Trump: "I've Won Affordability"

[00:00] Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. As a Pod Save America listener, you know, as well as us, the dark chapter... [00:05] We're not just stepping into. We're in the chapter. We're fucking wallowing in it. But no matter what happens outside your four walls, your home should always provide a safe sanctuary for your family. Simply Safe can help provide peace of mind with proactive protection that helps to stop threats before they even have a chance to break in. I set up a Simply Safe incredibly easy to do. The customer support was great. It provided peace of mind and it was really easy to set up. Traditional security systems only take action after someone has already broken in. That's too late. Simply Safe's active guard outdoor protection can help prevent break-ins before they happen. [00:35] backed up by live professional monitoring agents. Monitor your property and detect suspicious activity. If someone's lurking around or acting suspiciously, those agents see and talk to them in real time. Activate spotlights and even contact the police all before they have a chance to get inside your home. No long-term contracts or cancellation fees. Monitoring plans start affordably at around $1 per day. 60-day satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. Named best home security system by U.S. News & World Report five years in a row. Ranked number one in customer service among home security providers by both Newsweek and USA Today. [01:05] off their new SimpliSafe system with professional monitoring in their first month free at SimpliSafe.com slash crooked. That's SimpliSafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. [01:15] Out here, if you're doing nothing, you're doing everything right. Though, on a cruise with Norwegian, even if you're doing nothing, you're still basking in the warm sun, enjoying the peaceful ocean waves. You're breathing. Don't forget about breathing. Definitely need to be breathing. [01:29] So you get to do nothing or everything.

[01:31] You still need to be breathing. [01:33] It's like, [01:33] Really important. Experience the difference with cruises to Alaska, the Caribbean, and Europe. Norwegian Cruise Line. It's different out here. Visit ncl.com, call your travel advisor, or 1-888-NCL-CRUV. Norwegian Cruise Line ships registered with Bahamas and USA. What is that? Oh, yeah, it's a World Cup holder. Like the soccer tournament World Cup? Holder. For the world. Fits every car, holds every cup. It has a Carvana logo? Carvana made it. They buy and sell cars, so they made a car cup holder. [01:59] so uh [02:01] Got any good cups lately? Yeah, I used to. I just couldn't figure out where in the world to put them. The World Cup Holder. Brought to you by Carvana. Proud sponsors of the World Cup Holder. Sign up today to win yours at cup-holder2026.com. Not authorized or endorsed by FIFA. Not a real product. For parody and fair use purposes only. [02:35] Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. We're back. We're back in the States. We were just visiting. We were just visiting. [02:45] They let us in. They let us in. How are you feeling? [02:49] So I've been back one day longer than you, and the first day, the day I got back, I was incredibly tired because I... [02:56] You know, you do that thing where you live Tuesday twice, get off at 2 p.m., land at 8, 45 a.m. on the same day. Yesterday felt pretty good. Today I've been quite tired. My body has not yet adjusted. In the morning, it really thinks it should still be sleeping. I know. Only sleeping...

[03:12] three or four hours on the 14-hour flight home, and then having it be first thing Wednesday morning. It was rough. Yeah, it's a hard way to go through life. I did sleep from 8 to 5.30 last night, Wednesday night. So I'm hoping that I don't end up like you on the next day. Tomorrow's going to be the tough one. But it was a great, great trip. Thank you to everyone in Australia and New Zealand who came out. The shows were so fun. [03:42] the trip together and the people back here who held it all together while we were gone and put the podcast out. [03:47] Seriously. And Sophie, our fearless tour manager, Adrian Reed Austin, who traveled with us, and then everyone back here who held down the fort, just did an incredible job. So we're really lucky. [04:17] James Tallarico, and what even the threat of pressure from the FCC might mean for talk shows heading into 2028. [04:24] And finally, we bid farewell to one of my all-time favorite Trump administration officials, [04:28] DHS spokesperson, Trisha McLaughlin. [04:31] Quick note before we start. [04:33] Just want to ask everyone to think about becoming a subscriber, becoming a Friend of the Pod subscriber. We have, I think we have a new Polar Coaster out this week. It's a subscriber-only show that Dan Pfeiffer hosts. What's on Polar Coaster? People say it's the best show at Crooked puts out. Most people are in my family, but it is true. It's an excellent show. I never miss it, except so far I haven't listened to it because it's only been out for 24 hours. I haven't been asleep for most of them, but it's excellent, I hear.

[05:01] It's Grips. Do you want to talk about it? Yeah, go ahead. We were turning these organic plugs very organic because we're just doing it off the cuff. We talked about a lot of things, John, but we dug into a shocking new poll that shows that the 2024 election was redone right now. Kamala Harris to beat Donald Trump by eight points. How's that sound to you? I guess it sounds pretty good. [05:30] But it does tell us a lot about the political environment and we're going into the midterms and some things Democrats should be thinking about as we try to retake the House and the Senate. So here's the thing. You're going to want to listen to Polar Coaster. You're going to want to listen to our new episode of Pod Save America that's now subscriber only called Only Friends. [05:48] aptly. And we also have this growing number of Substack newsletters that you can access as well. You're going to get ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, Pod Save the World, offline, all your favorite crooked shows. All you have to do [06:01] is subscribe to Friends of the Pod at crooked.com slash friends, and... [06:04] You'll get the confidence to know that you are supporting independent pro-democracy media. So what are you waiting for? Go subscribe. Friends of the Pod. All right, let's get to the news. FIFA Peace Prize winner Donald Trump has assembled what the Wall Street Journal says is the, quote, greatest amount of air power in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. All right. [06:23] as the president inches closer to war with Iran, which would be the seventh military attack against another country in the last year. And what better place to make the case for war...

[06:33] than at the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, which on Thursday hosted the first real meeting of Donald Trump's Board of Peace, which is a kind of fake UN made up of corrupt oligarchs, tinpot dictators, human rights abusers, and other global also-rans who were deeply committed to Jared Kushner's vision of turning Gaza into the West Palm Beach of the Middle East. Here's some of what the board's chair for life, Donald Trump, had to say at the event. [07:03] Does everybody like the music? Yeah. These are the greatest world leaders. Almost everybody's accepted, and the ones that haven't will be. [07:15] Some are playing a little cute. It doesn't work. You can't play cute with me. This building was built for peace and nobody knew what to name it. And then Marco named it after me. I had nothing to do with it. I swear I didn't. [07:27] I had no idea. [07:29] they said there's a surprise coming I didn't know there's a surprise I thought they were going to give me a lot of money or something maybe cash can always use some extra cash I want to [07:38] Thank you. [07:39] Johnny and FIFA. [07:40] for all of the wonderful things. [07:43] They did and are doing. They gave me their first peace prize. [07:47] They gave me a peace prize. I think they saw that... [07:50] I got screwed by Norway, and they said, let's give them a peace prize. I mean, very good. Thank you, Johnny. I appreciate it. [07:55] In case you didn't catch that, they were swaying to Guns N' Roses, November rain. Then the president threatened any invitee to the Board of Peace that has not accepted yet. I guess that includes the Pope, who has not accepted.

