With the US midterms approaching, we’re joined by New York Times political reporter and host of The Run-Up, Astead Herndon. We start by examining this “relentlessly disorienting time” in America (5:10), where the pendulum of democracy (7:40) will be swung by four voting blocs this November: The Skeptical Trump voter (9:50), The Young Voter (13:15), The Disillusioned Democrat, and The NON-MAGA Republican (15:47).
In the back half: what Democrats previously believed to be “demographic destiny” (21:48), the media’s oversimplification of the electorate (24:02), and why President Biden has recently moved away from his message of unity (29:50). To close, Herndon outlines the importance of grassroots reporting (38:05), a potential autopsy for the Democratic Party (43:16), and how democracy itself is on the ballot this November (47:12).
Pushkin. This is talk easy, I'm saying, Fergoso, Welcome to the show today. I'm joined by reporter Astead Herndon. For the past four years, Herndon has covered national politics for The New York Times. Before that, he was a city hall reporter at the Boston Globe. But his work came to prominence during the twenty twenty election, where he spent most of the year on the road talking with voters from all walks of life. You may have read some of his dispatches in the Paper of Record or heard them on the hit podcast The Daily, where he's been a frequent contributor. With the midterm elections only six weeks away, Herndon has launched a new podcast for The Times called The Run Up. The show is in the spirit of what Herndon calls grassroots reporting, which focuses less on the politicians running for office and more on the voters that will put them there. Historically, the midterms are a referendum on the party in power, but this year, the show argues, is about so much more. And that more is the focus of our conversation today, as we discussed the key voting blocks across the country, how Democrats and Republicans are approaching the Latino electorate, the existential questions that each party faces this November, the fragility of democracy itself, and why Astead, as a young black reporter from the Midwest, is uniquely qualified to cover these turbulent times. But before we could do any of that heavy analysis or prognostication, Astead was in need of a comfortable seat inside the New York Times office. I watched over zoom as he searched far and wide for that coveted chair, and as he did so, I started recording. I hope you enjoy. There we go. It's like they think in this You think in this room they would have actual functional chairs and not like fake lounge tiny ones. But here we go. Is this a call to the union? Do you need union help? You know, it wouldn't be The New York Times if your workplace drama didn't play out for all of Twitter to read. It's just another day at the job, and we are happy to have you. Let's just jump right in a stud Herndon. How are you doing. I'm doing fine. I've been looking forward to this. I'm doing better now. Thank you for happing me. You've been looking forward to it, is that true. I'm looking forward to anything that does not involve actively thinking about the midterm elections. So the mere fact that we're having like some small talk before is already the light of my dad. I hate to tell you this, but we are going to talk about the midterm elections. I had some suspicion, but at least we're building there and not just starting there. So I'll take what I can get. You and I are both from Chicago. I generally like to position myself as the Jordan of this podcast. I thought maybe I would take the pip and roll and you take Jordan on this one. Oh that's awfully kind of you. You know, I really think of myself as a Bill Winnington character, So you know, I'll take Jordan's when I could get it. There's that mean, that's like men just sit around naming old sports players. Here we are and we're not even that old. Imagine as fifteen years from now, yes, still maybe pools ways, Okay, let me be more serious that I'm sorry. Okay, since midterms are coming up, let's dive into this new podcast you launched at The New York Times called The run Up. You're talking to policymakers, fellow reporters, and most importantly, voters to understand this upcoming election cycle. But I want to set the stage for a moment with a passage from your first episode, The Stakes. Why don't we take a listen. It has been a relentlessly disorienting time, with demographic shifts that are increasingly changing the country's makeup, social movements that they've changed cultural norms almost overnight, the explosion of new technology and misinformation that's amplified our divisions. Add to that a global pandemic, widespread inequality, and rampant inflation, and through all of this, the political system has struggled to keep up. Now, you spent the better part of the twenty twenty election traveling around the country talking to voters reporting for The Times. As you've started doing this reporting again around the midterms, what are you hearing from voters now that you didn't hear in twenty twenty. I think the biggest thing, and I think we say this in That Stakes episode two, is that you know, people have really bought into the Joe Biden construction of America's problems, at least people who voted for Joe Biden to say that the removal of Donald Trump would bring some sort of like calmness, the ability to politics. And I think that, like, while a lot of people maybe scoffed at that in the early primary and certainly kind of like gut checked him on it, by the time we are getting to the twenty twenty election, and particularly during the pandemic, particularly after a Black Lives Matter summer, I was hearing from folks left and right that like they were hoping that a vote for Biden was a return to normal, And I think what I hear now is pretty much a recognition that that is not coming back, and that what was seen as the threats