EXCLUSIVE: New Data REVEALS How Democrats Won The Midterms

Life is all about making decisions. Sometimes you make questionable ones, like buying a new TV that's too big for the wall because the electronics store employee was a little too good at their job. Then, sometimes you make great ones, like protecting your home and auto with Progressive. You get customized coverage options so you can be sure you have the right coverage. Get your quote today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states. Joining me now is Charlotte Swayze, the head of analytics at the Searchlight Institute, a center-left think tank doing a lot of great work. One project they took on this fall, an entrance poll for the midterm battleground states, and they were kind enough to share it with us. Charlotte, how are you? You know, I'm real tired, honestly. I can imagine. But I'm doing pretty good. Okay, let's just start. What were you guys trying to accomplish this poll? How did it work? Talk a little about the methodology. Yeah, so this is kind of a response to exit polling and that immediate post-election analytics period because there's this gap. Where for the first couple weeks, all the analytics people have nothing. We have like county-level returns. We have little bits of data. And everyone needs to have a take. And the exit polls? And the exit polls are tough. Yes. They used to be able to like really reliably get people as they came out of the booth. That method doesn't work so great anymore. They're all kind of pivoting. It's just a really hard thing to do. And then just on that, just because I have you here and I'm interested, one of the problems that makes it harder is now, you know, 40% of some people vote. Early and you don't actually know they voted when they're calling these exit polls or they actually checked it against the voter rolls. I think you can usually ask people like, "Have you voted already?" Yeah. You don't typically get voter rolls updating that fast. But you have to like ask the person specifically. The advantage of the old exit poll is you know, they're walking out. You can like physically see them leave. Yes. And you assume, you know, they went in the room and they did something. Okay. Anyhow, go ahead. Yeah. So this is a different method. This is, we did a poll in the last two weeks of the election. So kind of the same way you do a normal poll. Yeah. And then on election night, technically the day after, we waited it to match results. So that means that like it is as accurate as we can possibly make it. And it also means that we aren't both trying to predict what's going to happen and figure out what voters thought at the same time. We can just do one of those things, which is easier. And it also means that we had the space and the time to just ask people what they were thinking about because we weren't all caught up in like, what's exactly going to happen? We could spend most of our poll time, on what were the top issues. What were you focused on? Just tell us about your vote, which is really fun and kind of novel. And what were you specifically trying to get from this? Did you have a goal in what you're trying to specifically trying to learn from this or just kind of see where voters' heads were at? I mean, I think going into the election, we knew that costs were going to be a big thing. We kind of knew that there was dissatisfaction with Trump. There was anger about the war, but it was really unclear like what specifically the deal was. Yeah. It's also super hard. It's super hard to tell for a voter. Like, what are they actually about? Yeah. And so that was really our goal was to understand how they were thinking and to be able to instead of looking at like who voted and then back solve to their ideology to just go to them and be like, hey, what was this about? Give me some of the top line major takeaways and then we'll get into some specifics. Yeah. I mean the biggest thing that like really hits you over the head if you look at the poll is just costs. Literally every demographic group rated cost of living is the most important issue to them. This is true. Among like Democrats black voters white voters Republicans everybody and I think while it's not a surprise that this is a cost of living election. I think I was shocked by the magnitude of that. It was just so consistent. And then the other thing is we saw a lot of candidates doing this really good differentiation from the Democratic Party brand. Like this was a absurd wave here. Yeah, and yet the Democratic Party brand in a lot of these places is like even slightly negative. Yeah. Yeah. Whereas Roy Cooper is like enormously popular. And so I want to get into that. So one of the things you obviously you want to reverse your thing, but also trying to figure out like what worked what didn't what what you know, because the thing about the post-election period in that is dangerous as you point out is you don't have a lot of data and you really is like six months before we get true precinct level data and you can really understand like who voted under the demographics the makeup but in this period there's this battle to define. Why we won or why we lost and those battles do have sometimes great consequence for how voters view electability in this range in the next presidential election the strategy of the new majority, right? Like you think after 2024 a lot of people thought that you know, one of the main reasons we lost was immigration and then immediately a bunch of senators vote for the Lake and Raleigh Act like right after that like the you swerve back and forth and so you know in this case one of the things is trying to figure out and on top of this