The Trump Comeback and the 2024 Election Results

Thumbtack presents Project Paralysis.

I was cornered.

Sweat gathered above my furrowed brow, and my mind was racing.

I wondered who would be left standing when the droplets fell, me or the clawed sink.

Drain cleaner and pipe snake clenched in my weary fist.

I stepped toward the sink and then-Wait, why am I stressing?

I have Thumbtac.

I can easily search for a top-rated plumber in the Bay Area, read reviews, and compare prices, all on the app.

Thumbtack knows homes.

Download the app today.

This month on Explain It to Me, we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well: collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes, and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It to Me, presented by Pureleaf.

ABC Tuesday, Dancing with the Stars is back with an all-new celebrity cast.

You have the crew!

Robert Irwin, Alex Earle, Andy Richter, Shen Affleck, Darren Davis, Lauren Howreggie, Whitney Levitt, Dylan Efron, Jordan Childs, Ilaria Baldwin, Scott Hoyd, Elaine Hendricks, Sanielle Fischel, and Corey Feldman.

This season, get ready to feel the rhythm.

If you got it, flung it.

Dancing with the Stars premieres live.

Tuesday, 8-7 Central on ABC and Disney Plus.

Next day on Hulu.

Welcome to Raging Moderates.

I'm Scott Galloway.

And I'm Jessica Tarlove.

So, Jess, how you doing?

How you doing?

Not on drugs.

And so this is natural, natural vibes of what's going on.

I feel remarkably okay

for

the, and we'll see, you know, as the votes continue to trickle in, but like the shellacking, right, that the Democratic Party got and Kamala got.

And for me, it feels so different from 2016 where it was skies falling, how did this happen?

Let's go blame Jim Comey for everything, which I still do.

Um, this feels like a big soul-searching moment.

And I'm more comfortable as a highly educated elite.

I get like going back to school, right?

Like, I got to fix this.

Like, how do we rebuild our coalition?

So, I'm in that zone, but emotions can be volatile.

I'm sure I'll change in a bit.

What about you?

So, I'll play out kind of the blow by blow here.

I was actually feeling pretty good leading up to the election, the last few days.

And

I

was watching, and

I had kind of PTSD or

deja vu of 2016 when they were going over the Florida map.

And I can do math and I know where districts are blue or red.

And I just looked at the math.

I'm like, oh, she's going to lose Florida by a lot, which means she's lost the election.

And

I don't know, I do believe that the majority of media, except for your program, has a pretty strong liberal bias and wants to believe.

I mean, for every, I can't tell you how many times I saw on Amazon and CNN, which is the ones I was pinging in between, they kept talking about her viable path when the path was literally disappearing.

And I thought, oh my gosh, it got so late, so early.

And I started doing, and I'm curious, I want to hear about your coping mechanisms, if you need them.

But I thought, I was really bummed out.

I was surprised how bummed out I was.

And I thought, I know.

We had Dan Harris on the pivot pod, and he has this method for stress.

around mindful breathing where you do the straw method where you breathe in through your nose

one and then

two seconds on the straw breath exhale through your mouth and i did that five or six times and just so you know jess that shit does not work for me yeah i was gonna say i'm not even gonna try that that's like it would never work it totally ineffective like when dan says it you believe it and so i went to my coping mechanism i did a pirone then a xanax and then another pirone or what i affectionately call the panics method

and i was up till four in the morning watching her lose, you know,

slowly then suddenly.

And I found,

it wasn't a total loss.

I found I am an amazing dancer on prescription-grade pharmaceuticals, especially to 80s music.

So there was, there was, that was a bright, shiny light.

And as of an hour ago, big move hour ago, I upgraded from my pajamas.

to athleisure.

So I've been in my pajamas, drinking, watching Netflix, and my stocks are rocketing.

So this is basically COVID again.

I was going to say, it's actually that you're a woman from 2016.

100%.

That's what it looks like.

100%.

What happened with you?

So give us the blow by blow at Fox.

Yeah, it's like there's something about public humiliation that obviously just like hits differently.

And I say humiliation, not in that anyone was, everyone was actually incredibly generous to me.

And of all people, Carl Rove was the most vehement defender of Kamala, where he said

this was a fundamentals election, and there was basically no way to win this.

