Hey, Brian, Hi Katie. Well, Brian, you know I love to play music or sing it times during our podcast, and for this week's episode, I found just the ticket. Let me take you back to nine three. This got to be a mooning enough. If we can hold on, not we have a chance to find the sun shot. Let's keep on. Very well played, Katie, Thank you, very well played. With a hat tip to Maureen McGovern, Thank you Maureen for that tune and Brian. Today we're going to spend some time looking for the light to try to understand what happened during the mid term elections and what they mean for the future of the country. As we know, the Democrats took the House, flipping dozens of Republican districts, but the Republicans kept control of the Senate, gaining a number of seats by beating incumbent Democrats. Well, this is like Christmas Morning for me, Katie. So I'm so excited about this show, and we've invited one of the people I most admire, Amy Walter, a terrific political analyst, to talk with us today about what happened where we go from here. She's the national editor of the Cook Political Report, which by the Way is my favorite beach read, highly recommended to all of you. Then we're going to be hearing from some of you are listeners, because voters from all across the country are calling in with questions or interesting perspectives, and I'm very excited about that as well. And in the second half of the show, we're gonna hear from presidential historian Doug Brinkley. He's going to talk about the big picture, how the midterms will change the trajectory of Donald Trump's presidency, and also what lessons he can learn from the way past presidents dealt with opposition congresses. Doug Brinkley one of my favorites. But first let's talk to another one of my favorites, Amy Walter. We got her on the line yesterday morning, fresh off the mid terms. Amy Walter, Welcome to the podcast. It's great to have you, who I'm very glad to be here. I it's the my day after the election. UM mood and mood, which is a just um really subsisting on adrenaline, caffeine, a little bit of sugar, and a lot of peanut butter. And that's it. That's all that's keeping me alive right now. Nice. Well, you know, it seems to me that both sides are claiming victory. Certainly compared to two thousand and ten, when Barack Obama famously self described his experience as a shellacking, it seems to be more of a mixed verdict for President Trump. In fact, he portrayed this way quote tremendous success tonight, thank you to all. So how can we see such different perspectives on the same results. They both actually can be correct, that both sides can find something that they really liked out of this midterm election. And it's something, Katie, that we've been talking about the Cook Report for quite some time because of two things. One just how polarized we are as a country now. Um we saw it obviously in the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college vote and how it's playing out in a mid term year. Is that the House vote, which it looks like Democrats will have won by about nine points somewhere north of thirty seats. But in the Senate, where the map was decidedly read, Democrats defending ten states that Trump carried, uh five of them that Trump carried by double digits. The president remained popular and his success his popularity helped to boost or publican candidates there, and so we had two different elections take place on Election Night in two very different Americas. As I'm beginning to break down in my own head, it seems like we're just seeing an acceleration of all the trends we've witnessed in the last few years in politics, kind of culminating in the election of Donald Trump. This big educational divide between white collar, college educated whites and blue collar, non college educated whites, a divide between cities and close in suburbs on the one hand, and excerpts in rural areas on the other, whites versus minorities, etcetera, etcetera. Is there anything new or different that we learned in this election that we didn't know going in. I don't know that we learned anything particularly new, And I think that this is what sort of fascinating about this election is that if you look at the exit polls, for example, of the election that basically told you the story of the eighteen election, We've had an incredible amount of stuff happen in between eighteen and yet we ended up essentially in the same place. And the amazing thing for the President again is as as you noted earlier, go on to say that he was successful, right, the places where he campaigned the candidates one, that is true. The places where he was popular candidates one, absolutely true. But there a whole lot of places that we know that the president carried in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania where Republicans didn't do very well. Um, those are going to be uh to me. Those are the sorts of places I'm going to be spending a lot more time looking at as we get into And the other question I think is whether this is a permanent realignment that we're seeing or whether this is one that is really unique to President Trump. Are these districts that, for example, in the Houston suburbs that went for Mitt Romney by double digits and then flipped to a Democrat this year, are these now permanently in the Democrats camp or are they going to move back to their sort of Republican DNA once Trump's no longer in office. And we're not going to have the answer to that right now, but I do think that what we have today, instead of a president with a broad coalition, he has a narrow but deeply committed coalition. One more thing just to recognize is again the president definitely had some successes. It's