going to presidential so going into the next presidential election. There's been this big debate sort of online amongst politically active people about ideology. How does ideology play into it? If you are, you know, a quote-unquote liberal candidate or a Bernie style candidate. Do you do worse? Do you do better and people are as they see this as some sort of and we will stipulate a very very imperfect way of analyzing question but about you know, what kind of candidates Democrats should look for in 2028 who are elected? Well, just tell me what you know, you guys asked an ideological, you know survey of people on here how they rated the candidates ideologically just talk a little bit about the overperformers. The candidates did really really well. What did they have in context and maybe say what we mean by overperform? Yeah. So when we talk about overperformers, what we mean is people who did better than the baseline of how good Democrats did this year in that specific state in that specific state, which is kind of a nightmare to calculate like let's be real you have to be like, all right. How well did House candidates do overall? And then like did the Senate candidate do better than that or worse than that? This is a crazy wave here. So everyone did amazing. We're just looking at gradations and how amazing you did to try to work out in a year. That's less good. What would that actually look like? So when we're looking at our overperformers, what we're seeing from them is that they differentiated themselves from standard Democrats. We asked people if they thought these candidates were typical Democrats, whatever that meant to them. And the ones who did best were rated as not very typical. They were rated as caring a lot about costs like committing to lowering costs for everyday people in their state. Those seem to be kind of the big factors and just the sense of really matching what the voters cared about. And I think that's something that a lot of candidates did a really good job of. This cycle is just reflecting back that they understand voter priorities and that they care about them. We also did this like ideology scaling experiment, which I think we need a little more time to like look into it further. But initially what we're seeing is this really interesting effect where for our overperforming candidates, so like for Tallarico and for our candidates in Iowa, independents thought they were more moderate than most voters. And just explain how the ideology scale worked. So it's basically it's kind of what it sounds like. It's we asked people on a scale from very liberal to very conservative. Where would you rate yourself, a typical Democrat, a typical Republican, the Democratic Senate candidate, the Republican Senate candidate, and then you can compare those ratings. So it's a one to six scale. Basically, you can convert it to a number and you can make a lovely little line plot with dots representing folks. So you get both how voters see themselves and then you get how voters see the candidate. And I'm super interested in this thing where like people's perception of how extreme a candidate is seems to vary by group. Like Republicans think everyone is a lefty. Yeah, like down the line. But independents are drawing these real distinctions between candidates who ran as more left and candidates who ran as more moderate. And that seems to be interacting with their vote choices. Obviously, it's early. It's hard to tell. But it does seem like being able to reflect back these cost of living concerns, these corruption concerns that were huge for voters, makes you feel more in line with them and makes you feel like you're not just kind of walking this Democratic Party line that they're a little bit sour on. The candidates, if I recall, who the independents seem to find the most moderate included Rob Sand, Josh Turek, Roy Cooper. I think so, yeah. And the one that really caught my attention was Gina Hinojosa. Which I thought was really interesting because like Rob Sand, obviously, he ran his entire campaign against the Democratic Party. He has an independent brand in that state. That makes a lot of sense. Roy Cooper is obviously a very, very popular Democrat in that state, but he also has spent, you know, four elections. Five election cycles now, or five election cycles now, showing people that he's not a "typical Democrat" and sort of being against that. But here you have Gina, who is a less well-known figure, Latina, who comes in and is able to create her own identity in that way, in a way that moderates do it. Do you have any sense of what she did to do that? Yeah, I mean, I think she did a really good job of positioning herself as super focused on her state. It can be really tempting for new candidates to just be like, "I'm on Twitter and I'm doing the, like, national politics." It's where the money is. It's where the money is. Small-dollar fundraising is really hard. Normal people are, like, not super engaged and Democratic donors are on the Internet. Yeah. I think she did a good job of staying focused on her state. And she also, like, you saw some of her ads were painting her as someone who was not totally aligned with Democrats. I mean, the, like, what was it, my pronouns are Texan ad is so famous. And your next governor or something. Yeah. Like, those sort of stances really do tell voters. that you're focused on them and it seems so corny. Right. Like I think we all in the commentariat, we get tired of candidates who are like, I care about Texas, I care about costs. But that is where voters are at. And her ability to just talk like someone who was relatable to voters was really good. You know, some of the folks who