[08:11] And then he just talked about the peace prize, the fake peace prize he got from FIFA. And the fake Institute of Peace that was fake naming for him that he was hoping for cash. Well, he took that instead. As he always is. [08:25] As he always is. As he always is. Also, good news, Dan. Trump generously committed at this event to giving the board $10 billion. [08:35] of our tax dollars, which is both about $10 billion more than I'd like to pay and wildly unconstitutional. But maybe I'm missing something. [08:44] Yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous and embarrassing for everyone involved, particularly the United States, that we felt the need to pull together an entirely fake thing so that Donald Trump could live out his model UN dreams for everyone to see. And you – [09:00] mentioned that chairman for life but i just want to dig in on that in case people miss this hmm [09:05] The Board of Peace is not part of the U.S. government. This is a separate organization. Donald Trump is the chairman for life. [09:11] it's in the charter that he stays as chairman whatever years he may have left [09:16] Up until he resigns or passes on to the next life, to the great model UN in the sky. [09:23] And so this $10 billion, which if the United States were to give it, I presume Congress would have to send it to – they'd have to authorize this, presuming we still believe in the power of the person. I'm not entirely sure. That is what the Constitution says if we still abide by that. I would assume that to be the case. But either way, Donald Trump will control that money.

[09:46] As a Democrat, let's say, God willing, that person is not in charge of the Board of Peace. That person has no say over the $10 billion we just gave Trump to control. The most the next president can do is appoint the U.S. representative to the Board of Peace. [09:57] who has equal footing with the representative, whatever, whatever, [10:02] dictator is also on the board at that point it is a could not be more ridiculous embarrassing and corrupt [10:08] Just remember that they completely dismantled USAID and now thousands, if not millions, of people around the world, many of them children. [10:18] will die, starvation and disease, easily preventable, because we apparently didn't have enough money for the small amount we pay in foreign aid. But $10 billion is going to the [10:30] Board of Peace that is ostensibly going to rebuild Gaza, but no actual plans for that. And there's no kind of oversight that can help us check whether that actually happens or not. [10:40] And the entire Gaza plan that Jared Kushner did a PowerPoint on a few weeks ago or months ago, whenever that was, was basically just like – it had only dealt with the building of buildings and not all of the very complicated political and governance questions that involve Gaza. And so there is no plan. This is just money that is going into a slush fund for Donald Trump for whatever reason. [11:03] I'm shocked that the Pope hasn't said yes yet. Unfortunately for peace lovers everywhere, Trump only briefly touched on the war he may soon launch against Iran, noting only that we'll know the outcome of the ongoing talks with Tehran in the next 10 days or so.

[11:20] And if there's no deal, quote, bad things happen. He did get a question about this on the plane later in the day. Take a listen. [11:27] Today on Iran, bad things will happen if Iran doesn't make a deal. I'm not going to talk to you about that. What is the goal if there is a U.S. military strike? Well, we're going to make a deal or we're going to get a deal one way or the other. I'm not going to talk to you about that, but we're either going to get a deal or it's going to be unfortunate for them. [11:57] enough time, 10, 15 days, pretty much maximum. Naturally, the president has been making a vigorous case for war to the American public and our representatives in Congress, right? [12:10] Oh, no, that hasn't been happening at all, has it? [12:12] No, there's been no discussion, no national debate, no congressional debate, no presentation of the specific threat that – [12:20] Iran poses the United States, no discussion of how this is in the U.S. interest to do this, what were to come next, because in the discussion about this in the run-up involving the protests and when Trump's red line that he's let – [12:34] a ranch up over repeatedly was that this would be unlike the strikes that [12:40] last year to try to take out the nuclear program. The this was to try to take out. We were told it was obliterated. Well, there's there's dust remaining, if you remember dust.

[12:53] And to try to take it out, because there's very little evidence that that actually happened, because if it did, we'd probably be in a different place right now. But this would be a war or an attack for regime change in Iran. [13:03] which has incredible consequences for – [13:08] The region for what happens if Iran becomes a failed state, who takes over if they take out the current regime, if they can try to make it a democracy, what role the US ground troops play in this, where is the international coalition? Maybe it's just the people who are on the board of peace will get involved in this. That is just – it's truly stunning that we could be, by the time you listen to this – [13:28] at war with Iran, and there's been zero discussion with the American people about what that means or why we're doing it. [13:35] I mean, the optimistic take here is that Trump frequently uses the threat of military action to sort of force concessions, to force a deal, and that even when he does make good on those threats, like he did with Trump, [13:49] the first strike on Iran's nuclear program, or most recently in Venezuela with the capture of Maduro. The military action is relatively quick and limited. Unfortunately, I'm not high or jet lagged enough to be that optimistic. What do you think? I saw right before we recorded in the Wall Street Journal that it's reported that they are thinking of an initial strike that might be more limited to sort of pave the way for a bigger deal, kind of like a first course appetizer strike. [14:19] That seems to me a – [14:22] scam by the people who've been trying to go to war with Iran for decades to get Trump to start this process.

[14:28] Because I think he probably is skeptical of an Iraq-like invasion of Iran, but if they could just start the hostilities, maybe they could get what they want. It seems incredibly poorly thought out. And this is not Venezuela. Maybe you can attack Iran, you can do some bombing, and they will not respond as happened last year. But there are incredible consequences if the regime falls and Iran becomes a failed state. Like what could happen there? [14:58] to millions of Iranians who flee Iran as refugees? Where do they go? How does that change the world? It's just like this is one of those things that could have huge global implications for the world, for the region, for the United States, for the global economy. And there's no evidence that this has been thought about in any sophisticated way as possible and certainly no discussion with the public about it. So it is – [15:25] It's just – it's incredibly – it's insane that we could be on the precipice of war with Iran and just – it's not even being discussed. And honestly, Democrats are not being loud enough about this. I think because we are getting very twisted around the axle of – around questions of national security and war and particularly national security of war when it involves Iran. And they're afraid of being on the wrong – like they tend to look at this and say, what is the best case scenario for Trump action and how do we ensure we're not on the wrong side of that? [15:53] We saw this with all of the caveats and the hemming and hawing around the strikes last year, and I'm worried that that is happening again. It's just like some people are talking about it, but more people should be talking about it.

[16:04] And, you know, I'm no expert on this, but. But we are friends with Tommy and Ben. We are friends with Tommy. But I don't think that you're going to change the regime with just like limited airstrikes alone without sending troops. And I don't think you'd be able to like just send in a quick SEAL team like they did with Maduro here. So I don't know what their regime change plans are, but I don't think it's going to be as neat as anyone might think or even as Trump might think. Also, Iran's like it's a country of 93 million people. [16:34] huge fucking country. And the idea that we are just like sending over there more forces and military buildup than we have anytime since Iraq, it is insane. [16:47] It is insane that this is happening right now. [16:49] It's just like one of the many. And we're like, well, we'll see what he does. 10 to 15 days. He's going to make up his mind. That's what Trump said. And you remember from the last time we struck a rant, he said he put a memory put a delay of a few weeks on it. [17:03] and he's like I'm going to sign the next two weeks and then he struck like two days later I was going to say that's how you always know it's about to happen [17:18] Posse of America is brought to you by Dose. While cholesterol is a major focus of modern health screenings, many are moving away from traditional treatments in favor of more natural solutions. Dose for Cholesterol meets this demand by offering a gentle, plant- and mineral-based approach to heart health. Dose for Cholesterol is a clinically-backed way to keep your cholesterol in check, helping you manage everything from triglycerides, LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol. Forget the messy powders and hard-to-swallow capsules. This is just a simple two-ounce daily shot with a refreshing mango flavor. It's packed with plant-forward ingredients like

[17:48] COQ10 and AMLA so you can support your body without any of the junk. Take control of your cholesterol with a formula designed to be easier on your system than standard clinical options. Dose for cholesterol gets delivered right to your door, making getting the support you need for your health easy to stick to. Plus, they have tons of other great products on their website, so check them out today. New customers can save 35% on your first month of subscription by going to [18:18] For 35% off your first month subscription. [18:22] Pod Save America is brought to you by Acorns. [18:25] You know, when I first got out of college, I was like, why would you put money away? Because you want the money. You don't want to put it away. What's going to happen then? You have to just wait. And then someone told me that that was pretty stupid. Because if you put some money away, just a little bit away, every once in a while, you can make money on your money. Yeah, and as I was careening through life with undiagnosed ADHD, I always thought tomorrow would have been the right day to do it. And there are so many tomorrows where you never did it. [18:50] And it was hard to think about the future as a real time that would exist. [18:54] So many of us only focus on where our money is today. Acorns is the financial wellness app that cares about where your money's going tomorrow. Acorns is a smart way to give your money a chance to grow. It's easy. You can sign up in minutes and start automatically investing your spare money, even if all you've got is spare change. Acorns grows with you. Whether you're just starting out or thinking about settling down, Acorns supports your big and small goals across every life stage. The Acorns potential screen shows you the power of compounding and how your money could grow over time.

