50 Days to Midterms: Trump DOWNPLAYS the AI Apocalypse (ft. Dana Bash)

Do you hear that? That sound, right? That means that summer's officially here. It means that grown adults just sprint into the street for a frozen dessert shaped like a cartoon. But this summer, Mint Mobile has a better treat. Every plan, including Unlimited, is $15 a month. And unlike ice cream, it won't drip down your wrist or look nothing like the picture. Does anyone have any cash? Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for a 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Makes me slow when network is busy. See terms. Chronic migraine. 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more, can make me feel like a spectator in my own life. Botox, onabotulinum toxin A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month. It's the number one prescribed branded chronic migraine preventive treatment. Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be severe. Signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert-Eaton syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Why wait? Ask your doctor, visit BotoxChronicMigraine.com, or call 1-800-4-5-6. Call 444-BOTOX to learn more. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway. And I'm Jessica Tarliff. Jess, where are you today? I am in the Vox Mecca in the offices, which is how I can have the fancy Raging Moderates logo behind me. Oh, nice. Can you see? Isn't it beautiful? It is. Well, actually, I can't see it. Yes, I'm in LA, but tomorrow night I'm jumping on a red-eye to come back to interview you in front of a live audience, a sold-out audience. It's. It's the 92nd Street Y to talk about your book. Very excited. But before that, joining us today is Dana Bash, CNN's chief political correspondent and the anchor of Inside Politics and State of the Union. She's also the author of the new book, The Elections That Changed the World, 15 Pivotal Moments That Shaped How We Live, which comes out September 22nd. Dana, it is so good to see you. Scott does love both of you. He talks about you all the time. I do. All right, before we get into the book, what we're going to do today is we're going to start with the midterms. We're now 50 days away from the midterms, and we have a new CNN poll that should give Democrats or should have Democrats feeling pretty good and Republicans pretty worried. Democrats lead Republicans in enthusiasm to vote and the midterm is 42% to 30%. Give us, in your view, kind of set the table. Give us the lay of the land regarding the midterms from your vantage point. The hunger is there for voters who will support Democrats. The passion is there. The anger is there, which is probably the most important of the three words I just used. But the question is whether or not the systems in place are stacked so much against the Democrats that they can actually maintain or have the blue wave that all of the metrics, right now, look like they should have. And I think my answer right now is probably not. You don't know. I mean, it could be a tsunami and maybe I'm totally wrong, but between the mid-decade redistricting and the who knows what's going to happen with what Trump is doing in trying to tell people don't use mail-in voting, which we can talk about more in a second because I think that cuts both ways, and even not just midterm redistricting, the redistricting beforehand, that there just aren't as many swing seats to get a big majority as there were, nevermind 2018, but certainly 2006. I feel like 2006, it feels the most like today in terms of the issues and whether it's healthcare, which is the broader affordability bucket, and also war. Who knew that we would be in an anti-war, post-war posture right now with Donald Trump as president? And do you think, so the polling I'm seeing is that it's a sort of a fait accompli that we're going to take the House, but now it feels like we're starting to really actually believe we might take the Senate. Talk about what you think the prospects are of the Democrats capturing control of the Senate. Look, it's an uphill climb and everything has to go their way to get even a one seat majority, but it is possible. I mean, if you think about the state of Kansas, Kansas has not gone for the Democrats in decades and decades on a federal level. They've elected governors, but not on a federal level for the Senate. And the vice president of the United States, whose time is very important and very valuable, is campaigning for the Republican incumbent senator. In Kansas, that tells you everything you need to know. Not necessarily that he's going to lose, but that they're afraid enough that they need to bolster him up. So if you look at that, I don't know that that's going to happen, but obviously the biggies are Texas, Iowa, which because candidate quality really matters and the candidate in Iowa, the Republican Ashley Hinson is a very good candidate. Even Democrats will tell you that. And then they have to not lose. Michigan, which is an open Democratic seat and New Hampshire, which is an open Democratic seat because of retirements. I'm glad you brought up New Hampshire because this is like my latest anxiety attack because we just haven't been focusing on it at all. And I had Chris Pappas on before the primary. And it feels like the last couple of weeks, this has just started bubbling