always better to have a bigger Senate majority than a smaller one, and it will be a more committed Trump majority. Remember some of his biggest critics, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker from Tennessee, they're no longer in the delegations and have to worry about the Mavericks so much anymore, potentially denying him Supreme if there's another Supreme Court opening or other judicial openings. But I don't think we have any idea how this president is going to react to Democratic Congress, the subpoenas, the oversight, and at the same time, we have no idea how Democrats are going to react to not knowing how Trump is going to react it. It feels to me a little bit like you're handling a very uh unstable substance. You know it's nitroglycerin or something, and you're passing it around between each other and at some point you know that something's going to explode. I just don't know who's going to be holding it when it explodes. Well, you know, it's interesting, as Brian and I have listened to the analysis at nause um um. You know, one one side posits that it actually is helpful to President Trump to have an enemy. And now that enemy obviously will be the democratically controlled House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi, which you can only imagine sort of the vitriol that's going to be coming her way. A S. A. P. So you have no idea in terms of the dynamic we might be witnessing between the House and the White House, right because the President is so unpredictable, Well, he's predictably unpredictable, right, I mean, we I think we know that he's going to punch back at any subpoena or oversight or question by Democrats. But the Democrats could also put in front of Congress some of the cabinet members or the administration officials who quite frankly haven't had to answer any questions for the last two years on some pretty significant policy, whether that's healthcare or immigration or trade, and they're answers to those questions could be a bigger problem for Republicans than the President can acknowledge right now. And I think he's focused very specifically on well, if the Democrats try to impeach me, they're going to go too far, or if Democrats try to impeach Judge Kavanaugh, that's not what the American public wants, so show their just obstructionists. But what if they start bringing folks from HHS or DHS up to the Hill and start asking questions about the immigration process on the border. What about asking questions about the e p A and some of the deregulatory efforts. What if they start asking questions that Republicans and the administration don't have very good answers for, or uncover scandals that previously had gone unknown or unremarked. This is you know, again, this is not just theoretical. These folks in Congress do have subpoena power. Amy pray your point about impeachment. I think it's pretty clear that the Democratic leadership at least has no interest in that from a political perspective, But they may not have a choice if and when Robert Mueller issues his report and there's some pretty damning accusations in there, um which there might be, there might not be, but if there are, um, can't you see a process like that derailing whatever the agenda is now that the Democrats are trying to absolutely and I think there are a lot of question marks about that, as well as requesting the president's tax records, which they can do, but I don't know what legislative accomplishment comes from that, you know, like, what's the what's the reasoning behind that for Congress, And they're going to have to be able to to make that case pretty cleanly and clearly for it to look like it's substitutive rather than just phishing expedition. Uh, that's focused on just embarrassing the president. Speaking of that, Amy, I was going to ask you about you know, there's been a lot of debate internally, Amy, about the direction of the Democratic Party, with a sort of fight over the heart and soul. Should it be the moderate middle, should it be the party of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Did the results of the mid terms give us any insight into that? Yeah, it's an excellent question. I think there are many Democrats hoping that there would be a definitive answer to that, especially from places like Florida or Georgia or Texas where Democrats were running not just as progressives, but their message was we can win in these diverse states by pumping up turnout among voters of color, younger people who traditionally don't show up to vote in midterm elections. And to do that, you know, we need candidates with interesting stories and they need to be unapologetic and unafraid to to run as progressives. Well, it looks like all three of those candidates UM will have lost. And I think there is going to be something of a pushback among national Democrats to say, if that message isn't working in Florida, a state that is a battleground in if that isn't working in Georgia or Texas, to states that Democrats have been saying now for years demographically are are turning their direction, then it makes it really hard to say that that's the right message up against Donald Trump. At the same time, some of the most centrist candidates lost in Indiana. Damn, you're sort of damned if you don't, right, that's the centrist candidates lost in fairness in much more difficult states, in states where Trump had like a approval rating, where he won with a much larger margin, but in the closer states that Trump won in two sixteen, but the Democrats one on Tuesday in the Midwest, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, for example, the three states that made a difference in the presidential race. Moderate Democrats or