Are Trump Voters Feeling Buyer's Remorse? (With Sarah Longwell)

Welcome to Potsy of America. My guest today is an old friend of mine. She actually stole my car literally 25 years ago. She gave it back. Without casting it. Long story. But today, Sarah Longlow has left a life of crime behind her to become the publisher of the Bullwork. You can find her on excellent podcasts like the next level. The focus group, Sarah, it's great to see you. Thanks, man. It's great to see you. You are in my office just so people know. It's very nice. It's a very professional, very nice office here in DC. And I'm so grateful to be here because I wanted to take stock of this political moment. We're like six months out from the midterms. We're all letting ourselves get excited. And but you do more focus groups with voters than anyone I know, like several a week. Yes. And I want to ask you about those conversations because we're all sickos who, you know, hoover up the latest polls. But I think you can really learn interesting insights by listening to voters, what a crazy concept. It's almost like they're the people who comprise this democracy of ours. It's almost like they make a decision. And by the way, if listeners are as obsessed with this stuff as we are and they want to learn more, you should right now pause the podcast and pre-order Sarah's book. How to eat an elephant one voter at a time you'll learn about Sarah's life, her time in politics, the insight she's gleaned from literally thousands of hours of focus group conversations with voters. And also, if you pre-order it now, what that means is when the New York Times bestseller list comes out, she will be on it. And like Don Jr.'s triggered to or whatever bullshit book is getting bulk ordered by the RNC will get bounced. That's right. So I think this is important. For me, that no super PAC is buying this book to get it on the list. That it is made up of real people in large part because I want people to hear. And it's nice to be like, oh my God, do I have to listen to voters? And I'm like, yes. Yes. Was you doing a JVL impression? I was doing a JVL impression, yeah. Sarah, in the Bullwork team, they're independent pro-democracy media, so are we a crooked media. Check out everything the Bullwork is doing. Go to Substack. They have amazing podcasts. They do written content. You should be a subscriber. I've been a subscriber for a long time. So good. Nice of you. I mean, it's great stuff. And by the way, please follow Potsay America here on YouTube and consider becoming a subscriber to what we're doing here. Go to crooked.com/friends because as Sarah knows, subscribing is like literally the best thing you can do for independent media, advertising is great. But it is not enough. And if you subscribe, you get ad free episodes, get bonus episodes of Potsay America, deep dives into polling with Dan Feiffer. So it's a good deal. Crooked.com/friends. Okay. So Sarah, let's start with what you're hearing. About Donald Trump himself. On the focus group, Pod, you guys recently talked about, it was like Catholic Trump and Harris voters. You talked about, it was Trump voters who were angry at him. There was an interesting Iran war podcast. There's tons of great episodes. People should check out. But like, what are the big themes and problems and concerns of kind of keep arising? Yeah. Okay. So the easy one is, so we ask the same question at the beginning of every group. How do you think things are going in the country? There is only one answer to that question that we are hearing right now. It is bad. Nobody thinks things are good, including some of the people who still support Trump. Like they don't think things are going well. People who are still riding with Trump just tend to have hope that maybe they will start going well at some point because you got to trust the plan. Tommy, you trust the plan? We might get there. But the big thing is just costs, right? Everybody talks about, how do you think things are going in country? People say bad. Gas prices are high. We're suddenly in a war with Iran. You know, I wanted Trump to deport criminals, but he's doing all this other stuff. And it's this pervasive feeling. In fact, we just did a focus group. And I really liked this group. It was people who are still a perverse of Trump. People who are still rocking with him that that 32%. I've got my bush line, right? But people who are, let's call it below the bush line, people who are like, I'm still in it with Trump. Surprise. I managed to get that by you without you giggling. I did smile. Do you know that I coined that phrase entirely innocently and only until I set it to Tim Miller? And the reason I'm laughing is because I was texting with Tim about this today. And I asked him for OPPO about you. And he responded the bush line. Yeah. Well, he, they bastardized things that I take, purely. You're so innocent with a perverse. So but the people who are still riding with Trump who think things are going great, even they think that the state of the country, like the way that we relate to each other is awful. Like they feel like the country is a powder keg. They feel like we're too divided. They're scared about civil war. And so there's this like deep, pervading sense or pervasive sense of unease. But the prices are the things you hear because when prices are high, people's anxiety is high. And they've been high kind of now for a long time. And so people are starting to crack. And I got to tell you a year ago, what we would hear from these voters is, okay, like Trump is going to fix it. And like Rome wasn't built in a day, but I think he's going to get there. And like every week, you just see sort of the sliding off of the optimism from Trump voters that say, I think things are going to get better. Like they just see things getting worse. It jives that I've heard from others like folks probably heard of swing left. They are a great grassroots organization. We're doing this big, canvassing project called Ground Truth, where they don't do like a walklass. It's not like the Democratic Party saying like, hey, knock on these Democratic doors. They're knocking on every door and they're trying to have longer conversations. And you know, issues rise and fall, right? Like the Iran war happens and all of a sudden that spikes in what they're hearing. But the number one issue, like lingering pervasive issue, is about the integrity of the political system itself. It's about trust and that ranges from corruption. It's people feeling like politicians lie in their self-dealing. That the system is corrupted or captured by corporate interests. And it's just, you know, it's interesting that they're hearing that, you're hearing the same thing. Like that is like the mood music. Yeah. And I think like, to the extent that we now take, our signals are also bifurcated and everywhere. But they all come together in this thing that we now call vibes. And one of the things I talk about in the book is the rise of the vibes voter. And like the vibes are bad and Trump's vibes are bad and the, you know, it's funny. The way you just said it, which is around corruption and things, a lot of the things about doing the focus groups is you get a lot of specifics into that. So like, what are people angry about? Well, they're angry that Trump lied and said, we weren't going to get into these stupid wars. And now we're at war with Iran. They're upset about Epstein. Epstein comes up a lot. I think a lot of people thought, like, this isn't a real story. This isn't actually going to matter, but for a lot of the voters, Epstein isn't just about Epstein. It's about the idea that Trump was supposed to be somebody who was going to be transparent, right? And he was going to put people in his cabinet. There's a secret cabal running everything, but we're going to tell you the truth. We are on your side. And