From Anti-Trump to Pro-Something (Live from Crooked Con)

Today's presenting sponsor is SimpliSafe Home Security. The clock's falling back is all extra sleep and cozy fun and games until the moment you realize you're getting home from work in the pitch dark. When it comes to home security, you need a system that has you covered no matter the time of day or night. That's where SimpliSafe comes in. They're live US-based agents, don't care what time it is. Someone's always ready to take action and protect what matters to you most. Unlike traditional security systems that only alert you after a break-in is already underway, SimpliSafe is built to stop intrusions before they start. Smart AI-powered cameras watch for potential threats and alert a live US-based agent ready to intervene. The agent intervenes in under 30 seconds, speaking through the camera to stop an intruder in their tracks and calling for urgent 911 dispatch when it's needed most. Our CEO recently got a SimpliSafe and she installed it all on her own, just like we've promised that she can all these years. Took a couple hours and the app makes arming and disarming the system. From her phone, really easy. Temperature and water sensors let her keep an eye on vulnerable spots around the house as the seasons change. So she's very, very happy with it. We've partnered with SimpliSafe to offer our listeners the biggest savings of the year, 70% off your new system with professional monitoring. When you visit simplisafe.com slash crooked, that's simplisafe.com slash crooked. And when you order, type in Pod Save America at checkout. It lets them know we sent you and it really helps the show. SimpliSafe, ahead of crime in real time. Hey, it's John. For today's show, we're bringing you a couple of our favorite conversations from CrookedCon this weekend. First up, a conversation I had about the Democratic brand, and what we're actually for with Democrats from across the spectrum. Senator Chris Van Hollen, Congresswoman Sarah McBride, Congresswoman-elect Milat Kiros, and former Mayor Mitch Landrieu. Then you'll hear Lovett's interview with Senator Alyssa Slotkin. Hey, everyone. Welcome to CrookedCon. I'm John Favreau. I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Chris Van Hollen. Congresswoman Sarah McBride. Congresswoman-elect Milat Kiros. And former Mayor Mitch Landrieu. So, I think we'd all agree that one of the big reasons Democrats did so well on Tuesday night is that they were not Trump. But I want to talk about sort of what Democrats can do going forward to make sure that we keep the voters who gave us a chance. And I want to talk about what Democrats can do going forward to make sure that we keep the voters who gave us a chance. And I want to talk about sort of what Democrats can do going forward to make sure that we keep the voters who gave us a chance. And bring in voters who didn't and looking forward. So the question now is, I think, what are Democrats going to offer as an alternative? And maybe we can start there. If a friend or a family member says to you, OK, I finally voted Democrat for the first time on Tuesday, what can I expect from you guys? Senator, I'll start with you. Well, first of all, I think this is, of course, the right question for this moment because it was a repudiation. Of Trump. But the question, of course, is, OK, now you've got the responsibility of power. What are you going to do? I would say the number one thing we could do right now is and the illegal and senseless war in Iran and and John, that does two things. Number one, it immediately tells the people that we actually don't want to get bogged down in senseless wars around the world and will also have an immediate impact. On the prices they're paying at the gas pump or the grocery store. And we can begin to do that right now. So that's the number one deliverable. And look, if Donald Trump wants to tell the country that he is prepared to shut down the government in order to keep his illegal war going, that's something he can do. But we should not decide what we're going to do based on what he might do. And he should also consult with his vice president about why they lost the election. At least part of why they lost the election. Wonderful. First of all, the vibes are immaculate. It is wonderful to be here. Not bad, right? I would say, in addition to the senator's point at the top of our priority list come January has to be reversing the cuts to Medicaid and the ACA tax credits. There is a ticking time bomb. In the center of the American health care system that is going off and its biggest explosion is set to go off in January. And this president is going to have to choose whether he is politically going to die on the hill of preserving those cuts to people's health care. And so that has to be at the center of our agenda in addition to ending this reckless war in Iran. But I think so many people have either come to the Democratic Party for the first time or have returned to the Democratic Party. Because two years ago, this president broke his two central promises that he was going to lower costs for the American people and end forever wars. And in both of those instances, not only has he ignored those issues, in some cases he has actively made them worse, starting new forever wars, fomenting new culture wars and implementing policies that are increasing costs for people. The modern Democratic Party is built on being pro worker and pro peace. And we need policies -- We need policies that center those principles and do not make the same mistake that Donald Trump made over the last two years, because they voted for us to focus on those two issues, to have policies that uphold international human rights and American interests abroad, that lower costs for the American people here at home. And we have to make sure that we keep our focus on those two priorities so that we can not just regain trust, but solidify it for the American people here at home, and that we have to make sure that we keep our focus on those two priorities, so that we can not just regain trust, but solidify it for the American people here at home. And we need to solidify it as we head into 2028 and beyond, because we have the opportunity to fundamentally remake the map. That's what we saw on Tuesday. And we have the opportunity to ensure that that map is not just remade for one election, but for a generation to come. Right. We are the party of pro worker, pro peace. I also think that we have to be leading with a bold and aggressive agenda. And I think a lot of voters have been hearing from folks that, well, Trump is just going to veto it. Like, why should we even spend political capital in that direction? I would like to force Donald Trump to veto Medicare for all. I would like to force him to veto a data center moratorium or child care and elder care for all. All of these are programs that we should be leading with as a vision. And the threat of a veto should not stop us from actually still putting that forward. First of all, congratulations to you guys. And thank you, everybody. It was an awesome day for the country. I would say two things, one about policy and the other about politics. First of all, I agree that the reason why Donald Trump got elected is because he promised two things. He said, I'm going to reduce costs. I'm going to stop forever wars. He went the opposite direction. And he did three very specific things, which is to start the war, to dig into the tariffs in an aggressive way. And then, of course, the big, beautiful bill, the Medicare cuts. So the first thing you need to do is stop doing the things that are raising costs. And I would just say for Congress, if I could give some just constructive advice, go get rid of those three things as quickly as possible. And if you want to add banning stock trading, you know, that would be helpful as well. All four of those things from a strategic point of view are important. And if the president vetoes them, he vetoes them. But essentially, the American public just told everybody in politics, we want you to focus on us and not on other stuff. And the president did everything he could to make sure that they didn't believe that. And then yesterday, he gave a finger to the country by making Stephen Miller the chief of staff. So that's the policy point of it. The politics part of it is please try to remember that we have been here before. 18 months ago, we were in a much worse place. We're in a much better place today. But we're here today because it was an anti-Trump vote. And if you want them to vote for us next time, we have to secure the gains that we have. We have to start thinking about gaining more. And we have to do things that get the public to say, now that I've given you responsibility, you actually delivered for me. Now, that can be a ton of different stuff. And we have an incredible bench to design that, not just on the federal level, but with. You know, we have to do things that get the public to say, now that I've given you responsibility, you actually delivered for me. I want to ask each of you, what is one result result from Tuesday that has challenged something you believed about how Democrats win? Well, I can say that the race that most surprised me, not because I wasn't working and rooting to make it happen, was the South Carolina Senate race. And Annie Andrews, I think, made the point very clearly that Mitch and all of us would make, which is that Democrats need to show up and fight every single place all over the country. And if we don't show up, you obviously can't win. So, John, that was my biggest surprise. I think in terms of the Senate race, that was most important to speaking to who we are as a country and our ability to overcome hate and overcome fear-mongering was the Michigan Senate race with Abdul El-Sayed. I wasn't surprised because he was somebody who really narrowed down what I think all of us kind of said in a different way up here, which is money in your pocket, out of politics, and Medicare for all. But that was a populist message. And that overcame all the fear-mongering, including, of course, the last-minute switch of his opponent in the Democratic primary. I am proud to, I am proud to have been the first Democratic senator to endorse Abdul El-Sayed in that election. We were just talking backstage about how the results far exceeded our wildest expectations. I had some guesses that were well below where we have come out. And I think to build on the senator's point, we have won in places that many in our party had permanently written off as permanently uncompetitive for us. And I think it should remind all of us that there are no permanently red places in this country. And it should also remind us that that also probably means the reverse of that, is that there are no permanently blue areas of this country. And that there are sort of two kinds of voters in our society right now. There are the types of voters who are like all of us. We're fairly partisan, certainly negatively polarized against the other party. And then there's a large group of voters who aren't as engaged in politics as following every minutia of politics. They aren't necessarily listening to crooked media yet. They're news receivers, not necessarily news seekers in the same way that we are. And