relatively center left Democrats were the ones who were able to prevail, and they were able to show the Democrats can still win in those places, which I suppose was a little bit in doubt before this. Yeah, and I think you know, Tammy Baldwin is a great example of this senator from Wisconsin. No one is going to call her a moderate. She is one of the more liberal members of the United States Senate. And yet there is and I hate this word because it gets overused, but I'm going to use it. Is there's an authenticity to Tammy Baldwin. People know exactly who she is. Same with Shared Brown in Ohio. He's sort of a populist liberal in Ohio, a state that not only did Donald Trump carry, but Republicans carry the governorship there. They have uniqueness to their state and an attachment to their state that really sets them apart. Again, not because of where they you know, it's it's they didn't tack necessarily to the center ideologically, but personality wise. And there the attention that they paid to the state pays dividends and and so I think really, and Katie, I've been thinking about this for a while that you know, folks like me in Washington, for so many years we've been looking at the presidential primary process on an ideological scale, right, Uh, do you have the more left or the more right? Candid? How conservative? How liberal? Um? Do you need to be? I think normal people and so I'm not a normal person I recognize as normal people. Primary voters are not looking at these ideological scales and and sort of checking off a list, right, Well, they've put on these six criteria. They're looking for the personal attachment, the personal story, the way that they feel that they can connect there. And Donald Trump was a perfect example of that. He Uh, he was not a straight down the line conservative Republican. On so many issues he broke with Republican orthodoxy, but there was an authenticity to him. And Bernie Sanders. I'm sure you all heard it on the campaign trail too. When I would talk to people who liked Bernie Sanders, some of them were really conservative people, and they said, I don't agree with anything that he says, but gosh, Dart, I like that he stands up for it, he believes in something. Well, that's such an anti establishment vote, whether it's Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. And I was having breakfast with a friend of mine this morning, and she was saying she thinks we're witnessing a massive realignment, not from left to right, but more populist versus elitist, you know, more, as Brian mentioned, sort of rural and ex ex urban voters versus urban and suburban voters, and that we're more divided on those lines, along those lines than ideological lines per se. I agree with that, And a lot of it is cultural, right, the sense that if I live outside of a major metropolitan area, I have a whole set of life experiences and viewpoints that people in the suburbs and the cities don't appreciate and they don't understand. And you go into the cities and the suburbin areas and they look out at the rural areas and they say, why don't you understand? This country is diversifying. This country doesn't look like it did fifty years ago. It's not going to look like that anymore. Stop trying to bring us back there and that push and pull between you know, the transformative right, here's where we're going in the future. And the restorative Here's who this country is and we want it to remain. Is that fight that is going to be with us, certainly for the next four year, isn't The real question is how much longer will this tension be the central force in our politics. The one ideological element I would add to this discussion, though, is that the Democrats you mentioned in the Midwest didn't give their Republican opponents an obvious line of attack by saying they were going to abolish ice or b for impeachment, or take some of the kind of harder edged positions than a number of the more liberal Democrats and the Sun Belt took, which their Republican opponents seemed to use very effectively against. It's an interesting point, and look in those suburban districts. What you found were Democrats who did the following one. They stayed away not just from some of the divisive issues like ice um, but they also stayed away from impeachment. I didn't hear anything about Russia or Mueller. In fact, the word Trump rarely came up for many of these Democrats who won in these suburban districts. They focused much more in healthcare. But I do think that this is the ideological fight within the Democratic Party to come on the issue of healthcare. Democrats made that a centerpiece of their election this year, specifically looking to Republicans and their votes in Congress to repeal Obamacare, the decision by the Trump administration to continue to fight for um in the courts to overturn the law, and you saw sort of a split within the party and whether they're in conservative districts more moderate districts about the question of medicare for all and what that means for some voters. I think they interpret it in one way. Other voters interpreted another way. But at some point Democrats are going to have to actually explain what Medicare for all does mean. And what you saw in many of these competitive states was at Republicans were ready to pounce on this issue by labeling Democrats as socialists, right, they want socialized medicine. They're going to take away your access to your doctors. It's going to be trillions of dollars of taxes. And I think in many cases those attacks didn't work, in part because people don't quite understand what this whole Medicare for All thing is about. But they did very clearly understand what the pre existing condition fight