[19:24] every day, week, or month to make sure you're building towards your goals. Acorns is all-in-one, no more finance apps cluttering up your phone. With Acorns, you can invest, save, and give your money a chance to grow in one trusted place. Sign up now, and Acorns will boost your new account with a $5 bonus investment. Join the over 14 million all-time customers who've already saved and invested over $27 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com slash cricket or download the Acorns app to get started. Pay non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns. [19:54] Thank you. [20:06] All right, so Trump spent the rest of Thursday in Georgia for a message event on his least favorite issue, but one that the White House and Republicans in Congress keep begging him to focus on affordability. Apparently, Susie Wiles and her deputy, James Blair, convened a big White House strategy session on the midterms earlier in the week that included a bunch of cabinet secretaries. I'm sure they were all helpful. According to journalist Mark Halpern, who got a readout from someone in the room, Blair, quote, [20:36] Donald Trump will do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say, not be data-driven. Everyone else has to stay on message and be driven by the data. In effect, [20:48] Two separate but related campaigns, end quote. Here's how the Trump part of the separate but related strategy sounded today during his visit to Marjorie Taylor Greene's former district in Georgia. And then I have to listen to the fake news talking about affordability, affordability.

[21:05] You notice, what word have you not heard over the last two weeks? [21:10] affordability. [21:11] Because I've won. I've won affordability. I had to go out and talk about it. [21:17] He won. He won affordability. He later said, we got things that are happening that are as good as what you've heard. I don't know if they can get better, to be honest. [21:29] He doesn't know if things... It used to be, are you better off than you were four years ago? Are you better off than you were last year? Now it's... [21:38] Personally, I don't think things could possibly get any better. The way you are living right now is the best possible way you could live in this country. It is the hottest country in the world. Hottest country in the world. What do you think? Good midterm message. You think this is what they landed on in that midterm strategy session? So a lot of thoughts on this. One, when Trump says you haven't heard the word affordability in weeks, it's he's not talking to voters because he would hear it if he talked to them. But it's also because. [22:06] everyone's been talking about the massive cover-up of his relationship with a child sex trafficker. So what I posit to you, John, is what if the Epstein files were a distraction from inflation? [22:18] Possibly. Possibly. It's all about that. It's all a distraction, Dan. It's all. But the strategy is idiotic and doomed to fail for two reasons. The first reason is you cannot have the president of the United States, the person with the largest megaphone and especially a president like Donald Trump, who gets more attention than any president in history.

[22:38] Saying, [22:39] something that is not on the talking points and then think the campaign is going to work because Scott Bessett is using the talking points at a press event in Iowa 1. Like it cannot work. You got to have your best soybean farmers out there. Well, I mean, he has a personal connection to soybean farmers, but that in and of itself will not be enough to deal with the fact that Trump is out there saying inflation is solved. Prices are down. What you were seeing in your bank account, in your grocery receipts is wrong. Everything is perfect. [23:09] By the way, the Dow's at 50,000. [23:11] And something you and I know from our time working for our president during a tough economy is – [23:16] Literally nothing makes voters angrier than using the stock market to tell them that the economy is going great. [23:25] It'll cause them to flip over the table in a focus group. It makes them so mad. Like it is a message designed to lose. And the second problem is their talking points, [23:35] are a strategy that you may remember from the Biden White House's strategy for selling the economy. [23:40] Really, which is focus on your accomplishments, focus on what you've done, like in the reporting on that in the from from Sophia Kai from Politico. She talks about how the big thing they're all supposed to emphasize is their efforts to lower prescription drug costs, which is the exact literally the exact same thing the Biden White House tried to do. And it's a good accomplishment, especially for the Biden folks, because that was a bigger deal. But at the end of the day, that is not you can't tell people who are mad about high prices that you lower their prices.

[24:10] You have to make an argument about how you are going to do a better job of lowering their prices going forward, and the other side is going to raise them. And they can't have that argument because Donald Trump will not let them have that argument because it implies that they have failed to lower prices. So they have to exist within the reality that he has created, and that is a reality that voters do not see. It sounds delusional to them. [24:29] Yeah, you didn't hear much in the speech today about how he's planning on lowering prices or doing anything to cut costs in the coming months at all. Nothing, nothing about that. Just think about the context for this is this is happening on a day where he pledged $10 billion. [24:49] to a personal slush fund that's ostensibly going to Gaza. [24:53] For Jared Cushman to develop condos there. He is starting a war. [25:00] In the Middle East, it is the exact opposite. And one of the things that [25:04] This wasn't really in this meeting, but the Trump folks have sort of acknowledged on background reporters is in the first year, they spent too much time doing foreign policy stuff. [25:15] And so that's why they have cut the press out of all their foreign leader meetings because those always were dominant. But on the day of the big affordability event, he's doing his foreign policy slush fund event and threatening a war. [25:30] Fucking – we have the dumbest people running this country right now. He also is – his whole thing on tariffs, he talked about tariffs a lot during the speech. He's really tied himself to the tariffs in a way –

[25:42] that has surprised even me. So he spent a ton of time in the speech just like bitching about how the Supreme Court has not handed down a ruling on his tariffs yet. And they might do it tomorrow. And they may do it tomorrow. You might be listening to this. The tariffs might be gone by the time you're listening to this. We're recording this Thursday afternoon, as most of you know, until you're probably listening to it Friday. So he's yelling about the Supreme Court. And he's saying tariffs are the most important thing in the world. [26:12] these tariffs. Now, he has walked back a good chunk of the tariffs at this point already, but [26:18] In part, I presume because all of his political advisors and economic advisors are like, hey, these tariffs are fucking killing us. They're probably hurting your polls. They're one of his least popular issues, along with immigration and the cost of living. And they are just attacks on a bunch of goods that people are just paying. I think there was just a report that it's about $1,000 a family that people are paying because of the tariffs. [26:48] He's just going to double down and try to just put them back on through some other method and then say that they're still important. Like it's just wild. You got to hand it to the guy. He genuinely believes in the tariffs. Genuinely believes in the tariffs. Because he's an idiot. But you're exactly right. Our friends at Navigator Research often do these word clouds where they ask people about either negative information they've heard about Trump or reasons why you disapprove of whatever else. And tariffs is always a giant thing in the middle.