there's a sense of betrayal around that, which is why I always think about the people who are still part of the people who approve of Trump for them. What they have is like, they're keeping the faith in Trump that it's going to come, but they're clear that it hasn't come yet, and we're not getting it right now. Interesting. So, we both are in the media world now, but at heart we're political hacks, who especially focus on messaging and how to go after Trump. The messaging that resonates with me, my bias, my prior, is around corruption, because I think the corruption bucket gives you the why, right? It's like, it explains why Trump is pushing bad tax policies, because its donors want them, bad foreign policy, crypto, it can apply to everything. I think Senator Jon Ossov has been messaging this, and I think a really effective interesting way. We'll drop in a clip here. How much do you guys know about Jared Kushner? Ivanka's husband. He's on the Saudi payroll for $2 billion. And now he's leading American diplomacy in the Middle East, apparently, while at the very same time asking princes and shakes across the Arab world to give him billions more. Can you imagine like a normal sitting U.S. ambassador just hitting up Saudi-Cran prints, Muhammad bin Salman for billions of dollars? The rules are for us, not for them. And it's not just Jared getting in on the action. A company owned in part by Eric and Don Jr. has been pitching golf kingdoms on its drone interceptors during this war. Ever before have we seen so little effort to hide so much corruption? Do you think this is effective messaging, what Ossov is saying? Does this kind of thing like popping in groups? Yeah, and here's the thing about corruption. OK, so I'm going to put a different frame on it, which is, like I said, people are focused on, prices, they're focused on affordability, but you can make everything an economic issue. Corruption especially can be an economic issue, right? It's about a total story you're telling, and it's saying he's getting rich while you're getting poor. Everything has to have the contrast to it. You know, I'm talking to people, I'm like, him bad, you good, like, let's get some real basics, right? Trump bad, you good. Right. The publicans bad, damn it. Refix. Yeah, that's right. He break, refix. It's like, get the contrast in there. I am minorly developing an obsession with John Ossov, entirely based on tight shirts and a good message. Yeah. Yeah, which is funny, because that's not for me exactly, but it is, it's for me either, but he gets to see it. He gets to see it. Yeah. But then the calm stuff just has me swooning. Yes. The demeanor. vibes. Yeah. The way he's doing, like, oh, so there's a couple of things he's doing. One is cadence, where he's holding an audience in his hand, and that's the stuff you can't teach. Some of it is that the the, the, the handsomeness of it all, like the optics of feeling like, oh, oh, you look, you look like a person I could see being president. He's got nice young man energy similar to Obama. And, and, and some other people to judge has some of that, you know, nice young man energy, which I think works with a lot of the moms. I think, you know, there's always a soccer mom or a, you know, security mom or whatever. Let's just have the nice young man moms. They could be coming out for Democrats this time. But the thing about Ossoff is that he is a natural contrast storyteller. He is saying, and a lot of people get, they, they worry, we'll look if I, if I start talking about corruption, people are going to get bored or they don't understand the ins and outs. He trusts people to understand where he's going with it. And he says, have you heard? Did you know? Did you see this? Yeah. I mean, you're to give you this information if you haven't been getting it in your bubble. It's so good. It's like, it's so simple. It's like an old Leno bit. It's like, do you hear about this one? You read this one? Yeah. And so I am finding him from a, an optics cadence and message discipline standpoint to be doing the thing that I've been feeling pretty desperate for politicians to do, which is find a way to rhetorically get your arms around the chaos. And people get distracted. It feels like it's so much. And the voters feel like it's too much. But he's like, no, going to focus your attention on these things. And they, they provide the contrast, not just him versus Trump, but the way in which he's approaching issues versus the corruption of Trump. And corruption, Trump's getting richer. You're getting poor. Like that's the contrast. Yeah. Maria Barteroma saying, congrats, Don and Eric on your drone contract from the Pentagon or whatever. I don't know if you know this, but Tundra Biden had a painting. Yeah, right. Yeah, had a kind of barisma. I want to talk about how Democrats should chip away at this Trump coalition from 2024 and kind of build their own big motley anti Trump coalition. You and your co-hosts on the next level had a spirited debate about Tucker Carlson and his turn from Trump and denunciation of Trump. Let's listen to Tucker talking about that. You and I and everyone else who supported him, you wrote speeches for him. I campaign for him. I mean, we're implicated in this for sure. Yes. It's not enough to say, well, I changed my mind or like, oh, this is bad. I'm out. It's like in very small ways. But in real ways, you and me and millions of people like us for the reason this is happening right now. Yes. So I do think it's like a moment to wrestle with our own consciences. You know, we'll be tormented by it for a long time. I will be and I want to say I'm sorry for misleading people. It was not intentional. That's all I'll say. You and JBL in Tim, you know, I think you guys have different takes on how to respond to Tucker or what you made of Tucker. I'll let you talk about that. But I think I sort of landed in a middle ground listening to you guys like, yes, you know, Tucker is someone I think we should be skeptical of because he's sort of in the media political business. It was knowable and there's evidence that he did know that Trump was a charlatan. But I do think he was sincerely disappointed and angry that Trump went full neocon and like invaded Venezuela and now is the war with Iran. A lot of it is undergirded by this anger at the Israeli government and beeping in Yahoo that can guarantee anti-Semitism and we have to watch that. But I'm curious like how do you think Democrats use these comments because it's him. It's Alex Jones. It's Candace Owens. Not like lib fan favorites usually, but saying things that are potentially helpful to us. Yeah, I mean, this I think the sense of being like kind of weirdly an academic debate as opposed to a practical one, because as a practical matter, use the shit out of all of it, right? Like amplify the fractures in their coalition. Like again, just with the framework of him, good, they bad. Like, you want them to fall apart and want to hold your side together. Like, and I think that though people get wrapped up a little bit in whether you have to sort of welcome people into the tent. This is a phrase where people decide who's in the coalition and who's out of the coalition. Is there a gate somewhere? Well, there's been a big big conversation lately, right? I mean, I know you guys have also talked about Hassan Piker who's a more leftist sort of twitch streamer who said some offensive things about Israel or a bunch of other topics. And that's been part of this question too. And like, I don't know, how do you think about that? How do we define whether there are gates? Yeah, I mean, I think look, there's sort of like is something somebody says bad objectively, right? So I think I think talk or Carlson is a malign actor. I think he is a liar. I think the reason that he has decided to take on Trump on this issue isn't because he's got