what's clear in this election is that many of those voters switched overwhelmingly between parties in just two years. And so we have to recognize that as sort of negatively polarized as we are in this moment, as rightfully polarized as we are in this moment, we have to recognize that as rightfully outraged as we are. There is a wide swath of voters who are just trying to make it through the day, and whose allegiance to a political party or a politician is not the same as what you see online from either side. And I think the results of this election really reinforce that. I think the other thing that the results of this election reinforce is that we can and must move past the factionalism that is perpetually wrong. And I think that's what we need to do. Okay. This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform. Whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and award-winning website templates with options for every use and category. No matter where you start, your website is flexible to what you need with intuitive drag-and-drop editing, beautiful styling options, unrivaled visual design effects, on-brand AI content, and more ways to list what you offer. No experience required. Every dream needs a domain. Squarespace domains make it easy to find the best name for your business at one fair, all-inclusive price. No hidden fees or add-ons required. Every Squarespace domain comes with advanced privacy and security tools included to ensure your domain remains online and protected. Squarespace provides everything to bring your vision to life, from custom websites to professional email. Don't wait. Claim your name and invest in your dream domain today. Head to squarespace.com for a free trial. When you're ready to launch, go to squarespace.com slash crooked to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. That's squarespace.com slash crooked. Pod Save America is brought to you by Built. Here's a question. Are you getting rewarded for paying your rent or mortgage right now? If the answer is no, you need to check out Built. Becoming a Built member means earning points on every housing payment no matter where you live. Built points can be redeemed for flights, hotels, Lyft rides, Amazon.com purchases, future housing payments, and more. So, if you're interested, they also have parking with Metropolis, member-only experiences, a down payment on a home, select restaurants. Built's new AI Neighborhood Concierge doesn't just answer questions, it executes tasks. From paying your rent and hailing a Lyft to booking dinner reservations across 50,000 plus partners, it handles your to-do list while automatically applying your member benefits. First, download the Built app. Second, link any credit or debit card to the app so purchases at your local spots become even more rewarding. And third, the Neighborhood Concierge in the app pretty much anything and it'll alert you about exclusive member benefits near your home. Download the Built app and join the membership for where you live at joinbuilt.com slash crooked. That's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T dot com slash crooked. Use our link so they know we sent you. Congresswoman-elect mentioned Medicare for All and that you would love to see a vote on that and make Donald Trump veto it. Obviously, different Democrats have different beliefs on the way to get to universal health care, some for Medicare for All, some aren't. Does anyone have any anxiety over taking a vote on Medicare for All these next two years? Because I know some Democrats probably do. What are your thoughts? Well, let me start with an answer and explain why. No, I'm not afraid of taking a vote on Medicare for All. In fact, I think we should take a vote on Medicare for All. But let me back up and say first principle, in medicine is do no harm. We need to immediately reverse the cuts that were made to Medicaid, which are going to start to really hurt people badly beginning in January of this year. And by the way, we should pay for those by clawing back the about $200 billion they socked away for ice. But we shouldn't stop with simply reversing the damage from the Trump administration. One of the biggest pain points for families all over the country is the fact that medical bills are going up and up and up. Premiums are up. Co-pays are up. Everything's up. We have a broken healthcare system. And we need to tackle it. And my view is we should get to Medicare for All. But if we can't immediately get a consensus on that, we need at the very least, for goodness sakes, to create a public option and begin down that road. I'm for Medicare for All. And I'm fine having a vote on it. But let's just start with the principle, which I think Americans all over the country agree with, which is that the health care system is not working for them. It's become a money-making system, not a health care system. It puts profits before patients. And that is why I'm for Medicare for All. But for God's sakes, we've got to be able to address this issue where hedge funds, insurance companies, and hospitals are all making buckets of money at the expense of health care for the American people. I personally don't have a problem voting on that legislation on Medicare for All. I think there's an important conversation that sort of bubbled up. And I've had this discussion with a number of my colleagues during the course of this election, where there has historically been the current bill introduced by Senator Sanders. But then there's some differences among progressive candidates who've been running. Abdul El-Sayed had a proposal, I think, that was a little bit different than the current bill. So I think one of the topics for conversation is, what does a specific proposal look like that might come before us? But I think there are absolutely opportunities for bold, aggressive economic policy that already have wide consensus across the ideological factions of both the Senate and the House caucus. The leader put me in charge of our caregiving working group for our affordability agenda. And we already have the muscle memory as Democrats of voting in favor of universal paid leave, of universal child care, of historic investments in home care and elder care that make it actually affordable and a reality for that sandwich generation to care for both aging parents and their young kids all at the same time. And I believe that that actually has to be at the center of our economic agenda as well. I've been thinking about, what does our agenda look like, not just over the next two years, but as we hopefully look toward a democratic trifecta in 2029. And I think there is no question that at this moment, we are at an economic inflection point for our country. That doesn't just pose real, immediate, urgent needs for individual workers and families, but poses existential risk for our democracy. And I've been thinking about, what have democratic proposals looked like at those previous inflection points? And the two most analytical, examples of bold, democratic policymaking were the New Deal and the Great Depression. And in both of those instances, those proposals fell into essentially three buckets. The first were new social programs that addressed financial insecurity for a population that was increasingly living in poverty. In the '30s, that was social security. And in the '60s, that was the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. I think today, those new social programs that we can conceivably adopt through reconciliation, achievable with broad support among the Democratic caucus, is universal paid leave, universal childcare, and historic investments in home care and elder care. The second bucket, the second bucket for the New Deal and the Great Depression were workforce programs that put people to work and help to build the infrastructure of the future in those days. In the '30s, that was the Tennessee Valley Authority. It was the Civilian Conservation Corps. It was the Works Progress Administration. In the '60s, it was Vista and AmeriCorps. Today, I believe that we should make historic investments in building the trades workforce that we need to build the homes of tomorrow to make home ownership within reach. Because even if we have investments and policy change to build new homes, we will not be able to build them at scale and at speed without the workforce necessary. And that is a workforce that will be increasingly immune to the technological revolution that we are about to experience, which gets me to the third bucket. The New Deal and the Great Society imposed important regulations on industry, that presented existential risk for society. In the '30s, it was banking. In the '60s, it was addressing pollution. Today, it has to be meaningful regulation of big tech, especially AI, to protect the safety, the health of our workforce and our democracy. - First of all, I think that whatever differences on the democratic side we have pale in comparison to what the other side's about to go through. That's number one. That's why I would not, not get stuck in an ideological battle over the how-to if everybody has the same North Star, which is that healthcare is a right, it's not a privilege. And I would not, respectfully, I'm not a member of Congress or the Senate, let perfect be the enemy of good. So I think Senator Van Hollen's point about having a discussion about how to deliver healthcare as a right is a very important discussion. Medicare for all is a very important part of that, and nobody should be afraid of taking a vote on that. I would simply say that if you have a way to get to that, and it takes you a little bit of time, it would seem to me to be counterproductive for people on our side to say, I'm not gonna do that because it's not exactly what I want. I think that we make the mistake sometime on our side of insisting on ideological purity on all of these issues. I'm just, I can promise you, I'm a local government guy. I was in the legislature for 16 years. We'd had all of these issues in Louisiana before. Sometimes you have to grab the ground that you can get, hold on to it, move on to the next thing. Because if you don't respond to what Sarah was saying earlier, to the initial concerns of dealing with cost, this is the one universal, almost unanimous consent of the American people. You have to do something to lower my cost. And if Congress doesn't work on that first, no matter what else we work on, no matter how much time we spend on whatever issue it is that you think is the most important thing in your life, then they're gonna throw us us out of power. you don't have power, you don't have the ability to do the next thing, which is to get us to 2028, actually have the presidency too, which you need in order to not have a veto or to override the veto, and then get us at some point in time to where healthcare being a right for the American people is a realization that we always have. Congresswoman-elect, talk to me about the political path in your mind towards Medicare for All, because I think a lot of progressives who have been advocating for Medicare for All quite some time, you run into a lot of obstacles, even when it's been tried to pass in different states, it's been run into obstacles. Obviously, the votes are tough to get right now in Congress. What