were who performed less well against the sort of the national average or their state average would include Troy Jackson in Maine and Abdullah Sayed in Michigan. Is there anything you saw in those races or how voters saw them that explains that? It's really hard to know, honestly. I mean, I think Troy Jackson is the perfect example of why working out over performance is so hard. Because like, was that about him or is that about Susan Collins being a very talented candidate? Like of she's the only Republican in our sample who was seen as atypical because she's constantly like, I'm not with Trump. I'm focused on Maine. I'm taking these stances that are pitting me against. My party. And that's that's hard to compete against. Yeah. And the Abdul one is also like this. The Michigan is ground zero in the online fight about everything. And I think it's very hard to separate ideology from all of the the sort of ad campaign that was run against Abdul. Right. It was just ungodly. You know, just the you know, he was mostly attacked not for being liberal, but for being Muslim. Right. And so it's you know, it wasn't like he's obviously a candidate who supports Medicare for all. Yeah. Which in a normal election cycle with a different candidate might have been the crux of the attack here. It almost kind of fell by the wayside. They never mentioned it. They never, never. It was never a part of like there were no ads saying, you know, unfairly so. And I'm going to say, say he's going to kick you off your private health insurance or anything like that. It was all Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Piker. And so it wasn't really even an ideology attack on him. So it's like it really is. That's one thing that when people take away, it's like there is something to be learned here, but it's very hard to isolate ideology. From all the other factors, like in you guys didn't do this one, but the other candidate who really underperformed is Angie Nixon. Yeah. But also she had no money. Well, and also Florida as a state just didn't move as much. Yeah. Like I this is why you have to focus on how the state moved instead of just being like compared to the national average. It's like there's clearly something up with Florida and why we didn't see those big swings. I don't know what it is yet. I need like a couple of weeks and some time. It's it. I mean, obviously the there was a. Giant. There was a Latino swing in Florida. It was just less than it was in other states, in part because I've seen a lot of interesting data just looking at like, you know, Mexican-Americans versus people from Venezuela, Venezuela, Venezuelan-Americans, Puerto Ricans. A lot of polls like you say, Hispanic voters, that is a very diverse group and they move in different ways depending on where they're at within that. And Florida is where you have the greatest diversity of. Different aspects of the larger. Exactly. So it's hard to measure. Yeah. I mean, I'm obviously I'm very interested in like why we did this. Well, of course, I'd love to be able to duplicate this forever. And I'm very interested in why candidates did well. And you can see some stuff in our data like, yes, El-Sayed was seen as more left, like that is a thing in our data. What we need to focus on now is, I mean, we just have this big tent now, like all of these people are in the Senate, all of these candidates are in the House. And so the question is not so much like arguing between left and right. Whatever. It's how are we going to use this majority and how are we going to get all these people in a room in a caucus to like be chill. Pod Save America breaking news is brought to you by PDS Debt. Are you tired of making monthly payments without seeing your balance go down? PDS Debt can help you break free. Minimum payments aren't designed to get you out of debt. They're designed to keep you stuck. PDS Debt is the way out. They can reduce up to half of what you owe on credit cards, personal loans and medical bills. And it starts with a free 30 second assessment at PDS Debt dot com slash credit. Pricate PDS debt helps thousands of Americans become debt free. The average savings per client for all PDS debts programs is twenty thousand one hundred and twenty three dollars. Stop juggling multiple payments and get one lower monthly payment savings start the day you complete the 30 second assessment. Checking your options is fast, free and won't impact your credit. If you're carrying any balance on your credit cards, it's costing you money every single day. No minimum credit score required. PDS is the top rated company in the industry with thousands of five star reviews and an A plus rating on the BBB. Get your free 30 second personalized assessment today at PDS debt dot com slash cricket. That's PDS debt dot com slash cricket. Are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up? It makes your day, sometimes even your week. Want that feeling month after month? Well, new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to progressive save hundreds. Cue your happy dance. Get your quote today at progressive dot com. The thing that's interesting about it is it's they're all so much more a little off the field from the poll here, but that's OK. No, no, it's my I did it is they're all they're hard to put into a box. Yeah, it's like, what is Telerico, right? Yeah, like I would argue, I mean, we have a word for this, right? We call them heterodox, which is a word that I think people have a hard time understanding. Yes, like they take some moderate positions in some liberal positions, which is how voters are. There are so many voters who are out there being like, I love oil and gas, but also I want