First Rule of Republican Fight Club

The New York Times thinks Donald Trump is less vulnerable than other Republicans on the issue of abortion. And Biden. Pollster John Della Volpe joins to talk about the president's challenge with younger voters. But first, MAGA Mike Johnson looking more like Rhino Mike Johnson. Now that he passed a bill to keep the government open that doesn't cut a single cent of spending or include any of his weird right-wing policy kinks. It's probably why the bill passed with mostly Democratic votes and 95 Republicans voting against it.

The Senate also passed the bill, and now it's off to Joe Biden for his signature. The bad news in all of this is that, for some reason, the bill only funds half the government until January 19th and the other half until February 2nd. So we get to relive this shit show after the holidays. There's also no plan to pass funding for Ukraine, Israel, humanitarian aid for Gaza, or help for Americans dealing with natural disasters. So no welcoming Mike Johnson's to the resistance just yet.

But Dan, how was he able to pass a temporary funding bill with mostly Democratic votes and so many Republicans opposed? Isn't that the exact thing that cost Kevin McCarthy his job? It is, John is the exact thing that cost Kevin McCarthy his job. So I think there are a couple of things here.

One, I think every new Republican speaker gets one Mulligan, and this is his, so you're going to let him get away with it. Two. McCarthy lied repeatedly to the caucus, saying No CRS, no CRS, no temporary bills, no clean CRS. Johnson, and I say this quite lightly to his very, very minimal credit, did tell Republicans during his nominating speech to be speaker that this was the plan that he wanted to do. A short-term extension so they could pass all of the appropriations, bills and then be in a position to negotiate with the Senate and the White House.

Now there's some wrinkles in that plan because they've been unable to pass almost any appropriations, bills, and they can't even get them to the floor. But at least this was not a surprise to most Republicans, even if they didn't want to put their name on it. He didn't betray them per se, in a way that Kevin McCarthy did. And Chip Roy and some of the other hardliners are still pretty pissed about this, yeah.

But I also think he just gets a little more leeway because they see him as true MAGA and not a lying d-bag like Kevin McCarthy. White House initially criticized Johnson's plan, and Democrats in Congress had a mixed reaction. Do you think that so many of them ended up voting? Yes? Because the bill didn't have any cuts or bad policies? And there's no other way to keep the government open. I feel like you're leading the witness with that question, of course.

This is, you know? Funding the government at last year's levels was actually better than it would be if we were funding it at this year's levels under the budget caps. Here's the thing I don't get why. The White House initially put out a statement that was like his extreme plan. Blah, blah, blah. I was like, it seems like a fine plan. There are a lot of budget nerds who think that the laddered CR process is irresponsible, the laddered CR, by the way, for all you fucking dorks out there.

No, you not Dork, if you're explaining it to people, they're not the Dorks. The Dorks are us. For all of you. I'm sorry, that's what I meant for all of you who aren't fucking Dorks out there. That's what I meant to say. Is the fact that half the government's being funded till January 19th and the other half till February 2nd, which I don't even get.

That it is a let's not explain it. All I will say about it is it's a stupid idea designed to appeal to stupid people. And therefore, you got 57 of the Republican caucus to vote for it, and Democrats went along. Because who gives a shit?

It's better than shutting the government down over the holidays, right? And I guess the only other thing that Democrats didn't get, which we're about to talk about is Ukraine funding, Israel funding Gaza aid, natural disaster aid. And it does seem like shutting the government down over. That is also not something you want to do before the holidays, you think.

No, thank you, no thank you. So how the hell do you think that gets done, all that aid and does it get done? And two part question if, for some reason, Johnson tries to pass a more permanent funding bill that's as acceptable to Democrats in January, won't the hardliners just vacate his ass?

Let me take the second part first. Probably there is a question about whether there is an appetite for another month-long shit show in an election year, there's a chance they might. Republicans tend to eat their own in the odd years and then kind of line up with each other in the even years. But it's very, very possible because all it takes is one asshole to do it, and there's a plethora of assholes who could do it. On the question of aid, really, no idea how it gets done.

I think there are a couple of options here one, the Senate passes something, sends it to the House, tremendous public pressure is put on the House, and eventually, Johnson lets it go through with mostly Democratic votes. That probably also ends in the vacate his ass scenario that you put forward. Two, the House refuses to do anything other than Israel aid. The Senate eventually buckles and agrees to just do Israel aid.

And then I think the other stuff may never get done. Because passing Ukraine aid on its own through this House may be close to impossible. Third option is, and this will lead us into the next topic is trial by combat, where one Republican fights one Democrat, and the winner gets to decide who gets aid.

Yeah, I mean, look, I feel like with all of these, every time we talk about government funding, government shutdown and it seems like there's a solution. It's just kicking the can down the road to an inevitable showdown, where there will be a shutdown or we will lose another Republican speaker. So sad, but like, I just don't like. At some point, these assholes are going to want their MAGA speaker to act like a MAGA speaker, right? And so they're not just going to let Johnson pass some full year funding bill. That doesn't have a bunch of extra cuts in it beyond what they already. What Kevin McCarthy already agreed to with Joe Biden. So I just feel like this confrontation is coming at some point, but who knows?

And then on Ukraine and Israel. I do think that if you have a bill that has bipartisan support in the Senate. And then they try to jam the house. And it's up to Mike Johnson to put the bill on the floor. And there's at least some group of Republicans in the House who want to pass it, which we know, that's true. So then you've got Democrats and Republicans in the house, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. Joe Biden and the White House all saying to pass this bill. And Mike Johnson's just going to hold it up, like, that's. It's a lot of pressure. I could see. He could just decide, you know, I want to do it because who cares? and I don't want to get my ass vacated, but who knows?

In every other time in recent history where that's happened and happened a fair amount during the Obama years, the House would eventually buckle. It happened on fiscal cliff, it happened on extension of the payroll tax cut, it happened on aid for victims of the Hurricane Sandy and other natural disasters. But we were not in a world where it only took one House Republican to throw the entire thing in. The chaos. It may be, and that, and Johnson may decide this, that the only option is to shut the government down. Like, he sort of has to drive the car off the cliff to teach everyone in his party that gravity exists, right?