super sincerely held beliefs or maybe he does as part of his worldview. But also he was specifically brought into the White House multiple times. I think tried to talk Trump out of Iran. Trump went against him. Now Tucker's going against him. They're all falling apart. But like, Tucker is not a good person in my opinion. Like, I think he has been a malign actor on our politics. And I think he does overall more damage. That doesn't mean that Tucker Carlson doesn't have an audience and doesn't play a role in helping to sort of fracture that coalition. And so sometimes amplifying his disagreements, he is a particular kind of messenger for people. But that's like a utility. It's not, hey, let's have them in the coalition. And because there is no because they're not part of they don't want to be part of the cause. But also because there is no gatekeeping around the coalition, right? Like, there's nobody who decides, really, I mean, the DNC can decide who speaks at a, who gets a platform. But like, uh, and that was sort of, you know, my argument with Tim around Piker was I felt like Tim and Tim knows this. So I don't want to like speak out of school because he's not here to defend himself. But I felt like he was kind of downplaying some of the toxicity of the things that Piker was saying. And more than that, I just cared about an art platform. I didn't want it to sound like we didn't have a clear sense of who this guy is and what he is saying and what he talks about. But like, if that guy says, I like John Ossoff because I agree with his views on this. Well, then like, okay, um, that's, and so I just, this idea of people being gatekeepers on this stuff. But I do think we should all, as moral actors, be gatekeepers about what is right and what is wrong. And so for me, if my lines are liberal, versus illiberal, then when people are using violent rhetoric, if they side with terrorists or want to, you know, pump up terrorists or celebrate them in ways or the Chinese communist government or Putin's annexation of Crimea, you know, or that, you know, 9/11 happening was a, what was it? America deserved 9/11. And people are like, these are out of context. And then I go and watch the context. And I'm like, they're not out of context. You just, you have an explanation for why you think these things to be true. Okay, well, that's an academic debate or an intellectual debate. And we can have that debate. I'm just telling you, I think those things are wrong. And I think as a moral line, I think that they're not good. But that doesn't mean, um, but the idea that like, concasters can't talk to each other or people can't debate ideas. Like, you're not into that deep platform. Because that was very like 2018 through 2020, right? It's like all the scolding of people went on Joe Rogan or like, scolding a bar still sports or things. But people can flate the idea of saying, I think that person's ideas are bad or I object to what that person's saying. Like, I don't think stealing stuff from stores is an act of righteous, uh, courage against corporations. Like, I think that is, I think that's basically you've decided, okay, well, we're just going to opt out of having a society and laws. Um, and to me, those are illiberal things. And I'm trying to, part of the reason I objected to Donald Trump was the illiberalism of Donald Trump, violent rhetoric of Donald Trump. Um, now, it sounds like a streamer who most of them, a country doesn't know about. Well, yeah, it is not president, maybe not president. Maybe like, um, a less discussed, maybe more complicated, more interesting case is Marjorie Taylor Green, okay, who has voted in some bad ways, some said some noxious things that's helped some terrible views. But I gotta say, I listened to her. I've been listening to her pretty closely for the better part of the year. Talk about her opposition to the war in Iran. Um, some of the things she said about the war in Venezuela. I think she's been saying about Gaza. And it just, it strikes me as totally sincere. And now, maybe it's all a political game that is setting up a run for the presidency in 2028, whatever we'll find out. But I was, I was talking to Ilhan Omar a couple weeks ago about this, um, and whether, you know, she had reached out to, um, uh, Marjorie Taylor Green. And it was interesting to hear like Ilhan Omar who's taken more attacks, who's been treated more viciously by MTG and a lot of Republicans showed such grace and was like, yeah, we should, you know, give her hug, welcome her into the coalition. I thought it was interesting to hear that from her that she was thinking like that. Yeah. And I think, look, I think grace is good. Um, I also, and I think, um, part of what's happening though is like they're finding common ground, right? Like they share their, their feelings about Israel. I think are like both sincerely held and, uh, are maybe closer to each other than Marjorie Taylor Green's are too many in her own party. Right. Um, and, uh, and that might be true of Ilhan Omar and some of the members of her own party. And so if they can, they find that common ground. And so, but like that might not be true. true if they didn't have like an issue that was binding them together that they both care passionately about. And that is, I think that increased skepticism of Israel is totally warranted in this moment. I think that increased skepticism of the American government is quite warranted in this moment. But like, that wouldn't necessarily bind me together with somebody, that wouldn't be like the glue that holds us together. But I think that we have and have had now for a while a fracturing of the old way of politics orienting the parties. And so as these issue shift and there's these huge changes in the way people are thinking about different things, Israel being one of them, you're going to start to see sort of the strange bedfellas. But politics is always like that. Politics finds strange bedfellas. And I think that is fine. Again, this is where is it really welcoming somebody into a coalition? Because I think there's a difference. And this is when you say, I carry you like we're together in this. And this is why the question of do politicians go on like these more really incendiary podcasters, people who are more for shock, jock politics? It's like, okay, you've got two, there's two sides of that coin. There's the side that's trying to reach audience. And so you need to go everything, everything everywhere all at once. You got to be going, finding audience, going into uncomfortable places, having new conversations. Just have the judgment to know that for some people, you will end up owning some of their baggage and some of the worst things that they said, if you're not willing to press them on it or engage in that. And so that is the thing with Marjorie Taylor Greene is like, I think that she got into Congress and thought maybe it was going to be easier for her to just love Trump enough to get things done and then that didn't happen. And now maybe she's mad she didn't have enough influence or whatever she's looking for influence in other ways. I just don't know that I think I'm not going to be like, boy, I really want to run hang out with Marjorie Taylor Greene, but Jay Bell does. I love to work out with her maybe a little crossfit. No, it's just an interesting conversation just sort of like thinking about how Democrats offer grace, whether the amount, number of hoops we make you jump through to kind of like get to be treated as sincere versus Trump who's like, Oh, you like Trump? Oh, you called me Hitler back in the day. Your VP now, Jay events. You know what I mean? Like, Oh, Bobby Kennedy, you like Trump now. You hate these vaccines. Fuck it. I hate vaccines to come on in. But that's bad, right? We think that was a brittle coalition. We ultimately don't think it's good as an objective matter