of the Trump era democracy under attack or misinformation or cultural divisions on racial, gender, or sexuality lines, that those weren't just Donald Trump driven, that those are really America questions. And I think that, like as you know that first episode deals, you know, we talked to a lot of people who felt so bummed out by politics when you dig into talking with them, that was really because of that, because it was clear that our divisions were going nowhere, and for a lot of people, I think that they really maintained some hope, like the President did, I would say that those are divisions that were really wrapped up in an individual and I think it's clear at this point they're not. One of the key differences that have developed over the last two years is something you just mentioned, which is the future of democracy. A new poll has found that sixty nine percent of Democrats and sixty nine percent of Republicans believe democracy is in danger of collapse. So for once both sides actually agree on something, they just don't agree on who's to blame. Democrats point the finger at former President Trump and Mauga Republicans. The goop says President Biden and the socialist Democrats are the ones responsible. How do you make sense of both that pole but also this recurring sentiment around the fragility of democracy which you've been hearing from voters. I think that that pole tracks with our reporting, which is that people really feel a sense of anxiety, a sense of frustration. You know. I do think people are in the throes of democracy anxiety, despair adjacent because those threats are very real. I think that, like we can put it in the partisan kind of construction, and definitely politically, when you think about the midterms, Democrats are going to point the finger at Republicans, and Republicans are going to point the finger at Democrats, but I think we should say journalistically that this isn't like fully both sides issue. You know, Republicans and Donald Trump were the ones who stopped to try to block the peaceful transfer of power and led a violent insurrection at the capital to do so. I think that we should say specifically that this Republicans who have been elevating candidates throughout the primaries who jibed with Trump's grievances and his attack on democracy, that they didn't just excuse those actions, they actually promoted people who espouse those actions. You know, And I think this mid terms has to wrestle with is the fact that that's both a clear change within the Republican Party and also that that change has not been universally rejected by voters. It has not marginalized them. And what does that say to me? As the question to tackle that we actually thought yet to ask a bigger question, which is the part of the reason we wanted to talk to Jim Clyburn and wanted to talk with Robert Draper, a reporter on The Times magazine, is not to say is democracy on the ballot, because I think that answer is clearly yes. To me, the question I don't think we have an answer to is how big is our commitment to democracy? How much of democracy is actually core to the experiment that we talk about, And that, to me is the unclear part democracy is on the ballot in the words of Democrats and Republicans. It's just that Republicans have gone to the point now they are explicitly attacking democracy as something that's not even core to the country's values. So let's talk about the voters going to the ballot box. As you've waded into this upcoming election cycle, you've pinpointed four types of voters that will be pivotal come November. The first is the skeptical Trump voter. Who is that person? Yeah, yeah, and that piece. We were really talking about four different voters who we talked to over throughout our reporting for that first couple episodes, and that was a voter who we kicked off our episode with Belinda, who was actually someone who so believes Trump's conspiracy and falsehoods about elections being stolen that she was actually debating whether to participate in these elections and back these Republicans because she doesn't trust the voting system, and so they are not skeptical of Trump. But that is someone who is skeptical of anyone but Trump, and that is someone who Republicans need to rally behind these new slative candidates. That's really a type of voter that's driving the direction of the Republican Party. So not only in primaries have they backed candidates that you know, kind of espouse Trump is um, but they are holding Republican nominees feet to the fire to make sure they continue that rhetoric throughout this march to the general election. And so we started with that voter partially because they are driving and creating litmus tests that Republican candidates are responding to, because they have such fealty to Trump and his grievances that they're actually forcing the candidates and thus the party to follow that Also, now, if that person changed, if that person started souring on Trump, if that person backed off of those election conspiracies, there will be a lot more room for the Republican Party to wiggle with But as of now, because that person has remained so loyal, it has actually made sure that the establishment cannot stray too far from the base because they haven't budged. That's the person we're talking about. But that skeptical Trump voter, they didn't exactly come out in the Georgia Senate runoff in early twenty twenty one. Right, Yeah, I think that was the risk, right, I mean, being called a rhino or insufficiently trumpy isn't a hollow threat. If more Republicans would have come out to support their Georgia Senate candidates, they probably would have won. They didn't come out in George Joe specifically because those candidates they did not trust on this message, they did not believe on this messitions that's spend all this time in Georgia, and there was a whole bunch of people yelling at Perdue, yelling