So you, you have to still might not do it, it may fail, but eventually, under that, that's essentially what happened in 2014, with that shutdown, when it was over. Obamacare is that once you? Once the government was shut down, the political pressure mounted so much that enough Republicans asked for you basically gave in. And that you could see that having to happen again. If the government shuts down, there's not a great path for reopening it again with this house under these dynamics. Cool, cool all right now for the fun stuff.

For some reason, this is the week that Republicans all over Capitol Hill lost their final shreds of sanity and dignity. With tantrums and meltdowns so epic that they nearly led to several physical altercations. First up, James Comer, House Oversight committee chair who's trying to brother money when he wasn't even an elected official or a candidate? Well, according to story in the Daily Beast, it turns out that James Comer also paid his brother $200,000 related to the dealings of a family company that appears to have never existed on paper. Who knows if it's shady or not? It seems like it could be shady. But clearly the same thing that he's accusing Joe Biden of doing.

And so when Democrat Jared Moskowitz asked Comer about the story during a hearing on Tuesday, things got a little heated. Let's listen, you all continue to. You look like a smurf here, just going around and all this stuff. You have gone on TV and said the president did something illegal, you're doing stuff with your brother.

The American people have the same questions, why should they believe you, Mr. Chairman? This seems to have gotten under your skin.

That bell means this is the first of a couple fights that we're about to talk about. Dan, what do you think of the old? I'm not a hypocritical crook. You're a smurf play. a smurf. Feels like a very dated reference, I have to say.

Jared Moskowitz does not look like a smurf. Did you see what he was wearing? No, but I just he had on a particularly blue suit this day. There was a It is a dumb comment. Uh, not befitting a member of Congress, let alone just a grown adult, but there was context for it in the blue suit.

Okay, well, that's fair. Look, I'm here just to give people the facts. Point point for comer on that one. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

I'm just trying to give you and our listeners, slash viewers context for what's happening here, and just just to give everyone some real info. Mike Johnson the other day said There doesn't seem to be evidence yet for an impeachment of Joe Biden. Well, guess what, James Comer's flailing around in hearings, and he's he's getting accused of things that he's accusing Joe Biden for.

He's got no evidence. Doesn't seem like it's going well for them. Well, Mike Johnson put out a statement on Tuesday, Tuesday or Wednesday. I think, uh. Reiterating his belief that Joe Biden has committed impeachable offenses and that he should. We should bring everyone in under oath, because every non insane action in a Republican Congress requires a much larger, insane reaction. And so because he passed this CR, he has to, like, triple down on the fake impeachment, fake impeachment, yeah.

All right, fight number two. This is when things get really good, uh. At another hearing on Tuesday, right across the highway on Capitol Hill, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen of Oklahoma. Real person, real name. Got so triggered by testimony from the president of the Teensters Union, Sean O'Brien, that he stood up and challenged him to a fight. So this is a time, this is a place you want to run your mouth.

We can be two consenting adults. We can finish it here. Okay, that's fine, perfect.

You want to do it now? I'd love to do it right now. We'll stand your butt up, then you stand your butt up, oh, hold on.

Oh, stop it. Is that your solution? No, no, sit down. okay, hold it.

Answer the questions All right, y'all want if I he? He made a lot of statements, right, and his statements of fiction at best. What?

Oh, answer the question, please. I can't understand him, to be honest with you. Do you think? Bernie Sanders woke up on Tuesday expecting that he would have to stop one of his colleagues from beating the shit out of one of his witnesses?

Things in this day and age rarely exceed expectations. But when I clicked on that link the other day, I could not. It was 1 million times better than I thought. It was unbelievable. Them standing up, the witness, making fun of him. Just truly great stuff. I had heard of Mark Wayne Mullen before, but I didn't know a lot about him.

Senator from Oklahoma. This did lead me to google him, Oh nice, because he was very mad that Sean O'Brien called him a greedy CEO. By the way, the whole hearing was about trying to pass the Proact, which helps people join unions.

Mark Wayne wanted everyone to know that he's not anti-union, but yeah, he's tried to stop unions from being organized around his businesses. And he's worth over $30 million.

And he is so extreme. He once said that if his wife's life were at risk during pregnancy, he wouldn't want her to get an abortion. That's just a fun fact about Mark Wayne Mullen from Oklahoma. He is a person serving in the U..S. Senate. Got up, tried to challenge this guy to a fight.

Now, in case you thought that Mark Wayne felt any kind of shame over this incident, think again, because this is what he said afterwards. And keep in mind, too, this isn't anything new. Andrew Jackson challenged two people, or nine people, to a duel when he was president, and he also knocked one guy out at a White House dinner. There's been canes before in the Senate, too.

Maybe we should bring some of that back and it'll keep people from thinking they're so tough. I'm not afraid of biting, I will bite, biting, yeah.

I'm in a fight, I'm going to bite, I'll do anything. I mean, I'm not above it, and I don't care where I bite, by the way.

He wants to bite, and he doesn't care where. Alexander Hamilton never bit. By the way, do you think someone in his staff proposed the Caning dueling talking points? I mean, we should bring Caning back?

I'm going to bite and I don't care where I bite. What the what is going on in the U.S Senate with Republicans? Look, the Senate is filled, the Congress in general, particularly the Republican, the Republican Caucus, and both the House and Senate is filled. With a lot of very angry assholes who don't like to work very much and have been working for like, a month straight. So I think they're all at the end of their ropes and losing it.

Well, Dan, finally, we have saved the best for last. Disgraced former speaker Kevin McCarthy, known to his fans as the backbencher from Bakersfield, seems like he is definitely not over getting ousted by MAGA hardliners. They stabbed him in the back, so he allegedly elbowed one of them in the back.

Also, on Tuesday must have been a full moon. Here's Republican Tim Burchett on what went down and McCarthy's response. At that time. I got elbowed in the back and it kind of caught me off guard because it was a clean shot to the kidneys. And I turned back and there was.