up as like we could have a. And we're saying we know that you are not going to win. You're not a we in this. This is a me and a Scott we in terms of the Democrats. But I did not think that I would have to be having panic attacks about Michigan or New Hampshire. And I mean, Sununu's are great candidates in general, but it seems more fraught than we thought. And I don't know if it's just the Pappas' team hasn't been talking about this enough or what's been going on, but it does feel like it just. entered the conversation. It did. I think part of it is because we just had the primary. Their primary is very late. It was just last week. So now the general election is set. By the way, you, talking about the two of you and others who want the Democrats to win, should be very happy that Pappas won that primary because the sort of DSA lefty candidate was closing in. Didn't end up really that competitive, but you never know in these times with the Democratic Party. And so, yeah, so the primary is done and the Sununu name is still really rock solid as a family and independent and individual candidates who look out for New Hampshire. Obviously, starting with the father, Governor Sununu, the first John Sununu, and this is John E. Sununu, who was a senator. And then he lost to Gene Shaheen, the Democratic senator who's retiring. And. So if there's any kind of sort of flavor of Republican who can try to walk the line between still appealing to the MAGA base, which exists in New Hampshire, but also to people who just want to get things done, which also very much exists in New Hampshire, John E. Sununu, who's on the ballot, is definitely their best bet. Let's talk about some of the more recent news around technology, specifically AI and prophecy. Oh, I have questions for you. I have questions for you on this. You're going to go first here. Anthropic CEO called for a slowdown in AI development over the weekend, and now we're seeing an interesting example of bipartisanship with Bernie Sanders and Stephen Bannon teaming up to push for keeping AI under human control. What's your sense of how these growing fears about an AI apocalypse and the backlash over data centers will impact the midterms? I think it could be, and it sounds silly to say that this is an October surprise, because AI, AI is not a surprise, but this anthropic statement from Dario and the way that other companies and CEOs are responding, and more importantly, to your question, the way that candidates are being forced to respond should be seismic. And like everything else in politics right now, the way that Donald Trump is playing it is potentially not helpful to the way that he's playing it. to his fellow Republicans who are on the ballot, because he keeps saying, in fact, he has a lengthy post out this morning about the fact that this is just a conspiracy and people like the head of Anthropic and others are just weak and they don't have courage and they don't understand that we can't cede this territory to China and so forth, which the first part is obviously that's Trump and he gets personal. That's what he does. The second part is what we're hearing Mike Johnson, the House speaker, and other Republicans saying, OK, we do need to address this, but we can pump the brakes, but not slam on the brakes, because if we slam on the brakes, China is going to pass us by. If this was in a vacuum, it would be one thing. But the fact that this speaks to the larger set of anxieties that people have, not just on affordability, but on like what's next. And we don't know who to trust. Do we trust the CEOs? Do we trust the government officials? Do we trust the candidates? The answer to all of that is no. And so there's a sense of sort of foreboding among voters and this issue and the fact that we now have this dire warning really feeds on that. What do you guys think? Well, I want to ask Scott, I want to read you something that J.D. Vance said this morning about it, which I'm curious to get your take on. So he said, I have to say, just personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier AI tech. Companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them. It feels to me like a bit of a Trojan horse. And the fact that they are talking about pushing back the IPO, it did over the weekend. I remember thinking that now that like everyone's piling on and it's created these strange bedfellows, right? Like, you know, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon is like a horror movie, essentially to me. So do you think that the AI companies are looking for the government to clean up? Their mess? And what does all of this entail? Like, what are we missing about what's going on here? I think you can hold two thoughts in your head at the same time. I think these guys are looking to absolve themselves of any real liability by saying, we warned you in case something terrible happens and asking for internal, I think they're called evaluators from the government. But we've never had a trillion dollar industry with no regulation before. And it reflects really poorly on the Trump administration that effectively what they've decided is a fear to believe. This is a fear to believe. They're letting Oppenheimer, Foreman, LLC raise money from Andreessen Horowitz and then sell nuclear bombs into the UAE and Procter & Gamble. The fact that we have absolutely