at Leffler, saying they weren't going hard enough on the Trump conspiracy. And so, yeah, they didn't really show up in that race. But that's actually been a lesson for a lot of Republican candidates about reasons why you cannot assume that voter will back anyone within R next to their name. They're backing people who are specifically following that Trump viewpoint. And you think voters nominating one hundred and fifty different Trump candidates is their way of learning that lesson. I think they've learned that lesson in a lot of ways, but yeah, the primaries are the clearest one. If you're Republicans. It's not that you can only win with hardcore Trump voters, but you cannot win without hardcore Trump voters, and so Republican candidates are basically made a bet they appease the most energetic portion of their base. The other portions of who vote for Republicans may come along for other reasons. I mean, they have totally learned the lesson of the primaries, whether intentionally or not, that the most important figure in Republican politics is still Donald Trump by a large degree. The next group you've been focusing on is the young voter, a group that President Biden hopes to make in rounds with after recently passing climate reform and canceling billions of dollars in student debt. Unpack this group for us, I mean, I think that like this is the type of people who Democrats need to motivate. Right A typical midterms idea is that Democrats have a better presidential coalition than in mid terms because during the midterms, groups like young people, groups like working class people, minorities. We know these are not groups that are totally distinct and have a lot of overlap that they don't come out to the same degree. It's not that they don't come out, but their drop off numbers fall and the hardest core portions of the Republican base don't fall off as much, which hurts Democrats. To overcome that structural disadvantage. There has been a thought that has emerged more in democratic politics, which is that not that you have to just appease that's a reason to just appease moderates and swing voters and forget about the base, but actually you should change it. You should follow through in your campaign promises so that more of those people actually come out in mid terms, you know. And part of what we're seeing is a test case of that. This year you have Joe Biden frankly go a little bigger on things like student depth than a lot of people expected them to, partially because they are hoping there is an electoral payoff for those decisions. That is a thing that we don't know how that's going to play out. It could be that doing things like student loans have really transformed his image and in doing so, really makes people more excited about him than they would have been otherwise. We've seen his approval rating tick up in recent months partially because Democrats feel a little better about Joe Biden they did over the summer. What they're hoping is that in doing those actions, they rally a base behind the president that needs that. As a minimum, Democrats can't only win they are most important races through their base, but they certainly cannot win if they don't have a motivated base, and certainly dabs in the removal of Row is the biggest motivating factor here. But in terms of what Joe Biden can control, we have seen some actions this year doing executive orders on climate change, that climate legislation, student loan debt, that are centered at trying to fulfill those promises so that they can clear those first initial bars that are necessary for Democrats to have success in me in terms, the last two groups are the disillusion Democrat and the non maga Republican. What kinds of voters fit into these categories? Yeah, these are our classic moderates, are classic swing voters, I mean, and we're both kind of who what we were hearing and are importing, you know, feeling increasingly politically homeless, feeling like the parties have drifted in directions they don't like. And that usually comes down to a couple things. On the Republican side of feeling that Donald Trump and the anti democratic lurch from Republicans is too extreme. And on the Democratic side, we often hear complaints about Democrats embracing cultural directions that the folks don't like, the new language on race posts, black Lives Matter, an embrace of like LGBTQ equality that has sent some people in wrong directions, and this is what the other parties try to seize on. Right, So Republicans are going to pitch to squishy Democrats, Hey, you might think Donald Trump's annoying, but don't you think the way Democrats talk right now make white people feel bad? That's a reason to vote for us. While Democrats will say to moderate Republicans, yeah, you might think the way we talk about racing cultures annoying, but isn't the way Donald Trump talks about democracy worse than anything else? Right, Both parties are trying to try to seize on those openings. But I think that people hold contradictory views, and so it's not often that when you're talking to voters and we're talking to regular people, they don't feel like completely represent it. But I think it's actually changing. Here is whether that is an accepted difference within the party or what is unacceptable for a Democrat. What does that mean? Do Democrats believe that they're space for pro life democrats in the party or is that a value that they should not compromise on. Is there an issue that Democrats should universally say that if you don't believe this, the party won't back you. That this is actually a core tenant of what it means to be a Democrat or core tenant of what it means to be a Republican. For a long time, there was a kind of political understanding there might be largely shared issues. You got to allow people on the margins to believe other things because that kind of helps the party largely, and that