There was Kevin for a minute, I was what the heck just happened, and then I chased after him. Of course, he's a type of guy that, when you're a kid, would throw a rock over the fence and run home and hide behind his mama's skirt.

And he just that's not the way we handle things in East Tennessee. We if we have a problem with somebody, I'm going to look him in the eye if I. If I were to hit somebody, they would know, I said.

He said, he said, he said, he said he was in pain. Did you get on now? And I just don't expect a guy who was at one time three steps away from the White House to sucker hit you with a sucker punch in the in the hallway.

I mean, first of all, I feel like Kevin McCarthy probably was that kid. Oh yeah, one hundred percent very perceptive. Tim Burchett, However, you had him dead to rights on that one.

Yeah, do we really think that? Kevin McCarthy meant to elbow a fellow member of Congress as walking by while he was talking to an NPR reporter? What do you think? I feel like? This is a trick question, like, what's the right answer here?

Like, Am I defending Kevin McCarthy? I know I'm not trying to get you to defend Kevin McCarthy or Tim Burchett. I'm honestly curious, because it's like, I don't know. That seems like it seems like a risky move.

Seems like I don't know if you'd want to. It's just silly, I don't a couple of things. I would be surprised if his go to move is a running secret elbow to the kidney, like that doesn't seem right.

That's what during live interviews, because, in fairness, like, you're not, if you're talking to the press or into a microphone, you're not paying attention. Like, if someone were to elbow me in the kidney right now, I would come as a surprise. Second, when Kevin McCarthy said, If I hit them, they would know it. I find that one also hard to believe.

Also, very hard to believe, doesn't? All these guys? Whether it's Mark Wayne Mullen, the Secret Spot Biter, or Tim Burchett, or like, just stop pretending to be tough. You are members of Congress. Mark Wayne Mullen was a mixed martial arts expert. This is what I also learned about Mark Wayne Mullen.

Kudos, I don't know, I don't want him elbowing me or biting me anywhere. When people, everyone's like, these guys are members of Congress, they should act better.

They're adults, I don't care what their job is, I don't care if you're in Congress, anything else, you just don't act like this. Like, let's not, let's not raise Congress up to a pedestal anywhere in polite society. Don't elbow people.

Don't chase after them, don't threaten them to a fight in the middle of nowhere, or in the middle of a hearing over nothing like it. It basically like the equivalent of in someone's office during a meeting, just standing up and trying to do that across the conference room table. It's insane. I've done that a few times with Lovett.

I believe it, I believe it. In this case, who are you, the secret elbower? Are you the elbower or the biter? Who is Lovett in this story?

Jared Moskowitz.

Of course, there's one more addendum to this story, because none of these morons can just let shit go. Here's Burchett giving a post-fight interview on Newsmax that got way more interesting than anyone expected. He also has 17 million dollars in an account that he'll be messing in. A lot of people like mine and Nancy Mason's campaigns, I'm sure I don't know if he does that with Nancy May.

She could come back at him with some stuff that he doesn't want out there in the public. I think, if you know what I'm saying, yeah, she's already told me, she said. I hope he does that with me and she'll take care of him.

What does Nancy May's got on Kevin McCarthy? Of all the things that we have talked about in this section, that is the question I am left with more than anything else. I don't know what to say about that. Sean I really don't.

Drop the goods Newsmax guy refreshing punchbowl to see if Jake Sherman delivers on the subscription money I pay him.

Unbelievable, unbelievable. Speaking of people who don't belong in Congress, I realize this wasn't on the outline, but we have to talk about it because it just happened. A bipartisan ethics report from Congress that was just released Thursday morning says there is, quote, substantial evidence that George Santos violated criminal laws. Which has led him to announce he will not be running again in 2024, though he will probably also face another expulsion vote in the House before then. Among other things, the report says that Santos spent campaign funds on Botox, designer goods, fancy trips to Atlantic City and OnlyFans?

The thing that is so good about this is I've been in back-to-back meetings since early this morning East Coast time, and I am learning all of this for the first time. It is glorious. I'm so happy to surprise you with this. I knew that the ethics report came out and you've never DV'd it from the outline before, so I thought I was safe. But I have not read the details yet. And so I do want to quibble with one thing. As someone who grew up in the Mid-Atlantic region, there is no such thing as a fancy trip to Atlantic City.

I've been there a few times and I understand what you're saying.

I thought you were going to say, as someone who has an OnlyFans page.

It's my sub-stack, John, which, as Tommy once suggested to you, you should have called Onlydance.

Some people have an OnlyFans, some people have a sub-stack. I'm more of the sub-stack crowd. Yeah, Onlydance. It could have been the message box title that would have been so great.

Oh my god, that's such a good point. It does feel like this expulsion vote should go forward. I mean, we talked before about how, you know, Jamie Raskin, Katie Porter. Some other Democrats were like, we want him to have due process. Part of the due process was about, like, you know, he's been indicted, but he hasn't been convicted. But also that there hasn't even been a House ethics process yet. now there is a House ethics process.

They had access to more evidence than the public about George Santos potential wrongdoing. And so the fact that the ethics Committee now says, Oh yeah, he's probably committed a crime, and it's a bipartisan ethics committee. Yeah, I'd vote for that expulsion, I don't know who wouldn't. Yeah, I think that's it. I mean, I know who won't, the Republicans who can't afford to lose one House vote.

Right, right, right, right, right. But among the Democrats, I meant among Democrats, yeah, for sure, and it really, and you know, we talked about this.

After that vote, the I think there is a very legitimate argument that we should at least let the you know. Someone doesn't have to be convicted to be expelled from Congress, but the official governing body of the House should render or finish its investigation. Before you have that, before you actually expel someone. So now let's have. I'd be very interested to see how Republicans vote on this.