Like, if 70% of the country thinks you're on the wrong track, and if the prices of necessities are still too high for people, and you are the sitting vice president who did not do a good job detaching herself from Biden,

which we should talk about, like how she could have done that better.

But he said, like, she couldn't have won this election.

And I, I thought that I was like, bless you, Karl Rove.

Um, because he was doing it also to be generous to me, which I appreciated, but to also really call balls and strikes, which I feel like is happening so infrequently in media these days, because everyone has their horse, right?

And they're just like, I'm going to keep saying this no matter what, no matter what, no matter what.

And

he was like, let's take a step back and actually look at the terrain of all of this and what she could have possibly accomplished.

So I appreciated that.

But I was on like three or four times throughout the evening.

I was on when they called Pennsylvania for him.

So that's over, right?

And Fox was the first to call the election in full, right, to say that he had won.

And then I sat around about an hour waiting for him to start speaking.

And I thought he did a good job.

It, you know, there was no harshness really to it.

It had some of the unifying stuff.

It was typical Trump, like, look at all the most beautiful people who did the best job, et cetera.

But it is

continues to be, even though I have this awesome job all the time, one of the most incredible experiences to get to be sitting there, like on an election night when history is made.

And we'll see how.

you know, the votes once everything is fully counted out of the West Coast.

So it could be weeks, how it shakes out.

But he pulled off this comeback of unprecedented levels in being able to do this and changing the map in terms of how red blue states are getting.

You know, Jersey, only D plus five, New York, only D plus 12.

And you're right about Florida.

You know, when Miami-Dade went like that and it, you know, at that level for him, you think like, oh, something, something is afoot.

here that is larger than just Donald Trump is going to be the next president.

Yeah, there's, let's talk a little bit about what issues showed up and what didn't.

I thought that it was basically three things.

It was inflation, immigration, and

incumbency.

And so on inflation, they didn't do a good job of basically convincing people, okay, our inflation is bad.

It's better than it is anywhere else.

And this is what we've done to bring it down to pre-pandemic levels.

They just weren't successful talking about that.

In terms of immigration, the Republicans were much more effective at convincing people that immigration has gotten out of control.

There was some soft tissue.

A lot of people don't think that this administration has gotten it right around immigration.

But I think the reason she lost is incumbency.

And I think Vice President Harris can hold her head high.

I think given the card or the hand she was dealt with 107 days.

And just who she is, she's not an inspiring retail politician in my view.

I thought she did her level best.

I go back to the debate.

She prepared.

She had the world on her shoulders and she absolutely destroyed him.

I think she gave it her best shot.

I don't, I think she can hold her head high.

She left it all on the field in my view.

The Democratic Party and Joe Biden.

Joe Biden should be buried in a crypt next to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Dianne Feinstein that said, I'm a fucking narcissist and I have ruined my legacy.

For them not to hold him to account and do what he said he was going to do in 2020

and made a transition president for everyone around him not to have an honest conversation that you sound like someone about to go into hospice.

This just isn't going to work.

And to basically throw someone who wasn't combat ready to not give them the benefit of

the process that produces great candidates in this country, specifically the primary process.

What happens in a primary is that it's a person that not only rises and

gets battle tested, but the person that rises in that moment.

And you find that some people just foot well to the moment.

And no incumbent that was anywhere near an administration during a period where two-thirds of America feels like America's on the wrong track has a shot in hell.

There'll be a lot of forensics here, but I think the commission looking at the problems here, I don't think it was Vice President Harris.

I think she did the best she absolutely could.

But the Democratic Party and Joe Biden made huge

errors here in terms of what showed up and what didn't.

What didn't show up that was the biggest shocker in my view.

I don't think if you didn't know bodily autonomy was supposed to be an issue, you wouldn't think it was an issue.

She had fewer women vote for her than voted for Biden in 2020.

I mean, it just wasn't, it just didn't, now, whether that's because he, Trump, was able to distance himself in five of seven states at referendums that went pro,

pro-choice, such that people thought it's really not on him, but it did not impact him whatsoever.

Your thoughts on issues that showed up or didn't show up?

Well, I think that we need to be more specific about

who showed up and what women did, because it's white women, again, that voted for Trump.