that reflects the kind of diversity of the base. But I think we're seeing increasingly people rightly or wrongly saying that that's not maybe a thing the party should do. Maybe the party should say if you're backing like oil producers, that's not the democratic value. You know, that's an open question that's happened to get among both parties right now. Within that group of disillusioned Democrats are lots of Asian, Black, and Latino voters that the Democratic Party has long believed would simply vote for them by dint of not being a Republican. This was especially true in the twenty twenty election, where pundits predicted a backlash from Latinos at the polls, especially after four years of Trump's anti immigrant rhetoric and policies, and yet the data shows that there was an eight percent point swing toward Trump between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty. We didn't explicitly mention Latinos in those four voter categories, but given that they've become the fastest growing voting block in the US, how have both parties, Democrat and Republican been thinking about this electorate? I think this is a core kind of point and too understanding how parties were really unprepared for this current moment. You know, in our second episode, we really explore how the idea of demographic destiny really took hold of both Democrats and Republicans. What does that mean? That was the belief that because of the demographic changes in America, the racial changes in America driven by Latino voters in their growth in terms of share of the electorate, that that meant Democrats would just win national elections because those incoming populations were over going to overwhelmingly be Democrats and increasingly less white and increasingly less by that really informed for the eight years of the Obama era, democratic over confidence not only that they were all good for presidential elections, but they could actually behave in that manner because Republicans were just ill fit for the ways that the country was changing racially, and so both political parties, Democrats and Republicans deeply believed a false story, largely about Lettino voters, that they were going to be inherently Democrats, based on really scant evidence and really I would say racist assumptions. They didn't do the basic work to understand the diversity among the population that Mexicans in California are not like people who live on border in Texas, and that's not inherently the same as Puerto Ricans in Florida. That is something that we are not that is now set in as political conventional wisdom. But for twenty five years was not seen as such, and so I think you really had two parties really behaving on the assumption that Democrats were well positioned, as James Carville said, to win for forty years straight. I think at this point now you have two parties that really understand that that isn't just inherently true about Latino voters, and that that means that, you know, Democrats have to invest in those communities, they have to have candidates that reflect those communities concerns, and they have to talk about issues that go beyond imigration. But I think that that is only a recent thought and not something that had was done twenty years ago, because those assumptions were so deeply rooted. Your colleague at The New York Times, Jennifer Medina, said, there's been this sort of pervasive notion that Latinos are a voting block, that there's some sort of monolithic vote that will overwhelmingly favor one party or another. And though there's been that pervasive sort of conventional wisdom, it's never been born out in the data. Absolutely, And you know, I love Jenny on that point because it's so fundamental to understanding this parties shaped decisions based on bad assumptions and then we're shocked when they went wrong. And what they'd never did in those steps was really stop to do the basic work of understanding these new electorates. And I would really say, if we're going to go, this is step further. That's not even in that episode did I think this applies to Black voters. Also, I think that there has been a misunderstanding of why Black voters uniquely are a monolith and have voted for Democrats and big numbers. Right, that's a unique thing among Black communities that I think a lot of political establishment has just taken for granted and really not to understood that there's a uniqueness about that population that makes that story more complicated too. You know what, really, what I'm trying to do in this show is a firm where voters are and where people are, because I think like there can be some idea that all of a sudden, politics just shifted, and I think it's actually really important to tell people like, no, you didn't just miss something. It's actually that the political parties, media establishment was not prepared and therefore did not prepare you. And you're me personally, or do you think my journalism is helpful in preparing people both. I mean, it's for other people the side of the journalism. I would like to think that we are helping bridge a gap of knowledge, and that I hope that this podcast is something that makes politics more tangible and understandable to people. I'm trying to take things that they're just a political insider thing and make it feel accessible to public who I really think should have political journalism that speaks to them in their language. But am I personally ready, you know, Like I don't know, Like I mean, I think I did work in that election that's proved that said that something like January sixth was possible. Right when January six happened, Like I was in Georgia being like, you know, I was pointing to stories I had done a series about why Grievance in twenty nineteen, where I had talked to so many people who ended up actually being on the Capitol at that day. I knew those people, and so all I'm saying is I haven't been surprised