is the path in your mind to ultimately get to that goal? I think what we're missing when it comes to the conversation about Medicare for All, it's not about whether or not this is the answer to the healthcare crisis. At the end of the day, when you have a healthcare system where a profit motive exists, you're incentivizing people to make money off of people being sick. In a single-payer healthcare system, where you have universal healthcare, your government is now incentivized to keep people as healthy as possible to keep those costs down. And so on a fundamental level, what we are talking about, what is necessary to address the healthcare crisis, it has to be a single-payer healthcare system. Whether or not that's Medicare for All, whether that's some other kind of form of it, whether it's a transitionary period where a government is part of it, that's totally fine for all those things to be discussed. And in fact, I think we have to have that debate so we can actually get through all of the data to figure out what that transition looks like. But like you said, that North Star has to be that every single person has access to that healthcare. I think the political path forward is one that has to be centered around where the populace are. And they support Medicare for All. And in fact, most of our voters, 80 to 90 percent of Democratic voters, want Medicare for All. And so our job is to not figure out what's doable within the political path as it exists right now. Our job is to chart a path forward to accomplish what the voters are demanding of us to achieve. And so what I will say, though, as far as what my pitch has been to a lot of folks that have been nervous about the idea of really dramatically fighting for Medicare for All, Medicare for All to me is how we Trump-proof our future, how we MAGA-proof our future. Donald Trump, in some way, shape, or form, will disappear, right? In some way, shape, or form, he will be gone one day, right? That being said, MAGA will not disappear. Someone will step into Donald Trump's shoes, and they're going to be just as charismatic, just as telegenic, probably a lot smarter and more effective at actually destroying our institutions, which is a terrifying thought to think of right now. But that really, this is not as bad as it could be. It could get worse. And if we're going back to the House, which we will, the White House in 28, right? We'll have a trifecta in 29, without question. The problem is going to be what kind of trifecta do we have? If it's not a trifecta that is willing to pass Medicare for All, if we have the power to do so, if it's not one that is willing to pass things like Housing First and universal childcare, what we're missing here is the political will. Because if we accomplish that in 29, in that administration, we'll get to 2032, whatever sycophant wants to take Donald Trump's role, we'll get to 2032, and we'll get to 2032, and we'll get to 2032. We'll try and wage a fight against the Democratic Party, but we'll get to a point and say we just deliver universal healthcare. We'll be able to say that we canceled all medical debt. We'll be able to say that we broke up big medicine and drove down those costs so that it could be an effective and efficient healthcare system. We have to be able to point to something in order for us to be able to make the case in 2032 why we need to be able to keep that power, or else the pendulum will swing back, and we cannot afford another MAGA fascist administration to take power. I want to ask about what the newly empowered Democratic Party will do over the next two years. We talked a little bit about reversing the Medicaid cuts, the tariffs, and the war. Senator, you have so far declined to endorse Chuck Schumer for majority leader. You've said that you've said that Democrats need a plan first. What would Schumer have to commit to to get your party back? What would Schumer have to commit to to get your vote? So first of all, I have said that as a Senate Democratic caucus, before anyone commits to anybody for Democratic leader, we should have a conversation in our caucus. This is not a radical idea. That includes the new members who are coming to Washington, who are also looking for change. And at the very least, we need commitments as to what direction the Senate Democratic leadership will go. So, number one, use all the power we have at this moment to defund the illegal senseless war in Iran. And there's a debate going on about that. There's some also provisions in the National Defense Authorization Bill that need to be pulled out of that bill because what they would do is permanently couple U.S. defense production to the government of Israel. And I think that would be a mistake. My view is that the U.S. defense production is a mistake. And I think that's a mistake. My view is we should end the open American taxpayer checkbook to the government of Israel, given everything that's happening. But then we do need to have a commitment to ambitiously address the kitchen table issues and end political corruption. So end political corruption. We need to pass the Disclose Act. No more secret money. We need to get rid of what I call the Elon Musk. We need to get rid of the Elon Musk. The Elon Musk loophole where he spends $450 million in this election cycle and gets billions of dollars in federal contracts. I also believe that we need a public finance system. But finally, when it comes to these key kitchen table issues, we need to do something meaningful on health care beyond reversing the damage. And also, John, I would say that we haven't talked about taxes here, but we have a key issue that we need to address. And that's the question that we need to address. We need a tax system that is completely stacked in favor of people who make money off of money and against people who earn a paycheck through hard work. We need a commitment that we're going to change that. I have actually proposed something that would provide working Americans with tax relief funded by imposing a surtax on people who make more than a million dollars every single year. And so let me just close with this. I think it's important that we make sure that we make sure that we make sure that we make sure that we make sure that we make sure that we make sure that we make sure that we make sure that we're not making a lot of money. I do believe that populism was the message. It's not left or right. It is the fact that we have an economy that's rigged in favor of very wealthy people at the expense of working people. And so it's not left or right. It's this other paradigm that does unite people. Donald Trump has spent his time in office trying to divide people against one another. You know, their economic woes are because of the immigrants or the people of different faiths. That has distracted everybody. We need to unite together. We need to unite together and tackle the big issue that didn't start with Donald Trump. It's been made worse by Donald Trump, but people's economic pain is a structural economic problem. We need to go straight at it. That is a populist message. And that is what we need a commitment to do. The direction to take bold action and not say we're only going to decide what to do based on whether or not we think Donald Trump's going to veto or something. We should do what's right for the American people. He can tell people whether he's still with the billionaires, which I'm sure he probably does, or whether he stands with the American people. But we should not be calibrating our every move based on what Donald Trump decides he wants to do. He just did give the American people a big finger. He kicked them in the teeth by putting Steve Miller in the cockpit. We should do the right thing. We should listen to the voters and move forward. That is my real purpose of making sure we have a commitment in the Democratic Party, in the United States Senate, to move in that direction. Congresswoman, I know you voted for Hakeem Jeffries in 2025 for leader. Are you backing him for speaker this time, I assume? Yes. What do you say? Obviously, there's a lot of people out there. I've heard it. Not just Schumer. People are like, we don't want Jeffries as leader. Why can't we have someone else? What would you say to people who are not yet there on Jeffries as speaker? First of all, I think sometimes the conversation around leadership and Congress sort of combines both House and Senate leadership all into one. And I think there are distinctions. But look, being the leader of a caucus is an incredibly challenging role of managing different factions, different elements of a caucus. And sometimes the responsibility of leadership is not what always plays best to those of us in this space. That is the reason. reality of being in charge of a caucus of 215 people. That will be the reality of being in charge of a caucus with 260 some plus. I have had a front row seat to Leader Jeffrey's effectiveness in that role, not just internally within our caucus. But the reality is, over the last two years, in a majority party controls institution, the House, House Democrats have successfully taken over the floor and gotten our priorities voted on on the floor, more than any minority in history since the 1930s when the rule that allows that was put into place. I have had conversations with our leader, and I am convinced that he is in favor of a bold, transformational economic agenda for our country, and that he is in favor of our party putting that forward. I also think he's put forward positive proposals for, I think, a necessary shift in U.S. foreign policy, including and especially when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship. It might not be where everyone in this room would like him or others to be, but it has shifted, and he's outlined some priorities that I believe our caucus should absolutely vote on in a majority, including any. I also think that he's put forward positive proposals for, I think, a necessary shift in U.S.