It was 52% of white women and it was 53% of white women in 2016.

So that was to our conversation earlier in the week about the shy Trump or the shy Kamala voter.

That's who it was.

And it was a shy Trump voter again.

And,

you know, we could get into, and I'm sure people will about the decision that Ann Selzer made in weighting

certain categories of women.

more than others, like senior women count for more than just one, right?

If you're thinking of it as like one person, they're like one and a quarter because they seniors show up and women show up and they feel extremely passionately about this.

But that did shock me, and it completely turns

the thinking that Democrats had about these abortion referendums on its head because

we were hurt exponentially by the fact that they could make that choice, that they could vote for Donald Trump and they could vote to preserve their right to choose.

You see, the margins in Arizona and Nevada, two key swing states, are astronomical.

They voted in Arizona, I think it's 23 points for being able to have the right to an abortion and 28 points in Nevada.

Both chose Donald Trump.

I think some of that is that Trump has always seemed like a more moderate person,

no matter what.

But the other problem with it is that we made it the be all and end all.

And a lot of conservatives were right in saying,

this will matter, but it will not matter like you think it matters.

And the messaging about making it an economic issue, et cetera, that didn't resonate because, A, they thought the other guy was going to be better for the economy, right?

Like Kamala broke it, Trump will fix it, is

what people essentially voted on when they went to the polls.

And there's a big piece in the Times about, you know, how could Trump and abortion win and the kind of reckoning that we're going to have to do.

in the future of understanding that, that the feelings about Roe or bringing back the Roe standard, et cetera, are more complicated.

I also think they dropped the ball on talking about the court appointments.

So Donald Trump will probably have two more court appointments in the next four years, right?

Like, I mean, Thomas and Alito, I assume, will go, even if they feel fine, because we don't know what comes in 28 and beyond.

And then he will have hand-selected five of the justices.

And I forget what year was the last time that a president had been responsible for a majority of the justices, but it was a long time ago.

So that was something that was really major to me.

The low propensity voters, the dudes that you talk about all the time,

showed up, right?

Like there were all these surveys that said that, you know, they're saying that they're really interested, but who knows, right?

Like maybe they have something better to do that day, or maybe they don't get off the couch, or maybe they're at work.

They don't really care that much, but they really enjoyed him on Joe Rogan.

They all turned out.

And

this shift amongst Latino men, I think, is really something that, and it feels like that could be more enduring, especially with the contrast between accepting that a lot of the stuff that he says is racist, the demonization of migrants.

They really separate themselves from that group, right?

Like that doesn't have to do with me, or are there all these interviews about how they don't think that he's serious about the deportation force, people who have undocumented parents and do not think that he's going to come to kick them out of the country?

And we obviously did not talk about the seriousness of that issue well enough for people.

And I don't mean that we didn't talk about it because we did talk about it all the time, but it was all the sky is falling.

And this feels like a chill out election to me.

Like it's just not that fucking serious, right?

Like we lived through Trump before.

We'll live through Trump again.

And we would rather be governed by

people who look like they're having fun.

right?

Who don't look like they're melting down all the time.

They're not lecturing me.

Some of it, I don't enjoy.

I think he goes off on these tangents.

Maybe he's losing his mind a little or whatever.

But like

Dana White is kind of fun and Tony Hinchcliffe was funny on Netflix.

Maybe I didn't think he was that funny at MSG.

And I do think this cool realignment issue is going to be a really big deal.

Like we always fashioned ourselves as the cool kids and they really told us that we're super uncool.

And that's a tough pill to swallow for people who have always owned the culture like how does barack obama feel right now and michelle obama as

representatives of the rock stars of the democratic party and they basically got the middle finger in all of this not from black women should say they showed up black women and jewish women two strongest demos for kamala in this

I'm trying to think of how to brand this election.

So far, I've come up with the kids are not all right or the manosphere election.

And I'll tell you why I think that.

I'm curious to get your reaction.

Of all the age groups, the one that swung the furthest towards Trump were 18 to 29 year olds.

And I mean, violently, 11 point difference between 20 and 2024 in terms of who they voted for.

And I think they're facing a situation where The rent and buying a house has almost become unattainable for them.

And they're looking looking at an administration that wants to bail out the one-third of population that went to go to college and they didn't.