in the direction that is gone. But I really feel like we have a political language that has not even armed people with the necessary tools to answer the questions I think American politics is headed to I think what you're basically getting at is that the language around elections often reduces voters and oversimplifies both the voters themselves and the issues they care about. Yeah, and that you are trying to wade into the messiness of these elections in a way that is human and complicated and sometimes contradictory. And I actually think in doing so it feels more genuine to people than the inverse, because I think that's a lot of the reasons why political journalism has felt so distant to people. It's because oftentimes it has been you know, the people have been really just writing stories for their insider community. And so what I'm trying to say is like, if there is anything that I think the last five to six years has taught us, it's that that isn't enough. We actually haven't given people the proper info to even think about the political questions we are seeing now. If I can show things to people, if I can talk to both insurrectionists and a black pastor who makes Biden win, what is it that they're both sharing? Is that democracy? And and if I share that too, which I do, then that should be what we're driving at that's the shared agreement among everyone, and I think that that, to me is the deepest question that like our kind of election reporting has to get at. Is as we say, and I'm just repeating our trailer now, it's like not just who's gonna win, but placing that election in the larger story of where we're headed after the break. More from a stand herndon of The New York Times coming back, I think the oversimplification is not just a mainstream media but something that was part and parcel of President Joe Biden's mission statement, which was to restore the soul of the nation, to unify this country as a whole on the heels of January sixth, as you alluded to, that's what he ran on back in twenty twenty. But in a speech earlier this month in Philadelphia, he changed his tune, why don't we take a listen. Too much of what's happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the magor Republicans represented extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. I want to be very clear, very clear upfront. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are Magor Republicans. Not every Republican embraces our extreme ideology. I know because I've been able to work with these mainstream Republicans. But there's no question as the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the Magor Republicans, and that is a threat to this country. How have you squared away this change message from President Biden? From a man running on unifying our country to a president explicitly named checking sections of the electorate. I think this was always a tension of the Joe Biden candidacy. He spoke directly to what voters was number one concern was, which was beating Donald Trump, more so than any other candidate. He started there, he ended there, whatever, whatever, But his original articulation was that beating Donald Trump was the solution. And that never made sense to me. That just literally made no sense to me. I was in DC and he did a round table of black reporters. It's before the Iowa Caucus, Yes, before the Iowa Caucus, and like Biden was considered an underdog by people who discount black people, but not me. I'm glad to throw on that in Yeah, yeah, I mean he was an underdog if you just didn't think black voters existed. He was not, if you know that they do. And I asked him at this round table, I was like, even if you beat Trump, why were Republicans treat you different than they treated Barack Obama? How are you so sure this epiphany is coming? And he said, I can't wish I had this one tape, but he said something that like really amount like mostly amounted to I am popular in their states and the way Barack Obama is not. Those Republicans know there would be consequences for like kind of crossing me politically, so they're going to have to come around because doing so with face electoral consequences. That was a ridiculous thought, you know, like that's a that's a view of Republicans and his relationship to the Republican base that's probably twenty years old. Mitch McConnell's base. It's not a matter of one Democrat versus another. They don't like Democrats, and he was assuming this change of mind and epiphany that was based in way old evidence. I remember doing the Daily Episode on the day of the inauguration, and I was in Charlottesville. His inauguration speech is right after the sixth, and if there's any moment that's going to bring about that epiphany on the Republican side, it's probably January sixth, and he positioned his inauguration speech as such. It is an open arm to them to come on over away from Trump and trumps um. But there is a thing that people do which I think is really based in the haughtiness, where they act like Trump supporters don't believe what they say, and if merely the right type of person gives them the right type of pitch, they will abandon this thing that they secretly really don't believe for this other thing, and actually find that kind of insulting. They believe they do not like democrats. They think Joe Biden is bringing on socialism to this country. They think the coalition that powers Joe Biden is an affront to America and democracy. They say it all the time. I've been there, and I asked them, there, don't care about your unity pitch, And so to me, when he was making that even as early as the inauguration, it was always going to face a reality check because he was basing that pitch off of evidence that was outdated, and he didn't know it. I think what we saw as of three weeks ago or at the beginning of this month is him dealing with that information, and as Republicans promoted