-Israel relationship, including any. I also think that he's put forward positive proposals for, I think, a necessary shift in U.S. policy, including any. I also think that he's put forward positive proposals for, I think, a necessary shift over the single largest landslide for House Democrats since the 1970s. And so we will have, all of us will have disagreements. And members should absolutely have those conversations with leadership. I have had a front row seat. It's why Representative Ocasio-Cortez is supporting him. It's why our caucus, as far as I can tell, is broadly united. Because we don't want to start this Congress as well, in the same place that Republicans have started their Congresses. With dysfunction, with chaos, with it looking like, despite having a historic majority, at least in recent times, that we can't even turn the lights on. I think let's focus on getting past that vote and beginning in that moment when we have the nation's agenda, fighting for them, fighting for bold policy, not fighting amongst ourselves for who gets which chair. Congresswoman-elect, I know you've met with Jeffries, with Leader Jeffries. Are you sold? You know, I. Stop it. I've heard wonderful things about Leader Jeffries and the hope that a lot of folks have for his speakership and historicness of it. I'm going to be the first Black woman to be a leader. I'm going to represent my district. It'd be my honor for my first vote to be, to elect the first Black speaker of the House as well. But it has to mean something for American workers. It has to mean something for the Black community. It has to actually turn into tangible things, the speakership. And when I think about the Speaker of the House, this is the person who, in effect, is supposed to speak for the people. And the people have made it clear that they want us to root out corruption. The people have made it clear that they want us to address the healthcare crisis. The people have made it clear that they want us to be the party and the country of peace and stability. And in order for us to reach those goals, there has to be a bold agenda that comes with it. I've not been sold just yet that there is a bold agenda on the table. And. I'll just add, too, I really think it's important that there is some kind of public concession on that front, because it is abundantly clear that the American people are unhappy with leadership right now. They are, they do not believe that leadership is poised for this moment to take us in the direction that our party needs to go, take us, take the government in the direction that it needs to go right now. And I think there is a certain level of trust that you earn from voters by just saying, I hear you. What we put forward maybe isn't enough. Here's what we're going to do to actually address the concerns that the American voters have. I, my vote is something that's still up in the air right now, because I need to see that agenda. And I look forward to having those conversations with leadership. Because again, we have the mandate of the people right now, and we cannot squander this. There has to be a bold agenda that we put forward. Is there an example of something specific that you would feel was bold enough? To earn your vote? I mean, it's not just one thing. I want to see Medicare for all voted on. I want to see a data center moratorium voted on. I want to see us ending military sales to Israel. And I want us to end the war in Iran. These are, again, all popular things. And to be clear, my demand is not that leader Jeffrey specifically supports these things himself, right? My demand is that he lets us vote on it. And if the other, if there are other parts of the party that want to put forward their own proposals, great, let them vote on it. But if there are other parts of the party that want to put forward their own proposals, great, let them vote on it, too. But again, these are populist politics that want us the midterms. Mitch? I'm so happy. You're not in Congress? No, I have great respect. You know, my sister was a United States senator for 16 years, so I love senators. I was in the state legislature in Louisiana for four terms and went through speakership fights. And then they're really intense things. But the reason I'm so happy is because I want to be able to affirm for you guys, not as a member of Congress, how much unity there is on the stage. If I might just read to you a tweet that Tammy Duckworth just put out. She said, this is my list. Ending the war in Iran, canceling $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts, restoring the ACA tax credits, raising the federal minimum wage, terminating the tariffs, forcing data centers to pay for their own energy and water, and banning presidential stock trading. That is the same thing everybody up here said. And just so that you don't think this is just a magic trick, you don't usually have this level of consensus. That's going on. And as I said, when I began, I assure you that the differences on the Democratic side right now are so de minimis in comparison to what's going on with the other side that we should take notice of that. Secondly, I want to affirm what all of these smart folks have said, that when you're out there campaigning, all right, the voters, the voters are very fluid right now. They are not loving the Democrats and other Republicans. They gave us a chance and they are absolutely clear that they are not ideologically bent in this regard, that it is really not, as Chris said, because he's very astute, left, middle, and right. There's some of that. But the world has changed now. And if we don't feel this shift, then we are going to miss the boat, that it's an up versus down thing. Most Americans that voted the way they voted feel that they have been left behind, that the system is rigged, they're getting screwed, and nobody's focused on them. And that's what they're demanding. Which is why they're just grabbing everybody's face and saying, I told you that I need you to concentrate on the things that are making me worry about whether I can make a living from day to day. And I would just say to our team that we have to stay focused on the things that are going to help us win, because if you don't have power, you can't get anything done. And to make the final point, focus group, New Hampshire, white guy, 38 years old, voted for Trump straight down the line, Trump voter, until he heard about the big beautiful bill and the Medicaid bill. And he said, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. And he said, I have a special needs kid. He said, I cannot believe that somebody that I voted for is going to give a tax cut to a trillionaire and take money out of my pocket so that I cannot care for my kid. And he switched. And so did a whole bunch of other people across the aisle. And I think, again, to your point, if we stay focused on that and don't get stuck on the perfect versus the enemy of good, and then making sure, by the way, that we earn their votes because they don't trust us right now either. And we have to prove that we don't trust them. And we have to prove to them that we see them, we heard them, and that we're actually going to take concrete action to make sure that they're seen and we actually get stuff done. Whatever that is, whatever fits into that bucket, I would go run wild and get there as fast as you can. Thank you so much for joining us. We'll see you in the next episode of Chilli Pad 2.0. And we'll see you in the next episode of Chilli Pad 2.0. bipartisan comfort. I don't know. Maybe you should be single, but you should have a chili pad. It's the best. I've loved having one. Basically, you can do it from your phone. You can make your bed really cold if you're hot. You can make your bed really warm when you're sleeping. It's the best. And you can each have different temperatures if you run a little hotter. It is great. Visit sleep.me slash crooked to get up to $640 off your ChiliPad 2.0 with code crooked. As an added holiday offer, ChiliPad is including a three-year protection plan for free. This increases your ChiliPad 2.0 value up to $1,038. This special offer is available for America listeners and only for a limited time. Order today with free shipping and enjoy an extended holiday return window. You can return it for free if you don't like it with their sleep trial. That's www.sleep.me slash crooked. The headlines will still be there in the morning. You might as well wake up ready for them. This episode is brought to you by the International Rescue Committee. Imagine a child asking you for water and knowing there's none to give or putting hand on a hot little forehead without any medicine to cure the ailing or at the very least ease their suffering. That's the reality right now in conflict zones like Sudan, Gaza, and Afghanistan. Children are suffering without access to enough food, clean water, or basic medical care. You can help. The International Rescue Committee is on the ground in over 40 countries around the world delivering urgently needed nutrition, health care, clean water, and other emergency supplies where they're needed most. And for a limited time, your gift can make an even greater impact. Today, every donation to the IRC will be matched to rush even more critical aid to children and families trying to survive the world's worst humanitarian crises. Your support helps make a life-saving difference for children in need. Give now at rescue.org slash rebuild. That's rescue.org slash rebuild. To your point on sort of the unity around what Democrats in Congress should try to do in these first couple weeks, this first month, one thing I see coming down the road is a potential shutdown because we're talking about defunding the Iran war. We're talking about forcing a reversal of the Medicaid cuts. Oh, and I heard Governor Pritzker say the other day that he would be willing to, or he thinks that Congress should shut down the government if Donald Trump doesn't make changes to ICE and ICE enforcement as well, right? And so Stephen Miller is chief of staff now, or is going to be chief of staff. They don't seem to care about whether the government is running and operating in the White House. They didn't before. They certainly don't seem like they would now because they're not facing any more politics. At least Trump isn't. Miller doesn't care about politics. How are you all feeling about the next time? I mean, I know there's a CR on December 11th, but let's kick it down the road to the new year when there's a new Congress. How are you all feeling about a showdown with the Trump administration? I mean, I think it's going to be a showdown with the Trump administration where the government potentially shuts down for a while and voters are like, okay, we sent Democrats to Congress and they're fighting, but also now they're fighting with Republicans and the government's not working and it's shut down and are they going to get anything? And what are they actually fighting for? You can say we shut it down over Medicaid cuts. We shut it down over the Iran war. We shut it down over ICE. This seems like it's the first moment where Democrats are united now, but what's the message? What's the message to the voters going to be when that comes to a head? Well, John, I don't think we should skip over December 11th, which is when the current continuing resolution expires, because as I think we've all said, Donald Trump told the country two things. He said he would keep us out of war and he said he would bring down prices day one. So he starts an illegal census war that is driving up prices as we speak. And so my view is that when that CR expires on December 11th, Democrats should not vote for any appropriation bills that has any money in it for the illegal war in Iran, period. And if Donald Trump wants to tell the country that he is going to shut down the United States government in order to keep the war in Iran going, which he said he would never stop, he's going to shut down the United States government in order to keep the war in Iran going, that is his choice. And he'll have to explain it to the American people. And as I said to his vice president, who recognizes that the Iran war was a critical issue in this election. So we don't have to wait till January. We should really do that now. I agree. And I think going back to something that Malat mentioned earlier around passing bold policies, whether it's undoing the harm of the Medicaid cuts or the ACA tax credits or ending the war or other proactive policies to actually move the country forward. I think in this moment, it's going to be very interesting to see how Donald Trump engages. Obviously, the appointment of Stephen Miller is a big FU to the country and a demonstration that perhaps this president hasn't learned any of the lessons that he should learn after Tuesday. But this president has no ideological core, right? The only commitment this man has is to self-enrichment and seeing his name in lights. And I think as he enters a lame duck period, final two years of his life, he's going to end up with large Democratic majorities in both caucuses or in both chambers. The reality is he doesn't need the sort of Milton Friedman carcass of the Republican Party that he had used as a vehicle to win the White House. He's going to be a free agent. And for instance, on the Medicaid cuts, he was warning congressional Republicans that, they were going to be incredibly unpopular when they were pushing them forward, but he knew he needed to include them to get the votes of the Freedom Caucus to get what he really wanted, which were tax breaks for billionaires and ICE funding. So there are a lot of things where he's not really committed ideologically or personally to harms that congressional Republicans inflicted on the country. I don't think he cares about the harms, but I don't think he's going to be willing to die on some of those political hills to defend them. And so I think there is a lot of opportunity over the next several months to extract concessions, to reverse those cuts, to put forward really bold policy. I mean, does the president want to veto paid family and medical leave, which is supported by like 80% of voters? Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't because he just doesn't care. And he'd love to see his name on a policy that would afford every worker in this nation paid family and medical leave for the inevitable challenges of life. Like, we don't know how he is going to respond and engage. And so let's just do what we want to do and fight for what we want to fight and let the chips fall where they may. I will say, I think I could get myself to a place where I imagine the president wanting to wind down the war. Vance is there. Apparently, Miller pitched himself for the job by saying he also wanted to wind down the war. Congresswoman McBride, to your point, maybe on Medicaid cuts as well, I think my biggest fear is that the ICE raids and the way that ICE is behaving, which never really ramped down that much, just kind of went into the shadows, is going to ramp back up because Stephen Miller does not care. They don't care about the politics. And that is his only passion project. And so I do wonder what those of you in Congress think about handling that. How do you think about handling that over the next year or two? Because to me, that is one of the, the scarier things as we head into the last two years. Congresswoman, I think we should hold the line on a government shutdown if it means ramping down what's happening with ICE right now. I think ultimately we have to be working towards abolishing this agency. We had immigration enforcement long before ICE was created. We'll have it long after we we abolish it. And, you know, I think part of the conversation has to also be in order to maintain public support for a government shutdown in the way that we had last time around, right? The American public was, to put it bluntly, pissed off when we stopped holding the line on that front. And I think the same would be the case here with ICE. And I think part of it also has to be about presenting our own vision. For too long, immigration has been used as a political football between both of the parties, despite the fact that there are so many common sense proposals and reforms that are on the table for us to address the immigration crisis. And I think that's something that we need to be working towards. And I think there could be some serious bipartisan support here for us to get it across the line. And like Sarah said, we have to try. We have to actually put these things forward and force the Republicans to say whether or not they're on board with these things. But when it comes to ending the paramilitary, rogue, just blatant violence that is being inflicted on the American people right now by this agency, I would absolutely be in favor of supporting a government shutdown in order for us to hold the line there. Yeah. expect that the government's gonna stay open and do what it's supposed to do but not necessarily at all cost it should always be a last resort and unless and until you're staring it in the face you're really not gonna know whether to pull the trigger and I would obviously defer but I would I would just mention a couple of things about this I was in Laredo Texas at a Tallarico rally a couple of months ago and I ran into two folks young men from McAllen Texas who were in the construction business who said that they had voted for Donald Trump three times and they weren't going to vote for him again and I asked them why and one of them was well these raids are pulling everybody off of all the construction jobs and we can't build houses so people's costs are going up but it was also the week if you remember where two individuals were killed one of them in Houston and then another gentleman in Maine who was shot in front of his three-year-old child and they were enraged as most people because as you may recall Trump said we're gonna close the border and then we're just gonna get rid of the worst of the worst they forgot to tell everybody they were just gonna kill American citizens and that Stephen Miller was gonna go on the South Lawn of the White House and say you actually have immunity for doing whatever that you want nor did they tell you for example that they were gonna pull grandmothers off of their lawns when they were gardening and throw them into a van with masked men and put them in a hole and not give them due process and so these fluid voters who were foreclosing the border were not for inhumane treatment and they saw themselves in a way that they went that is not what we voted for ice is out of control ice is a paramilitary organization it has got to be reigned in and it has got to be changed ice now has more money than almost every other agency and by the way ice is new Isis has not been with us forever I mean who ice wasn't around before 2001 so this idea that it's some kind of sacred institution they're hiring people that are not qualified they're hiring people that are not trained they are supervising people in a way that they supervision doesn't matter because they have been given free rein to do things that are extra constitutional and that organization however it is that you find a way to do it it needs to be changed we can be tough and smart now I'll end with this on Sunday was today two days ago I thought to myself wouldn't it be wonderful that Trump got the message because there actually is some really wonderful things we could do with immigration reform and housing two things that you could just roll up on the same thing on universal care especially if you put Trump's name on it and wouldn't it be great if he got religion and heard the American people and decided that he was actually going to work through as Sarah has said trying to get to a good place and then he appointed Stephen Miller I'm just going to tell you it's like Lucy with the football with Charlie Brown every time you think this guy maybe has a has an iota of humanity he comes and reminds you that no he does not and so I just don't think you can bring a knife to a gun battle and I think it's going to be very very difficult to negotiate how to go forward and we're just going to have to figure out the best pathway and still stay true to our principles and be strong about it I think this president just wanted someone even more unlikable than him in the cuck chair in the oval office on Tuesday last question I'll well I'll let you all go um Mitch and Senator Brian Holland um I know you have publicly talked about considering running for president in 2028 um I assume you have chosen this panel at this moment to announce your intentions um but look I have him get on a few of the campaigns myself I've always thought that the the most important question you can ask yourself uh two questions when you're running for president or if you're going to run for president is why me and why now um so talk about your thought process or your decision-making process as you kick the tires or whatever the cliche is that everyone says about maybe running for president um how are you thinking about it and and why do you think um that you might have the unique abilities to lead the country in 2028 sure and I will say this John and the vote from the American people that we witnessed just on Tuesday was an affirmation of my belief in our democracy and I believe that it was also a vote of hope in what Congress and Democrats will do and the conversation as to what the next Democratic president will do will kick off very shortly and it's my belief that we need to change the way we look at how we tackle the biggest issues in our country political corruption and the broken economic system that flows for it from it and I am someone who fundamentally believes we need to change the structure of our economic system which is stacked in favor of people who make money off of money and against people who earn a paycheck for hard work we do need Medicare for all and I'm going to close with this point we don't need more of the finger in the wind stuff we're just talking about immigration I remember early in the Trump administration when the Trump folks abducted off of the streets of Maryland a guy by the name of Kilmar Abrago Garcia in complete violation of his name that's why I'm here today and I'm going to talk a little bit more about that in just a few minutes but I'm going to talk a little bit more about that in just a few minutes but I'm going to talk about that in just a few minutes but I'm going to talk about that in just a few minutes but I'm going to talk about that in just a few minutes but I'm going to talk in complete violation of his constitutional rights, sent him down to a gulag in El Salvador. There were a lot of Democrats back then who criticized me for going down to El Salvador and saying, we need to bring him back. I expected the pushback from the White House. What I did not expect was the pundits who were essentially sniping from the sidelines. And I think the American people stood with standing up for our Constitution. In that instance. And I'll just say one more thing, John. And this started with the Biden administration. We did, as a country, look the other way. While our taxpayers were used, taxpayer dollars were used by the Netanyahu government, to drop bombs that have devastated Gaza. Just take a look at the pictures. Civilians killed. Complete destruction of Gaza. We've allowed our taxpayer dollars to be used by the Netanyahu government. To be used to deepen the occupation of the West Bank. I've been to the border of Egypt and Gaza twice. The first time I went in, the city of Rafah was still standing. The second time, after President Biden said he's going to draw a red line and prevent the destruction of Rafah, when I looked in, it was gone. I have been fighting from day one to make sure that U.S. foreign policy