They see everything around them getting more expensive and they don't feel good about their economic prospects.

And they have social media algorithms telling them that their life sucks and that everyone else is partying a Coachella and has a boyfriend with ripped abs except you.

So they're anxious, they're depressed, and they don't want change.

They want disruption.

And there's a difference because

they might really be turned off by some of what Trump says, but your point's a really interesting one.

They're sick of the meltdown, and they're sick of Democrats being self-appointed social justice cops.

In addition, the other age group that flipped the most is 45 to 64-year-olds, which I would describe as their parents.

And that is, if your son's in the basement vaping and playing video games and has no economic or romantic opportunities and can't move out of the basement because everything's so damn expensive,

You know, okay, maybe,

maybe she's better on social issues.

Maybe he's offensive.

I don't care.

My kid isn't doing well.

So I would call this what I call the kids are not all right.

And then the other thing is what I'll call the Manosphere election.

And we said early on, or I said early on, I thought this was going to be about not a referendum on women's rights, but a referendum on who painted a more positive vision of masculinity.

And essentially, Trump embraced the Manosphere.

He went on the five biggest Manosphere podcasts, including Rogan and Alex Schultz and Theo Vaughan, I think, and then I forget the other two.

And I think it paid off hugely for him.

But this was about, in my view, young people are not doing well.

And it doesn't matter.

People don't have the luxury of thinking about bodily autonomy or what's going on in Ukraine when their kids are not doing well.

And then when I think about the group and then Latinos, oh my God, the biggest switch, hands down,

was

I believe it was Latino men that went like 23 points or something or 26.

Oh my God, 26 points.

That's an earthquake.

And the interview I saw that was really shocking to me was a lot of Latinos who've been here for a while are like,

No, I don't want illegal immigrants coming across the border.

This is out of control.

And the border states have gone aggressively, aggressively towards Trump.

Anyways, I'm curious if you have another theme for this election.

What do you think of the idea of this being the manosphere or the kids are not all right election?

I like it.

I mean, this excellent marketing.

And I don't, I don't think in slogans as well as you do,

but it's also the anti-elite election, which you work on it.

You make that sound better.

But,

you know, there was an erosion in the Biden coalition, which he won with, with working class voters across the board, you know, not white working class, just working class.

And I was particularly struck by an interview.

It was on MSNBC with a prison guard who had voted Denn, Hillary Biden, then voted for Trump.

Interview asked him why.

And he said, the party doesn't make me feel good about myself.

Like they look down on me.

And I hadn't taken a step back because we think of, you know, the way that we talk about groups, you know, it's like, well, what else am I supposed to call them?

I'm supposed to call, you know, college educated, you know, without a college degree, whatever.

And

I started to think about like how implicitly

hideous it is to talk about people without a college degree like that.

And I remember Trump like years ago said, I love the highly uneducated or something like that, or I love the uneducated, but it ended up not hurting him because it's Trump.

But I realized that Democrats, people who I believe really care about regular people who didn't go to these stupid schools that I went to, are talking in such a dismissive and derisive way about folks whose votes count the same way as mine, right?

Like I have a PhD and that prison guard's vote is equal to mine.

And

on top of it, he lives in a swing state.

Like I'm just sitting in here, like pottering around Tribeca thinking I'm so fantastic.

Like that guy actually is resonant with the direction the country is going to go in.

And so, I think this is the anti-elites election as well.

You know, that people coming together to say,

I don't have a problem with the way you live, but you have a problem with the way that I live.

I mean, I'll put forward a thesis to you, and I'm curious what you think.

I think there is, after waking up and recognizing Wednesday morning that we had elected a man or that two very very credible qualified women had lost to a man who is a convicted felon, had been found guilty of rape and had inspired an insurrection.

I wonder if there's more misogyny in this country than there is actually actual homophobia.

I think we're probably going to elect a gay president before we elect a female president.

Your thoughts?

Well, I think that we're going to elect a female president.

She's just going to be a Republican.

I think that if Nikki haley had been on the ticket it would have been even more resounding um and that they would have elected her or someone with her pol you know i don't know if it's nikki haley or kim reynolds or something i

i think the the democratic party's identity politics issue is so complex i just i think that republicans have proved themselves actually

to care a lot less about like who you are like all the things that we think make us great.