big liars quote unquote in the Republican primary, as Donald Trump has remained a deeply important figure in the Republican Party, as January sixth, is now being defended by the most energetic parts of the Trump base, he has to reckon with the clear fact that his unity pitch has been rejected. And so I think what we are seeing now is the version of unity that those folks in Charlottesville we're asking for as early as the inauguration, which was to say, actually, the thing that Americans need to do is unite against these people and reaffirm that democracy commitment. That's where he's landed. That's not where he started. Now that he's landed there two and a half months before the midterms, do you think the Democratic Party will run with that new found message. I think they're going to try, and I think that that's pretty clear in these midterms right most of the governor candidates are making democracy pitches. Secretary of State Races Briden has given them a universal message that they can cling on. He's also given them policy to run on and all of that other stuff. I'm not trying to say that stuff doesn't matter, but I definitely think there is a shared language that Democrats have about defending democracy that has been aided by Joe Biden's words, but also by Republicans themselves. Right, Republicans have now promoted candidates who are saying more explicit stuff attacking democracy in a more explicit way, which has allowed Democrats to make this pitch to voters in a clear way. So I think definitely the party has arrived at defending democracy as a political message that they want to use for this midterms, and that only one party can be trusted in the halls of government and that's why you should vote for Democrats. The problem for Democrats is that we do not have a fifty plus one democracy, and so they can make that pitch win over a majority of voters. Republicans can still win the House in that scenario. Explain that Jerryman during which seats are, which seats are drong, how people retire actually matters a lot more than just getting the most votes in House races. Democrats will probably get more votes than Republicans. In November, we only have thirty races that really matter because of the way the maps are drawn, because of which people retire, and because we really have state legislatures that are empowered to be just as important as voters in terms of who wins the House. The question of who wins the House is deeply tied to who controls state legislatures, and that answer in the most important states is Republicans. And so Democrats have arrived at this democracy message at the same time those democracy structures are hampering them from responding. And so that's what I feel like is the tension here. By the time they have gotten to the message, they are already playing catch up, and that message is one of shifting away from unity and restoring the soul of this nation. Basically, the big tent approach has collapsed. But I'm curious, because you are alluding to this earlier in regards to your work. It seems to have similar kinds of aims in terms of inclusivity. You have a quote you said, there's a lot of political media and noise out there, but there's not actually a lot out there that deals with our commitment to democracy. There's not a lot out there that is framed from the basis of voters concerns being justified. And so, with the country as divided as it is, as you and I discussed, what makes you optimistic that you can make a show where everyone can be part of the discussion, where a wide range of voters have their concerns properly reflected In a New York Times podcast, I don't know. I mean, I think I'm good at journalism, and that's the know. I think neither party has a monopoly on truth. To me, I'm not doing this show as like a means of bringing the country together. My goal is to do journalism that names and affirms, it actually gives the reasons why voters of all types feel this way. And I think that on the Republican side, on the Democratic side, on gender lines, on race lines, on all of those things, there are actually things that you can highlight. I think just cut across those d verses are dichotomy. What I trust doing grassroots focused election reporting unites the base of DNR a lot more than the other options. DC isn't about regular people. How decisions are made in DC isn't about regular people. Right the White House, Congress that's the stuff where insider stuff does matter, because that's how they're coming to decisions. Elections are about everybody else and how they're receiving that stuff. And what I trust is if we turn the lens back at everyone else and how they're receiving that stuff, that will make us unique enough where voters of all types can come to it. Granted that we're fair, granted that we're not lecturing. I think the mere act of telling voters what establishment has missed about them is actually an affirming thing across the versus our basis. Do you think this investment in basically everyone else, as you've said, is rooted in the fact that you are thirty years old? Twenty nine don't make me thirty. Is rooted in the fact that you are twenty nine years old, a proud millennial, and most importantly, perhaps less tied to a vision of how things used to work in political reporting, which in a time where the rules of politics have been upended and rewritten, perhaps makes you uniquely qualified for this moment. Certainly the answer questions, yes, I do think I'm a little more. I am definitely more willing to kind of mold break and to see the new rules for what they are because I am less tethered to the old rules. But I gotta say, like, I don't think that's just age identity. I think that is a lot of things. Honestly, I think that is working class family. I think that's blackness. I think that's midwesternness. You know. I feel like I have a lot of identities that are often lost in political