying that you can't do that if you're a government official and the court, in a very narrow, unanimous decision written by Justice Sotomayor, said, yeah, the government can do its job, it can't use its position to lean explicitly or to coerce another entity to do something. and I think that's basically what Justice Alito is looking at, and he said specifically that Vulo should be the template going forward.
So, Tommy, does this seem like a defeat for the forces of disinformation?
It seems like a mixed bag.
I mean,
I think, setting the government aside, I mean, I think the challenge with disinformation at the moment is the platforms. Speaking of Justice Alito's skin care, I think a couple weeks ago I saw that on TikTok, a bunch of influencers were saying that you don't actually need sunscreen to prevent skin cancer, that sunscreen can give you skin cancer.
Who was,
there was one famous person behind this, right?
Well, I don't know.
Anyway, so like no dumb idea won't go viral over there. so TikTok's a problem. I think meta's sort of washing its hands of all things content moderation. Twitter is obviously a disaster. I mean, we have like, Elon Musk is the number one super spreader of disinformation.
I think they fired their whole trust and safety team. They've changed the verification process so that any bozo can pay eight bucks for a blue check and get algorithmic amplification and then, if you go super viral, you can actually make money on your posts. So every time I see in the news like something happened in Gaza, there will be an account that is sharing a video from like 2015 in Syria, that is, that they purport to be from today, because they'll get paid off of that. So I think the platforms that are disaster, I think that you're seeing academics get in the crossfire of the political discourse here. Like, I think, Stanford just shut down a research lab that was focused on disinformation, and you have Republican members of Congress crowing that, like, in the name of free speech, we just killed all this free speech and research.
So I feel like the trajectory of our broader efforts of preventing the spread of disinformation are getting pushed aside because institutions are not prepared for the political fallout.
It doesn't seem like we're going to be able to address the supply of disinformation at this point, because it's in so many different platforms. It's so many different places and whether people, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides, if it comes back to them, there is legal pressure. The Stanford Internet Observatory shut down because of this legal pressure and because of pressure from people who are funding it. So it's just like, it does feel like it's becoming very, very difficult to just actually go after the different sources of misinformation and deal with the platforms, unless we're going to actually regulate them, which is also difficult.
And there's very legitimate questions about what role the government should play here in terms of censorship, free speech, First Amendment rights. You can imagine a scenario where a Trump administration is shutting down disinformation that says things like, hey, you lost the 2020 election. So, you know, we have to be careful on that part, but I think broadly, there's a lot of non-government actors here.
This is also just like, what we're talking about is so far, this is about individual staffers and people in the government seeing vast amounts of misinformation already on the internet and like desperately trying to do triage. Like, if you're at the stage where you're reaching out to Facebook about individual posts that are going viral, you've already lost. We've already lost. Like, that's a, you know, that's a, I'm going to say it and you're going to all be a little immature about it, but it's like putting a finger in the dike. I can't do it.
Dan? Yeah, I mean, that's where the point is.
Do you have a better metaphor?
I don't know how I follow that, but.
I was going to say it's like whack-a-mole, but.
Yeah, whack-a-mole.
Yeah. That was the one I was going to use, but anywho. Like, even in a world in which we get the right decision in the, whatever the future case is on this, it's, all it's saying is platforms will still make the decision. Right? So, ultimately, we are still, our solution as a society for limiting the spread of disinformation is to bet on the goodwill of tech billionaires.
And then, in the course of world history, that has never worked. Just betting on.
rich people. The coal barons. The oil barons.
Betting on rich people, rich business barons, to make decisions counter to their financial self-interest is not a good strategy. And I think, ultimately, the way we're going to beat misinformation and disinformation is not to stop it at the source. It is to invest our time and energy into countervailing, factual, positive information.
And making our own.
Damn it.
We're going to make our own. Make our own.
Okay.
Melissa, so the counts vary somewhat, but it seems like there are about ten opinions left to be released. What are the big ones other than immunity? We'll get to immunity.
So, there are a couple of really big cases involving the future vitality of the administrative state. So, one, SEC versus Jarkissi, which is about the SEC's ability to do in-house enforcement adjudication. That's how most SEC cases are adjudicated. That will be huge. There's another set of cases, two consolidated cases, Relentless versus Department of Commerce, and Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, which are about whether, in circumstances where a statute is ambiguous, whether it's the agency who has the opportunity to determine and resolve that ambiguity, or whether a judge, a Trump judge, should be able to do that.
It's the Chevron doctrine, so that hangs in the balance. There's a major case on homelessness, Grants Pass versus Johnson. There are major cases involving environmental law, Ohio versus EPA, which is about the good neighbor rule. If you've watched The Lion King, this is basically the Pumba rule, whereas states that are upwind have to take precautions to ensure that their downwind neighbors don't bear the brunt of smog or air pollution. So, a lot of really big cases.
Some of them, I think, too wonky to really get into on mainstream media, which is why you hear about immunity, you hear about Mifepristone, but you don't hear about these other cases. But, these are the cases that are about government as we know it. Whether we have clean air, clean water, whether government can regulate or whether we're going to allow judges, unelected judges, to make these decisions.
It does seem like that the court later today may have accidentally posted a decision on a major abortion case in Idaho. What happened there?
So, you've got to ask at this point, who's doing IT at the court?
Right?
Is it Martha Ann? Possibly.
So, yeah,
if you were refreshing this morning, I did not refresh hard enough to catch this, but apparently the court inadvertently uploaded the opinion in MOYL, which is the EMTALA case. EMTALA is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. It's a federal law that requires when you present at a federally funded hospital, which is most hospitals, since they mostly all take Medicare and Medicaid funds, you have to be served with emergency treatment. that's appropriate, stabilizing emergency care, including abortions. And, that has to be done even if you are in a state with a draconian abortion law, like Idaho, for example.