The people in this coalition actually said,

like we're more representative of what you purport to be to some degree and more accepting of people that are different, people that are rude, you know, people who made a mistake.

I mean, this anti-cancel culture thing that's going on, you know, that is being led by the manosphere, right?

By all these people who are saying, okay, you want to take away my regular job?

Well, guess what?

I'm going to go get a better one.

I'm going to make more money and I'm going to have more power because I'm doing it this way.

And I don't think, you know, overnight, like, I don't think Tulsi Gabbard is going to turn into some wildly, you know, mean, like popular figure in all of this.

But I think these stories of

this group that I was a part of that I really believed in and even represented

is not who they used to be is incredibly persuasive to people and resonant with how a lot of them feel, especially when they look back through generations, people who had Kennedy Democrats in their families, for instance, and woke up and said, like, I recognize Bill Clinton, who, by the way, apparently told the Harris campaign, you have to say something about this anti-trans stuff.

Like you have to get out there and say, we are not for that.

We don't think that boys should be in girls' sports.

And like in 2016, when they dismissed him, the guy guy who's the best retail politician ever, maybe,

like they okay boomered him.

She needed a sister soldier moment.

Yeah.

She needed to keep.

Go ahead.

She did, but I don't,

I don't think that she was capable of a lot of things that you need to win a presidential election.

Like she didn't even show up at the view with an answer to how are you different from Joe Biden, which I think created a lot of concerns about her ability to do this job.

And yes, all the headwinds against her, the economy, et cetera.

Like, I think Karl Rove was right.

But when you say, or when people have said, you know, ran a flawless campaign, there are flaws.

Like, we've been talking about them.

There are moments that she should have nailed that she didn't.

We'll be right back after this break to hear from Semaphore's political reporter, Dave Weigel.

Recently, we asked some people about sharing their New York Times accounts.

I would be very interested in having separate logins for a shared subscription.

I'm 35 years old.

I still share my parents' New York Times subscription.

I think if my teenagers were to have their own logins, we could share articles.

It doesn't let us play the same games as each other.

I do the crossword.

I do the spelling bee.

I do the wordle.

Please help.

Having our own accounts would be amazing.

My mom could save her own recipes.

My friends could save their recipes.

I want to get the weekly newsletter, but they seem to always go to my husband and then he doesn't forward them to me.

We both love cooking.

I'm a 30-minute and under-dinner girly.

My boyfriend is very elaborate.

I think him having his own profile would be great.

We love the New York Times and we would love to love it individually.

We heard you.

Introducing the New York Times family subscription.

One subscription, up to four separate logins for anyone in your life.

Find out more at nytimes.com/slash family.

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game?

Well, with the name Your Price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills.

Try it at progressive.com.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.

Price and coverage match limited by state law.

Not available in all states.

Hello, Daisy speaking.

Hello, Daisy.

This is Phoebe Judge from the IRS.

Oh, bless, that does sound serious.

I wouldn't want to end up in any sort of trouble.

This September on Criminal, we've been thinking a lot about scams.

Over the next couple of weeks, we're releasing episodes about a surprising way to stop scammers.

The people you didn't know were on the other end of the line.

And we have a special bonus episode on Criminal Plus with tips to protect yourself.

Listen to Criminal wherever you get your podcasts and sign up for Criminal Plus at thisiscriminal.com/slash plus.

Okay, so we're blessed here or fortunate that we have someone who's probably in enormous demand today to help us break it all down, and that is Dave Weigel.

Dave has traveled all over the country to cover the election.

And we're big fans of his reporting.

Dave is the senior political reporter with Semaphore.

Dave, it's great to have you on the show.

Let's dive right in with the big picture.

We knew a Trump win was

a possibility, but there was this last-minute vibe that maybe a hidden kind of kamala waivala would surprise us.

What happened?

What are your initial thoughts?

There was some magical thinking happening among Democrats that was based on non-magical real-life interactions because I was out, every reporter covering the race, hopefully, was out with canvassers.

They were going to neighborhoods where people had not voted Republican in the past, where women were very angry about Dobbs.

And just you could tell there was some movement among people

that might be reflected in a polling underperformance or undercount of those voters.