that JD Vance specifically who did say Trump was Hitler then was like, Mr. Trump, let me be all your things all for you. I just love you. I hope you hear curbels. I will do what you need. Yeah, it's a joke. But so I guess there's the part of me that is again, every successful political coalition that has ever existed has involved like especially at really fractious times has involved lots of strange bedfellows has involved lots of weird coalitions. So I think you want your coalition to be as big as possible. And I don't think we can or like we can't like police who everybody talks to like what you want out of your political leadership is you want somebody who's so good up here. This is why what I was objecting to is the idea that you have to go on someone's podcast to reach their audience. My point is a bigger point that's much beyond like a particular person. It is John Ossoff is really good. He will make me and Hassan Piker be like, I support that guy. Not because he comes to us to like reach our audience. I think we've gotten a little too obsessed with the these micro conversations around Joe Rogan of the left or podcasters in general. Like actually, it's about the candidates. It's the candidates. Can they show leadership and can we find ways to say I can support that person and can they appeal to a really large coalition for a variety of reasons. And you want it to be because they're leaning into the thing like the good things the things that were like, yes, I find goodness in this person. A lot of people tag into them. Not hey, I hate the same people you do. Right. Yes, for sure. We want unifying messages, especially on our side. Let me just ask you a couple more things about Iran because I can imagine like a half dozen ways that this is bad for Trump politically. There's gas prices are up. People are sick of wars in the Middle East generally. The price tag of the war itself is huge. Like 30 billion, 40 billion dollars already has been burned. Then there's the fact that Trump lied and he said he would not go to war in the Middle East. What are you hearing though from voters who are expressing frustration about the war, especially the Trump supporters you guys have talked to who have spoken out? Yeah, I would say the main thing is people thought, and this was always my take on it was, Trump could get away with it if it was a really short period of time. Because if it was kind of an in and out like the first Iran bombing was 12-day war. It's like the voters bit, but by the time it's happened, it's like it's our you're already by it with the voters and they're back to caring just about costs. The longer this goes on, you've got two things. You've got the impacts here at home, which is really around gas prices, but ultimately is going to be all things getting more expensive, which on top of the tariffs, and this is the thing about something like the Iran War, voters know what caused it. Voters know that tariffs caused the price increases and they know that the war in Iran is causing gas and gas price increases. When they know where it came from, that's the first bucket of the problem. Then you get to the second bucket of the problem, which is you said, no more of this stuff. You want to go in and do a smash and grab job like Venezuela or whatever, and I don't have to feel it fine. You end up in a prolonged thing. We're now listening to you be like, hey, Vietnam was 18 years. What are you guys complaining about? Crazy comment, by the way. Yeah, and then they're like, wait a minute because this is where Trump is boxed in on this. And this is going back to Marjorie Taylor Green and Tucker Carlson. The thing about them is that they are creating. There's sort of there's a fracture in their Republican Party right now. There's the America first win, right, which is no, we're not going to do wars because we're going to focus on people here at home. Then there's the MAGA establishment and that is the Rubio and that is Trump. America firsters are like, you are not helping the American people. You are lying. You're not doing what you said. There is a real part of his coalition that feels betrayed because Trump, and again, this is when I say everything is an economic issue. It's like, we hired you to do one thing, man. Maybe two. Maybe we wanted you to also secure the border. It was about prices and you're not doing it. And so literally everything you're doing that is not that makes us mad. Yeah. You hear this from Nick Fuentes. You hear this from very vocal people. Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candace Owens, a lot of people. Again, a lot of flawed messengers there, but they have audience. You mentioned Epstein a minute ago. So the Epstein files saga. It was long, but it feels like a lifetime ago at this point. But how much does the mishandling of Epstein kind of linger with voters who are angry with him and how does it manifest? Yeah. So the main thing again is it goes to a lot of Trump's voters believed that the essential promise of Trump of Trump. So I think there's the people who these are the more casual voters who are just like Trump's a business guy. He's going to lower prices. But then there's the voters who are like, no, Trump is going to smash the system. And all of the things you guys have been hiding from us, the deep state, talk a lot about this in the book, the grammar of hidden knowledge, the idea that there are big structural forces, keeping information from regular people and meant to keep people down. Trump was going to disrupt all that. When you don't get the Epstein files. And for whatever reason, it's funny, if you go back, cash betel promise to the Epstein files on the promise of the Epstein files. Trump didn't really Trump fairly. He's like, yeah, we'll look at that. JD Vance promised the Epstein files. This was not for it from wanting to do. And Trump is mad now. Now we know why. That he is at the center of it, but they feel like it disrupts the central promise of his, which is that I was going to be your guy who's going to show you everything and be transparent. And so they just, and maybe he basically have started to be like, probably, yeah, he's in them, you know, and it like, we know he's in them now. And so I do think there's the people who have either decided that matters to them because it is disrupted so much of this is cumulative. It's not just the Epstein files. It's like, well, I didn't get the Epstein files. And I don't get lower prices. And people are basically like, I guess I get a secure border and like bad stuff's happening to trans people. That's the only thing he's mean to my enemies. He's mean to my end. That is the only thing that they feel like is going right for Trump. And the rest of it, they're not getting. And people are like, they'll generate those kind of reach for the trans stuff is something that they're glad about. But like, that's not driving their votes. That's not the essential thing pushing most people. But yeah, and the other interesting thing about Epstein that I was, I think you guys talked about this on one of your focus group episodes was being into conspiracy theories used to be a thing that maybe people were embarrassed about. Now they're like, oh, I'm a big conspiracy theory person. It's like, they're proud. And I don't know. Maybe they all just feel vindicated by the Epstein thing because like QAnon was just kind of aiming at the wrong target in hindsight. But it's interesting. What did one guy say? He was like, how does a conspiracy theory go like turn into a fact and it's like, just give it time. But what is amazing is it is, you used to hear people start their sentences with, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but and you were always kind of like, okay, I'm waiting to hear the conspiracy. But now they're like, I'm a big conspiracy theorist. And well, let me tell you