to buy an electric car and I'm like, really worried about my kids and I feel really good about immigrants. Those are just how everyone all these voters are. And so when you have candidates reflecting that back, it makes them hard to categorize if you're like trying to talk about it. But it's much more authentic and it's much closer to how normal people act. And they almost. To a person all ran on a the tone modulated, but on a version of populist economics, at least in billion, you know, billionaires, tech companies, all of that, like many different policies to get there. But that was true, whether like, I mean, even Adam Hamilton in Kansas, right? Yeah, our pastor is talking like that. And so so it's like how you really define who these people are is is tricky. Totally. What did you learn about the Republicans in this poll and how? Voters saw them and where their campaigns might have aired other than just being Republicans? I mean, some of it was just being a Republican. Bad day to have an R next to your name. Like, that's the baseline. I think for them it was their inability to pull away from Trump, right? Like you saw all these candidates who are having it's like a mirror image of how Democrats have to deal with primaries where we're like, well, how much do we appeal to our base? But then we have to run a general. How do we navigate that for them? It was I would like to win my primary doing. That probably means that I need Trump to at least be like neutral on me and not freak out. But that is a huge liability in a general election with an incredibly unpopular president. And I think they did not a great job of navigating that, or at least it just wasn't enough for voters. Most of the Republicans in our sample were seen as like very typical Republican, except Susan Collins, which we talked about, and they just didn't have the ability to pull themselves away from the kind of like sucking morass that is Trump's presidency. So I think that is really where they went wrong. Also, a lot of them were just we saw them seen as focusing on immigration, which is not where voters were at, like even our like Texas Latino voters not voting on immigration. Republican voters were more, but it clearly wasn't enough to get them to come to the polls when they felt so bad about the president, when they felt so bad about the country. Yeah, you know, it's there's an interesting sort of timeline here. You know, when you look at the polls that you were about a month ago, you saw some of them begin a process of trying to kind of halfheartedly, but trying to get some separation, have a moment, be almost heterodox when it comes to the, you know, yeah, and the war, you know, tariffs, but they but none of them, everyone's so afraid of Trump, they can't, you know, very, like Salazar did it in Florida, where she like did that ad in front of the White House where she she won barely, but she won. But they, you know, they started the process. And then Trump said, I'm going to come to all your doors. Yeah. And now you have to stand next to me. And now you can't do that anymore. I mean, it's it's such a contrast from the Democratic candidates where, like, you can say a lot of things about Democrats, but like all these people were out there being like Chuck Schumer is the worst and I'm sick of this establishment Democrat. And the Democratic establishment was like, yep, say what you got to say. Here's your ad money like you do you. Whereas Trump just immediately lashes out. And so you just have much more flexibility. Which is a difference. That's that's all that's new. Yeah. Yeah. Like both both the establishment and honestly, the activist base gave Democrats space. Yeah. Thank goodness. To do things that they might probably could not have done in, say, the 2020 cycle. Yeah. No, I think this is a huge win for the concept of a big tent and for the concept that, like, if we want to have the majorities we need to make dramatic policy change, we got to everyone has to pile into the getting along shirt of politics. Yeah. And once we're all in the getting along shirt of politics. Then we can absolutely wipe out Republicans in places like Texas and Kansas and South Carolina. Yeah. And like, I don't know, for me, that is worth it. Hundred percent. Yes. I mean, like, I do think that hopefully people will take the lesson. I think so. And now and just there will have such diversity within the caucus in every sense of the word diversity. Right. Like, obviously, we have our first openly gay male senator. We have our first Muslim senator. We have a pediatrician. We have a pediatrician from South Carolina. We have a pastor from Kansas. Yeah. We got Scott Collin from Mississippi. Mississippi. Like, it's just it's like I think I think that will help with the idea that we have all these different people who who are modeling what it's like to be a Democrat in these states for voters. It's it's kind of nice because we've been arguing for so long about whether or not this was possible. Like, can you have all these people in the Democratic caucus? And now it's just there. Yeah. Like we're kind of past that argument. We're in a place where like, well, congratulations, this is your majority now. Like, go. And it is. Yeah, it's fascinating to compare it to what the majority looked like the last time we had this many senators, like in the wake in the 2008 period. Like this is a it's actually it's more diverse in terms of background and ethnicity and gender and everything else, but a little bit less a little more ideologically coherent than that. You know, when you had when we had like Mary Landrieu and, you know, we had two senators in the Dakotas. It's like it. Yeah. Everyone's