Okay, back to our reality, where Democrats fight each other with polling cross tabs and messaging memos. After a week where Democrats argued about the validity of a New York Times poll taken a year before the election, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Data for Progress did something useful. They commissioned a poll that doesn't focus on the most effective economic message for President Biden and Democrats. We will dig into the data in a second. But the main takeaway, which they reportedly shared in a meeting with White House officials, is that. It is extremely difficult to convince voters that the economy has improved. And much easier to persuade people that Biden's plans are better than Trump's plans. Dan, what did you think of the poll and the recommendations?

I think, as you said, an incredibly useful exercise, right for all of the complaining and screaming about polling. This is what it's ultimately for. Not to tell us what's going to happen, but how to give us the guidance and strategic advice to get the outcome we want. And I think there's two very, incredibly useful findings here. The first one is that we have to start by acknowledging that people aren't happy with the economy.

And I think for a long time, particularly over the last, you know, basically the last six to nine months. There's been this sense that perceptions of the economy were a lagging indicator. The economy was actually getting better, because all the macroeconomic numbers suggest it is. So people are eventually just going to, like, wake up one day and be happy about it, or we're going to, like, grab them by the lapels via their TV screens and phone screens and make them realize that. But I think the persistent and growing negative perceptions about the economy, I think, suggest that there's something else going on.

One, the macroeconomic numbers we have used previously to suggest a good economy through the lens of politics don't work anymore in the same way. And our friend Mike Podhorzer was on Ezra Klein's podcast and he talked about this. And he made the point that in previous eras before, we lived in this world of really yawning economic inequality, prosperity was shared. Right under Bill Clinton, for example, when GDP went up, everyone benefited.

That's not how we live anymore, right? Those benefits are not being equally. That's one, two. We talk about inflation all of the time, and inflation is coming down.

In a report today on wholesale prices, that is now actually below pandemic levels. But people don't care about how much costs are going up, they care what costs are. And then we still, I don't think we have a way of understanding the political environment in a world of interest rates. So I think we are past the point of, like, trying to make people feel good about the economy and try. We have to speak to where they are. Because, as we've said before, on questions of in politics, the customer is always right, and this is where the voters are.

Then the other point is comparison, and what I found really interesting in this poll was they tested a number of messages and the best comparison against Trump was that narrowed. The gap on economic approval. The most had to do with Trump's support for big tax cuts for corporations and supporting corporations. And so that's like a real formula and roadmap for Democrats to adopt going forward.

That I think can be very, very, very useful, just to dig in on this. Because I think a lot of folks have wondered if the media's refusal to cover the improving economy, or refusal to cover it extensively enough, has contributed to the bad feelings about the economy. So what they did in this poll, which I think is very smart, is that they presented the poll respondents with some information about the economy. They said. Economists have found that the rate of inflation is going down and unemployment is at a record low. Which statement comes closer to your view?

One, the economy is not getting better for people like me, or two, the economy is getting better for people like me. Not getting better, 70 is getting better 30. And there's also, you know, there's been some speculation that maybe people's views of the broader economy is bad. Because the mute music is bad and all they see, the headlines are bad. But their personal financial situation is good. This suggests that's not the case.

Then they added some messaging to the two choices, and they even gave them. You know, the economy is not going in the right direction for people like me. We need to change direction and reverse Biden's economic policies, or we should not return to the chaos created by Trump. Our economy is beginning to turn a corner after a few tough years felt across the world.

I trust Biden more than Trump to crack down on corporations that inflate the price of gas and food and fight for people like me. That brought it down to 50, Trump 43. The Biden statement, and so it's like it narrowed it a little bit, but it's still the statement. We need to change direction and reverse Biden's economic policies. Still won out, even when you had that messaging, and, to your point, what really changed? The polling was talking about both of their visions for the future. And what Biden and the Democrats would do, and what Trump and the Republicans would do.

And so when you say like? The most effective statement which made people trust the Democrats 15 points more than Republicans on the economy was Democrat support. Increasing social security benefits, increasing taxes on billionaires, and fighting big drug companies to lower prescription drug costs, that made people trust Democrats more than Republicans on the economy. So I do think it's about, like, it is about recognizing that people are still struggling, that costs are still high, that prices are still high, even though inflation's coming down. And that Joe Biden and the Democrats have been fighting on your behalf and will continue to fight on your behalf. If you return them to office, if you return Trump to office and the Republicans, this is what they did last time they were in office, cut taxes for billionaires, and this is their plan.

Going forward, and I think that is a message there's gonna be much more effective. Has gives Democrats a lot better chance than just saying over and over again, look how many jobs we created, look how many of this we created. The media is wrong.

The media blah, blah, blah, blah blah. Like, that's just, it's not gonna work, it's not gonna work. Yeah, I mean, it's. It really shouldn't be that complicated.

And there is this level. I think of elitism in this idea that these people are all just too dumb to realize how great the economy is. Right, which is a big yes. Such elitism which has been pervasive and not MO, not all, and not even most democratic messaging. But a lot of the political conversation around the economy is. That view is that people would are getting their queues from CNN, not their bank account or their grocery bill. Or trying to figure out how to pay even just the basic, you know, cost of living. And so we just have to, it's not, it's really not that complicated. And the messages here are the ones that have worked in every campaign prior.

And so we just have to do that now. You've written about other polling that shows more people approve of Joe Biden when they hear about his accomplishments. Is that because telling people about his economic accomplishments is different than telling people that the economy is good or that he fixed the economy? Yes.

I think that there is sometimes a sense in politics that reelection campaigns, whether you're running for mayor, Congress, Senate or president, is like a report card. Where it's like, you have. If you do these things, the voters are going to thank you by sending you back to office. And that is the exact opposite of how it works. People are not. They're not going to vote for you for what you've done, they're going to vote for you on what you're going to do. And these accomplishments are not.

So people will say, Oh, thank goodness, Biden brought us this economy, cause there is some tension of saying, look at all these great things you did, and the economy is also not yet great. What the reason you tell you have to tell people these things is? It gives them a foundation of belief of what you're going to do going forward.