no governance, no equivalent of the FDA, the FAA, the International Atomic Energy Association just shows this government has no understanding of science, no leadership, and their priority is, can I get a VIG? I want to make sure the economy keeps running and the existential risks here. I'm not interested. I want a small number of people, including myself, to capitalize. I'm going to capture shareholder value and I'm going to normalize and socialize all of these risks, including perhaps a mass extinction event. This is incentives, a bunch of 30-something-year-old white dudes who all have fever dreams of being worth $40, $50, $100 billion, which in the U.S. makes you the sexiest man alive. There's a lot of incentives to keep doing that. And then an administration that has abso-fucking-lutely no idea. The head of HHS, RFK Jr., heads the Center for Disease Control or oversees it. What could be a greater risk to the control of disease than a super virus coming out of one of these labs that has absolutely no oversight right now? If Dana gets on a plane tonight, that plane took 10 years to get through the FAA. We can spin up a model trying to find a super virus with open-weight Chinese models. And there's no regulatory body we need to get approval from. This is about incentives. And highlights how incompetent and devoid of leadership in our administration. So with my rant, Dana, I want you to react to that. First of all, I think that, and I've heard you both talk about this, that it is true that the regulation, the lack of regulation is stunning, but not surprising, if that makes sense. But it's also true that AI didn't just happen in January, January 20th, 2025. It has been something that has been developed since Joe Biden was in office. And then if you look back on the technology that we all talk about and that we're using right now, I'm sure in some of these cliffs that will go out is social media and the Congress and the government totally and completely inept at figuring out how to regulate that. They said it was free speech. Now, at least there is a conversation acknowledging, by people other than Donald Trump, that this is not a free speech thing. This is a, you know, are we going to be starting the end of the human race? But it is true that this administration doesn't want to deal and the president doesn't think that this is as big of a problem as the CEOs are saying. But it is also true that this is very much a bipartisan ineptitude. What do you, politically, it feels like, I would argue that income inequality, frustration with tech, the fact that tech CEOs have not acquitted themselves well, that filled this empty vessel of data centers. It feels like it's about to fill this empty vessel of, this does feel like it's about to become a populist issue from both the left and the right. Right. Your thoughts? Yes. Yeah, absolutely. Are you talking about data centers or just the threat of AI? It's all like one. It's all one thing. I mean, everyone is just saying there's this stuff we don't understand and it's scary. I think. No, no, I totally agree. And with data centers, obviously the NIMBY part of it feeds into it. Like, you know, don't, you don't want to build it. We don't want it to be built in our backyard because of high energy costs, because of environmental issues, because, because, because. But I totally agree with you, Jessica. I think it's all one thing and it is about finding a place to put your fear and in the case of AI. If you listen to the people who built it, the fear is justified. But sorry, I mean, you can't get in the heads of these guys, but it feels like the boys that cried wolf a little bit late here. They knew what they were doing, right? This has been in process and the whistleblowers, if that's what we would call them, or, you know, the folks who've been speaking up in the last few weeks and then doing the requisite interviews afterwards have had concerns about it for a long time. And you've seen the odd interview, right? With Sam Altman talking about it or Dario, like, do they want to set up this showdown with the government? Because, you know, Trump, I read Vance's comments. Trump has come out and said, we're not regulating it. He's, you know, he's sticking to his guns there. Do you get a sense of where the company is actually, what their authentic desire is? Because it seems like you could argue both sides of it. I think that what Scott said. Is, is set on about the fact that they want to have deniability when and if nothing gets done and the shit hits the fan. But it's also about, it's the same reason I think, you know, Mark Zuckerberg was asking for regulation of social media. It's so that there's a level playing field so that they're all, nobody's pulling back at the expense of their own profits while others say, no way, I'm not doing it. You can't, I mean, they can't regulate themselves. It's just, it's. It's just not how human beings work, right? It's not how business works. Yeah, we've never, we've never had a trillion dollars successfully regulate itself. Self-regulation is usually a smokescreen for, to trying to stave off actual regulation as this is. Support for the show comes from Article. Social media will have you believing that everyone but you has a magazine-worthy home filled with stylish decor. Well, we all know that's not true. Actual style