a little more of the piece. There are differences on different things. Yes. Right. Like I think right now you really see kind of the economic issues emerging as the moral center of the party where everyone has agreed, like, OK, we're not here for tariffs. We want to reverse these Medicaid cuts. We want to reverse the cuts to snap. Everyone wants universal health care. We just differ about how to get there. Exactly. Yeah. I'm sure we'll have a whole discussion, but like everyone wants people to have health care. That is the thing we're united on. And I think that is kind of the set of issues that we've coalesced around, and then we have a huge amount of diversity on like, how do we feel about oil and gas? How do we feel about the details of health care? The second Scott column is running on the Second Amendment. Yeah. How do we feel about guns? Yeah. All of these other things are there's a huge amount of diversity in the caucus, but we have some core issues that everyone is just here for. Yeah. And they also happen to be the issues that the voters care most about, which is amazing. Yes. It's a dream. Those things don't often happen. So that's very good. I mean, I guess that's kind of how you get a majority like this. Yes. Yes. Is when your coalesced issue is like the thing that's top of the top of mind. Did you see differences in the states you guys looked at that were interesting? Yeah. So, I mean, we saw literally everywhere that it's costs, but we did see variation below that. In Ohio, we saw this thing, data centers popped up as more of an issue, more like 20 percent as opposed to, I don't remember the number, like low. But people who said data centers were a priority didn't really have splits between the two candidates. Like they were voting 50-50 Democratic voters. So it seems like the focus there managed to make it more salient. But like nobody really won that, which was interesting. That is interesting given how much money was spent, particularly from such a huge part of the Brown campaign for a long period there was. Yeah. It doesn't quite seem to have worked. Yeah. We obviously saw Texas immigration is more of an issue, more of a priority. Republicans across the board are more focused on immigration. But in Texas, they were, again, it doesn't quite seem to have been kind of the winning thing. Yeah. So I think it was very strategic by Tallarico to kind of be like, all right, we're like addressing immigration as much as I need to, but I'm not focusing on that forever. This one's kind of obligatory, like Michigan. We saw Israel-Gaza. It's more of an issue, but it's still like 11 percent. Was it clear who those voters picked? I think I looked. I think it was pretty neutral. Like some of its Republicans being like, this was the issue. But again, not actually like the thing the election about was a lot about the election was about Trump and costs. It is like Democrats take a lot of shit for how we message. And it didn't take a genius to recognize what the main issue was. But it does take some skill to stay focused on it. And discipline, too. Yeah. People were incredibly disciplined this time. Anything about other than just being unpopular, how much of a factor Trump was in any of this? Yeah. So we asked people if their vote for Senate was about Trump or and like if it was an opportunity to send a message about how they felt about him. We got it was like order of 60 percent overall said yes. Much higher among Democrats, like 75, something like that. Lower among Republicans, more like 50-50. Lower among independents. So definitely it seems like it had some kind of like mobilization effect where like if you're a Republican, the way you cast your vote against Trump is you stayed home. Yeah. Like those people simply did not show up on Election Day. And obviously he was a huge factor. He like overshadowed all of this. But for the Republican voters that did show up, not so much for the Democratic voters. Yeah, absolutely. This was about Trump. You can see it in the polling, the exit polling and the polling in the run-up to election that in sort of the magic of Trump, sort of the blessing and the curse of Trump for Republicans was he turned out, Democrats, but he also turned out Republicans. And this time the opposite happened or he turned out Democrats, but not Republicans. You can see it like in the exit polls. Trump's strong approve is half of his strong disapprove. So it's just like the intensity has moved. Like the people, the Republicans are just aren't as fired up about him anymore. And Democrats are still just as fired up about him. And that was to our benefit. It raises real questions what happens when he's out of our lives. Yeah, I'm look, I'm going to be so real. I'm still grappling with how much this was a turnout election. Like this is not a thing you see most of the time. And Republicans are really just living this nightmare of having their base vote with their feet and just not come. And so I think there are some real questions for Democrats about like, does that hold up? Was this specifically an anti-Trump effect? Like what, how do we kind of keep this going? That there's a lot of unanswered. Yeah, they really, you know, some of the numbers I've seen basically show that you can sort of attribute the difference to like 50% is turnout differential Democrats are out more than Republicans. A chunk of it is persuasion, for sure, particularly among independents. Yeah. And then you and then Democrats crush with people didn't vote in 2024. Yeah. Like in the exit polls, it was like 7030. And that like all you like, it's one of these things was like, is it mobilization? Is it persuasion? The answer is always both. But