And

the real magic came in in the final weekend when Ann Selzer's poll from Iowa, which was never wrong and now has been wrong.

suggested that, yeah, that's happening.

There are a lot of women, especially older women, who are, maybe they don't normally vote Democratic, but they will this time.

And that didn't happen.

It was

similar to 2022 and

I'd say 18, a little bit more like the midterms.

It just was within a point or so of the actual result.

It was underrating some Trump performance in blue states.

But as we get these results in,

Republicans improved a little bit.

They improved a little bit less than let's say George Bush did in 2004

compared to expectations.

Like Republicans are going to end up with probably 53 Senate seats, maybe 22 to House seats.

And they're treating it like a landslide and a mandate.

That's kind of what the poll said could happen.

And it's also weaker than they've come into power a few times in the past.

So that's the thing.

This is a very exciting election and there were demographic changes

that both parties are going to adjust to.

But it actually was not that much movement compared to where things were at in the last couple of elections.

Just every trend kept going with especially young men and Latinos toward Trump.

And I'll defend the pollsters.

They said that was probably happening.

They did repeatedly.

And then we kept saying, well, then there would be like a very high-quality survey that was actually, no, no, no, there's no problem, right?

Like we're back to normal Latino support.

We're back to normal Gen Z support.

And it seems like the black vote is really the only one that did revert to the normal mean versus 2020.

I think Biden lost like 19% of the black male vote and Trump got 20% in this election.

So that's basically where it is.

The blue city shift.

So I'm a New York City kid.

I live in New York City.

I grew up around the same age as Ivanka.

Like the Trumps have always existed in my orbit.

And seeing, especially post the MSG rally, when the floating island of garbage seemed like the main takeaway from Trump's final stand in New York was part of of this Kamala shift.

What do you think is pushing people to not care about those kinds of things that, like a majority of Puerto Ricans say there's racism in his campaign?

And yet

it didn't matter.

It's very asymmetrical, right?

Because what happened right after Tony Hinchcliffe comment is that Joe Biden mangled the statement he was giving ironically to Voto Latino, a Latino group that's been presiding over Democrats doing worse with Latinos?

And the charitable interpretation is that he was trying to say that Tony Hinchcliffe was garbage.

The less charitables, he was saying people who like that kind of thing are garbage.

And there was very high dudgeon.

How dare he insult so many people like this while at the same time saying, hey, normal people can suck it up and take a joke like the one Joni Hinchcliffe told.

There is a better,

maybe this is ironic, better weaponization of offense by Republicans.

There has been for a long time.

If you watch conservative media, Fox News, especially, there's so much coverage of just this random college professor said something kind of crazy.

Somebody on Twitter with five degrees in their bio said something crazy.

I'm a political reporter and I say, yeah, that guy started running for office.

Who cares?

But

the same response when Trump says something offensive is,

he says it like it is.

People like this.

Stop being so offended.

So why didn't the Hitchcliffe thing dramatically change the election?

Democrats were finding people who were inclined to vote for Trump and then changed their mind and were saying they're going to vote Democratic after that.

Just because you lose an election doesn't mean nothing worked at all.

But that was the overall climate was that Trump has desensitized people over the last nine years

of running for president to just saying that when something offensive is said in public, it's not going to work.

And also the media,

be careful how I describe the media,

there was a, I think, monocultural media, mainstream media, people in big buildings in New York and D.C.

that kind of controlled what the story of the day was, and there's not anymore.

So Trump is correct.

I think the people around him are correct that just things that would have gotten you maybe taken off the air or condemned for days as a Republican 10 years ago, they're not now.

The media can talk about it, but the people who are listening to that media,

college-educated liberals mostly,

yeah, they're offended anyway.

They were never going to vote for you.

Meanwhile, you can go on podcast,

Theo Vaughn, Nelk Boys, Joe Rogan, and that's how they talk.

They love talking.

They love not being offended.

And I've noticed just even kind of words that were taken out of the lexicon maybe 10 years ago.

For example, I've not seen somebody.

I've not seen somebody for years without feeling embarrassed about it use the

slur for mentally disabled people that starts with the letter R, which I won't use.

And I see it all the time on Twitter now.

And that's also part of the climate.