comes from Article. From slowly curating your home over time, rather than rushing to get it camera ready. So when the time comes that you do need to replace a piece of furniture in your home, check out Article. Every Article item is thoughtfully designed to make your space feel cohesive and stylish. I know about this firsthand because I have been shopping at Article since before they were advertisers on the show. So you know that I genuinely like them. You can start small and get a little piece. Like I have a great coffee table from them and a side table. So it could even go smaller. I have a lot of really good stuff and a lot of that is Article. With Article's 30-day satisfaction, you can shop with confidence knowing that if you're not completely in love with your new furniture, you can easily return it. This peace of mind ensures you can invest in your home without hesitation. Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim, visit article.com slash moderates and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's article.com slash moderates for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. Support for the show comes from Article.com. You know that nagging feeling where there's something important on your to-do list, but you just can't bring yourself to do it? For a lot of us, that thing is a doctor's appointment. It's not your fault. Navigating the medical system can be soul-destroying, and that's putting it lightly. It's hard enough to find a doctor who's in-network. Then there's the challenge of actually getting in touch with their office. The whole thing is exhausting and disheartening, but it doesn't have to be that way. ZocDoc lets you search and compare high-quality in-network doctors. They have more than $150,000. providers with 200 plus special across all 50 states. ZocDoc's website has tons of reviews from real patients and detailed doctor profiles to help you choose the right one. You can see actual appointment openings and click to instantly book a visit. Appointments happen fast, usually within 24 to 72 hours, sometimes even same day. And ZocDoc is free to use. Your health matters and taking care of yourself shouldn't be complicated. Ready to be seen? Head to ZocDoc.com slash moderates to get started and check that appointment off your to-do list. That's Z-O-C-D-O-C.com slash moderates. Support for the show comes from Quince. Fall is the perfect excuse to bring back the clothes you've been missing all summer. Maybe a favorite pair of corduroys, a crisp long-sleeve shirt, or the boots you end up wearing everywhere. These are the kind of versatile, high-quality pieces Quince specializes in. Quince makes elevated everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and washable silk. Plus, everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80 percent less than similar brands. Our producer Eric received some stuff from Quince, and this is what he thought. Jess, the stuff I've gotten from Quince has been awesome. A pair of slacks that are made of tough ripstop material and clothes with a drawstring, but look really professional. And great casual basics like long-sleeve tees in quality fabrics like merino wool. These clothes are nice. Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers, or go to quince.com slash moderates. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash moderates. I want to move on to something more fun. Mitch McConnell. I heard he was spotted at an Olive Garden with Dianne Feinstein. True? No, because Dianne Feinstein is not with us anymore. That's the humor in it, Dana. That's it. Thoughts on Mitch McConnell supposedly being close to return. Have you heard anything? No. I think here's what I know. According to the people who say that they talked to him, he wants to come back. He is, I don't know if you are. Yeah, yeah, exactly. He wants to come back, and he. How do I put this? He's a man of a certain age who is very proud and doesn't want to be seen in the physical state that he is in. But let me ask you just a tactical question and then a broader question. He's clearly not even capable of recording a 15-second voicemail of saying, Speaker Johnson, I look forward to seeing you back. Even that would give a lot of credibility to the notion that he's okay or at least capable of coming back. He has not even been able to record a 10- or 15-second voicemail. It's concerning. I see no evidence that he's effectively not entirely disabled right now. It seems to me that it just seems obvious that he's not even capable of even communicating at the most basic level. Have you heard anything to the contrary? Yes. I mean, I've talked to people who say that they have talked to him on the phone, communicated with him. Not Scott Jennings. Including Scott Jennings. Having said that, I agree with you that this is such a thing, rightly so, that there's really one easy way to put it to bed, which is to talk to camera or talk to a reporter. Sit down with Dana Bash. I will say that when I first started covering the Senate, I remember Strom Thurmond, he was there, air quotes, but he wasn't there. He was being wheeled around by his chief of staff, who was effectively the senator. Thad Cochran was there, but not there. I mean, there is a sad and long history of members of the elected United States Senate, and also the House, staying longer than they