aligns with our Constitution. We've had a lot of votes in the United States Senate and Congress on this. It was very lonely. There are only a very few of us who are willing to stand up for principle early on. Now the country is clearly in a different place, but I will conclude with this, John. I do think, to the point we've made, people will disagree with us. They may not like our ideas, but they want people who are going to level with them, and they want people who are true to their values and convictions, not people waiting for the next pundits or next poll or next Washington lobbyist to come up with an alternative idea. I trust the American people, and this election was a reason for us to believe in our democracy. And that's why I'm kicking the tires, and I will make a decision sometime in early January. All right. Mr. Landrieu? First of all, I love Chris. And I think you should run. I think you'd be a great president, so good luck to you. Let me see if I can answer it this way. I feel like in the last 50 years, America has lost its way across Democratic and Republican administrations. And when it became clear that children were not likely to have a better life than us, I think things started fraying. And whether it was free trade or open trade and the hollowing out of, you know, our neighborhoods in the country, people started feeling disassociated and alienated from each other. And because of September 11th and the forever wars and then the Wall Street debacle that we had and then the election, the conditions that elected Donald Trump, American people turned on each other. And two things happened. One, it gave rise, Congresswoman, as you said, to the American people. To this MAGA extreme, which, by the way, had existed in the South for a long, long time. This is not anything new to us. But it's the first time that it actually made it in the halls of Congress with a Confederate flag on January 6th and into the White House. And now Stephen Miller being the chief of staff is the epitome of putting power in the hands of an individual that does not believe in the promise of America. J.D. Vance gave a speech not long ago talking about this nation not being a creedal nation. In other words, we're not here because we're not here because we're not here. We're not here because of the idea of America. That is exactly why we're here, because America is the greatest idea that has ever had, which is simply stated that we're all created equal and that we come to the table of democracy as equals with equal opportunity and equal responsibility. very notion is being challenged by the greatest powers that ever were right now and if we lose that we do not have a country that we all say that we know and we love and i think that we can't let that stand i think that that has to be the fight of the future the second thing is that the american dream the covenant that we made with each other is that if you really work hard your kids are going to have a better life than you you're going to be able to support your family that american dream is gone because the system is in fact rigged and if we don't re-litigate those two things then i think we're going to have a challenge what yesterday or the other day demonstrated to us is that the hope and the dreams of america are still alive the seeds of freedom are still there and in 2028 we are going to all of us irrespective of who runs however many people do think about how america is going to recapture winning the 21st century because we're behind now we have been given a chance to govern we have the responsibility to do it well and that's why so many people are thinking about now lending their voice and from our perspective the more the merrier the better because it seems to me that if we get it right nothing but blue skies ahead of us thank you mitch landrieu a lot of heroes sarah mcbride chris van holland thank you so much thanks to all of you for coming this episode is brought to you by made in i love made in i didn't even know that they were a sponsor until i sat down today i've been a big fan of made in for a while i have one of their uh knives that i use all the time i have a bunch of their plates that i use all the time i actually got it because i did a ton of research when i was buying things for my kitchen they were like the best stuff at a good price that was my genuine like from my own personal research i was such a fan of theirs and i definitely love their stuff if you're considering the pros and cons of different cookware brands you should know that made in has more of the pros pros like tom colicchio and brooke williamson and many other professional chefs who all trust their cooking to made in cookware fact is made in has a long-standing relationship with professional chefs the company evolved from a 100 year old kitchen supply business and works with multi-generational craftsmen to make each piece they make exactly what demanding chefs are looking for including a wide selection of curated products from carbon steel to stainless clad plus plateware glassware and more but perhaps the biggest pro is that made in is sold online and delivered to your door if you want to take your cooking to the next level invest in made in cookware once you try it you'll be pro made into for full details visit made in cookware.com that's m-a-d-e-i-n cookware.com like made in m-a-d-e-i-n cookware.com this is lavar harrington from two pros and a cup of joe let me tell you about zero that's x-e-r-o zero is a financial management platform that loves giving small business owners the clarity to have the confidence in their numbers it puts accounting payroll and analytics all in one place so you always have one clear picture of your business with visual dashboards zero makes it easy to understand your cash flow you know exactly what's coming in and what's going out so you can make smarter decisions that can help grow your business zero's ai can even offer insights to help you make your best move it's powerful enough for an accountant and simple enough for you zero is the all-in-one to get business done learn more at zero.com welcome to crooked con i'm john lovett and it is my great privilege to have michigan senator alissa slotkin here with us what a week so you were a cia analyst before you went into politics if you and you worked on the presidential daily news you were a cia analyst before you went into politics and you worked on brief. If you were in a role as an intelligence analyst for a foreign leader, for a Mark Carney or European leader, and you were going to brief a leader on what's happening in American politics post-election, what is the dynamics? How would you brief that leader? I mean, well, first of all, hello, everyone. First of all, I would have a headline that would just say, Donald Trump, colon, shellacked. And then I think the next kind of section would be that the American public said two or three things really clearly. One, they are desperate. They are desperate in their economic dreams for themselves and their kids that they not be forgotten. And they were willing to vote with their feet. And number two, they want a new generation of leaders that looks different and works harder. And then lastly, they want big and bold ideas to support those economic dreams. So somewhere in there with some much more anodyne, boring language, I would brief. And then lastly, the last thing I'd like to do, I'm going to ask you to share with us some of the things that you're thinking about as a foreign leader. So just before the election, right-wing media was circulating a damning video of you in which you said something that I found quite reassuring, which was basically how you were thinking about an approach to investigations and oversight, given the sheer breadth of topics that you could be looking at. And I'm curious how you're thinking about that today. Yeah. So let's talk about, I mean, because we're all still kind of on this high from the election. And I was talking to some of the incoming freshmen senators today, and they're just like riding on adrenaline at this point, right? I mean, they have done incredible work across the country. But the work really begins now that we have this kind of majority. So what do you do with that majority? I think it's three things. Number one, first and foremost, is we have to actually pass legislation that helps Americans' lives. I would start with health care and prescription drugs, personally. And then if the president wants to veto those things, let him in front of the American people. As a populist, go ahead and veto. Number two, we need to have accountability for violations of the law and abuses of taxpayer dollars. And to do that, we need to have accountability for violations of the law and abuses of taxpayer dollars. We should look at these signature cases, right? You can't make it your whole personality. You have to actually show that you're helping the American people because their pocketbooks is just such an obsession for people, rightly, right now. But these signature cases, these, think about the reflecting pool. Think about the abuse of taxpayer dollars to enrich people, things that violate the law. You have to have these signature cases. And then third, much less sexy, you have a group of folks who are focused on how do we Trump-proof the government so no other president, Democrat or Republican, can ever do what this fan did. So those are the three things. So there's a potential impeachment vote for Hegseth that's coming in the House. Thomas Massey, who's outgoing, has promised to bring his impeachment resolution to the floor. Is an impeachment trial for Pete Hegseth, does that fit in what you would like to see? Or do you think it's maybe not the right direction? Look, I just don't think that is enough, right? Because I think the, and I voted to impeach Donald Trump twice and we're still here dealing with him. I think you have to demonstrate that we will uphold the law. And there are people around this president that have put themselves and their support of the president above the law. And those people, there needs to be accountability for that. And I, you know, they've literally threatened again to have the department of justice investigate me for that sentence. Okay. And, but you, no one is above the law. And so it's not just about going after the cabinet level officials or the president. It is also about saying, if you're going to abuse taxpayer dollars and violate the law on behalf of this president, you too are going to be held accountable. So the two ways in which I think you've drawn this ire, from the administration, one was around saying that officials in the military, that, that, that members of the military have an obligation to follow the law and not follow illegal orders. For that, Trump said that you should be killed, right? That you should be executed. You also said that, that you want there to be an understanding that in the future, if someone does violate the law on behalf of the administration, going into the administration and then doing that, people should be deterred from doing that, which again is eminently reasonable point for which they are trying to investigate you. That's the sentence. Donald Trump said on election night, something to the effect of wanting to work with