what I think about Erica Kirks, like the bodies buried in her basement. You know, I mean, the Candace Owens of it all the extension. to which the conspiracy, I mean, used to be like, go to the grocery store and there'd be like, "Bat boy, kill seven," or whatever stuff we used to see. And America's always had a strain of, you know, there's a second gunman on the grassy roll and whatever, America, they like it, it's fun. Now, and the way that people own it now shows you, much people are leaning into this as a way of politics, as entertainment, the characters that they watch, and this is something that the right does, in some ways to its benefit and to its detriment, which is that they are creating an ecosystem of like, MAGA, soap opera stars. - Yes, they're all fighting. - Like, that's what Will Sommer does. - Oh, I know, thank God for Will, 'cause I wouldn't know what the hell was going on. Like, who's mad at who, and who did what in the ballroom at TPUSA event anyway? - Yeah, and there's a lot of, like, minor celebrities that, I mean, Will Sommer's constantly saying like, "Well, so-and-so, and I'm like, I'm sorry, who is that?" He's like, "You know the girl who threw up in the plant at the Mar-a-Lago, and I'm like, "I don't know this story," and so, the conspiracy stuff is, and again, you hear it with people saying, "Well, I trust the plant," you know? Whatever Trump's doing, I trust the plant. I mean, it's sort of like, it's all the way from deep QAnon stuff that can be pernicious and kind of dangerous and lead somebody to show up at a pizza shop with a gun, all the way over to Bravo doesn't have a new series now, so I'm like, really into what's happening with Erica. - That's so true. And the other thing, I mean, like, having worked in government, I've just found that, like, big government conspiracies are unlikely because when you have a bunch of people right into something, the odds of it remaining a secret are very low, and the government tends to be incompetent at the sale. - I was just gonna say, like, you think the government can't figure out how to solve a bunch of these problems, but you think they've know how to cover up. - The moving? - Yeah, exactly. - They fake that stuff. - But you can totally see the appeal of it, which is, like, simple answers to why the world can feel chaotic and scary and why bad things happen to good people, right? Like, oh, it's 'cause of that. - This is why, you know, I tend to still be, despite all of the chaos we see, really, like, firmly pro-American voter, because in some ways, they are being poisoned every day, and they're being lied to by their government every single day. I think that whether it's Epstein, whether it's the way that Trump has talked about war on or on, like, we are both being lied to, and the only way we're getting information is on his, like, janky social media feed, and, like, that's how things are coming, his privately-owned. Like, I have a hard time blaming the American people who, for a long time, are, like, but he's the president. He certainly wouldn't lie about all of this stuff, or, and I just, and they're trying to parse this new information landscape, which is a nightmare, and there's conflict merchants everywhere, telling them who to hate, and how to hate, and, you know, gending people up. And so I just, I feel like, I feel like people, when I ask why I like the focus groups, they're actually much nicer in person than actually the way and when people fight with you on the internet, and they're just, like, screaming things at you. You know, people in the groups, they're really wrestling with stuff. They're just coming away with some wild conclusions, but you can see how they get there if you listen to them based on the world that we live in. Totally, and the algorithms that they're getting forced into. (upbeat music) A couple quick issue things I'm just wondering if you're here and about, I'm, look, I'm skeptical that a midterm is gonna be one on, like, policy per se, but there are some policy areas that are popping. First of all, there's AI, so there's some districts, Politico, I'd go right up on this the other day, where fights over AI data centers are really their big deals in certain communities that don't want them there, or do you want them there. And then there's also just sort of anger from the left and the right at big tech, at the tech oligarchs. And it's like, you, it's the kind of thing where you could listen, I could read you a sentence, and it could be Bernie Sanders, or it could be Steve Bannon, right, and it's like verbatim the same language. How much are you hearing about AI big tech like in your groups? - So tons of AI, not nearly enough about big tech. And let me, so though, I was actually, when I was doing the focus groups, specifically on the races for Mikey Sheerl, Abigail Spanberger, in both those races, the AI data centers were a huge issue. Came up all the time, because people know how much water they're using. They know that they're raising their energy prices again. It's an economic issue for them. They're like, hey, it's getting more expensive for me. And both of them made them parts of their campaigns, like they were addressing it, 'cause it's clearly something they're hearing from voters all the time. And this is, but on the other thing, on the tech oligarchs. And this is, I also talk about this in the book, and I need you to do me a favor. - Pin, I mean. - Okay, go tell all your democratic friends that they keep doing this thing where they're like, big corporations, they're the bad guys. I'm like, can you guys just, like, okay, I'm not here to talk you out of this, don't say? Could you please just really focus on the big tech oligarchs? - Sure. - Because they are both becoming outrageously wealthy at the expense of the health, both mental and physical of the American people. They are taking two of our dominant human emotions, fear and anger, and they are algorithmically for their own profit, and to keep us on those things, they are making us want to hate each other. They are the poisoners, in many cases, or they're the platforms that deliver the poison and try and keep you there. And Elon Musk should be an enemy that we name. Peter Teal should be an enemy that we name. And you know what? It's not just that these guys walked in to help Trump, because they knew he doesn't care about people, he doesn't care about their health and well-being, and he was gonna help them be profit, he was gonna let them raid our data. Like, we are not talking enough about the tech oligarchs as a specific element of the problem. You just say big, nameless, faceless corporation. Fine, you know what, most Americans work for corporations. And so the tech oligarchs though, they are bleeding us. And look, I think there's lots of promise for AI too, and there's lots of downsides. I'm not just like reflexively against it, but we do need to sort of balance our humanity here. And I think that these guys are not, they, there's a reason Elon Musk talks about immigration all the time. He wants to make sure that we think immigrants are the problem and not the tech oligarchs. Like, they are playing a distraction game. And I do think people need to. So, if you could just tell your friends who we're talking about, the big thing. Hey, listen up, what would you include? Mark Zuckerberg, what about Google, Tim Cook over at Apple? I mean, I look, I fundamentally agree with you. I think that the more specificity in messaging, the better for a whole host of reasons, but in part, it's easier like visualize the enemy when you name it. I'm with you though. My frustration with the AI industry generally is like, we watched all these tech barons create social media and tell us it was gonna bring the world together and fix all our problems. And it created a massive number of problems. And then you have a bunch of the same