should. I mean, you mentioned Dianne Feinstein. I sort of laughed. I remember doing a piece. She was the first interview I did for this online series I had, Badass Women of Washington. And I remember sitting in her beautiful home in San Francisco, and she was deciding whether or not she was going to run for re-election, which ended up being her last term. She didn't finish. And she said, I'm going to stay as long as the old bean holds up. And it didn't. And, you know, it's, this is another thing that makes people very mad, that they want representatives who can actually represent. I mean, this is like the lowest level, right? Like being alive is, you know. Science is winning in a bad way. Just before, just before Jess starts asking questions about the book, I'm just curious if you see any momentum or possibility that we might have something resembling term limits or age gating. I mean, the first thing that goes in cognitive decline is your ability to recognize cognitive decline. My dad was convinced he could, he could drive an F1 car about the time we took his driver's license away. It's just the recognition of what's going on declines. That's the first thing to go. Yep. I don't see it. No, I don't see it. I think the answer is no. But what I do see is more and voters making those decisions. But it doesn't always happen. Like Ed Markey in Massachusetts is 80. And look, he's very vibrant. And he's very sharp. He now is going to have a six-year term where I guess he'll start when he's 81. And the end of the term will be 87. God willing, he'll be fine. But, you know, there the voters decided no. Yeah. Because if I was saying if it had been Ayanna Pressley, I think they would have taken her in a flash that it was a Seth problem more than an affirmation of an 80-year-old Markey. Yeah. Which I'm sure makes Congressman Moulton feel even better about it, that they would rather risk having to do a funeral midterm. It is true. But I will say that, like, the through line of everything we're talking about now is candidates do matter. And what they do in office matters. And a lot of these members of the House and also Senate who are successful despite age, despite differences of party and ideology, is constituent services. Yeah. It's like the most unsexy term ever. But I don't think we do enough talking about that because it does matter. When you help somebody in your district or in your state, when your office is the place that can call when they say, I need something, it goes a long way. And that is what they're supposed to be doing. That's what's going on with John Ossoff right now. That's exactly right. Like the Republican mayors that are crossing over are, you know, they represent people, farmers, you know, traditional Republican voters who are saying, I can get him on the phone. I can get literally him on the phone, not just his office on the phone whenever I need him. Yep. That goes a long way. Yeah. He also gives a banger of a speech. I want to talk about your book, which was awesome. And we have that fun connection that your co-author I grew up with. We lived in the same building. So I loved. So funny. He's so funny. David Fisher is the best. He really is. And the book totally shines. And I was struck before you get into the elections themselves or I mean, they're not all elections, but we can talk about that. Yeah. You like history, obviously. Your last book was about a historical event as well. But at this moment, when everyone is so obsessed with like refresh and, you know, what's happening right this second. And if you're into politics, you're following the horse race. Right. And every day there's a new slew of polls. And you're like, well, what does this mean? What does this mean? You know, is it going to be our year in Texas, et cetera? Why did you guys think we should do a historical book now? And what do you think it can tell us about? Our present moment? Because you end in 94 is your last election that you guys cover. With Mandela. Right. Exactly. Nelson Mandela. Well, first of all, we ended in 94 mostly because from there on, we felt was too much present day to give a historic look on it. But I think that it's such a good question, Jessica. And the answer is, you know, every time people go to the polls, they're told this election matters. It matters more than any other in a generation or in my lifetime. And usually that's just not true. But sometimes it is. Sometimes there is an election or elections, whether it is for a party, for a parliament, whether it was Martin Luther King to run the organization that was in charge of the bus boycott in Alabama. There are elections that have consequences well beyond what you even think will happen as an immediate result of the election, but also well beyond your lifetime. And so it was just sort of an interesting exercise for us, first of all, to go into these 15 because they're by definition subjective. There are lots of elections that are consequential in different ways. But we chose different ones that have different kinds of impacts and have had different kinds of impacts on what happened locally, but also well beyond that. But I think that the bottom line is it's a reminder that whether or not you think it's the most consequential of your lifetime, it's important to participate because it is a privilege to be able to participate. I know