At oral argument, when this case was argued, it seemed very clear that the conservative supermajority on the court was really skeptical about the prospect of women needing emergency abortions in cases of miscarriage or whatnot. you know, in their infinite medical judgment, the justices were sort of like, can't she just, like, wait? Maybe die? I don't know. All of that.
But, it seems from this uploaded opinion that the court has made a decision to punt this case. They've decided that they are going to do what is known as a dig. They've determined that certiorari, or the court's decision to review this case, that decision was improvidently granted. And, usually a dig happens when the court determines, after oral argument, after review has been granted, that the circumstances are such that further adjudication would be improvident. So, a dig is very unusual, right?
It doesn't happen that often. And, I've never really seen a dig happen so many months after oral argument, right? So, I mean, usually. if you've determined that there are circumstances that would require a dig, it's pretty obvious on the face.
Yeah, we all know that, and we all know what improvident means. Right, well,
I know that.
We all know,
but just in case somebody listening and they don't want to feel dumb.
I assumed you knew, because I know about your LSAT score. Yeah, no,
I'm saying I know, we know, but they don't, somebody out there, they all know, but somebody might not know. Improvident,
we shouldn't have done it. LSAT score. Well, I mean,
he always tells me about it. I know,
well, that's, you know. So,
we shouldn't have taken this case. So, a mulligan, essentially, let's just call it a mulligan. Do you want to hear my crazy cockamamie conspiracy theory about this case?
of course.
all right.
What did Levitt say?
We're creating our own misinformation, and Dan advocated it.
Let's do it.
So,
here's my theory of this.
The court got rid.
of the Miffa-Pristone case, not by deciding it on the merits, whether the FDA properly regulated Miffa-Pristone. They ditched it on standing grounds, like not the right plaintiffs, not a clear claim of injury,
and then this case.
gets digged, like dismissed as improvidently granted, a mulligan, if you will.
I think they know that abortion drives women to the polls. I think they know that abortion gets undecided voters out, and it galvanizes support in electoral politics, and I think they've looked at the calendar and they realize November is coming.
100%. I think this is true,
and I think.
they're trying.
to figure out a way to get the court out of the crosshairs of electoral politics, and if they decided this the way I think it looked like it was going at oral argument, it would have galvanized so much support among women. I mean, they're basically asking, just go die. Go to a parking lot and wait till we tell you you can have this abortion, and I think they just didn't want to do that. Justice Jackson writes a barn burner of a concurrence slash dissent where she says, I don't believe this was improvidently granted. I believe you bitches wanted to get to this, and you took it, and now, let's decide it, because you broke it, you buy it.
Like, you need to decide this. And, yeah.
I mean, the lesson here that clearly the court took from Dobbs and all the political repercussions, was not that you shouldn't take a constitutional right away from half the country, it's that you shouldn't do it in an election year. I mean,
and John Roberts said this at the oral argument in Dobbs. He's like, listen, can't we get to some kind of compromise where we uphold this cockamamie Mississippi law, but we don't go all the way and overrule Dobbs? Wouldn't that be better? because there's an election coming, the midterms? And they wouldn't listen to him.
Millions of women were energized by Dobbs and they went to the polls. I think they see the same thing happening now. Abortion is a salient issue for elections. And Justice Jackson.
said this
in her concurrence slash dissent. She said, you know, there's comparatively a more convenient time for us to get to this. And make no mistake, we will get to this. We're not getting to it now because they've decided it's improvident to do so. But we will get there.
And there's already another case coming out of, wait for it, the Fifth Circuit. So this is going to come back to the court. It'll just come back after November. So don't be fooled. Don't listen to all of the folks who are like, this is a moderate court on abortion.
They want to take this issue out of the public discourse around this election. I don't even know if it was a mistake that it got uploaded the day before the debate, where the one thing Joe Biden needs to hammer is that Donald Trump is responsible for whatever is happening on abortion.
Sleeper cell IT person.
Well,
I was, I mean, I was going to ask, like on that note, so we're recording this Wednesday night. The debate is Thursday night. Tomorrow morning, Thursday night, Wednesday morning, there's going to be more decisions. There will also be decisions Friday. And then there will be decisions, I guess, Monday.
And we don't know what's going to happen beyond that. What decisions could be released tomorrow that would provide fodder for either candidate at the debate tomorrow night? And like, how likely do we think that this court's going to release any decisions tomorrow morning that could potentially be fodder for the debate tomorrow night? Because it doesn't seem like they would drop the immunity, but now I'm thinking of some of the other ones. Like, any case that would help Joe Biden make an argument against Donald Trump at the debate, it seems unlikely they would drop that tomorrow morning.
So, maybe they drop the Amtala decision, since we all seem to know what it is. yeah, it's out there. Cat's out of the bag. Like, let the chips fall where they may. Housing prices are so high, maybe they release the case on homelessness and, like, make that Joe Biden's fault.
Possibly. I think it's very unlikely that the immunity case comes out for obvious reasons. Although, they could literally be like gremlins where they got wet and ate after midnight and just decided to do it. I don't know. Like, that would be the most chaos agent thing ever.
Well, there's also the case.
Actually, the eating after midnight would make them gremlins.
Is that what happened?
The getting wet would make more gremlins.
Is that what happened? Yeah.
The eating after midnight turns Gizmo into gremlin. Right.
I actually never watched this movie.
Oh.
I just, like, know this.
It seems like you raised it.
It was on the LSAT.
You raised it improvidently.
v1.0.0.260408-1-a910ba6_os