people kind of running it back and now doing the AI thing. And it goes from Elon to Mark Zuckerberg over at Facebook and then Sam Altman, who is, you know, running Y-combinator for a long time and incubating a lot of these companies. And it just seems like there's no lessons learned. In fact, they care even less about being perceived as good guys. They're just like repacious capitalists who want it all. - Okay, and so as somebody who doesn't necessarily discount people just 'cause of repacious capitalism, I would say, you know, my favorite description of the book, 'cause people are like, you're the capitalist wing of Antifa. (laughing) It's so good. - It's so good. But I think that for me a lot of it is, and that's why look, there are, I believe in innovation. And I believe in trying to solve big and tractable problems. And I think technology can be a big part of that. What you do hunt is for it to not live in a place of nihilism. Like these guys are becoming extraordinarily powerful, extraordinarily powerful in our politics in ways. I mean, this is why I think the specificity of an Elon Musk, like Elon Musk is somebody who I think you can look at and say this person is doing an enormous amount of damage and doing it on purpose. I don't think every tech oligarch is like that. And I think that you, you know, we should probably be careful about not sort of lumping in everybody together 'cause I think there are people who are like, actually there are responsible ways to do this. And like, what are the ways that you could regulate this? And those people are becoming fewer and further between. And one of the reasons that so many people capitulated to Trump, including Zuckerberg, including Washington Post. - Bezos. - Bezos, Elon, whatever. Is 'cause they were like, well, this guy will just do what we want. And I'm not here for the social good. I'm here to get what I want. And look, again, doesn't all have to be social good, but it does have to be with like, I don't know some sense of responsibility to the health of the country. And Elon is happy, happy to be a common trillionaire at the expense of us destroying each other. - Absolutely, destroying anything in his way. - Maha, the RFK junior, obviously he like exploded into the consciousness and to popularity by demagoguing vaccines, primarily the COVID pandemic, supercharged, everything that he was doing. But there was a part of Maha that is totally reasonable, right? It's like healthier foods, less processed foods, fewer chemicals in what we're eating, you know, like thinking more about like what we're feeding kids, like all of that is eminently reasonable. And I have tons of friends, I'm sure you do too, who are like, "Maha curious." And we're like, "Well, what, why are you critical of this RFK guy? What is, what's wrong with any of this, right, and becomes a complicated conversation?" But it was always obvious that as a political matter and as a political coalition, there was going to be tension between sincere Maha and Trump's pro-corporation, deregulation, agenda, getting rid of the EPA, things like that. And you saw this explode recently, where they gave this sweetheart legal deal to the folks who make Roundup, which is this big weed killer that a lot of Maha folks absolutely hates, I think it's like the cancer. Are you hearing anything about Maha these days? Like, is there anger or opportunity for Democrats? I mean, I heard a lot about Maha going into the election. I mean, the number of, it's not just women, but it was a lot of women who were like, "I want red dyes out of food." Like, they had these specific issues that I was like, and I'm a parent, but I was like, I haven't been followed. I thought about the red dye either, yeah. But look, there are a bunch of things, I don't know if you feel this way. There are a bunch of things as you become a parent that are happening with kids, you're like, "I don't know, it wasn't like this before." Nobody had all these nut allergies, right? Or like, there wasn't, you didn't know tons of kids who are autistic, or like, there's like all these things, things that feel new. Things that feel new, right? And so you're like, where is this coming from? Why is this happening? And I think for parents who of autistic children who feel like they don't know exactly why, there's a lot of people who are like, "Okay, well, maybe he's going to get to the bottom of some of this." And actually, I think it's, I'm not sure if I think it's less about what you just outlined, it's a little bit more like, he's basically a crank who has now, you know, is like, "Well, we're getting rid of vaccines everywhere, and we're cutting all this medical research." And what I hear about Maha, when I do hear about it, is like, "Oh, I was excited for RFK, but like, they haven't really gotten anywhere on like X, Y, or Z, whatever the bespoke issue was that they were interested in doing it." And in fact, there was a spade of time when they came out, there was a lot of people who were upset about the idea of like, it was Tylenol causing autism, in part because mothers felt like they were being blamed, like, the idea that they took Tylenol. The only thing you can take when you're pregnant for pain relief and to suddenly take that away from women and then say, and by the way, you're at fault if your children has a medical problem because you took that, this is so cruel. And if you don't think that those women haven't figured out how to read 11 peer reviewed studies on these things, like they have. And so I think that there was, there was some real frustration about that. Now, it doesn't come up as much, I think in part because I actually think that the amount of damage being done, especially on the, I don't know if you saw this the other day, but they have found an M-M-R-A vaccine that is showing tremendous signs of adding longevity to the lives of people with pancreatic cancer. - Extraordinary, yeah. - Extraordinary medical breakthrough. You think we've been spending more money on M-R-N-A vaccines these days or not? And so like, and I think what's unfortunate is that unlike Trump's tariffs and unlike the war in Iran, Americans feel acute pain from those things. The cutting of scientific research, the gutting of those things, it's kind of thing that takes a decade to show up and it's also when discoveries not made and therefore much harder to figure out. And so I, you don't hear as much of that as directly, although it's there, but it's much more focused on prices, but I, I just know that we are paying, we're paying a lot and it's just, we're going to, we're going to learn about it down the road. - Yeah, Bill's coming to you later. I'm going to if a couple more things and I'll get the hell out of your office. So we've been talking about the midterms. Gallup just released a new polling this week about approval of Congress. They asked people like, do you approve or disapprove of Congress's institution? 10% approve. 