[27:18] And tariffs are actually in place now. And so what he's done is just really impressive, which he has made his tariffs the reason for all high prices in people's minds. Yeah. Yeah, which is really impressive. Even American-made goods, people that have their higher prices. People think it's because of the tariffs because he keeps saying tariff, tariff, tariff. It's my favorite word. He says it all the time. I mean it's just really – I have to say it's honestly impressively stupid. [27:47] So – [27:47] Just to, you know, we're having too much fun here, too optimistic. So just to rain on our parade a little bit. One thing I noticed while we were gone last week is that the most recent economic data has been better than expected. Job growth in January was twice as high as expected. The inflation reading was better. Inflation slowed down a bit. [28:17] for? [28:19] There's not much you can plan here for, and the economic use has been a little bit all over the map. You sort of get a good jobs number, and then you get a bad jobs number, and then some downward revisions of the previous number. So it's hard to say what is actually happening. [28:33] And inflation is down a little bit, but we still have inflation, and that is the problem for Trump. And the ultimate problem is he cannot – look, if the economy gets better on the margins, it probably helps them, but –

[28:49] The fundamental problem is Donald Trump didn't promise to slow inflation, which is what what this report indicated. What Donald Trump promised to do was to lower your prices. [28:58] which he has not done, cannot do, and actually made worse with his tariffs. And so there is not a world unless we hit a deflationary cycle, which would be quite bad for the economy. Unless the economy goes into recession and we have a collapse. But voters are not going to see lower prices for tariffs. [29:16] food, housing, goods, they may just see a slower rate of increase. And that's not something I expect Republicans to be rewarded for come November. Yeah, I think Trump making things worse is the key there. Because, you know, there's a debate like, oh, when the economy is bad, does the president get too much blame more than the president deserves when the economy is good? Does the president get more credit than the president deserves? Like how much is just the [29:46] And this is a different situation where the guy literally gave a trillion dollar tax cut to billionaires paid for by health care cuts that made your premiums increase and then put tariffs on all the shit that you buy, which has made it more expensive. [30:16] It's just the facts of his first several years in office. And the thing that is different than with previous presidents is –

[30:25] A majority of voters only a year into his term blamed Trump for the current state of the economy. Normally voters – Because they should because he took all the credit for the tariffs. But normally presidents get years when they inherit – like Obama – people were still blaming Bush more than Obama for the state of the economy in 2012 when they were running for reelection. They understood what happened. [30:55] Thank you. [30:55] actually the economy and affordability and that that is the problem for him which is why marginal improvements in the economy would not help him as much as they would help another president who was not being specifically blamed for things being bad well i mean like think of the obama's first couple years um [31:11] We know that with the Affordable Care Act, taxes were only increased on the wealthiest Americans and that through the Recovery Act, everyone else got... [31:20] Tax cuts. [31:21] Right now and still [31:24] Obama shouldered the blame for the job loss that came from the Great Recession and just people's economic well-being, which was not very good. Now imagine Obama actually raised taxes on everyone and raised their health care costs all in the first two years as the economy was already bad. [31:42] that's basically what you have with Donald Trump yeah [31:46] Relatedly, Axios had a story on Thursday about how Republican strategists are starting to get nervous about Democrats bigger than expected wins in special elections over the past few months. One anonymous Republican strategist said, quote, the pattern is clear that there is at least a current 10 point Democratic overperformance from Trump 2024, and it's built on a fired up Democratic base and a sleepy Republican base. A 10 point Democratic overperformance. Are you as bullish as that Republican is nervous?

[32:15] Yeah, I'm a pretty superstitious guy, John. You know you are. We got a long way to the election. [32:19] I'm not cocky about this in any way, shape, or form. And I do believe that – [32:27] Gap is going to narrow some Republicans. Democrats are going to stay fired up. I'm very confident about that. Republicans will get more fired up as we get close to the election. This happens. This happens. [32:35] every cycle. And if we're being sort of brutally honest about it, Democrats had a 13 point over performance in 2025. It's been 10%. [32:44] Here, some of that has to do with the races that have happened in this short period of time this year, but it's obviously going to narrow. And just to put that in perspective, the final Democratic popular vote margin in the 2018 House races was 8.6%. Mm-hmm. [32:59] And we picked up 41 seats in that one. Now, the map is different. There's not really – Democrats are not picking up 41 seats at an 8.6% popular vote margin. But at 10 points, certainly the House is very much in good hands and the Senate is in play. The things that are keeping the Republican base – [33:18] deflated, [33:20] aren't really going to change a ton. Like I think their core voters are going to turn out more just because it's an actual midterm, not a special. And our voters are more trained to turn out specials, but the base is divided, right? There is in polling 15% of Trump voters who regret or have concerns about their vote in 2024. You have in the races we've had before, seven to 10% of Trump voters coming over to vote for Democrats. There are...

[33:47] you know, a quarter to, you know, a fifth to a quarter of Trump voters who are unhappy with what ISIS is doing. You have large swaths of Trump voters who are unhappy with what Trump's on the economy. And so those sort of structural problems are not going to change in a dramatic way in the next nine months, I wouldn't imagine. Yeah, what I keep looking at is Trump's approval rating in Ohio, Iowa, [34:10] Alaska. [34:11] Texas, which are, you know, we'd need two of those four states to [34:16] take back the Senate. Because I think that if Trump's under 50... [34:20] In those states? [34:23] Republican candidate... [34:24] in this polarized era, probably not going to get much higher than Trump's approval rating in those states. And so, you know, Trump's sitting at 48 or 49 even in Iowa, in Texas, in Ohio. Like, I think those candidates, especially like Sherrod Brown in Ohio, I think they have a pretty good chance. But I don't know what you think. They do. They just have to, it has to be a candidate who can win over Trump voters because there will be people who are unhappy with Trump, but... [34:54] think the Democrat is too far to the left or whatever else. And so – Like the environment is – I would put it this way. The environment is suggestive of a path to democratic victory if Trump's under 50 – [35:05] It's going to depend on how the campaign is waged and also who the Republican candidate is as well.

[35:19] Pod Save America is brought to you by Willie's Remedy. John, I fucking love Willie's Remedy. You know, when we go back and forth in these ads and I made sure that you were going to do Willie's Remedy because you're so honestly excited about it. I genuinely like, look. [35:32] Edibles or weed, weed. [35:35] You can be, you can have too much. And like, honestly, for a while, especially in the pandemic, I was like, it was like, I was not enjoying it at all. And I kind of put it all aside. And now I kind of do it once in a while, but I kind of lost its luster to me. But like Willie's THC infused social tonic, [35:50] I tried it. I genuinely love it. It gives you a social uplifting buzz without breaking your goals. It's perfect for socializing, boosting creativity, or just taking the edge off after a long day. I have found that. It's a premium THC infused social tonic crafted by the legendary Willie Nelson. And what I was actually thinking when I tried it is like, [36:08] Willie Nelson. [36:10] genius how'd he do it how did willie nelson who's been famously associated with thc was he also was he learning about the chemistry as he was doing it [36:20] Boy, are we lucky. It's a low-calorie, low-sugar alcohol alternative that actually works delivering a fast-acting, euphoric, social buzz without the regrets that come with alcohol. Willie's social tonics come in 5mg and 10mg doses with a best-in-class flavor experience so smooth and balanced you barely realize you're drinking a THC product at all. That's true. You can enjoy the tonic as a shot, sipped over ice, or mix into your favorite mocktail. I'll also just say, it's in an alcohol-like bottle, and it tastes good, but it also doesn't taste like you want to drink too much of it. It's made in a really smart way. You taste it, and you're like, oh,

[36:50] It's like something you shouldn't have too much of. You're not going to just guzzle the whole bottle. You wouldn't ever. But like, I just have a little bit and I just genuinely really, really like it. Willys is not that feared edible you ate too much of in college. Exactly. Each bottle of Willys is third-party lab tested for accurate dosage so you can trust and customize your experience. Willys' unique blend of THC, CBD, CBG, and L-theanine delivers a feeling of calm, clarity, euphoria, and relaxation. One shot of Willys helps you relax, unwind, and de-stress. Perfect for taking the edge off at the end of a long day or socializing with friends. Willys offers the kind of feeling that makes good company even better. Okay. [37:19] Willie sold out three times in the first six months. I just bought some. [37:22] Just bought some. Wow. Because I want to have more when it runs out. With over 50,000 plus happy customers and they just restocked, Willys ships directly to your doorstep in 40 plus states. Order now at drinkwillys.com and use code CRICKET for 20% off your first order plus free shipping on orders over $95 and enjoy life in the high country. [37:43] Speaking of the midterms, one midterm race that's been getting a ton of national attention lately is the Texas Senate race. [37:49] particularly the Democratic primary between Jasmine Crockett and James Tallarico, whose appearance on Stephen Colbert's show this week caused quite a stir. In case you haven't followed this story, here's what happened. On Monday, Colbert told his audience that, quote, we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers who called us directly that we could not have Tallarico on the broadcast.