was about, what drug cost fight was about. That's a day to day concern for them. But I think come this debate over expanding healthcare to include this Medicare for all or single payer versus the President wanting to repeal Obamacare and what would be in its place is going to be a central argument. We asked some people to call in with their questions concerns, and we have a few people who are nice enough to do just that. So we don't want to keep them on hold indefinitely. And Amy, I know they benefit from your insight UH as well. So let's go to Julie from Kansas, who has a question. Julie High, how are you? Hi? Katie? Hi, Brian, thank you so much for having me all. You're welcome. Thanks, what's your question? I'm some campus and UM. I was so heartened and so excited last night that we did not elect Chris Kobach to be UM our next governor. We actually went Democratic with Laura Kelly and we had one other district UM where we elected Sharis David's for the House UM. But this morning, as I really started to think about it, I started feeling more like these were exceptions. These were two people that were absolutely horrible candidates and they went Democrat because the Republican option was so incredibly awful. I'm curious what your take is on what this means of the country with a with a red state going Democratic in a couple of different areas. I don't think this is a blue wave for US. I think that these are small exceptions. Amy, what would you say, Yeah, it's a really good point because Democrats were hoping that they could have similar success in other red state governorships where he had an unpopular governor in the case of Oklahoma, just like Kansas that was retiring. Oklahoma and Mary Fallon, who left office I think was something like a fifteen point favorable rating um in that state, and uh, the race got very close, but ultimately Republicans prevailed in Oklahoma. South Dakota another place that has had Republican governors for quite some time, but Democrats had a really appealing candidate in a former rodeo writer um who had been paralyzed in a rodeo accident, who kept that race very competitive. Ultimately that race tipped to the Republicans. And Iowa, another state where Republicans have bit a charge for a long long time. They kept the governorship in that state. And so Kansas really of of of the red states where Democrats saw an opening. They had good candidates, they had unpopular governors, or at least maybe a cent from voters in that state that it was time to do something new, you know, they they could turn a new leaf, try out another party. Only Kansas really delivered on that promise. Wisconsin was a big win for Democrats. You know, they've been trying now this is a fourth election, they've been trying to unseat Scott Walker. But that's not really a red state. So of the of the dark red states, Kansas does definitely stick out. Julie from Kansas, Thank you for calling. Julie, Thank you. Okay, we've got Jonathan from Texas. Uh, thanks for calling in and what's your question? Hi gaty Hi, Hi Brian. It's so great to be speaking with you guys. Um. So my question is um. I'm a um the border. I'm a second generation Texan born and raised on the border. From the radio. UH. Immigration has always locally been talked about as a positive thing, and betso as someone from the border El Paso, I believe understood in articulate this issue better than anyone I've seen, and so after looking at the margins in the race last night, it looks like a lot of other Texans agreed to even though it wasn't obviously enough to get him across the finish line. But are there any lessons that national Democrats can be learning from how Betso talked about immigration and any lessons that can be applied nationwide for um the elections in the future. I'm really interested in this, Jonathan too, And I'd love to hear Amy and Briant's take on this, because obviously the cornerstone of President Trump's last ditch efforts to do well in these mid terms was to talk about the caravan pretty much seven and two Stoke, I think some fear about immigrants and the people who were escaping poverty and violence in Central America through Mexico. So um, and I was pretty surprised how well Betto did. Um. I guess I had read some premature obituaries about him prior to election day. But but what about the way that immigration is being portrayed? Does this, you know, go right along party lines? Brian and Amy? And what lessons can national candidates learned from this. I mean, I just view that as such an interesting race because Cruz was about as narrow a red candidate as Texas has produced for a major statewide office in a while. Um, and Texas is still just Republican enough that by consolidating the people who like what Trump's doing, who identify as conservatives, he was able kind of just to get over the line. Um what Betto did. That's differ weren't than you know, any Texas Democrat pretty much for the last twenty years. Is he was able to take a lot of moderate suburban voters in places outside Dallas and Houston and convinced them that he's bigger and maybe a little bit different than a typical national Democrat. And even though he was pretty liberal per Amy's point about authenticity, people liked him. And a lot of those people just didn't like Ted Cruz. They thought he had taken his eye off the ball by running for president, spending more time in Iowa than in Texas. So, you know, he was able to come close, but I think some of the ideological positions that he took probably resulted in him being you know, just short in the end. And before Jonathan goes Jonathan, what do you hope is in Bettos future? Do you think that you know, he got a huge influx of money from National