that sounds corny, but it's true. When you look at elections that are quote-unquote consequential, what is it about the election that makes it consequential? Is it the candidates? Is it the moment in time? Give us the criteria that were the filter for when an election is consequential or not. Different answers to that question. By and large, it's that the candidate's election changed the course of history somehow. The candidate's ascension to power changed the course of history somehow. It's not always good. I mean, Adolf Hitler is in this book because the Nazi party was elected through a democratic process and then he became chancellor, as we all know, and then he made himself president. And then. The rest is history. Adams versus Jefferson. Those were obviously two monumental, iconic figures, but we chose that not because it was Adams versus Jefferson, but because it was the first real contested election of the new United States of America. And it turns out that there was a problem with the Constitution that they had to overcome because there was a tie because they didn't realize that if you put the president and the vice president, not on the same ticket, it could get screwed up, which they fixed later with the constitutional amendment, but it could have really dissolved the United States of America if they didn't figure that out. And they did. So there are different answers to that question, but overall, it's the impact that the election had on the future, for good or bad. And do all of those moons lining up, does it feel as if this is going to be that consequential? The midterms are 28. If you look at the past ones, do you think, well, the moons are lining up again? I don't know about 26, but I do think 28. I really do, because we are in such a specific time with Trump and Trumpism that has been with us for a decade that either we're going to totally change course or we're going to stay in, the kind of governing and government that he has set up. I personally think that he is a unique figure and that whether it's J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio or, you know, Ted Cruz, they just, even if they try to get away with the stuff that Trump gets away with, I don't think they'll be able to do it. It's just not the same. But even if they try, it will set this country up and then, by extension, the world up for something, that is, I don't know, that it will be able to sort of come back in the way that we grew up with this America. Support for the show comes from Upside. You work hard for your money, so shouldn't your money work hard for you? Gas, groceries, eating out, these are all things that you'll find on your credit card statement. But Upside provides a way to get cash back every single time you fill a tank, hit the grocery store, or go out to eat, making your money work for you. The free Upside app gets you cash back on gas, groceries, and dining. The three things draining your wallet right now. Here's how it works. You simply open the app, claim an offer, pay with your card like normal, and get paid. That's it. And yes, it's cash back. Not points you'll never use, not credits that expire. It's just real money you transfer straight to your bank account. Upside has given back $1 billion to its users. To find out how much you could earn, download the free Upside app and use promo code MODERATES to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas. That's an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas using promo code MODERATES. Chronic migraine. Botox, anabotulinum toxin A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's the number one, the number one prescribed branded chronic migraine preventive treatment. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve, nerve conditions including ALS Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis or Lambert-Eaton syndrome and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. Why wait? Ask your doctor, visit BotoxChronicMigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more. This podcast is supported by Anthropic, the public benefit corporation behind CLOD. Everyone's got a hard question about AI, your job, your kids, where it's going. Anthropic was built to surface those questions and share what it finds along the way because there's hope in hard questions. Ask yours at clod.ai slash Spotify and keep thinking. That's clod.ai slash Spotify. I'm curious, Dan and then Jess, how people get elected has changed. It used to be, you know, my sense is, you know, JFK's dad had a role in his getting elected and maybe not the most democratic of roles that obviously money appeared to be playing a bigger part. Or is it? Is it now candidate charisma and going direct to consumer with social media? Is it party, you know, the party machine that a lot of people would say in 16 kind of ordained Hillary versus, you know, or coordinated her versus a competition. I'll put it to Dana first, but Jess, then I want your view. How has the industrial machine or the machinery of how we bubble up the nominee and ultimately the president changed over time? In some ways, it hasn't changed that much, Scott. Julius Caesar was elected because of money, because of money in politics. It kind of started then. He had a whole bunch of supporters who were rich and he came from a wealthy family, but he needed more money. And