86% disapprove. - Congrats, guys. You did it. - You did it. The all time low is 9%. The partisan breakdown was 20% approval from Republicans, 11% from independence, 3% from Democrats, which is not surprising. It's the Republican Congress. Now, for contact, Congress's approval rating has been mostly under water since 1974. The average is 28% approve, 65% disapprove, which is bad, but you know, 10% is terrible. Does that help Democrats, the people like Hathy Institution, and we maybe have more challenges? How do you think about that? - Yeah, Congress is funny because it's weird to get to such a low approval rating when you're not doing anything. - Literally nothing. - Like, and so I'm actually I'm like, people are mad that they're not doing anything, and especially on the Democratic side, here's what I do know. I know that Democratic voters are so frustrated with their leadership. I mean, they're mad. They're like, down with the gerontocracy, and if you keep Jeffries, and Schumer don't start going toe to toe with Trump, and they are not satisfied by the answer of we're shut out from political power. They're like, I don't know, you're up there. Can you go do something like they want to see reflected back to them? This I keep kind of rejecting this fight that we have on Twitter about does the Democratic Party need to be more moderate? Does it need to be more progressive? Like, all the voters really want is for it to be more aggressive. They could sort of take or leave which side of the ideological spectrum you're on, as long as you are going in there, and reflecting the anger and upsetness that they feel at what Trump is doing, and when you're not doing that, they are mad, which is I think where you're getting sort of those Democratic numbers. And I think, look, so much of this is just, you gave me a body of the government, and I think things are going terribly in the country. And so I want to tell you that I think they're doing a terrible job because the country feels bad. So I don't know that I, and interest in terms of how it affects the midterms, people blame the party in power. I mean, this is the only reason that I think Democrats can't pick up the kind of seats that they picked up in 2018 is because there's not enough seats available. Like, there's just because that's so close right now, they can't pick up 40 seats, but like they can certainly take control to win 40 seats. We'd have to be winning like Trump plus 12 districts. Yeah. And I think like, look, you can get a wave where you are picking up Trump plus seven districts, Trump plus eight. I mean, that wave would have to be so big, but you know what? I'm not discounting it in part because, look, Democrats are extraordinarily motivated, and Republicans are sucking wind. Yes, and that's where the Tucker stuff, I think, I love that. Well, one counterpoint to this, the New York Times reported that Republicans have a $600 million advantage in terms of fundraising, of like Republican groups over Democratic ones. How much does that worry you? Because I think it's easy after 2024 to be like, we pissed away a billion dollars, didn't move the vote of God damn point, who cares anymore. But in midterms, it's a bit of a different story often. So, okay, it doesn't worry me that much in the sense that the voters are given to the candidates. Like the Democratic candidates like Talleriko and Cooper and Mary Petola, like they're putting up huge numbers like way over their Republican counterparts. And so, there's an asymmetry that is on either side, where the actual Democratic candidates are outraising their Republican counterparts, whereas the Republican infrastructure and the committees are outraising their Democratic counterparts. And so, and the Pax, right? So, there's like tons of the big money coming in, whereas I think a lot of the big money on the left is, yeah, feeling scared. And scared. People don't want to put their names on FEC reports because Trump will go after them. Like that is a real thing that is happening, which, and that's why, look, I don't know how much money is going into C4s or stuff, but like that money might be evening out somewhere, but there is a lot of chilling, of civic participation via donation dollars because people are afraid of showing up on Donald Trump's radar. Yeah. And the DOJ is. So, it worries me from that, it worries me from that point of view. And then it worries me, I think, from, I don't want to just like, you know, crap on Ken Martin, but I do think that the DNC could stand to up its, up its game a little bit. Yeah. I actually, we've been in touch with Ken's team. We're hoping to get them on the show sometime next week to talk about this and the fundraising and some of the concerns because it is, it's a challenging atmosphere. I'm sure it is an absolute slog for him to try to rebuild that place and clear the decks after 2024. But yeah, I'm anxious like you are. And also, but you're right, the, the candidate fundraising is better on the Democratic side. And that's also important because you get more efficient ad rates as a elected official than you do as a party committee or a PAC. So that's something. Yeah. And for people who are like, oh, get money out of politics and stuff, I totally, I hear, I hear you, but, but, but as right now, right when you have only so many metrics for things, like money, especially to candidates, is a good metric for enthusiasm. And so the idea that these Democratic candidates are outperforming on the money side is just a good metric for, I think, enthusiasm, especially in a midterm and not a presidential. Yes. Totally agree. Last question, which is end with some, maybe you're responsible. Definitely premature speculation about 2028. On the Republican side, you have a great piece in the Atlantic this week about how groups are the focus groups. Trump voters are talking more and more about Marco Rubio, the archivists. I think that's his only job. and less about JD Vance, tell us more about that. - So, this is Marco Rubio is maybe the first candidate I've seen where like a meme seems to be springing to life. - Yes. - And so the meme of Marco Rubio in the chair like this with the new job, whatever the job is, like, is he the new coach of the panthers? - Right. - Like every garbage job that you can get, it actually, it is a funny joke, but what it is showing people, or I think what people are taking away from that, is like, there is one person in this administration who's not a total clown. - Right. - Like, and so you gotta give him all the jobs 'cause he's the only actual serious person, and then that's one piece of it. And then another piece is, they're kind of looking around and it's like, JD Vance, who people still will say is the heir apparent. And like, okay, yeah, you know, like JD on the magazine, like, don't really feel it. He is for me in focus groups now having done this long enough to see different candidates rise and fall. He's got total round of sands and spives from Republican voters. - You're next to God's ears. - The longer they look at him, the more they're like, (laughing) and it's like they wanna like him or they wanna do it, but like, he's not lighting anybody up, and he's getting himself in a sour spot with those two groups I'm talking about, that he thought he was gonna be able to stand over both of them and bring them together. And instead, he's sitting in the bad spot where Tucker's got this part martial over here, and Rubio is starting to martial the mega establishment over here. And so, that is just interesting to me. It also doesn't help the dog walks around, his, you know, the White House being like, do you like better, JD or Marco, you know? - Crazy. Every donor at Mar-a-Lago is a good NAS, who likes better Rubio or Vance. Also like, look, Rubio, I think gets a lot of credit from the base on Venezuela operation 'cause he's seen his owning that one. - Yeah. - When it comes to Iran, they started a war and Marco Rubio has disappeared. He went to the-- - He went to the UFC fight. - Yeah. - Well, JD Vance went over-- - Yeah, the fucking pack is staying. JD Vance like sits in the tarmac for 21 hours in packaging. It's humiliated, flies home. JD and Marco goes to, goes to a UFC fight, but also Marco Rubio like did one press conference where he went up on Capitol Hill and he was like, oh yeah, we invaded 'cause the Israel, the lobby made us do it and then he walked away and created this huge disaster for everyone involved. And then it's not set a word since. He's just divorced himself from this problem, probably smart politically. Probably smart politically. And this is, so look, I think that those two are an interesting contrast to me. And I just, I think for me, one of the reasons I'm so interested in hearing the strange new respect from Trump