Democrats. Uh, he was sort of the it guy of these mid terms in many ways. What do you think is in his future? Well? As as someone that's that's so inspired by watching the type of effect that he's had on grassroots organizing in the state. UM, I think that his ability to inspire people to act and to get moving is really really inspiring for the future of Texas. I'd very much like to see him run his race because I think he still has a race and a message that he's still ready to share with the rest of America. Well, Jonathan, thanks so much for calling in. It's really nice to talk to you, and thanks for listening to the podcast. Thanks for having me. I appreciate that we're going to talk now to Bailey from Nevada, not Nevada. From Nevada is on the on the line. Bailey, Hi, thanks so much for calling in and welcome to our podcast. Hi, how are you good? Good, nice to hear your voice. What is your question or concern? Um? Well, I was wondering your take, so in Nevada we've had a blue wave now twice in both sen UM. We almost had a we might have a super majority in our legislature as of twenty nine vote, so we'll find out. But I'm wondering why what you think is different about Nevada where we've had the blue wave that we've kind of expected nationally as a repuation of Trump politics, and other states haven't. Well, you know, Brian is probably a good person to answer that question because his mom is Hailes from Las Vegas originally. And Brian, you spent a lot of time in Nevada, and Amy, I'm sure you could weigh in, and I'm just going to keep quiet and listen to you both. Yeah, I claim status as an honorary Nevada and UM. Well, the big difference in Nevada that has really transformed the state's politics in the last few cycles is the diversifying electorate, particularly in Clark County, which is Las Vegas, also in Reno UM, and we've seen a surge of Latino voters and also urban and suburban voters who are just voting a heck of a lot more democratic than they used to. It's also a state where Trump lost UM in two sen where his approval rating isn't great, and the approval rating of the president has been a pretty good predictor of elections all over the country. The fascinating thing to me about Nevada is it it is different from some of these other Western states. All the Western states are unique. They're all beautiful. I wish I could live in one of them. Um. But uh, but you know, Colorado looks very different than many of its neighbors, not just because it um, it has a more diverse population, especially Latino and African American, but also it has had, especially in the last ten fifteen years, a huge influx of college educated, UM, white voters. You have a whole bunch of tech companies moving into Colorado sort of a you know, a whole bunch of folks from other states moving to Colorado, especially young people into the Denver area, and that's really transformed Colorado from being a swing state or red leaning state to one that is more purple. Nevada, on the other hand, is one where you do have again huge influx of population, but it's not um the same kind of voters. UM. You have a higher proportion of white, non college educated voters in Nevada, they make up a really significant base of vote. What keeps Nevada from being a Republican quite frankly, are the Latino vote and the ability that Democrats have to really energize and turn out and organize and turn that vote out. And that is really a vestige of former Senator, former Majority Leader Harry Reid, who put that infrastructure in play. You know, Nevada if it looks much more like more of a working class blue color state than a state like Colorado. Bailey, I'm just curious. You sound a little young, am I am? I right about that? Okay, well then you're young. So I'm just curious if you don't mind my asking, um how you voted, and if you don't want to tell us, that's fine too, But how you voted and how you're feeling about the results of the mid terms. Um, yeah, I voted blue. I typically always do, although I think prior to Trump's I would have done Nevada as a state where we do tend to vote Nevada first. I think a lot of Democrats would have loved a third term from our Republican governor that is leaving. So I did vote blue, and I am excited about that, and I the only question I had as a response was the Harry Reid machine that you alluded to, we really credited as a culinary union. So I'm wondering what you got from other unions. Yeah, states, did they go blue or read last night? Because both of our swings, I think we can credit to the culinary unions or the unions just not as powerful. And yeah, that's a that's a really excellent point. I'm glad that you brought that up. And Um, in other states, you're right where labor has especially states that where Republicans have been in charge, labor unions UM have been undercut by some of the legislation that has been passed in those states, places like Wisconsin, for example. I think Michigan is one place where labor remains a very potent force. But you're right, it is Nevada that has some of the best organizing And it wasn't that unique twenty years ago to have this strong of a labor presence being able to quote unquote deliver a state. Um, that's how Pennsylvania and Michigan and Ohio worked for years. But in Wisconsin, but that's no longer, that's no longer the case. Bailey, thank you so much for calling. Really appreciate it, and thanks for listening to the podcast. It was fun talking to you. Yeah, thank you, Amy. Thank you so much for spending some time with us hashing this all out. It's complicated, as you said, I think further complicated by no simple narrative and no kind of clear cut takeaway, sort of all over the map, but we always appreciate