[38:19] from the FCC based on new guidance that Chairman Brendan Carr issued in January about the commission's longstanding equal time rule, which requires broadcast television and radio shows to give candidates equal time if they have their opponent on as a guest. Now, there has always been an exemption, at least as far back, I believe, since 2006 for [38:49] talk shows, late night talk shows. But in this guidance in January, Carr said that he was considering getting rid of that exemption. [38:58] And sure enough, the FCC recently launched an enforcement action against ABC and The View for exactly that. The View had Tallarico on without also having Jasmine Crockett on or their primary opponent on or Ken Paxton or John Cornyn. Colbert interviewed Tallarico anyway, put the segment on YouTube and told his CBS audience what happened. [39:28] Late Show was not, quote, prohibited from airing the interview, only, quote, provided legal guidance. Here's how Colbert responded on his show on Tuesday night and the tough questions Carr got from Laura Ingram on Fox News on Wednesday. [39:42] Between the monologue I did last night and before I did the second act talking about this issue, I had to go backstage. I got called backstage to get more notes from these lawyers, something that had never, ever happened before. And they told us the language they wanted me to use to describe that equal time exception. And I used that language.

[40:06] I don't know what this is about. I'm just so surprised that this giant global corporation would not stand up to these bullies. I don't even know what to do with this crap. [40:17] Hold on. [40:26] Would you have gone after them for violating the equal time rule, as Colbert said? What we've said, as we've been very clear, is that broadcasters have a unique right and privilege, a license. And one thing they have to do is comply with the equal time rules. But complying with equal time would have meant... When has that been enforced? When's the last time that's been enforced? [40:45] In case you're just listening, the audience cheered when Colbert decided to crumble up the statement from his company's own lawyers and put it in a dog poop bag. [40:59] Dan, what do you make of all this? What's interesting is how the FCC got onto this because it's been a very – it's been a well-established principle for a very long time that – [41:07] While news shows are exempt from equal time laws, like if you have to interview a candidate or put a president on, that you're not then forced to give exact equal time to their opponent. [41:17] And – [41:18] They then for a long time had exemptions for interview shows. [41:22] like the talk shows, The View, Colbert. [41:26] The reason why Brendan Carr has taken this on is – [41:31] And I had forgotten this, I think, because my brain was protecting me from trauma. But in 2024, Trump got very mad that Kamala Harris went on The View and he did not.

[41:40] So his campaign filed a complaint with the FCC. [41:43] Biden had the by the SEC chair was a Biden nominee. She obviously did not act on this. So Brennan Carr and his never ending quest to appease Trump and be a hero of the MAGA right has decided to take on the view and now Colbert. And this really does have I mean, it's ridiculous. It's absurd. It's pretty stupid. [41:59] It has real... [42:01] implications just for how the 2028 campaign is going to be covered. Like no democratic, if this is the rule, no democratic candidate will go, it will be able to go on any broadcast talk show and, [42:13] And, [42:13] campaign because no talk show is going to agree to air to do equal interviews with all 27 democratic candidates or whatever and right and by the way republican candidates yes because i saw a lot of people be like well this isn't really about um like a republican democratic thing because it was about he needed to give equal time to jasmine crockett as well well yes on crockett but also paxton and cornyn and wesley hunt in the other side of the primary because if you look at the [42:43] all of the candidates running for that given office. So it's not just a primary, it's a lot of candidates that you would have to have on. [42:52] And the rule is so arbitrary and stupid in its application that John Ossoff, who is running for reelection in Georgia, was on – [43:01] Colbert the next night, but he has not officially filed a statement of candidacy. So he's not officially a candidate yet. So therefore, there is not the CBS's attorneys, the Paramount attorneys did not think it triggered the law.

[43:18] This is an idiotic – this is also so stupid because – [43:22] In this day and age, most of what happens in media is outside of the FCC's purview because the FCC is only in charge of what happens on the actual broadcast networks. We think of The View as a cable show, but it airs on ABC in a lot of markets, so therefore the FCC has regulation. But anything that happens on podcasts, YouTube shows, cable TV is outside of the purview of the FCC for these purposes. [43:52] of the equal time [43:54] uh, new guidance that he has issued. Yes. It was the changing it. Like all of right. Of course, all of right wing radio, [44:01] rose up because of a very specific change made by Ronald Reagan's FCC to allow there to be right-wing radio and not enforce the equal time on radio stations. [44:13] It is also just like my first instinct was, well, the people who screwed Colbert the most were his own lawyers because like they should have just fought it because who knows if like Brendan Carr would have done anything anyway. [44:31] is investigating the view for the exact same thing. So the lawyers did have good reason to believe that Carr would act. Now, if they were lawyers at a company that wasn't hoping the administration wouldn't get involved in, say, a purchase they wanted to make of, say, Warner Brothers Discovery, which they're still trying to buy at Paramount Plus, then perhaps the lawyers would have said, fuck Brendan Carr, we'll fight this.

[45:01] Yeah. [45:02] I mean the – like we have no evidence, explicit evidence that the Paramount lawyers did this as part – as an effort to curry favor with Trump. What we do know is the larger patterning practice with Paramount and David Ellison who runs Paramount Skydance in particular is to do things to win favor with Trump, to kiss up to him. And there are numerous examples. [45:32] to settle a ridiculous lawsuit around 60 minutes. There is the putting of Barry Weiss, [45:39] over at CBS, there is David Ellison telling Trump reportedly, according to several reports, that if he were to get his hands on CNN, which is owned by Warner Brothers Discovery, which Paramount is trying to buy, he would make major changes there with the implication being Trump would like those changes. And so when something is the entire relationship between Paramount, Ellison and the Trump administration is one that reeks of corruption. And therefore, [46:09] way to avoid pissing off Trump while you were trying – well, one of the selling points, one of the selling points that Paramount is making to the Warner Brothers Discovery shareholders is that they, because of – [46:20] David Ellison and Larry Ellison, who's a big Trump donor and one of the richest men in the world, one of their close relationships with Trump and the Trump administration means they are more likely to get regulatory approval for the purchase of Warner Brothers Discovery than Netflix, which is run by people who have donated to Democrats in the past.

[46:37] And as for the dispute between Colbert and CBS Paramount and the lawyers over what they actually said to Colbert, because they released a statement basically saying, no, we just gave guidance. We didn't tell him not to air it. [46:51] Colbert did make the point that the lawyers, as they always do, read every single word of the script and approved it before he said it. And what he said that night was that they told him in no uncertain terms that he could not air the Tallarico interview. [47:05] So, in case you're wondering if anyone's not telling the truth here, or who's not telling the truth. [47:11] Colbert's interview with Tellarico drew... [47:13] millions of views on YouTube. The whole thing backfired as it did with Kimmel, as it always does. Millions of views on YouTube. It also helped James Tallarico quite a bit, netted his campaign over $2 million of fundraising in 24 hours. Understandably, Jasmine Crockett isn't thrilled about any of this, though Colbert did note on Tuesday that she has been a guest on The Late Show twice. I think the last time was like May of 2025, I looked, so not since the race has heated up, but she has been on twice. This has been [47:41] and is getting to be more of a very messy and negative primary between Tallarico and Crockett. The press conference where Crockett responded to the Colbert thing sounded mostly like this. You know, we've all seen the attack ads that have come on behalf of my primary opponent, supposedly wants to get rid of superpacks, yet doesn't have anything to say about the negative ads, the ads that are darkening my skin and this continual kind of if she wins, we lose. It's not even undertones right now.