voters and the focus groups is I think I had long thought that people from the pre-Trump era, Republicans from the pre-Trump era, were a non-starter for voters. But what's interesting is that especially for younger voters, they don't even know Marco Rubio. The Marco Rubio that I was like, oh, this young man, I like him. We'll see what he does. - He's a guy who drank the water. - Yeah, that's why, but yeah, no, he was like, he was gonna be the new person he led on immigration reform, whatever. - Time magazine, right? It was like the future. - Nobody thinks that, like these guys don't know that guy. They just know the guy who's been in the tank for Trump. And so they're sort of meeting him for the first time, people who are like 30 and below. And then for a lot of the other people, there's, he's been enough of a lapdog for Trump and transformed himself enough that like I obviously would never vote for him at a million years ever, but a lot of Trump voters might. Like they wouldn't Nikki Haley, but he's transformed himself enough. That was interesting to me. - It sucks. - I will just say on the Republican side, I think this is another reason I don't give Tucker sort of the genuine thing. It's like, I do think Tucker's thinking about running for president. - I think, look, I was talking to someone yesterday, sort of in that world. I asked this question, he thought, no, because it's like a lot of work. And also you have to have a genuine thick skin and Tucker doesn't seem like he's, someone is very futuristic. But look, I, yeah, I've long wondered if he, he could jump into a primary and do very well in the Republican side. - He would immediately have a base of support. - Yeah, yeah, it would be interesting. The last question on the Democratic side, does anyone make in your heart flutter? - Yeah, so I already mentioned also off in his communication side. Look, I tend to be, I, I, I, I, I'm from Pennsylvania, people get mad. They're like, no one will ever nominate Josh Shapiro. But like, if you follow Pennsylvania politics closely, he is beloved in Pennsylvania. There's just not that many Democrats who have, you know, a 60% approval rating. He's gonna beat his Democratic challenger. And people are like, I'm sorry. His, his Republican challenger. Everybody's like, I'm sorry. Yeah, who's he even running against? - I don't even know. - It's a woman, I'm forgetting her name right now, but like, it's a non-starter. It's not going. - No, he's gonna do it. - Again, because he crushed to Masteryano, too. - That's right. And she's a, well, there's also part of the reason is there's like a, now there's like a weird Masteryano right in thing that people are doing. Yeah, it doesn't matter. Anyway, but Pete, John Ossoff, Shapiro, because he's successful in the biggest swing state, like all three of them are kind of in my zone for people. But like, here's the main reason. And actually, I'm not gonna put Josh Shapiro in this. He's kind of like a personal eye, I like him. But I recognize that the Democratic base seems to have some particular feelings about him. - It's a matter of how salient Gaza is, probably, right? - Well, the thing is, we're getting it. - One of my pet theory, yes, but that is what, what people don't like about him. - Stacey Garrity, by the way. - Stacey Garrity, good job. - I'm just gonna Google it. - Way to effort that. - Thank you. - I do have a pet theory that the way that Democrats deal with what is becoming, like a, I'm not even sure it's as much of a wedge issue, because Democratic voters now are pretty, I mean, I can't tell you how many focus groups I do with them in these damn primaries. They all know who APEC is giving money to. It's not just sort of track APEC. Like people are locked in on this issue. They are mad at Israel. It is shifting quickly among Democratic and independent voters. And so I do think, I think that though one of the ways that Democrats could handle this is by having a Jewish candidate who is deeply critical of Israel. Jamie Pritzker fits that bill, also fits that bill, and Shapiro fits that bill. - Ramen racer, Ramen manual racer. - I don't mean to erase. Ramen, I think Ramen's gonna inject some interesting energy into the primary. - You're a lot of energy. I do not think that's where voters are going. But-- - Too insider. - Yeah, and I just think people are looking for a brand. Like, not brand brand new, but like, some place we haven't trod before, they're not alone in history. And so, but the thing is, I will just say, Pete does make my heart go pitter-patter, because Pete does the thing that I'm desperate for Democrats to do, which is like, it's not just going on podcasts. And I saw you guys reacting to his thing, and I did not think you were nice enough to him. - That's, dude, the, the, the Pete hive. Boy, if you are like, all I said about Pete was, I think he's the best, one of the best communicators out there. He's unbelievably good, he can set him anywhere, Fox News, Conservatives, All-In Podcasts, anyone, he'll dominate CNBC, Cross Joe Kernen. But all I said was I thought, that is actually kind of a different skill than being able to go into every community and get votes in every community, because as we've seen, his numbers with black voters, for example, are like, very, very low. He really needs to work on that. That was, it was an observation about data. Pete people take that shit so personally. - Yeah, well, I think part of it is that Pete, part of the reason that we take it personally is Pete inspires love and people. Like they really do, and he does that kind of for me, where I think that he is, this idea of like, I'm gonna go to Oklahoma and I'm gonna talk to people there. - I think that's great, by the way. - And the thing is, is that while we tend to get in these Twitter arguments about, do you go on this podcast or this streamer, he's like, I'm gonna actually go sit with people, because that's actually the real thing. The rest of this stuff over here is a side show to the real voters, and so I'm, because I'm obsessed with listening to voters, I'm obsessed with candidates who care about engaging with voters. This was like, young Joe Biden with the arm around people, and like being around, Trump with his stupid rallies, but like creating good dance party vibes, like the Democrat who was gonna win, who I do think is gonna be somebody who manages to not tip over into saccharin or trickle, but does have a very clear sense of vision, hope, future, how we bring, come back together as a country, that do think people are hungry for that. I think he has it, and so, and all stuff has just been, like as a, I think messaging matters more now than ever, and I think he is doing it, and every time I see him give a speech, I kind of like do a lap in the room with my hands, yes. - Yeah, it's hard not to just turn it to a cheerleader. If he wins at Georgia Senate election, which, you know, knock him would, he will be vaulted into, you know, top, top came into the world. - And I'll be there, yeah, I'll be pushing him. Sarah Longwell, thank you so much for doing this, fascinating to talk to you, and really appreciate it. - Yeah, thanks Tom, you good to see you. - To. - I'll put gas in your car next time. (upbeat music) - If you want to listen to PodSafe America, add free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to Cricket.com/Friends to subscribe and super cast, substack, YouTube or Apple podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. PodSafe America is a Cricket Media production. Our producer is Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Churlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglund and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Heffkoat, Mia Kelman, Carol Pellavive, David Tolls and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the writer's Guild of America, East. (upbeat music)