your perspective and insight. Thanks so much for doing this Aime. There's a ton of fun. Thanks so much, Brian. I loved hearing from all those listeners, and I want to thank them again for calling in. That was a lot of fun and we really do appreciate their time. Yeah, I do too, And remember you can always call in with your questions and comments on the show. Our number is nine to nine, two to four, four, six, three seven. Now we're going to take a quick break and coming up presidential historian Doug Brink that's right after this. Now let's get back to the show, Brian. As you know Harry Truman what said, there's nothing new in the world except the history you do not know, So we thought it would be helpful and instructive to help us better understand recent events by talking about the past. And who better to do that with us than Doug Brinkley. Doug is a history professor at Rice University. He's written several books about presidents from FDR to Gerald Ford. Happens to be an incredibly nice guy as well, and when I was anchoring the CBS Evening News, I brought him in as our resident historians. So we go way back, Brian, and that's where I first met Doug. He's a great guy. So here he is with his take on what happened on the first Tuesday in November. Doug Brinkley, thanks so much for joining the podcast. We're super excited to have you. Well, thank you, Katie. So surprise, surprise, We're gonna look at the mid terms from a historical perspective with you. Um. On average, since World War Two, presidents lose twenty five seats in their first mid term in the House. Obviously, President Trump performed worse than that, and at a time with a booming economy that sixty percent of voters say is good. So how do you explain the Republican losses at a time when the economy seems to be doing really, well, well, it's a great question. Um. You know, Donald Trump isn't just a Republican president. He is a movement person, a right wing movement figure, and because of that, he's had a limited box office appeal. It's been very hard for President Trump to get anywhere around in public popularity. He's usually around forty four percent. That's low. So he only he has a freneticum appeal to um a certain segment of the American public, but he doesn't seem to be able to grow his box office any and hence some urban areas in particular seem to be disgusted with President Trump's leadership. If you really just mapped this midterm election, looked at cities and suburbs, you will see that they they're not buying into the Republican program, but rural America is in love with President Trump. It's interesting. James Carville says, it's the economy stupid, but the economy will only take a leader so far. Doug, exactly, Katie. I mean, the economy is important. In fact, some people are are saying Donald Trump should have just run on Kavanaugh and the economy, not Kavanaugh. In the caravan that may have been a mistake. Hindsight's easy and will never know. It's not an empirical fact we can make. But it's teams that President Trump made a mistake. Not just sticking with his economic message. He thought he had to fire up his base on this caraman of Hondurans, you know, marching towards our border. He did put out a racist ad that even Fox News how to take down. But how do you know that didn't work, Doug, How do you know that didn't work? Well? It didn't work because he lost congress Um and it did it help him pick up a Senate seat or two perhaps, but the Senate math was pretty much in place. So what he did was discussed a lot of young people, and you're seeing the numbers of young voters coming in. I'm here katiean in at Rice University in in Houston, Texas, and it was bet Omnia in the state of Texas. Now he lost, but their Democrats are making picked up congressional seats in in Texas. Trumpians like Will Heard, who were like should have never lost lost in Texas because people don't like particularly people at universities of America don't like the idea of the wall, and particularly don't like racist infused rhetoric that we've heard too often from the president. Doug, I can't think of an American president in recent history with so narrow an appeal who sort of never seems to get beyond Am I missing someone? No, I mean we've had presidents that have done badly in polling. I mean Harry Truman was particular moments, of course, Yeah, at particular moments, Harry Truman was at like twenty seven percent. But um in in of course, he's now considered one of our great American presidents. So it means Donald Trump can do something about his predicament. But he would have to pivot to get above that forty four. It's frozen with the economy this well, and we haven't engaged in a major new war, and he's frozen at forty four. To get up to fifty, he would have to do a bipartisan deal. This sort of what's almost become a mythical idea in the last two years of Democrats and Republicans doing something big on infrastructure would have to happen. You know, Jack Kennedy one in nineteen sixty by just a margin over Richard Nixon and Kennedy decided I'm going to unite the people, and he he adopted let's go to the moon. By the end of the decade, made technology big and even brought a lot of so called pork dollars to place states like Texas and Mississippi, Florida. And so in the end, m Trump needs to find something that brings in some Democrats and independence, not just be a base politician. And I should know this, but what happened to Kennedy in the mid terms, Well, you know, Kennedy in nineteen sixty two was able to maintain at a sixty two approval rating in sixty two somewhere around that in the sixties and was able to hold on um. They lost a few Senate seats Democrats, but they're able to