We're just Democrats have mores that are tied to the mainstream media and Republicans do not, and they have a media that does not.

Just along those lines, my sense is what's what old is New Again.

Isn't this essentially, wasn't this just about the economy?

In a large part, it was.

And this is frustrating for Democrats because if you, let's say, you took the numbers, the economic numbers that we had going to the election, and you went back in time and showed a Democrat in 20, in

2022, hey, this is what you're going to be running on.

Oh, okay.

Unemployment's lower than it was in 2020.

Inflation is down to 2%.

That's pretty good.

This is better than it was when Reagan won re-election.

And there's a larger conversation.

I can be long-winded, so I want to get into it, about why people blamed

why people blamed entirely Biden for inflation, why Trump got the credit for stimulus checks in 2020, but none of the blame.

They couldn't dig out of that.

That is true.

I think it improved for them.

But the election was held in June.

They would have lost by more.

It improved over the course of the year.

What mattered, I think, for Republicans is that they had a superstructure.

And again, coming from not being offended and telling people not to be offended, which was if things are bad, it's because...

Biden sent people too many checks and a lot of them and let in too many immigrants.

And Trump and J.D.

Vance, but also all of their surrogate operations, every Senate candidate, every House candidate.

That was the story is the country's falling apart and it could be fixed if we got rid of these immigrants.

And I'm really barely boulderizing what J.D.

Vance was saying.

I think his rallies got a little bit less attention than his interviews, but everything was, this is tied to immigration.

Is that true?

No, it's not true.

But

when you have a constant theme here and you pair it on the Republican side with, and we're going to cut taxes and you're going to get tax cuts and we're going to pay for it by kicking out the immigrants.

Don't worry about it.

We're going to do tariffs.

They're going to work.

Their economic message was not, we've done the math and here is how it all adds up and here's how it'll reduce the deficit.

Their math was, Democrats made this worse on purpose because they're woke and they love non-Americans and we're going to fix that.

What do you think are the one or two biggest policy changes in a Trump administration in 2025?

What do we feel first and foremost?

Well, the deportations are going to happen first first and foremost.

And that's going to be the first test of there are there are a lot of voters who I'm not calling stupid who looked at Trump and said, well, Democrats told me something terrible is going to happen if he wins.

But my memory of 2017 to 20 is that

they weren't that terrible.

And there's an effort by the Trump administration in 2017, 18 to take family separation, which was unpopular and take it off TV by

putting asylum seekers in Mexico.

They learned how to just take it off the news because hard to remember in 2024, but Trump immigration policies were really unpopular, and people were looking at them and saying, This is inhumane.

So, what happens when Trump takes office and they actually start

working with law enforcement in states, working with the National Guard to rouse out immigrants?

He can very quickly start

installing people as acting directors of agencies who act on, let's say, for example, taking the definition of gender as separate from sex out of the federal code, or saying that we're going to

take fluoride out of the water, as RFK Jr.

is saying.

I can't predict that.

I know that immigration will come first.

And the rest of the stuff, like tax policy, that just has to work its way through Congress.

So there'll be some announcements.

Okay, first bill we're going to move is a

it on taxes are going to deal with extending the tax cuts, maybe cutting taxes on tips, et cetera, et cetera.

The first stuff will be executive orders.

That's mostly going to to be immigration and culture, and I think

cultural war

initiatives.

I wanted to,

you mentioned the trans stuff, and I have been talking about this a lot on air.

So I'm a Democrat.

I work at Fox News.

And I was stunned when I saw that.

Trump was spending the most on anti-trans ads of any category.

He was spending less on the economy, less on immigration.

And this trans ad that everyone saw during every football game 14 times where it ends with, I'm, she's for they, them, I'm for you, apparently moved the needle 2.7 points in Trump's direction.

That was future forward.

The Democratic group tested it.

And

I wonder.

if you could talk about the impact of the culture war on this, because I, I do think it's the economy stupid, but there was a common sense deficit on the Democratic side.

And I think that we're missing it because we talk about like, oh, she shifted left.

Like Bernie puts out the letter, you know, shift left, working class.

People say you should have shifted right.

You would have gotten more of these moderates.

But I think that there just needs to be a common sense shift.

And it was only Colin Allred who released an ad saying, I am not for this.