[48:10] It is straight up racist. [48:11] Early voting is now underway. [48:13] Uh, the primary is March 3rd. Um, where do you think the race stands right now? [48:19] The polls have been a little bit all over the map. And not many of them, I feel like. There have not been a ton of them. The most recent ones have had... [48:26] Crockett up a little bit on Tallarico, but there have also been some polls showing Tallarico up. A lot of the polls we've seen are either from... [48:34] Groups affiliated with one of the two candidates, either their super PACs or their campaigns, are, [48:40] or from... [48:41] Less well-known polling outlets. We have not yet got a New York Times Siena poll or a Wall Street Journal poll or CNN poll, kind of the polls that we can judge. They're likely from local Texas polls, so it's hard to say. Early voting is through the roof. Over the first couple of days of early voting, there have been twice as many votes cast as they were over the same period in 2022, and a quarter of all the early votes cast in 2022 have been cast in the first two days of early voting. [49:11] particularly high in parts of jasmine crockett's district um which may be a positive sign for her but hard to say in this early stage so it's anyone's guess who's going to win this primary we just there's not enough to tell us like how it exactly stands what do you think about how contentious it's it's gotten as a race it makes my stomach hurt and it really makes my stomach hurt when i think about the 2028 democratic presidential primary i know in this context

[49:41] the Tallarico Super PAC started the negativity by, say, they were running a very explicit ad saying that, [49:49] If Crockett wins the primary, we lose the general election. Electability is hanging over this, which is what's going to hang over the 2028 primary. We can talk maybe a little bit about that in a second here. But that conversation is always heated and freighted with a lot of racial and gender tropes and a lot of myths about politics and everything. And so it's quite messy. It's counterproductive, and it doesn't. [50:13] We'll see what happens in some of these other primaries, like Michigan, Michigan. [50:18] Illinois, Minnesota, and Maine, whether they get heated like this as they get closer. Because all those primaries have a fairly long distance before people actually start voting. This is the first moment we're down to the wire, and it's gotten nasty quickly. [50:31] We've obviously had we've had both candidates on the show, even though the FCC can't make us. [50:39] And so it's tough, right? Their policy positions are very similar, almost identical. [50:45] And I think there hasn't been a ton of polling in the race. And even if there were, I think we both know that like figuring out which candidate gives Democrats a better chance of flipping Texas is like, [50:57] Electability is always going to be at least somewhat of... [51:01] a subjective exercise, right? But what do you think about it in this context of this race? Well, so electability is purely theoretical. The only way to prove electability is to win.

[51:15] It's also a very fair question to ask here. We kind of need to win this Senate race. And when you have two candidates who are both very well-liked by Democrats, who have her ideologically very similar profiles... [51:25] I don't blame voters for saying... [51:28] I like them both. Which one is more likely to win? That's what I care about. [51:32] And... [51:33] Since electability is so theoretical, I think it's a good thing. [51:36] Perhaps the only data point you can bring to bear in such a conversation, and it's a very imperfect one, is does this candidate have a history of winning candidates? [51:46] Tough races, winning Republican voters, winning over swing voters, like Andy Beshear can come to voters and say, look at all these Republicans and whatever. Josh Shapiro and Gretchen Whitmer can say – or Ruben Gallego and John Ossoff can say, look at these swing states that I have a history of winning. Does that translate to a presidential? [52:01] Maybe, maybe not, but it's an argument to me. In this situation, neither candidate has a particularly long documented history of winning over Republican or swing voters or dramatically outperforming how a typical Democrat or typical Republican would do. Tallarico's first race was in a pretty purple district. He won narrowly. Since then – It was like a Trump – it was a Trump district, right, that he flipped, but it was just more purple. [52:31] has represented a very, very Democratic district. She's performed as you would expect a Democrat to do there. And so you can't make that point. So the only thing you can evaluate here is what is their stated strategies for winning the race?

[52:47] And I will stipulate that both of these strategies are overly simplistic because you kind of have to do both, but it's where they put their emphasis. Tallarico has said he is focused on trying to win over Republican voters, that he can appeal to – [53:01] Folks who voted for Trump disenchanted with Trump, Republican voters. Crockett has taken a different approach. She has said that her path to victory comes from her ability to excite [53:12] the Democratic base to turn out people in Texas who have, who as who are not typical participants in the political process, you know, that she can, she can mobilize voters. Like I said, neither of them have a record of doing either of those things per se. I mean, they have anecdotal examples, but it's not like, like manifest in their, in their histories. If you ask me which, [53:34] strategy on its face is more likely to succeed. [53:39] I would tell you Tallarico strategy. [53:41] Now, whether he can implement that strategy – [53:43] Better than Kroc can implement hers? I don't know the answer to that, and I don't think anyone does. But this is a state that Donald Trump won by double digits. [53:51] There is no path to victory without winning over a significant slice of people who voted for Trump and traditionally vote for Republicans. That is just the math of winning in Texas, and he is emphasizing that. And Krakow is emphasizing the opposite, and I think there is not a lot of history that mobilization – [54:08] in and of itself would be sufficient to win. [54:11] in a state like Texas. And that's, that is just the, that is just the fact of the matter. Now, I think both of them are being oversimplistic in their approach. I can't imagine that if either of them becomes the nominee,

[54:22] they will not then try to do both because you have like, you can win if you went over 6% of Republicans, but you don't turn out, [54:28] the full the democratic base at a high level you're not going to win if you turn out the democratic base like it's never been turned out before but you can't win over six percent six to seven or eight percent of republicans then you're also going to lose but like that's i had a long conversation with caroline about this on polar coaster but you can listen to if you subscribe to crookie.com friends and i'm going to write about this in message box i think the next couple days or a more deeper analysis of it but that's sort of my initial takeaway is if you like you're [54:52] If you want to come at this from the perspective of electability, if you like, look, if you like Tallarico or you like Jasmine Crockett, just go vote for that person. Right. If that's who you like more. But if you are bringing electability lens to it, then that's sort of how I would frame the analysis of it. I also think. [55:07] You and I have talked about this in the context of, I don't know, every election since we've been doing this, which is this idea that a person who doesn't vote or who has voted in the past but decides not to vote in some election is... [55:26] is so much different in their politics and political beliefs than someone who sometimes votes for Democrats and sometimes votes for Republicans, doesn't really... [55:37] play out like that. Like there is this view, there's this traditional view that I think we had prior to the Trump era, that the voter who stays on the couch, the voter who stays home is like a liberal or progressive and just hasn't been activated by a Democratic candidate who's exciting enough or progressive enough or liberal enough. And that someone who has voted Democrat in the past, or has or hasn't even voted in the past, but then votes for Donald Trump and votes for Republican is just as a conservative voter. And that's it. We've lost them.