keep control of of the House and Senate. So there's an example of a mid term where Jack Kennedy united the country. That would have been what Trump should have tried for. Instead, he did his own math and realized that he wants to be seen as the savior of the Senate. He had Mitch McConnell working with him, and they've used Paul Ryan as sort of the fall guy. That Ryan was somebody who wanted to focus on the economy, and Trump overruled him and said immigration. It is historically when presidents have faced an opposition Congress, as President Trump will starting in January, how have they used that opportunity to advance their agenda or to advance themselves politically? In other words, what lessons should President Trump take from Clinton, Obama, Reagan and others about how to work with or against an opposition Congress. Well, it's going to be a big choice. He remember we talked a lot about Ronald Reagan befriending Tip O'Neill and head Kennedy, Um, and they became pals. Can Donald Trump become friends with Nancy Pelosi? Can he invited for dinner? Can he talked to Pelosi and say, look at when the country needs a couple of big things that we all do together, can you bring some votes? Um? Can we work together? The problem is the Democrats right now don't want to be in a photo op with President Trump. Um. They're already gearing up for about fifteen Democrats are probably gonna end up running for president when it's all said and done, and they're running against Trump's persona, his big mouth, his Uh, his racist banter. Is that sort of depressing? Because what I'm gathering from your comments, Doug, is that it's it's to both parties benefit to not work together, and that Donald Trump seems to thrive when he has someone to demonize, whether it's the media or Democrats, and the Democrats want to continue along this path as well because it will galvanize their base and Democratic voters in general. Exactly right. So we may not have moved any the ball forward very much after the midterms. People always asked, do you know, are we more divided than ever? I was asked that question yesterday when I was being interviewed, Um, and I don't know. What do you What do you say when people ask that? Do you talk about Vietnam, Dutah obviously, the civil ward, But do you think it's unprecedented? The polarization we're witnessing now? It's extreme. You have to go back to Vietnam when where country was divided between hawks and doves, when civil rights exploded, and it was you know, George Wallace versus Martin Luther King. Um. The problem I see right now is the Democrats are going to go after Donald Trump's tax returns and the Muller investigations coming, and Trump's gonna say that this is harassment. I'm being harassed by the Democrats. That's gonna be the big new word, UM, congressional harassment of the president. Um. And the Democrats are ionic, isn't it It is. He's gonna be complaining about harassment and there's gonna be a demand for and the Democrats are saying we want transparency and government. Those words transparency versus harassment, I think they're gonna be used coming up. But we've seen it worse than American history. I was thrilled last evening. I look for little things that are As a historian, they jumped out of me that there were two Native American women that are now in Congress, and that's that's the first and there too, and that's quite exciting. So we can see they the omni American story, all sorts of different types of American zone getting elected. Hundred and seventeen women being elected to Congress at last counting that. I mentioned that on my Instagram feed, and I was accused of being sort of practicing identity politics, and I basically said, you know, listen, we want our representatives to truly represent the diversity of this country. And that's not to suggest you vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, but certainly women women's voices need to be heard and exercised on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. They're the majority of the country, of the population, baby, Yeah, that have been really underrepresented, only got the right to vote, as Doug well knows, uh in nine twenty. So that's uh, that's a little different than being kind of an interest group to me. Well, you know what was underplayed is um Jackie Rosen's victory in Nevada. She beat Dean Heller, a conservative Trumpian Republican. But Nevada now has two women's senators in the last you know, say, eight years. Um, Nevada has become a blue state. Yeah, we talked all about that with a caller, Doug. There were a lot of conversations or speculation and accusations about voter suppression, particularly in Georgia and in Florida as well. Can you help us understand, uh, if these were accusations or if there's evidence that this was really happening. Certainly, Brian Kempt, the Secretary of State who was running against Stacy Abrams, was kind of in charge of these issues with Jimmy Carter said was inappropriate he should step down from that role during the election. But um, are we going to know for sure if there were cases of voter suppression and how can you shed light on that for us? I think in Georgia they're going to be lawsuits looking into voters suppression and ways to disenfranchise the voting in the state of Georgia. You mentioned, Katie, Jimmy Carter, you know, back in nineteen sixty two. I believe he ran for the State Senate of Georgia and loss, but he sued and challenged and found that it was an illegal vote against him, and he ended up getting his political career up in going by challenging. Uh. I see Stacy Abrams doing that. She's going to challenge this result for the next month. But it's hard to do turnarounds and