It builds credibility with voters, and because of changes in the media environment. Voters have never, ever in time been more ignorant about the huge things that President has done than they are with Joe Biden right now. I mean, it is in. It is mind boggling like the Inflation Reduction Act should be akin to either the Stimulus or the Affordable Care Act under Obama. And now, those things may not have been popular in their time, but they were known.

Here you have all these popular things and no one knows. And if you tell that to people, it gives them a foundation, a reason to believe that Joe Biden can do more things like that in the future. If they think he has done nothing in the first term, why would they elect him in the second, or why would they believe him to do X, Y and Z in the second term?

Yeah, and I think part of the reason they're not as known is the information environment as you said. But also there's a huge fight over the Affordable Care Act, and a huge fight over even the Recovery Act, and I think the Inflation Reduction Act. While, you know, most Republicans voted against it. The fight was about, like, what Joe Manchin would allow in the bill. And then it passed, and it just didn't break through. And then Republicans did not spend a lot of time attacking it.

After it passed, they kind of moved on to the next, you know, crazy conspiracy theory. Yeah, it helped the knowledge of and approval of Obamacare immensely. The Republicans kept trying to repeal it every few seconds.

Yep, so the economy is usually the number one issue for voters in every poll. But abortion is right up there too, especially for Democratic voters. Biden wants to pass a law protecting abortion access for every American. Trump's out there bragging about ending Roe v. Wade.

And yet this week, the New York Times wrote that Trump is, quote showing surprising resilience on the abortion issue, appearing less vulnerable than fellow Republicans. Despite his key role in shaping the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. A story made a lot of people on the internet very mad. Including the Biden campaign, which criticized the media, and specifically The Times, for its Trump coverage. What do you think, is Trump less vulnerable on abortion than the typical Republican? I think I'm going to do. We're gonna do one of those very positive America like things where we try to hold two competing notions in our head at the same time.

I think it is fair to say everything is binary, left and right, black and white. I think it is fair to say that overall, the press coverage of Trump is not as good as it should be right. It is too often through horse race coverage, not actually focusing on what he's doing. Although, I will say, The Times has written a lot of stories recently in great detail about all the terrible things Trump plans to do if he wins. Yeah, just cause it's longer than a tweet.

Uh, they're, they're, they're. Very long, well-reported story about his fucking terrifying immigration plans was outstanding. All the Project 2025 stuff from The Times and others is like, that stuff is happening now. People aren't seeing it in the way we'd want them to see it because of the information environment. Because long stories don't get attention like they used to. The anger over this specific story, which is written for the upshot column, which is basically a polling analysis column for The New York Times. It seems a little misplaced to me.

I will say like, yes, the problem being pointed at is correct. In broadly, this was not probably the right target for that. Because what the bowl, what that article says is actually true, it is there is. We should stipulate that Donald Trump is absolutely vulnerable in abortion because he is the person walking this planet most singular. Responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade? Yes.

He is absolutely, incredibly vulnerable on it, but voters don't yet hold him accountable in the way they should. And there are a couple of reasons for this one is. And if you listen to focus groups, you or you listen to the Focus group podcast from Sarah Longwell, who just had an episode on this. If you ask Donald Trump if he is anti-abortion or pro-choice, by shocking number of voters will say he is personally pro-choice. And some of them, and I've heard this from multiple people who do focus groups, will put up their hands and say, I would bet Donald Trump has personally paid for abortions.

Yeah, because he is this thrice married New York sad wannabe playboy who cheats on his wives. People, they. He has this sort of aura of liberalism and cultural issues that has allowed him to win over voters he wouldn't otherwise get. And you see it in the polling, right in, in that that Times poll, which is what this, uh, God forsaken, very horribly derided piece was written on. Biden has a nine point advantage on the issue of abortion. It's one of his biggest uh, margins on issue margins across the thing. But Trump gets 14 of the voters who trust Biden more on abortion.

Well, and and in that same poll, four out of 10 Trump voters believe abortion should be always or mostly legal. That's a big chunk of his that, that. That shows that either people don't consider voting for him again a threat to abortion access, or they don't agree with his position on abortion and know it, but are voting for him for other reasons. The there's a very interesting question in that times before, they asked people what was more important to their choice for president. Economic issues like jobs, inflation, et cetera, or social issues like abortion, democracy and guns economic issues. Won by more than 30 points and a number and a number that has gone up 12 points and four battleground states since 2022. So what should Democrats do here? Uh, besides, uh, tweet at the times, cancel our subscriptions, all that kind of stuff.

We need to challenge Joe Conn, who I think is the editor of The Times now, to a fight.

No, by being allowed or no not allowed. Look, everyone, everyone has one. We can bring one weapon to the to the combat if you want your teeth to be the weapon to the kidneys. Um, look, I think there are a couple of things here.

One there is, and I think this is one point that where the critics are of the broader coverage of Trump and abortion are correct. It's always like, Donald Trump has been so careful on abortion, he's so smooth on it, the guy brags about overturning Roe v Wade.

Every time he's in front of a microphone, there is a internet's worth of clips of Donald Trump saying incredibly damning, unpopular, extreme things about abortion. All within the last year and a half. Like, like, also in there's there's a very famous one from the 2016 campaign where he says, Uh, women deserve some sort of punishment. Yes, yes.

And of course, the camp, their campaign, of course, knew how damaging that was, and then they later tried to walk it back. But he is on video saying Yes, women deserve punishment, and so we should be shot. We, the broader U.S. with our networks and our friends and family, and Democratic super pacs and campaigns showing those clips to people just in their own words. We don't need fancy political ads, we don't need voiceovers, just like video of Trump saying those things over and over again.

Do you remember in 2012 when we we polled early in that campaign and we discovered that Romney's Mitt Romney's support for defunding planned parenthood was incredibly damning? Voters hated that they also is very, very analogous situation. Voters also didn't believe that Mitt Romney would actually support that position because he had been this pro-choice governor of Massachusetts. It was very, it's very similar to Trump in the sense that people thought he's kind of faking it on the social stuff to get through the primary.