[56:07] The truth is, after an election, when you go interview these voters, or even during an election, you go talk to them in focus groups, you realize that a lot of these voters who either... [56:16] switch parties or sometimes... [56:18] stay home altogether are just have very complicated views. You could call them maybe moderate, but on some issues, they're quite liberal. On some issues, they could be quite conservative, and they just have this real mix of political beliefs. And so it really hasn't panned out that the non-voter is just like a liberal sitting home waiting to be activated by an exciting candidate. And I do think what keeps people from voting and keeps people from, unless, obviously, voter suppression keeps people from voting. But if you are making up your mind about [56:48] to vote or not and making up your mind about whether to vote for a Democrat or Republican, what's keeping people from doing so, from casting that ballot, is just cynicism in this system and a belief that politics isn't going to really make a difference in their lives and a belief that both parties are too similar and that once everyone gets to Washington, all they do is just yell at each other and nothing gets done and the whole thing is hopeless and everyone's corrupt. That is the... [57:14] If there is a typical belief of someone who switches parties or just switches between voting and non-voting, it's that political profile. And so I do think that's one thing for people to keep in mind as you think about who you like, not just in this primary, but in other primaries. I will just say for me personally, I have been impressed with James Tallarico long before he was ever a Senate candidate. And I like that he is running a populist campaign. I like that he doesn't take corporate PAC money.

[57:44] He says the real divide in the country isn't between left and right, but between top and bottom. [57:51] You and I have talked about this as well, that like a Democrat who can both sort of run against a corrupt system and corrupt special interests and the billionaire class and someone who could also reach out to voters who were disillusioned with the political system is probably like the best kind of Democrat and one that we think would have a good chance. [58:21] McCrockett or about Ken Paxton or John Cornyn or even Donald Trump. He's like trying to make it in some ways bigger than politics itself. He talks about how the most important thing is to love your neighbor. And yes, that very much comes from [58:33] his faith. But this idea that you should reach out and love your neighbor, no matter what they look like, where they come from, what they believe, how they pray. I think that's a pretty good political philosophy for someone who wants to be in government, regardless of where you come from and what race you're running in. And so I do think that Tallarico sort of not only will appeal to more people with that philosophy, but it's just a really good philosophy and a public servant. [59:03] together last week. Yes. And I've really wrestled with this because I do find the conversations about electability to be... [59:12] exhausting and complicated and freighted with all kinds of racial and gender tropes. And, you know, we dealt with like this was such an overhang in 2020 and there was a tax on –

[59:25] Candidates of color and women candidates in that race that really affected the entire debate. [59:33] And also, like James Tallarico, he – [59:37] I'm not saying he's a message box subscriber, but he's a message box candidate. Like he is, he is on like, [59:42] Like, it is what I... [59:44] like advocate for and how he's running his campaign. So I obviously like that a lot. I also honestly have really liked Jasmine Crockett because she's like the other end of the message box candidate is the candidate who's out there, like knows how to get attention, is out there doing things. I really enjoyed interviewing her in D.C. And if the net result of this is she's not in Congress, I think that's a loss to the Democratic caucus because we just have so few people who can communicate. [1:00:06] in a modern fashion. So that's why I sort of default to the strategy question, like what strategy is the one, which approach for winning that I think is more likely to succeed on its face. We know whether the candidate is the right, can actually execute on that in what is a very hard state to begin with. I don't know, but it's how like Tallarico strategy in terms of like voter outreach makes more sense to me as a strategy that can win Texas. But I'll say I've been wrong many times before. So this wouldn't be the first. Yeah, no, I feel bad for being so positive about [1:00:36] to tell erico because that probably means he's not going to win but um i will say like i think it is i think it is maybe i should maybe we should just uh i'll endorse crockett right now so at least we'll pick one we'll get one of us yeah who's that third candidate who also wants to get on colbert yeah good question um i think it is unfortunate that um maybe inevitable but unfortunate that um race and identity has become such a big issue at least in the online conversation and now i guess in the campaign itself judging by the ads and the candidate statements or at least

[1:01:06] to Crockett right there. And one of the reasons I think it's unfortunate is because when I think of what is appealing to me about Tallarico's message and strategy and the way he's approaching the campaign, it reminds me of [1:01:19] Barack Obama. It reminds me of AOC. It reminds me of Stacey Abrams in Georgia when she came close to unseating Kemp. It reminds me of Ruben Gallego in Arizona. So I don't think that this is, to me, at least, what is appealing about Tallarico has anything to do with identity. And so I just, I think that to have this sort of populist style where you're also trying to reach out to bring in voters who haven't always been with the Democratic Party, I don't think that is, [1:01:49] endemic to any specific identity or area or geography, right? Like I think that anyone can do it. And I think that people, people of different races in different parts of the country have done it in the past to great success. [1:02:01] Thank you. [1:02:02] I think two things about this is one is, [1:02:07] It would be great if people could lower the temperature over the last two weeks. And obviously, I looked to see if I could find any reporting or comment from the Tallarga Super PAC about the accusation about darkening skin. Obviously, if that's true, that is horrendous and that should be disavowed immediately. Yeah, of course. [1:02:26] But I think the two things that – [1:02:29] would help lower the temperature would be, [1:02:32] The idea that Jasmine Crockett cannot win... [1:02:35] I think is, is an unfair accusation. You can argue that Tallarico may be more likely to win, but we all should bring a little more humility to know what? Yeah. We shouldn't be thrown out. Can't wins for anyone. Yeah. So that's one. And two, and this isn't coming. I haven't heard Crockett or her campaign say this. We hear this from a lot of online supporters, this idea that because Tallarico wants to reach out to Republicans, um,

[1:02:55] that he is some sort of Fetterman. You heard this about Plattner, too, that he's going to be like Fetterman, he's going to get to the Senate, and he's going to become a Republican and a Democrat in name only and side with the problems. There is no evidence to suggest that. He has been a very down the line. If you don't get Republican votes, we're never winning the presidency again. We're never winning the Senate again. It's just fucking math, people. Come on. Yeah. And so if we could just... [1:03:19] Like stop with those two accusations and just try to like a good final two weeks here, because if Tallarico wins the primary, he's going to need Crockett support to win the general. And if Crockett wins the primary, she's going to need Tallarico support to win the general. And so we got to run a primary where we can put this back together again in two weeks. Totally agree. [1:03:46] One last thing before we go. On Tuesday, it was widely reported that Trisha McLaughlin, the Department of Homeland Security's top spokesperson, is leaving the Trump administration. [1:03:55] McLaughlin was one of the Trump administration's most consistent and ineffective liars, which is quite a feat in that administration. Her accomplishments include justifying the torture of the innocent people our government sent to a torture prison in El Salvador, slandering the two Americans our government killed as, quote, domestic terrorists, and initially blaming an infant's parents for ICE nearly killing their baby with tear gas. This was in Chicago.

[1:04:25] from the agency she works at for an anti-immigration ad campaign. Dan, is it too much to hope that her potential future employers may not want to hire someone who's not just a liar, but an ineffective one at that? Immigration has gone from Trump's best issue to now one of his worst issues. Most Americans don't believe a word, the Department of Homeland Security says, or the government. I think ICE has a 20-30% approval rating at this point. [1:04:55] Fox pundit or... [1:04:56] the next White House press secretary? Well, two things. One, there's a lot of failing up in Republican politics, so it's very possible she will end up on Fox or what is basically big on Fox, which is White House press secretary. But I kind of want to clear out here because – [1:05:08] You have been yelling about, podcasting about, tweeting about Trisha McLaughlin for a year now. [1:05:15] I can't remember. Were you on the plane? Was it during your day off in Sydney from the beach? Were you tweeting about this or was it on the plane? I cannot remember, but I saw the news. [1:05:24] And I was shocked to get like a – [1:05:26] Extends a Twitter thread from you celebrating her departure and documenting some of her lies from Australia. [1:05:32] I have to be honest... [1:05:34] I wasn't even celebrating because, first of all, she might have started planning. It's not like she got fired. She may have started planning to leave in December, apparently, so she's just leaving. A likely story from a liar, John. Yeah, that is true. That is true. She did tell... [1:05:49] The Cincinnati Inquirer, where she's from, I think she's like moving back to Cincinnati with her family. And she did say that she can't rule out. I know, I know. Your wife's hometown. I know. And she said that she can't rule out running for office in the future.