Democrats. Then the next day he appoints Stephen Miller or the next few days, Stephen Miller to be chief of staff. Medicaid cuts are coming on January 1st. Government shutdown looms. I think when Trump says he wants to work with Democrats, I think he'd like to show Hakeem Jeffries the ballroom. There is a tension, right? Between investigation and the potential of Donald Trump's signature being on, say, a repeal of Medicaid cuts. How do you think about that tension? I don't see it as stark a tension. because my job as a senator and all these folks who just got elected around the country, their job is to make the lives of their constituents better. So I have always said, especially coming from Michigan, I'm going to work across the aisle on a veterans bill or an agriculture bill or something that will help the lives of my people any day of the week, right? Even if I can't stand, you know, some of the things that my co-sponsor has said because my obligation is to the people that I represent. So I don't feel that strong of a tension. And if you're from a swing state, if you're from the middle of the country, we live that, right? I've never won my town. I've never won my precinct. I've never won my neighbors. I live in a rural red town. But I still work with my town supervisor. He was my plus one at Trump's inauguration because I couldn't get any Democrat to go with me. And he's a fanboy. And so you see what I'm saying? Like, we live. We live with that tension. But it has to be about helping the people you represent. What would you like to see a Democratic Congress do to use this power to end the Iran war? Well, look, I mean, I think the president has to have seen that so much of what just happened was, again, because of people's pocketbooks, which he very specifically hurt with. His. War with his tariffs and with his just general chaos. And but if he's not thinking about this is why it would be a perfect time to fire Pete Hegseth. Perfect time. And so I think, look, the mop up job, right, the mop up job to help people's pocketbooks is end the war, cancel many of the really sloppy, stupid tariffs and figure out what we're going to do about these Medicaid cuts. If you want. If you want to help people's pocketbooks, those are the three things in the mop up job portion of the work that we need to do. You're pretty critical of Vance, who wrote this Twitter essay as if he were a pundit about, boy, this Iran war sure is unpopular. People sure are concerned about affordability. And you responded saying, hey, man, you're the vice president. You're responsible. But beyond just the kind of. I don't know, the glib kind of politicization that he's doing there. What does it tell you about the levers to put pressure on the administration to make changes, whether it's on tariffs or on the Iran war? Well, look, I took deep offense to that because maybe it's because I worked at the Pentagon and the CIA. But a lot of people in my community, my friends are people who are currently deployed right now because of this war. We've got 50,000 U.S. forces activated. And in the Middle East. And he's talking about, like, I'm the vice president and this war is bad. Right. It's like you got us to this place. There are people in harm's way. There are people who have died because of your decisions. Right. So you don't get to slip out of it. You don't get to say, well, I was this voice of dissent that I don't have agency. You're the vice president of the United States. And you made this decision to go to war. Own it. OK. And either you couldn't stop it because you're so weak and have no voice with the. President or you supported it. Those are your two choices. But you don't get to write some sort of speech afterwards to try to save your own future presidency while you've sent men and women to die on behalf of this country. So I took offense to it at just a sort of a primordial level as someone who's did three tours in Iraq. And I think. But what it says is there are clearly deep divisions within the White House, within the MAGA movement. I mean, you know, we've all had that moment where we've looked at Marjorie Taylor Greene's tweet and we're like, why do I agree with that tweet? Like, you know, so, like, I think it's fair to say things are shifting. But I think what it you know, at the end of the day, if these people are truly populists, they have to have heard the message that was sent on Tuesday night. They have to understand that the American people are so fearful. About their ability to, like, see their kids do better than them, that it is driving them in some cases in places like Kansas and I want to vote for people that that they've they've never voted for Democrats, some of these people. So we need to hear that. And by the way, not over interpret the results that somehow people love Democrats again. OK, let's not make that mistake. Yeah, I feel like there's some three time Trump voters who woke up Wednesday morning like they're on a bender. What happened last night? Who did I vote? Four? Oh, my God, that's crazy. So you talked about divides on the right in this. There's obviously it's a great moment for Democrats, but there are there remains divisions within our party, believe it or not. There's about to be a question about who the Senate leadership should be. Are you planning to vote for Chuck Schumer to be the Senate majority leader? Well, look, I. I've been very vocal that I think we need a new generation of leadership. And I think we couldn't have gotten a clearer signal of that than what happened on Tuesday night. And I think we need to hear that. And for me, we have to have the American people understand that we have absorbed their confidence. And and like their vote and we're doing something about it. That for me means like, look, if he if he wants to be a majority leader, what is your plan for the first 100 days? How are you going to do things differently so that Democrats get their shit together? And if you can't produce that, I'm not voting for you. And he needs a quorum to hold a vote, even if he's the only person who runs. And I personally am. I. I don't think people should be giving him that quorum if he hasn't had to come to the caucus and say, look, I've heard what happened. Here's what I'm going to do differently. And if you can't do that, you don't deserve someone's vote. So. It is remarkable, right? We've just had the most extraordinary 50 year wave victory and we're in a room full of enthusiastic Democrats and the leader of the Democrats. the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate gets booed in a room like this. And I think some of that is earned, right? Some of that is based on feeling as though he is not putting up the level of fight or strategy, that he's not meeting where Democrats expect a leader to be. But also part of the job of a Senate leader is to kind of take the arrows, right? And like at the end of the dark night, like he's not the leader we want, but he's the leader we deserve. How do you separate that? How do you separate the way in which it's a thankless job and the ways in which he has not done the job you want him to do? Look, leadership is often thankless. And I feel lucky that I worked alongside the military my whole life and like talk about a place that thinks about leadership, right? So there's no way around it. Being at the top of the food chain or the commander of the team, you're going to take those arrows. That's part of the gig. That's what you need to accept when you get the big job. That's part of it. And I have worked under all different kinds of leaders. What I think we need to sort of process is that what Tuesday night told us is that the country is interested in different ways of using power, different ways of pushing back. We're in a new era now. It is not the era of 30 years ago in the Senate when the strongly worded letter meant something in this town. And so I am interested in working with people and working as a team across ideological lines, working as a team to exert power in different ways, to exert a message in different ways. And I want a leader who can do that, who can say, look, I've read the room and we need to think differently about the voices we push forward, the things we go for. We can't just have it like 56 different CEOs who are all doing their different thing. We need to play as a team. And I'm interested in anyone, especially my freshman colleagues, my sophomore colleagues with me, who are interested in a different way of exerting power. Senator Slotkin, here's something interesting. There's never been a woman majority leader in the history of the Senate. As of right now, part of the challenge is nobody has said they'd be willing to run other than Chuck Schumer. Certainly sounds like Chris Van Hollen has his eyes set on a different kind of campaign. You sure sound like you have ideas about what a majority leader should do. Why don't you run for Senate majority leader? - Well, look, I think we're quite literally on text chains right now, still counting the votes in Alaska and Mississippi, but I think this is like, it's an open field. And I think those conversations are happening rapidly between Democrats. I mean, new Democrats who just won. Democrats in the sophomore class, the freshman class. I think there's quite a bit of upward pressure. I don't have any big announcements to make, but those conversations are happening right now. Wow. So I don't want to press you to say more than what you're willing to say, but that's not a no. It sounds like you're not saying, no, I won't run for majority leader. Look, I think that it is important that we have people who are looking, and look, we just had to live this in Michigan, right? That people who have different views on different issues can still work together for the betterment of the country. That is what I'm here for. I'm not ruling anything out. Wow. So you were on Pod Save America in 2024 when we were in Ann Arbor. And I remember when you were there talking about, first of all, you were warning people about what you were seeing in Michigan. And this was before the election, obviously. And you talked about the unique dynamic between Muslim and Arab Americans and Jewish Americans and the way that those communities were very integrated, going to the same schools, living in the same neighborhoods at the time you were founded. And I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really good point. And so before we get to the politics, I'm curious what the impact of what had been a very contentious campaign, a campaign in which you had both Republicans and outside groups like APAC running incredibly divisive ads, and what it felt like on the ground in Michigan, the impact of that. I mean, I think for most of us, this election cycle was very stressful, very intense. And I think most Michiganders are deeply happy it's over, right? Now, we're a swing state that happens in every election cycle. Our TVs are full of crazy ads and that kind of thing. But I think this one in particular got really nasty. And so I think there's a sense of relief. I think for many people, there's a sense of pride that, I mean, Abdul and I represent the youngest Senate we are the first delegation where neither of us have has ever taken corporate PAC money, which is new for the Senate. And