And so the Obama campaign went up in. I think it was April, with sort of a low level cable buy that was very targeted at women voters and also young voters. About Romney wanting to defund planned parenthood. It just stayed out and it went up and never came down. And I think you can see a similar thing happening here, where you try to do that now. The second thing I think we ought to do. And you see this in the Times poll, where even one of the most unpopular things of the Times polled is support for a federal abortion ban. Yes.

There's even a significant number of people who strongly oppose a federal abortion ban, who are voting for Trump. And I think that's in part because it may be they're prioritizing other issues, but in some case, they don't think a federal abortion ban is going to happen. And so we talked about this last week. We have to make that a central part of this campaign.

Every single day, Donald Trump wins with a Republican Congress federal abortion ban. And I think that's really important, because in a lot of states, because of the great work that happened in 2022. Like, whether it's Michigan or Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, they have Democratic governors, they've passed, in Michigan's case, passed an abortion referendum to guarantee access. And we need people to understand in those battleground states, if, even if they feel safe right now, in this very short period of time, that a Trump victory would mean. Abortion is banned everywhere in this country. There was also a story in Axios this week. The Heritage Foundation, which is the Idiots behind Project 2025, is urging all Republican candidates for president to unilaterally prohibit mailing. Abortion drugs. Which are the most common, safe and effective ways of getting an abortion?

Trump has been vague about this, but Republican senators said that they insist the next president does this. Obviously, Meghan Mike Johnson in the House wants this to happen. So this is not even. You don't even have to put Congress into the equation here. Donald Trump could unilaterally ban abortion medication.

And yes, it would go up to the Supreme Court, and there's all kinds of legal theories whether that would hold up or not. But he could do that, and I'm sure. And so I would run those ads now and also force him to have to answer it now. While it's still a primary, start running the ads now. About how the Heritage Foundation, all these people that are doing. Donald Trump's plans for 2025 want him to unilaterally end the ability to mail prescription abortion medication.

So I think that's a it's got to be, because I think you can a lot of people, you can get a lot of people to believe that. He's the one responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade because he brags about it all the time. But people are going to vote based on what is going to happen to me and my life if this person becomes president. And so we have to push towards Trump's plans for the future.

As much as we talk about things that he's done in the past, Democrats also in 2022 talked about. Give me, you know, Biden said. Give me a filibuster-proof Senate majority and we will pass a law codifying Roe. And we should get back to that because we haven't heard a lot about that in a year and I think that's an important part of this campaign. There are going to be states where, like potentially Arizona and others, that have abortion referendums that guarantee abortion access, like the one we just saw in Ohio.

But we should do that. And I think you raise a really important point here, which is Donald Trump is going to put all of the worst people in government like MAGA, Mike Johnson, clone bureaucrats. And they're going to use every lever of power they possibly have to try to destroy reproductive freedom in this country. And that it's banning abortion, medication, everything they do right, everything that Joe Biden, his administration, tried to do after the Dobbs ruling. They're going to undo that and do things a thousand times worse, because they're going to care a lot less about what is legal and appropriate, uses of government, etc. And it is a nightmare.

An election of Donald Trump as president, whether it gets a Republican House, Republican Senate or not, is a nightmare for reproductive freedom in this country.

Agreed, all right, few quick housekeeping notes before we head to break. We are excited to announce Inside 2024, our new monthly podcast series, available exclusively for friends of the Pod subscribers shows.

A chance to hear White House alumni, like some of us, talk about what really goes on behind the scenes of a presidential campaign. Everything from debate prep and convention speeches to campaign ads and botched media appearances. To get access to Inside 2024 by signing up at Crooked..com. Slash Friends, it's going to be a Dan and Alyssa episode soon.

It's going to be even better than the Me and Tommy episode that's out now, lots of great stuff coming up. Also here at Crooked, we love Cariouma and their comfortable, cool, sustainably made sneakers. We love them so much.

The Crooked released our second collaboration with them, a Love It or Leave It Sneaker. They come in pink and black and have really fun, L.A. inspired designs. Now's the perfect time to step up your shoe game. Plus, Cariouma plants two trees in the Brazilian rainforest. For each pair purchased, head to Crooked.com Slash Store to grab a pair.

When we come back, I talked to young voter polling expert John Della Volpe.

Joining us today. He's a pollster who's been focused on understanding young voters for the last few decades, and he most recently served as an advisor to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. He now says that when it comes to young voters, the president is in trouble. John Della Volpe Good talking to you again. welcome to the show. Thanks so much for having me, John.

It's great to be here. So when you and I last spoke, uh, before the 2022 midterms, you were confident that young voters would turn out in big numbers and potentially make the difference for Democratic candidates? You were right. Um, you do not seem as confident that young voters will do the same in 2024. For Joe Biden, what changed over the last few years?

Well, over the last few months, actually, over the last year. Uh, John, uh, the. For me, the best predictor of of whether we can expect an average, above average or below average turnout. Are a set of attitudinal measures that we developed over a couple of decades ago and those attitudinal measures. When I look at that set of data in 2023, compared to the same point in the 2020 cycle. In 2000 spring of 2019, I see increasing levels of cynicism across just about every significant socioeconomic and demographic group. Which means that there is less confidence, not just about Joe Biden, but there's less confidence in the system, there's less confidence in politics. Can serve of the people. And to make systemic changes that young people care about. That's the warning sign that I'm most concerned about right now. And I guess, if you look back over the last year or two, is this is this increasing sense of cynicism about government?

Is it just has it just built gradually over time, and now it's really hit a breaking point? I think a lot of it is about expectations. So just to give you a little bit more of a of a of a backdrop on this from 2014 to 2018, okay?

We saw cynicism going. Went down by, I think, 15 or 16 or 17 points, as youth participation increased by that same number, 16 17 points from 2014 to 2018.

This is a relatively new phenomenon, and I think it's it's certainly complicated, there's not a silver bullet, there's not an easy explanation.