[1:06:02] Which, if you're running against her, sign me up. But mostly, it just... [1:06:09] It got me angrier. And look, it's... [1:06:13] It is her because she is the face of the administration, but it's like, you know, my anger and rage towards Kristi Noem, Corey Lewandowski, fucking Greg Bovino. [1:06:22] like Stephen Miller, as you know, J.D. Vance. Right. Obviously, Trump. But like all of them over what they have done and what they are continuing to do on immigration is just it is so intense. Like, did you find I skipped reading this for a while because I knew it would get me both angry and sad. But did you end up reading the ProPublica story about all the kids in Dilley's detention center? [1:06:52] put it [1:06:54] in our many group chats together for this specific purpose that i felt like you should find it organically and i shouldn't whatever you were doing at the moment i shouldn't ruin your day with it well i had found it but i was like okay to what end am i going to read this and just be like so angry and everyone's tweeting about it like i don't need to tweet about it too if there's been enough tweets but then i was i i like caught it like today um is it just preparing for the pod because there was a story pulled out of it that was in a miami paper about um this nine-year-old [1:07:24] Maria Antonia Guerra. And so wild story, right? She lives in Colombia with her grandmother and her mother lives in New York, I believe. And her mother had overstayed her visa, but then married a U.S. citizen and is applying for a green card.

[1:07:46] So like in the application process, everything legal, and they had... [1:07:51] they had met, right, the daughter and the mother in Florida to go to Disney World. And so they went to Disney World once in the summer, I think, and they had so much fun at Disney World. They're like, let's go back in October for Halloween and we'll meet there. And so the nine-year-old flies from Columbia, where she lives with the grandmother, to Miami to meet the mother who's there with her. [1:08:21] going back to Disney World, they're detained by immigration. [1:08:25] Don't tell them why they're detained. Don't tell them why that either of them, um, isn't, shouldn't legally be in the country. They are detained in the airport for 42 hours straight. And then they are sent to Dilley in Texas where they were held for four fucking months. This girl was like, [1:08:43] And everyone's, oh, well, then deport him. Like, she lives in Colombia. She is a citizen of Colombia. And they still, we just held her in jail for four months. And the reporter who wrote the ProPublica story, which everyone should go read, she got all these letters. She asked for letters from a lot of the kids who were held in these detention centers. And she writes this letter. She said, [1:09:04] In one letter decorated with small hand-drawn hearts, rainbows and sad faces alongside a sketch of Maria and her mother in government-issued sweatsuits, the girl wrote that she felt like, quote, being here was my fault. I only wanted to be on vacation like a normal family. I'm in jail and I am sad and I fainted two times here inside. When I arrived every night, I cried and now I don't sleep well. I don't eat well. There's no good education and I miss my best friend, Julieta, and my grandmother and my school. I just really want my house.

[1:09:34] read that and then you read the statement from the department of homeland security about dilly and the conditions at dilly and it just is this fucking anodyne statement that says um all detainees are being provided with proper medical care and all are provided with three meals a day clean water clothing bedding showers soap and toiletries and that they have certified dieticians evaluate the meals and everything is great so it's like [1:10:00] You know what? [1:10:01] That's your legacy, Tricia McLaughlin. Whatever other job you want, that's your legacy. Christine Ohms, Stephen Miller's, J.D. Vance's, all the rest of them. They are keeping these children locked up in a detention center in horrible conditions who are getting sick and who are going to have fucking trauma for the rest of their lives. For what? For absolutely fucking nothing. It just requires you to be such... [1:10:26] an empty soulless human to encounter a child in distress and not do everything you possibly can to help that child be in a better situation. [1:10:37] Yep. To err on the side of detention, not on the side of what is best for the child, whether this is Liam from Minnesota, whether it is this girl, it's all the kids in that story. It's just like I don't even understand how like as a human being you could approach this situation that way. [1:10:54] And they will say, and I know J.D. Vance said this about Liam, he's like, what are we supposed to do? So if people who are eligible for deportation have children, are you never supposed to? [1:11:04] deport the child with the parent. I thought we didn't want family separation.

[1:11:07] I am not saying, I don't think any of us are saying, that there are not going to ever be situations where, like, a horrible thing happens, and because a family was here illegally and has to be deported, that the children of that family also have to be deported and they have to spend some time. We're not saying that. Like, exceptions like that, bad things happen, and it is not the fault of children, but sometimes they pay the price. Like, this happens in the world. We're not fucking naive to that. But... [1:11:36] There is a law in place, right? Or at least the court's interpretation of the law, the Flores Act, which says that children are not supposed to spend more than 20 days in detention. The Trump administration has decided that that no longer applies, but they don't care about the fucking Flores declaration. If they can just have kids in there for months at a time under these horrific conditions. So no, this is not just, oh, we can't deport anyone who has children. This is like you are locking up kids [1:12:04] Children and ruining the lives of children for nothing because you couldn't get your fucking act together because you wanted to perform cruelty, whatever the reason is. [1:12:15] I mean, the Liam example is a perfect one, which is there was a different option, which was send him home to his mother. Yeah. But they would rather not admit – they would rather keep a small child in a de facto prison camp than admit they are wrong or do something that suggests weakness. [1:12:32] But it's not like being kind to children is not weakness. That's just being a basic fucking human. Proven by the fact that in this case, too, with Maria.

[1:12:41] After four months, suddenly one day they opened up Dilley and they let out 200 people, including her. [1:12:47] Just let her out. [1:12:48] And like, how long are these children going to be traumatized? How like how many of them have had to go through just fucking hell for nothing. But it took them 200 days to hold them in a jail. That's more than a like almost a year of a child's life in like critical developmental phases. It's fuck. Fuck these people, man. [1:13:06] Fuck these people. [1:13:08] Anyway, that's what I'm not. Goodbye, Trisha McLaughlin. I was not celebrating. I want it to be a. [1:13:13] A fun, lighthearted thing when I said it, but then I read that story and I'm like, no, I'm just angry. I'm still angry. I would say in the outline, this is referred to as dessert. It's not, no. It's not dessert, no. Look, we could have done... [1:13:24] rfk and uh who did he do the exercises kid rock kid rock yeah we could have done shirtless rfk and kid rock didn't do that well we couldn't there are no words in it doesn't work in a podcast that was the problem we've looked very seriously at it but it's just it's just music and there's poop in the water in dc that's another one but i don't know is poop in the water ever funny john no i don't think so [1:13:44] You have small children who take baths. It's never funny. [1:13:48] Oh, God. Don't chinks it. [1:13:51] Anyway, Dan, hopefully next time we meet, you and I will be... [1:13:55] Less jet lagged. We will be together on Tuesday. Oh, my God. Oh, oh. Talk about it. Yes. All right, everyone. Yeah, Tuesday is going to be the State of the Union. But even before that, Lovett's going to be back in the feed with a new show on Sunday. Lucky him. And lucky you. Lucky you.

[1:14:15] Bye, everyone. Have a good weekend. [1:14:18] If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad-free and get access to exclusive podcasts, [1:14:25] YouTube, or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review. That helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production. [1:14:35] Our producer is Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reid Cherlin is our executive editor. [1:14:43] Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. [1:14:52] Matt DeGroat is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Hefcoat, Mia Kelman, Carol Pellaviv, David Tolles, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. [1:15:11] . [1:15:16] Thank you.