in when you when you're winning in Mississippi and South Carolina, in Kansas, it's obviously all of the above. And then some everything like this is, I mean, we were joking a year ago that you'd have to have a perfect storm to win the Senate. And this is more perfect than we imagined. The perfectest storm that ever stormed. It's unreal. They're like all these different ways to think about how these results like land, like, do we just revert back to normal once like, people are like they run wars or people are less mad at Trump. And there's like another Republican, you know, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Tucker Carlson, whatever else. And it's just or is it a little like 2008, where even, you know, Bush hung over the 2008 presidential election, too, even though he had basically gone into witness protection program. And but a lot of the voters who had voted for Bush in 04, a Democrat in 06, stayed with Obama. Yeah. Right. And it's like, do we have a nominee? Or the other way to think like related to that is, do we have a post Trump coalition shift in the Republicans? where they revert a little bit back to pre-Trump, you know, with less strength in rural areas, maybe less strength with white working class voters, maybe more of them are available to us. And, you know, if that happens, when we also hold all of our gains from the Trump era, then that's when you have another 2008. That would be incredible. Yes. I mean, I think there is some evidence that some of the core Republican priorities are just not quite landing with voters. In a previous project we did, this thing called How to Build a Supermajority, big national survey, segmentation analysis. We kind of broke voters out into groups by what their core issue priorities were. And one of the things we saw is that the like classical Republican don't touch the economy, like free market everything, no government help for people, it's just not landing with people anymore. Most of even your conservative voters, they can be like real conservative on culture, but they're still like, yeah, the government should, should help people succeed financially. The government should like have some intervention in the economy. Yes, I support welfare. Like all these things that I think 20 years ago would have been kind of unthinkable are just where many Republican voters are at. And so this like relentless economic focus that you saw Democratic candidates pull off this time is really cutting through some of the heart of that coalition. And that's something that I find like very promising. Yeah, it's very just there is an opportunity to do something. Very, very big, like the vote both electorally, and then policy wise after that, if you can build a coalition here, because people like we're sort of like in this interregnum between the Reagan Republican Party, and what comes next. And a lot of voters who have not been available to us for a long time may be available to us with the right candidate and the right message. It's just it's like it is a we're in a truly, I think, truly fascinating time about like a great possibility. and peril i would say but sure yes i mean yeah like i think there is of course there's peril here like there are a lot of things the democrats sometimes love to focus on that voters are just not here for they do not want to see us pivot back and just do all culture stuff forever and that's the risk of the presidential primary right yeah yeah like they want us to fix things yeah like i think this mandate is so clearly for bring down costs reduce the level of chaos like get us out of the war in iran end the tariffs fix medicaid we're about to go into this presidential primary period we're like like candidates can make the choice to be like on message and to talk about the things voters care about or it can be the kind of grab bag you saw in 2020 i'm really hoping for the former but like oh my god we'll see well because the the i mean primaries are one over small differences and so we fight over little stuff but that's the thing i think people have to recognize like voters want action from democrats and we're gonna and we don't have really have the ability to deliver results with trump as president but we do have to get caught trying to do it but you know i look back at 2006 after democrats won that election you know we have huge deal first woman speaker we take over they were sworn in on january 3rd or whatever it was barack obama announced for president on january 13th hillary clinton two weeks later and then it was like that was the dominant that was the face of the democratic party now i don't know that we'll have a primary of that level of um sort of celebrity and intensity but we could uh but i have no clue like after the way tuesday went yeah anything i don't know we have so many new stars too like i don't know we're just gonna have to see that's fascinating well this is a fascinating poll fascinating project you guys always do great work at searchlight thank you thank you so much thank you so much for having me are you ever shopping online and suddenly a discount that helps you save pops up it makes your day sometimes even your week want that feeling month after month well new customers who save by switching their home and auto insurance to progressive save hundreds cue your happy dance get your quote today at progressive.com progressive casualty insurance company affiliates and other insurers not available in all states the secret society of semi-homemade listen up sam's club has pre-made dishes for a thanksgiving feast that's ready in two hours all while tasting suspiciously homemade come join us sam's club individual oven times may vary