there was, you know, overt or not so overt, you know, bribery. And by the way, one of the main reasons why Julius Caesar ran at the end for the big job was because he was trying to avoid prosecution because he was going to be put in jail. So as much as things change, they stay the same. I think each election has a different vibe, a different answer to that question. But all of the components that make elections so wonderful and also so gross are all there throughout history and throughout different elections. I'm curious. Yeah, this is an extension of it. So I'm kind of cheating a bit. I'm not answering, Scott, but adding on to it the element that we're all concerned about for the 2020, I mean, the midterms to some degree, but then 2020 is cheating. Yeah. And people invalidating, trying to invalidate election results, like intimidation at the polls to downright, trying to throw out votes. And you mentioned at the top that you could say more about what's going on in the struggle over allowing mail-in voting. What does history, you know, from your data set or from a more broader look even than beyond those 15, say about elections when somebody is trying to subvert them in various ways? And I'm curious what you think about, because I've been in talking about my own book and because it's a lot about understanding the way the other side thinks. And I've shifted to not only considering what the positive affirmation of the candidate is. So like, what is it that you like about Donald Trump? But what is it that what you're afraid of signals about what kind of voter you're going to be? And I have found that it underlies more than I had hoped in explaining elections, both here and abroad. And I worked in a British election before I moved home after grad school. And it was all about the fear factor. There was actually very little positive affirmation of any candidate. So I guess that's kind of two-parted. But what about the, you know, the concerns over whether you have a free and fair election and then also fear as this animating factor in why people turn out or make the choices that they do. I think those are actually connected in today's times because fear is how President Trump got elected. You know, we went from hope to fear very starkly from Obama to Trump and anger and grievance, and he still employs that every day. And the flip side of that is the fear of him, the fear of what he will do, and the fear, what if he goes another two years, the rest of his term unchecked without a Democratic Congress? But I also think the fear now is kind of circling back to what we were talking about. It's fear about my life, about what I'm going to do, what I'm going to do, what I'm going to do, what I'm going to do. It's fear about my life, about what I'm going to do, what I'm going to do, what I'm going to do. It's fear about my ability to buy a house, fear about AI, about data centers, about all of those. And I think it's fear and frustration. And the fact that we have social media and echo chambers and nobody gets out of their sort of lane except for people like you, Jessica, it amplifies it so much, that fear. I'm curious what you, well, two questions. And I'll try and be crisp. One, I see you as a centrist. I think one of the reasons I enjoy coming on your show and speaking to you is I see you squarely. And I don't know this, but my impression is that you're pretty squarely in the middle, that you're a centrist. I get the sense, and part of this is being defensive because I'm getting attacked so much. There's no room for centrists anymore, that everybody hates you. You either piss off the people on the progressive side. It's like this apostate mentality. We thought we could trust you and they feel betrayed. And the right just sees you as just a libtard. There is literally no room in the middle anymore. Thoughts? No room in the middle. And yes, I don't even know that I would describe myself as a centrist because I've only been a journalist my whole adult life. So I've never, I mean, I'm a registered independent, but I don't have the ability to sort of, in my mind, make decisions about my point of view. Truthfully, I know you're going to say, that's ridiculous. There are some things that I have an opinion on, but I'm so trained to look at all the sides and all of the arguments that, so that is the answer. Yeah, I think being objective, but also objective about truth and facts, not just objective about different parties' ideology is right. Of course, there's no room for the middle. But the weird thing is, there's such a huge hunger for the middle, for people who, yeah. So I think that the answer is, there's no room for the middle in where we see that reaction that you just described online, because that's not the kind of action and reaction that is amplified and that is applauded online. But I do think it exists. And the question is, who is going to be the person that has enough zhuzh, that has enough of a personality who can break through that and be that figure who's going to end up in the next book? Because they just broke the cycle. I think that that person could be out there. This is more anecdotal, and then I'll let Jess wrap this up. But when I was just out of grad school, I thought I need to take my sister to D.C. to be a good big brother and took her around all this, you know, took her to see