There should not be boys and girls sports.

And it's those kinds of conversations that I think go on on Joe Rogan.

And as Rakline had.

his conversation about it.

And I saw you posting on Twitter about it as well, saying like, we live in a media bubble that

is not impactful anymore.

And you need to sit down with Joe Rogan for two hours.

Yeah, I would repeat that here.

That's another thing that's been coming up in conversations with Democrats over the last Republicans too, but Republicans won.

So the conversations with Democrats are more interesting because they explain what got screwed up.

And one thing they're sort of conceding, and some of them wanted them to do this, they feel vindicated.

Some are conceding now they should do this, is that there is a bubble of 2017 to, let's say, 2021,

where Trump had won the election.

He had won it without winning the popular vote.

There was just a sense culturally that

there were dark spirits unleashed by Trump, and it was not good to indulge them.

So this the era of deplatforming, and this is pressuring, this is groups like Media Matters pressuring people,

advertisers to quit a website or people not to go on Joe Rogan's show.

I think that's over, but that was how a lot of Democrats and progressives thought is that we can't just indulge this far-right media,

this manosphere media.

We need to outvote it.

The future is female and this sexism is going to backfire because Trump won in a fluke.

Once people, and 2018 happens, there's a good Democratic midterm.

2020 happens, they win the election.

It really only takes, I think, just the atrophying of the media's relevance and Trump's emphasis on talking to all these podcasts for people to say that's wrong.

I was talking to John Fetterman this week because he was one of the few Democrats in the last,

I mean, him and very few Democrats went on Rogan this cycle, but that was his take.

I mean, he literally left Pennsylvania

and then had to come back immediately for rallies for Democrats because he thought, this is an audience I need to talk to.

It's not like he's going to go there and deliver his talking points.

It's just, you need me to see I am a human being with a, and I can defend my values in front of a skeptical audience.

You can't go back to the mindset that if we just pretend Joe Rogan doesn't exist, those sexists are going to are going to take, you know, have their own little media and we can win without them.

Dave, just as we wrap up here, any thoughts on people likely to fill senior positions in a Trump administration?

So it's a good question because,

again, Trump ran on the fast that he'd been president before and fixed a lot of things, and he wasn't going to have the people around him

that

held him back.

Democrats say, ah,

they call you a fascist.

On record, they weren't holding you back.

They were trying to protect the country.

Trump won the argument, but he was less clear on, yeah,

who he's going to appoint.

And so there's this habit in D.C.

of

mentioning names, people who might want a position, people that we've heard of

in the Trump orbit or pro-Trump Republican senators.

The ones that are more credible is that Bill Hagerty, who was a Trump ambassador when he was president, now is a senator from Tennessee.

He's somebody who's kind of walked between the Bush Republican world and the Trump world and have been very comfortable as a mega politician.

He might be in the administration, a foreign policy role.

He has a Senate seat where just the governor would appoint a new Republican to replace him, not a problem for them.

Rick Grinnell, also in a foreign policy role, he was Trump's

Germany ambassador, his director of national intelligence for acting for a while, and he had a huge role in campaigning around the country, trying to convince people that Trump was going to be the anti-war president.

Elon will have a role.

He doesn't need to be appointed to anything.

He doesn't need to be confirmed to anything.

But Elon and people in that orbit, I would watch for those sort of Silicon Valley

techno-supremacist libertarians, I wouldn't even say libertarians, but fairly conservative guys whose basic premise is that you need to get the government off people's back and cut its spending because business knows how to create and the government doesn't.

People like him are going to be in the mix for these positions.

I heard John Paulson's name mentioned for Treasury.

That's not a crazy idea.

There is not going to be a need like there was in 2016 to get a bunch of Republicans who

the old establishment trusts because Trump destroyed them.

They don't matter and they didn't support him this time.

So they're out.

Dave Weigel is a political reporter for Semaphore.

Dave, we really appreciate your time today.

Yeah, thanks a lot.

I appreciate this.

All right, that's all for this episode.

Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates.

Our producers are Caroline Shagren and David Toledo.

Our technical director is Drew Burroughs.

You can find Raging Moderates on its own feed every Tuesday.

That's right, Raging Moderates on its own feed.

Please follow us wherever you get your podcasts.