I think it has a variety of of different reasons behind it, one of which is, of course, the the challenges of of of communicating. Especially from the bully pulpit. You know, in a kind of algorithmic, you know, a series of bubbles thing people find themselves in. But I think another part of of this conundrum, frankly, is that because of the concern around mental health, both pre and post Covid. What we've continued to find is this connection between negative feelings about the country, the direction of the country, and negative feelings about mental health. Which means, John, that younger people, millions of younger people, are choosing to turn away from current events, choosing to turn away from the news to protect their own mental health. Because there's a correlation around that, which means that they're less willing, less able to see some of the positive news that's been happening. Because, as I, as I've written many times, I don't think there's been an administration, certainly in my lifetime, that's been more youth focused, more youth centric than the Biden administration. However, a lot of those accomplishments just aren't being felt yet or being communicated in ways in which they can understand.

That's fascinating to me. Do you have data that points to young people disengaging from the news to protect their mental health? Because the other, you could also see a factor being just the media environment itself has become so fractured. That if someone is, let's say, only getting their news from TikTok or Twitter, or wherever it may be. They are in either an ideological bubble or some kind of other bubble, where they're where they're getting just not the good information or not the best information. So so, a couple of things, one of which is. The more you follow the news, the more closely you follow the news, and more closely follow politics, the more likely you are to support President Biden's reelection. Right? So that's. We've seen that for a while.

The more, you know, the better off that campaign feels to people. But I published a study on my on my sub stack JDV on Gen Z, and it had it was about how happy are you? okay? and it had 30 something variables.

And I looked at across generations, the best predictor of whether or not a gen Z-er or young millennial was happy that particular day. Was their views about basically politics, the instability that they felt, the concerns about climate, the economy, our place in the world. That was the number one predictor, more than personal relationships, work, school, their finances, et cetera. When we looked at other generations, Gen X-ers and folks older, the number one predictor wasn't politics, though, that was important, it was health, your health, and the health of those around you. So I think that's something that really needs to be understood, because before, this isn't just a persuasion mobilization game at this point.

Before that, we can have a meaningful conversation with young people. We we need to kind of respect, kind of kind of where they are with, where their mental health. And we also need to to basically show them the impact that they've already made, that we have a different and better country because of them. One thing I'm confused about, though, is if you would think that the people who are most engaged with the news and following the news most closely would be pretty bummed out. But you're saying that those people do tend to vote for Joe Biden. But it's the people who are more disengaged, are they disengaged from the news? But just have a general sense or general feeling that there's chaos in the world and that, and that things are going bad and that politics is going bad. Just from their periodic scanning of headlines.

Yes, because those are the headlines that stick, the negative headlines. And the extreme amount of chaos that they've not just felt over the last year or two, but literally, John, over their entire lifetimes. This is a generation Gen Z, which has really not known. Maybe an evening, maybe an evening of hope and optimism in 2008. But they don't remember 9-11, which means they don't have a memory of 9-11. Which means they all put flags up, regardless of which kind of red or blue county we're in. So it's not just the chaos of today, it's this chaos that's been building up over the course of their lifetimes.

So you just did an audio essay for the New York Times, where you played a few clips from a recent focus group you conducted with young voters. Let's take a listen, I vote. I just don't think it makes a difference. Sometimes, like, Yeah, they for us, but are they really for us, really?

So the comments from the young voters in that group reminded me of what you call the modern trickle-down effect theory. Can you explain that for people? Sure, well, the original trickle-down effect was supposed to be positive, right during the Reagan era. The idea was that the super wealthy and corporations, the more money they made, the more that would trickle down to help the working class folks.

Instead, what I've heard in multiple focus groups over the last couple of months is that rather than the wealth trickling down and making all of us feel better off, it's the reverse. It's a negative trickle-down effect, where the problems, the challenges, the wars from previous generations are trickling down and having an inordinate impact on those who are most vulnerable. And again, that gets to, I think, kind of the cynicism that is driving much of the disaffection with two-party politics today. So in some ways, it's generational, not even in a left-right divide, but almost a top-bottom. Which is like young people feeling like the older generations have screwed so much shit up for them. And that the people in power are also in older generations, and so they hold them accountable for that, right?

It's something that connects Democrats, Republicans, independents alike. And there are many examples of that where younger people, even across parts of lines, have more in common than younger Democrats and older Democrats, younger Republicans and older Republicans. The thing is, and the thing that, to me is often frustrating, is that this is a generation who, despite the cynicism, every single year, are becoming more progressive. Who are asking? They understand that we need government to work in collaboration with other institutions, private, et cetera, to solve these challenges. So they're not disagreeing, their values are aligned with the Democratic Party. They're just not seeing the Democratic Party right now as delivering as much as what I think they've actually delivered over the last couple of years, to be honest.

You were saying in early November that the president's handling of the war in Gaza could cost him potentially decisive support among younger voters. Can you talk about where most young voters are on this issue and what you think Biden can do to keep or regain their support? It's obviously an incredibly complex issue. I did a review of the polls in the second half of October. And when you look at overall approval ratings among younger people towards Biden's handling of Israel and Hamas in Gaza, only about a quarter or so said they approved. That was basically on the low end of a series of issues.

So they disapprove of him more on this issue than other issues. What is of concern is really about a potential disconnect over values that. What young people, specifically young progressives, who were so critical to not just voting, but the energy around the 2020 cycle? They're concerned about a lack of recognition for civilian life on both sides of that border. That's what is really driving this. They don't support Hamas, of course, they see what happened October 7th as a savage terrorist attack. But they also are more upfront in terms of basically pleading to have new thinking around the best ways to protect civilian children, women, etc.

I mean, it seems like there's only what Joe Biden can do about this is either join the calls for a ceasefire or somehow condition aid to Israel, based on Israel taking different actions or conducting the war differently. It feels to me, and you tell me, because you've been in the data, that this is more than a Joe. Biden can fix this problem by talking more to some of these young voters and re-engaging them. It feels like they need a policy decision here, or that feeling's not really going to go away.

I think young people want to see the president as a peacemaker. They want to feel good about the President, they want to feel good about themselves and the country. We talked about them watching a lot less news. There's a lot of data that indicates that.