elections, and you'd have to find true, you know, voter um suppression, UM causes, it's a legal issue at this point. We saw a real ratcheting up of racial rhetoric and racial tensions around this election. UM. Lots of nasty stuff said about Jewish and African American candidates for office, As you mentioned the President putting out an ad about Latinos that even Fox wouldn't run. When was the last time that we had so bitter a racial and cultural divide around an election? I think nineteen sixty eight when Um Nixon and Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace ran. Wallace became the insurgent third party candidate and took a lot of Southern Democrats along with him and later would bring a lot of Midwest voters to him. George Wallace. Wallace is a factor in our modern times because Trump has really modeled himself after a kind of demagogic fashion like U. E. Long or George Wallace of the South stromp Thurman. And Trump's also moved in on the Ross Piro vote. You know, Russ pro got nine percent of the vote in as a third party candidate, and that was all against NAFTA. The sucking sound of the jobs you hear are going up, you know, going leaving America from Mexico. Trump stole that message. So he's created a new identity for the Republican Party. And I guess if there's an upside for Donald Trump last night, it truly is Trump's party. I don't think there's anybody within the party structure that's going to be able to dent Donald Trump's power. It's going to be up to the Democrats to take him down. In Doug, one of the long term trends that we saw a play out in this election was the defeat of moderate senators who can work across the aisle um. On the Republican side, we saw some retirements, um because Republican senators who opposed Trump couldn't win their primaries. Democratic senators who are more moderate couldn't get reelected in Trump e states. Um. What does that portend for the Senate's ability to forge consensus and craft bipartisan legislation. I think the Senate is just going to be a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. Now, they're gonna work hard to do more federal judges in place, and if they're lucky, get yet a third Supreme Court nominee chosen, perhaps down the line. I don't see much coming out of the Senate. Uh. That's why Dick Durbin will probably become the leading voice constantly saying that the Senate is worthless and does nothing, and they're they're not listening to the Democrats in the Senate. The all eyes now shift to Congress. The person of the moment is Nancy Pelosi, a survivor in American politics. She now is going to be having to hurt all the Democratic cats, all the different characters together and decide whether they try to do an early nineteen deal with Trump or just be resist him and and and make Trump the foe of the American people. It's yet to be seen, but Pelosi is a new power broker. She's been one for decades, but I think now we have to look at her as a giant in American history because she is the one big check on Donald Trump. And I'm sure she's going to be his newest, juiciest target. If you will, yes, He'll try to do a deal maybe with her, and if she rejects it, he will double down, triple down, and just pound away at Nancy Pelosi. And if we're wondering what Donald Trump's attitude towards her might be, he tweeted the day after the election. In all fairness, Nancy Pelosi deserves to beach shows and Speaker of the House by the Democrats. If they give her a hard time, perhaps we will add some Republican votes. She has earned this great honor. Maybe a bit of a backhanded compliment, you would prefer that she's his foe. Well, I do think that it's in Donald Trump's interest right now. And he said to try to tone things down to maybe try to do one big infrastructure um deal with the Democrats. Basically, if he can convince Pelosi to take a time out for a few months and then start in early nineteen and get one big thing done on the Democrats, might be game for that. Um, that's what he's trying to do now. He's actually trying to charm Nancy Pelosi. If that gets rejected and instead there's this attempt to get at as tax returns soon, Um, once Congress goes back in a session, then you'll see a war between Pelosi and Trump. It's it's unsure which way it will go. It'll end up badly between the two. But there might be honeymoon there for about four or five months. There will be plenty to talk about or listen to on cable news, depending on your network of choice. Has all of this unfolds, Doug, always great to have you and to talk to you. Thanks so much for doing this. Thanks so much. Thanks, Katie and Brian enjoyed it. That does it for us today. The team that produces this show is producer Emma Morgan Stern, associate producer Noura Richie, audio engineer Jared O'Connell. Special thanks to Andy Kristen's for pitch hitting on the mix this week, as well as Chris Hoff and Paul Anchor at k KWI D, the venerable public radio station here in San Francisco, Brandon Martin and Houston, Lizzie Peabody in Washington. We are all over America. I was going to say a cast of thousands and a big round of applause to my assistant Beth Dems and my social media master Julia Lewis. Jared Arnold composed our theme music. You can find me on Twitter at Goldsmith b. You can follow Katie incessant Instagram, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. You can follow her on Twitter or Facebook. She's on all of those sites. As you guessed it, Katie Current. If you want to tell us what you think about the show or ask us a question, please write to us at comments at currect podcast dot com or leave us a voicemail at four four six three seven. Thank you so much for listening, and we'll talk to you next week.