Representative Pelosi. And we just had a great few days in D.C. And I felt like such a good big brother. She called me and said, I've taken an internship with a representative from Florida. And of course, it ended up being the most crazy fucking right weirdo. And I'm like, that is not why I took you to Washington. Anyways, but I used to go visit her a lot in D.C. And this is probably 25 years ago. And I remember thinking this is the funnest town. Yeah. And we used to go out with people we didn't know who they were working for or why they were working for them. And it might have been just the age we were at. But when I go down now, it just feels ugly. It feels like occupied Vichy France, where it's like, OK, are we French? Are we German? Are we? It feels and I don't know if it's a function of as I get older and I'm more depressed and I just I'm just not as fun as I used to be or if things have changed that radically the vibe on the ground. Your thoughts? I think you're not going to the right bars. There you go. There you go. That's what I need. I need a pro. I need a Sherpa. We'll take you. There you go. But it does feel different. I wouldn't go to Vichy France. I wouldn't go that far. But I do think it's also because I've gotten old. I think the youngs do still have a lot of fun. They still hang out with each other. They still have a good time. They still figure it out. Yeah. They still drink enough to have a good time. Last question. Of the 15 elections that you cover, what do you think is the most interesting for our listeners? For your listeners, I think that's a good question. I will choose the election of Sun Yat-sen in China because I didn't know much about it. Shame on me. But it was. Shame on all of us on this call, Dan. There was a small window between having the emperors. You wrote The Art of War, didn't you? Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. No, no. He was elected in the small window when that happened between all of the centuries of having emperors and the Communist Party. And he got himself elected, but the democracy didn't last long. And then that led to the Communist Party. So China's kind of a big deal. And I learned a lot about him. Awesome. Let's leave it there. Dana, thanks for joining us. Thank you for having me. You are so welcome. As all of you know, Dana is CNN's chief political correspondent and the anchor of Inside Politics and State of the Union. Dana's also the author of the new book, The Elections That Changed the World, 15 Pivotal Moments That Shaped How We Live, which comes out September 22nd. Dana, it's always wonderful to see you. Thank you. Thank you, too. And Jessica, I am hoping that the preorder of your book works and that it arrives at my doorstep tomorrow. I can't wait. Well, and there's another one coming your way, too. It was great to see you. And we'll be cheering you on next week. I adore you both. Jess, thoughts? I think that it is bold for people who work in our current politics to be writing about history because everybody is on the. This is what I know, Train, about what's going on right now. And you're all going to get mad at me because maybe I held it for a few months. And I should have told you. And Dana and David Fisher's book, they're actually trying to tell you something about why we are where we are today. And the underlying message of how important your vote is could not be more important. So I was told to read it, and I'm sure a lot of people are going to be buying it. Yeah, I have a lot of. I have a huge respect for Dana because I think she's a dying breed of journalists that just give oxygen to the other side, trying to do reporting, do her best not to insert her own views or create a series of gotcha moments. And it's sort of. We're losing that on cable news. I think it got lost a while ago on Fox, and I think we're slowly losing it on CNN with shows like I Feel Stupid or with Abby Phillips, where they're just looking for a series of incendiary moments where one side says something ridiculous and false, and the other side goes apeshit crazy and there's a food fight. Like real journalism, where you ask a person a thoughtful but not a pointed gotcha question, and then give them space, acknowledge the point, always dignified. It just kind of harkens back to an era of better journalism. And I think while there's still a market for it, it feels like. It feels like it's being crowded out by kind of crossfire-like incendiary cable. Anyways, I hope that. And Dana does well. She gets really strong ratings. But it definitely feels like the other stuff is beginning to overwhelm it, if you will. Does that make any sense? No, it totally makes sense. I think a lot of people are bemoaning the same transition in media, for sure. Even how she answered when you said, you know, I think of you as a centrist. It's like you're not even supposed to be a centrist, as she said. You're supposed to be impartial to. Totally agnostic. Yeah. But it was fun to have her. I never got to hang with her since we're on other, you know, differing sides of the cable news fence. So it was good to have her. There you go. See you at the Y. See you at the Y. See you at the Y. See you at the Y. Join for just $20 at bjs.com/mesquite and save 10 cents. cents per gallon for six months. Open soon. Limited time offer, new members only. BJ's, home of the save.