journalism, and so I feel like it is for me such a like core mission that we have to make something that sounds like it's for people that doesn't talk in shorthand that starts with moments that people actually feel. My kind of militant mission on that is definitely because of my own life, my own experiences, and the communities I care a lot about. Like I get all these questions about like what it's like to be black at Trump rallies, which you know is a question that's a fair ask, And then I'm like I fought with some of these people with other stuff, like we both think, like these fancy school kids are lecturing at us. You know, my willingness and my desire I are my kind of feeling that it is a mandate to change the way politics journalism is talked about is absolutely because of those identities. But I would say it's not just age. The danger of the single story has long been a problem. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You mentioned those Trump rallies. I want to sit with them because you have this quote you said, I tell young black journalists the emotional labor part is really real. I'm not going to lie to you and say that being a black person going to Trump rallies is a swimming experience. You have to decide in your head that you care enough about this output that I'm releasing myself from all the other shit I'm going to have to take in the process. It's a wild way to live your life. Did I say that? In thinking about that, I wonder for you, why is this work still worth the pain? Before I was a black bear, I was a black person. The pain is also a mission. In the same way that all of those things happen, I have also experienced a lot of things in life that have made me position to be able to really navigate things like a Trump rally. I find it to be a real responsibility to do something with that. I didn't want to become a journalist because of how political journalism was functioning or like because I thought they talked to my communities, or because I thought it talked spoke to me glagedly, because I believe in the value of the profession to do those things, even if they have not been realized. The reason to do it is because I think I can do it in ways that actually do tell people new things, that do actually explain a country that people deserve answers to and arm people with the right tools to come to answers themselves. The ways in which it is hard are also ways in which it's motivating, because I do not want it to be that just white people who feel comfortable at those things get to go and report about those things. As a black reporter, as a young reporter, I should not only have to write about black people and millennials. That's not acceptable to me. I think that I should be able to write about everybody. And if you are a political reporter and you don't go to Trump rallies, or you haven't been to a Trump rally, what you're reporting on, you know, like, how would you how would you understand the core political driving force of this country. The country deserves political journalism that is honest and explicit about the most important issues, and I think most the political journalism is willfully ignorant about the most important and explicit about the most important issues. I intend to not be My last two questions for you as we leave. In episode two of your show, you unpack an autopsy for the Republican Party which came after losing the presidential election in twenty twelve, some of which you've shared here with me. But if the Democrats were to lose the House, the Senate or both in the upcoming midterms, what do you think that autopsy would look and sound like. I mean, really, I think if the Republicans did autopsy in twenty twelve, Democrats basically did an autopsy in sixteen. I mean that was Democrats big autopsy moment this year. If they lose, I mean it depends on where and how. If the reversal of Roe v. Wade is not enough for them to motivate voters and specifically women and core states they need for Senate races, that will be a massive failure. Politically, they can create reasons for the House. The House, they have some structural problems, and I think like you're increasingly seeing Democrats take aim at those structures because of that you're seeing Democrats talk about ending the filibuster, removal of electoral college, you know, passing a voting rights act to like limit cherry managing. All of these things are partially because the post twenty sixteen autopsy has told them they have deep structural issues that they underrated in the Obama era. But I don't think the autopsy now would be much different than it has than the slow erosions we've seen over the last years, which is that like Democrats cannot assume that they've hit a floor with white voters, and particularly rural white voters, particularly non college white voters, and particularly white men, it can get worse, and that matters. It's actually deeply important that Obama keep a minimal group of rural Wisconsinites with him to be able to win the state. In other places, they are bottoming out in a lot of those places, and if they have a midterm elections that goes the way this scenario does, it will probably be because at least in one hand, they continue to bottom out, and it will probably be because they continue to either not motivate black voters to come out enough or have continued their erosion with Hispanic Latino voters. I mean, it's just the inverse of the memo Republicans wrote in twenty twelve, which is that there is deep erosion with white voters and Democrats and that can get worse. And if they cannot overcome that with other populations, or if the country's segregation is such where all of those new minority voters are located only in blue states and so they're not getting them spread across to win Senate races. That is a deep problem for Democrats because the structures of government already put them at a disadvantage. The