actually, on the age thing, we just figured this out today that Abdul's age plus my age is still younger than Chuck Grassley. So there's a different tone, a different vibe. But I think. But we all agree that Chuck Grassley is young and spry and should remain in his job right now and not consider stepping down before there's a Democratic governor. I will leave that to Iowa. But I think the thing that I hope, not that it's always easy, but I also hope that in addition to being fighters for Michigan, that I think it is important for my state and maybe beyond my state to see a senior Jewish woman and Muslim man working out their differences, debating each other, but working together. And in our best moments in Michigan, that is how we all grew up. I mean, quite literally. And so I think there's a lot of interest, I think, in both of us in making that a reality coming off of a very divisive and difficult election cycle. So you were among the majority of Democrats who voted yes on a resolution in April that was about ending a subset of military aid to Israel. There's two resolutions. You were a yes on both. Some of your colleagues were a yes on one. The number that have been supporting resolutions like that has grown, including your vote, the previous April, you had been a no. So I'm curious what changed for you and how you see your role going forward. I talked about this with Brad Lander, who's an incoming freshman. I talked about this with Abdul and what it looks like for Democrats to shape a policy that's not just about stopping what is clearly not working, but shaping something that is a positive view of how to use our leverage with Israel toward the future. So I think there's a lot of interest in both of you in making that a reality. And I think that's what's going to happen in the next four years. that's what is the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship look like? And how do we graduate from this model of financial dependence of U.S. taxpayer dollars funding huge portions of their defense budget? How do we change that to right-size it for a very different moment in our history and a very different moment in their history? And there's, you know, Bibi gave a speech about this. I mean, this is, it's interesting to me that it's happening on both sides of the ocean. And I think that that is right. I think that for me, what was different last April or two Aprils ago, maybe, was the literally weaponizing of humanitarian aid. And as someone who served three tours in Iraq, who watched the US military up close and personal, I understand what is a violation of the law of war. What is the use of military force, excessive use of force in a way that the United States would never be able to do in a war zone. So that to me kind of broke me. And that's why I voted the way I did and have since then. But I think the kind of overall message is the country wants something different. And we need to hear that and need to use that leverage appropriately. The contentiousness of the debate in Michigan in those final weeks, I think, for me, led to a lot of conversations about this issue with Jewish friends who had concerns with people that didn't understand where each other were coming from. And one of the things I realized in that discussion was there's a lot of, I think, pro-Israel voices. There's a lot of Jewish people that have, from a very young age, associated supporting Israel with what it means to be proud of being Jewish. And they see a lot of rising antipathy towards Israel. There has also been anti-Semitism on the left, and that makes them really anxious. It hits something really personal and deep. And then I think, well, what's causing all of this? And I think, well, there's this big missing piece, right, that should the concern be directed at people with criticisms at Israel, or should it be directed at pro-Israel politicians and organizations that are just banking on some old assumptions that don't apply anymore, that America's always been an ally to Israel, when there's a whole generation of people that have only known Israel as a wealthy and powerful country, that have never heard anyone make a case for why we have this relationship, especially in the wake of the Iran war. And it does seem like there's been an absence of leadership of people that claim to be pro-Israel, explaining what a moral righteous version of that policy could ever be. Joe Biden was incomprehensible by the end of his administration, to be honest, and was so lockstep with Bibi that people found it enraging and incomprehensible in the policy. And so I'm curious how you see your role going forward as someone who has tried to build a relationship with communities that have deep concerns about Israel correctly and with the Jewish community, what you see your role is going forward in finding that new kind of a consensus. Yeah, I would say there are plenty of people in the Jewish community who have concerns about the actions. And of course, of course. And that's the, this is, it gets at this inherent tension and which is many, many people in the Jewish community feel that there's no distinction between the threats against Israel and the threats against them. there is very real in a very real way growing anti-semitism and I see it every day the synagogue that I know very very well was attacked in Michigan like this year I mean we've had threats on Jewish institutions in a very real way that's And I think that the, certainly, in the Jewish community, there's so much fear that people are approaching discussions about Israel and Bibi Netanyahu and the bad behavior of the military. They're approaching it from like a crouch, a defensive crouch, and they don't want to say publicly anything negative because they're worried that that will reverberate. And they're so worried about their own security that they don't want to let in any crack of criticism to add to that pile. And I think that just is something we're trying to work through. And I think that this is, you know, our Muslim communities are struggling with threats on their institutions and worried about what's happening in their communities. And so I'm trying to see how, as a leader, I can try and break that down. You have to bring those conversations together. And you have to reassure people that, at first and foremost, we're going to do everything for their security at home in Michigan. But we need to be able to have an honest conversation about the behavior of Bibi Netanyahu and the military in Gaza. You can have those two separate conversations. Last question. You were in Iowa, in Des Moines, and you were asked about this. And you said that you're not so arrogant as to think, it has to be you that runs for president. But if it comes to the point after the midterms that you think there's not anyone else who's on the right path, you wouldn't say no forever. Is it a relief to know that every single other person on earth is going to run? And therefore, you can kind of forget about it. Is that what you're thinking? Right. I'm going to watch the buffet and see what's there. And look, I mean, the. Well, you'll be busy as majority leader. Right. I think, look, we're all trying to absorb the lessons of what just happened on Tuesday. We're all trying to say to ourselves, how do we take what we've gotten and do something with it and demonstrate that once we actually get the majority, we can do something thoughtful and smart that actually helps people. And then we need people who are going to be able to carry that energy in the next election cycle. And my experience with. In general, with elected leaders in Washington is that a lot of them are like running the like circa 1997 presidential play, right? Like you write a book and then you go to this and then you do that. And. A time of choices. Right. I think what this last week told us is that the public is looking for something different. There isn't just this well-worn path of one way to do things that the public is so desperate for that new generation and big and bold. Right. And so I think it's important that people have these ideas that they will, they think bigger than I think a lot of the kind of old political hands in Washington think. So I'm excited about that. You just need to step outside Washington to feel it. And I'm excited that that's going to mean we should have a busy, robust primary. We should accept it, people, right? How many years have we been told, like, we need to winnow it down, like it's going to be big and messy and that's fine. We should demand of people, we should demand of people, like, what are you going to do? I don't, it can't just be a vibes election. Tell us those big and bold ideas and how you're going to lead. Senator Alyssa Slotkin, thank you so much. Great talking to you. Thanks, everybody. That's our show for today. Hope you enjoyed it. Dan and I will be back on Friday with a brand new episode of Pod Save America. Talk to everyone soon. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Michael Goldsmith, with Ree Cherlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroat, Ben Hefcote, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Kenny Moffitt, Adam Lippert, Joseph Dutra, Desmond Taylor, Dan Farrow, David Tolles, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. The Writers Guild of America East offers your choice of three luxury hotels, the richly refined Rosewood, the playfully hip SLS, and the stylishly modern Grand Hyatt. With over 45 restaurants, bars, and lounges, Baja Mar serves up delicious dining from world-renowned chefs like Daniel Balloud and Marcus Samuelson, nightlife venues like the new John Batiste Jazz Club, and the Caribbean's most luxurious casino. At Baja Mar, you'll find every pleasure under the sun and one-of-a-kind experiences for the entire family, like Baja Bay, 15-acre lush tropical water park, interactive wildlife experiences, including our daily Flamingo Parade, world-class golf, tennis, spa, and so much more. Visit BajaMar.com today and discover a vacation destination where memories are made for a lifetime. Baja Mar, life spectacular. Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Tom Thumb. Fall is here and your busy days are just getting started. Power through every crisp morning and weekend adventure with your favorite nutrition brands, now through December 1st, fuel your fall with savings and stock up on items like Cliff Builder Protein Bars, Cliff Bar 10-Packs, Luna Bars, and Cliff Snack Bars for on-the-go snacking. Plus, take on your day with five-hour energy. Offer ends December 1st. Restrictions apply. Offers may vary. Visit Albertsons or TomThumb.com for details. This is Martha Stewart. Have you ever started a new tradition? Here's a hint. Do it with Lenox. Lenox has always meant timeless holiday beauty, and the perfect holiday gift. Imagine ginger from a Georgian townhouse or pepper from your favorite Swiss chalet. Lenox has brought timeless beauty and quality to tables and homes for generations. Baking together, sharing recipes, decorating, suddenly simple pleasures become part of your holiday story forever. When you give a gift that lasts beyond the holidays, it's an amazing feeling. When you give Lenox, you just might start a new tradition. Discover the full collection at Lenox.com slash Spice Village.