They're basically watching 39 less news, according to Pew, than they did at the same time during the Trump administration. Some of the news that is breaking through are obviously the horrific images on October 7th and beyond. That just is something that really, I think, is having a greater impact on how younger people are thinking about politics and government than some people might otherwise suggest. Beyond Gaza, what else do you think the Biden campaign and Democratic candidates should do over the next year to win the votes of younger voters? I think it's not a one-step.

It's a two or three-step system. The first thing they need to do is they need to recognize, as I said earlier, that there's a better country. Because of what young people did before President Biden, Vice President Harris are not in office, Donald Trump is without younger people. What that means is we have the first African-American female in the Supreme Court.

We have the first significant gun violence prevention legislation in not one but two generations. The largest investment in climate $127 billion last I counted in student debt relief. We can go further. I think the first thing is to recognize the important part that young people played, thank them for that, recognize that and let them know what has been delivered. Then to say there's no guarantee that obviously any of this continues without further engagement.

I think they really need to build some trust that being part of a system actually had tangible results. That's the first part, the second part is it's a very different electorate. They need to also build messaging around that. A vote for Bobby Kennedy, a vote for Cornel West, for anybody other than Biden or staying home is a vote to re-elect Trump.

They'll have to be reminded in terms of what that means. I was going to ask about that because it's a delicate thing to handle. Obviously, young people choosing third-party or independent candidates, or choosing not to vote at all, seems like an especially serious threat to the president's re-election. Of course, if the president loses, as you mentioned, we get Donald Trump.

What would you say to a young voter who is considering one of those options? There's some debate whether you say, oh, well, if you're doing this, you're just going to vote for Donald Trump. Then that puts people on their heels and say, well, it's my choice. And why are you telling me what to do? Or do you say these third-party, independent candidates? They are not going to be able to fulfill the promises they're making because they're not going to win? How would you handle that?

I don't think I would even think about handling that now for nine months. Instead, what you need to do is understand why. They're looking at third-party candidates, They're looking at third-party candidates because they don't think that. As you heard in the clip, they don't think that voting has made a significant difference in their lives or the lives of those people that they care about. I think it really needs to focus on the tangible difference that government has and will continue to make when they engage. I think that's going to be critical in thinking about messaging and comparing yourselves to third-party candidates.

It's not going to be as effective if they don't have trust in the system. You've been talking a lot about focusing on communicating Joe Biden's accomplishment, the Democrats accomplishments. How much would you focus on that? Versus focusing on the contrast between both Biden's accomplishment and his forward-looking vision? And what Trump would do in a second term? Certainly, I think what we learned from 2022 is that there is that balance, that chemistry between positive and negative partisanship. Certainly, there was concern about Americans continuing to feel like they're losing their rights.

We saw how many rights were lost because of Trump's Supreme Court. Absolutely, that has to be an important factor of this. Listen, John, I don't know at this point what the right mix of cocktail is between the negative and the positive partisanship. All I know is that we need to listen. That's why I wrote that.

I didn't write that headline, of course, they have editors, the New York Times, who write headlines. But I do think that your listeners and the people who support democratic campaigns and causes need to appreciate the fact that. Despite the fact we've had three incredible turnouts among young people, we can't guarantee that every cohort is new. It's different and we need to build up faith in the system. But, of course, I think there will be a significant part of the contrast. I think when I look back at 2018, that was, I think, a right combination.

You had the deep concern about the first couple of years of the Trump administration, with the hope of what the March for Our Lives with David Hogg and his friends were doing. That was an interesting, I think, combination of factors. I think that really lifted youth support. And it's going to be something similar because it's a terrific story, there's a terrific story, I think. When Vice President Harris was on her college tour, she had incredibly enthusiastic audiences.

She literally showed up where they were, not just on social media, but literally in the quads and in the auditoriums of some of these colleges. She spoke to young people, she listened to young people, and I think they responded. I'm hopeful and expect that Democrats can do this. But again, the reason I wrote those pieces and have been thinking about this is these underlying concerns I have from the attitudinal data. That has been highly predictive for now, a couple of different decades.

And the sooner that we recognize that, the more. I think. We can all engage in helping young people appreciate the importance of civic life and participating specifically in this next campaign. Well, last question, you mentioned Vice President Harris, sort of going where voters are in a media environment or an information environment that is this fractured, this rampant. With misinformation on platforms or emotional, polarizing content, what's the best way to communicate? Who are the best, most trusted messengers to reach young voters where they are, I think, other young voters?

I think other young voters, and I think the White House, honestly, you probably know better than I, but the White House, I think. The first couple of years have done a terrific job at empowering kind of younger activists, bringing them kind of inside. To share some of their accomplishments, to listen for advice on other ones. And I think that was a big part of the Democratic success in 2020 and 2022 midterms, a big part that you had kind of alignment among many of these progressive groups. And we need to continue to do that. I sense, based upon the number of text messages I have on my phone, that some of those progressive activists are questioning some things now. Which is related to Israel and Gaza and Hamas.

But it's really about, I think, kind of empowering those kind of micro, whatever you want to call, those micro-influencers, those everyday folks and mentors.

To communicate, it has to be, of course, from the top down. That needs to be improved, but certainly kind of from the grassroots up. John Della Volpe, Thank you so much for joining Pod Save America again and talking us through this. And keep in touch over the next year. Will do.

Thanks to John Della Volpe for joining us today. Everyone have a fantastic weekend and we'll talk to you next week. Bye everyone.

Pod Save America is a crooked media production. Our producers are Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producer is Farah Safari, writing support from Hallie Kiefer. Reed Cherlin 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. 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, Hayley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles, Kiril Pelaviv and Molly Lobel.

Subscribe to Pod Save America on YouTube to catch full episodes and extra video content. Find us at YouTube.com. Slash at Pod Save America. Finally, you can join our Friends of the Pod Subscription community for ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and a great discussion on Discord. Plus, it's a great way to get involved with Vote Save America. Sign up at Crooked.com Slash Friends.