electoral College, the Senate Jerry Manager has already put them at a disadvantage. They have to overcome those and if they mess up on those two categories, they are either falling further and further behind. My last question for us. Last March, you interviewed Senator Warnock of Georgia for The Times. Warnock, of course, is up for reelection against Republican Herschel Walker. But upon his election, Warnock and a sermon insisted that Trump and Trump voters were a dying breed. And as that peace ended that you did for the Daily, you said, I guess the question to me is was Trump the last grasp of a world order that is waning, or is the aberration this democratic moment that actually this election, Joe Biden's victory and this moment of optimism from liberals, is that what is actually an aberration and the Republican long term game to win power just through their core constituencies, is that going to be the thing that lasts? And I guess I wonder a year removed from that interview and now about two months from the men terms, which do you think will be the aberration? That's a good dramatic ending on our part. I'm happy to hear that, but it's also too rigid, right. The answer is definitely somewhere in the middle. The trend is further from where Warnock was positioning in that speech, and that's not because Democrats have somehow lost the majority of a mayor or Republicans have convinced the majority of Americans that you know, the election was stolen. What we saw in January sixth, and in that twenty twenty moment was that a minority of radicalized, anti democratic individuals can upend our politics and particularly can control a party. A year and a half later, that control of the party is still there and they have hardened to Kerry Lake is articulating messages not even Donald Trump said in twenty twenty, Tim Michaels in Wisconsin is going further than where even some Republicans were. Lauren Bobert and Marjorie Taylor Green will have more power if Republicans take back the House. So the problem is for Warnock and for most Liberals who had that construction, they assumed that the rules of the game were fair and fixed, and they are neither of those things. The rules can be changed, and democracy is not stable. It's not a fixed thing. To me, what began as a presidency that was framed around a Republican epiphany after Donald Trump's removal has really landed in a place where it's Democrats who are having the epiphany. For some of the country, albeit a minority, democracy is not a big of a value as they thought that minority can still drive politics. I don't remember the fullness of war Knock speech, but I don't think those realities matched with that optimism. The biggest proof example is in war Knox race himself, where a candidate and herschel Walker who's done the bare minimum and just merely reflected Donald Trump's words, still might beat him, Still might be Warnock's currently tied in polling guys of yesterday. If we're asking, like, how has the politics move since that episode, I think it's moved away from war Knock, which leaves us in a very precarious place. Precariousness is our future. Well, you were worried that we were going to end on a dramatic note. But despite the precarity of our future, despite this sort of grim projection that you've presented, I want to say I think you rose above Cartwright and Weddington and turned in a Jordan performance. There is nothing better to hear than a good old bulls compliment. I appreciate this. I appreciate y'all hanging out and asking great questions. I staid Herndon, thank you for the show, thank you for coming on, and I hope you're wrong. Yeah yeah, yeah, like war Knock, let's check in in the year. No, thanks, thank you, and that's our show. I want to give a special thanks to weak to a Stead Herndon for coming on. You can listen to his new show The run Up wherever you get your podcasts to listen and to read more of a Stead's work at The New York Times. Visit our show notes at talk easypod dot com. There you'll find a back catalog of over two hundred and fifty episodes, including talks with Ezra Kleine, Margot Jefferson, g Noam Chomsky, Roxanne gay Neil Katillon, Sarah Nelson, and doctor James Whitfield. To hear those in more Pushkin podcasts, listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you like to listen. You can also follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram at talk easypod. If you want to support talk easy by purchasing one of our mugs they come and Cream or Navy, you can do so at talk easypod dot com slash shop. If you want to support us in other ways, the best thing you can do is really just shared the show with the friend. The other thing you can do is review the program on Spotify, Apple, wherever you do you're listening. Reviewing the show on these platforms for really just giving us five stars is still the best way for new listeners to find Talk Easy as always. Talk Easy is produced by Caroline Reebok. Our executive producer is Janick Sobravo. Our associate producer is Caitlin Dryden. Today's talk was edited by Caitlin Dryden and mixed by Andrew Vastola. Our assistant editors are Clarisse Gavara and Lindsay Ellis. Music by Dylan Peck, illustrations by Chrisha Chanoy, Video and graphics by Ian Chang, Derek gaberzak Ian Jones, Ethan Seneca and Layla Chester. Special thanks to Patrice Lee, Kaylin Ung and Paulina Suarez. I'd also like to thank our team at Pushkin Industries, Justin Richmond, Julia Barton, John Schnars, Karrie Brodie, David Glover, Heather Faine, Mia LaBelle, Eric Salmon, Nicolemarano, Maggie Taylor, Morgan Ratner, Jordan McMillan, Isabella Navarez, Maya Kanig, Carl Migliori, Jason camber Well and Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisburg. I'm Sanfordgo, so thank you for listening to Talk Easy. I'll see you back here on Sunday with a new episode featuring poet Sandra Cisneros. Until then, stay safe and so on,