Clear Eyes about the Down Ballot

TOPICS DISCUSSED

  • Trump Appointments and Expectations 

  • Lessons from the Down Ballot

  • Outside of Politics: Is It Time for Christmas?

Episode Resources

Want more Pantsuit Politics? To support the show, please join our Premium Community on Substack or share the word about our work in your circles. You can find information and links for all our sponsors on our website. To search past episodes of the main show or our Premium content, check out our content archive.

This podcast and every episode of it are wholly owned by Pantsuit Politics LLC and are protected by US and international copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. We hope you'll listen to it, love it, and share it with other people, but not with large language models or machines and not for commercial purposes. Thanks for keeping it nuanced with us.

TRANSCRIPT

Beth [00:00:00] Hi, it's Beth. We're working on a weird schedule this week. Both life and the news are coming at us fast. So we recorded the episode you're about to hear early in the afternoon on Wednesday. Just hours later, we learned, among other things, that President elect Trump will appoint Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence. And I just owe you an apology. I feel like this is almost my fault because I have been saying that my expectations are so low that the nominations have exceeded them. And then here comes Gates and Gabbard, and I feel like there's the Donald that I know. We also learned after we recorded that Senator John Thune was elected by his colleagues to serve as the Senate majority leader.  

[00:00:45] And all of this and more, who knows what will have broken by the time you hear these words? It's just a lot to take in. We are taking it in a little bit behind you because of the way the week broke down for us. We always say we're processing the news here. So thank you for your patience as we process at a different rate than you are. We will have more to say about all of this on Substack and back here next week. In this episode, we're also talking about down-ballot races and what we're learning about issues like abortion and ranked choice voting. So I hope that you find real value in what we've made for you. And I appreciate you in so many ways continuing to just put one foot in front of the other with us. Here's the show.  

[00:01:30] Music Interlude.  

Sarah [00:01:32] This is Sarah Stewart Holland.  

Beth [00:01:33] This is Beth Silvers.  

Sarah [00:01:35] You're listening to Pantsuit Politics.  

Beth [00:01:37] Where we take a different approach to the news.  

[00:01:38] Music Interlude.  

Sarah [00:01:54] Thanks for being with us today. We are still processing the election and we're going to talk at the opening of the show a little bit about the second round of Trump appointments. And we're going to then process what we're trying to learn or be open to learning from down-ballot races both electorally, referendums, policy-wise. We're going to talk about all that. And then as always, we talk about what's on our mind Outside Politics. And it's Christmas because we just need a little Christmas. And we're going to talk about that.  

Beth [00:02:22] And it's going to be here in a hot second. So if you are busy looking for a gift for the Pantsuit Politics fan in your life or to treat yourself or to help someone in your life along with your gifts, we would love for you to check out the gift guide for Pantsuit Politics fans. Alise wanted to make this easy for you. So the gift guide is in the show notes. You can find merch, our trip to Switzerland, the Substack membership, all of the ways in which you can enjoy a little pantsuit politics with your holidays in that gift guide.  

Sarah [00:02:53] Next up, we're going to talk about the latest round of Trump appointments.  

[00:02:56] Music Interlude.  

[00:03:08] Beth, we recorded an episode yesterday where we talked about the encouraging signs of moderation inside some of Trump's early appointments, including Senator Marco Rubio for secretary of state. And now less than 24 hours, I'm ready to say JK. 

Beth [00:03:29] Well, we definitely, I think, are back in the era of needing to timestamp our episodes because life is coming at us fast. So we're recording this at 12:13 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, November 13th. I still have this posture of my expectations being set so very low that I'm not super surprised yet. I don't like it. And I have criticisms and I have lots of huh! The sort of I'm just going to not overreact, but react a little bit. But honestly my expectations have been so low that as long as Gary Busey isn't going to be at the FBI, it's a little better than I thought it could be.  

Sarah [00:04:15] I don't know. The Fox News host Pete Hegseth as the secretary of defense with zero military leadership experience leading the world's largest military, I do have some shock at that. It feels like to me last time there was the perception that like, well, we need the military experience and that that military experience turned out to be the biggest roadblocks to some of the things they wanted to do. Maybe not things they wanted to do, but the criticism post particularly January 6th was coming from a lot of military brass. And so now the idea is like, well, the military brass is our problem. I still don't believe that that is from the perception of we no longer live in a democracy and they're solidifying the military as loyal to Donald Trump because we're on this march to fascism. Perhaps I will be proven a Pollyanna who blindly ignored the glaring red flags.  

[00:05:23] And I really am trying to hold both of those things. I'm not trying to reject wholeheartedly that criticism. But to me, when I read Pete Hegseth critiques of the military and I think about what the new Trump administration is articulating, I don't think that's it. I keep thinking about something someone told me who is close to a member of the House that's on the Intelligence Committee. They're like, he hates war. Trump is terrified of going to war. He does not want that. There's a real isolationist avoid conflict situation. So I'm trying to keep that in my mind as I'm thinking what do they want from the secretary of defense? What do they want from the United States military? What do they say they're mad about? Could it be something different? When I look at this pic and I look at this strategy.  

Beth [00:06:09] Let me be clear. I do not think this is a good choice, and I think this is a choice that might be a bridge too far for the Senate because he has to be confirmed. And I think it's possible that he might not be, even though Republicans have control of the Senate. We don't know yet as we're recording who is going to be the Senate majority leader. But we know that Rick Scott, who Elon Musk and the right wing sort of blogosphere were pushing, is out of the voting.  

Sarah [00:06:33] Yeah, I heard he wasn't going to make it through the first round.  

Beth [00:06:35] He did not make it through the first round. So there are senators who are not quite ready to deliver all of their power into the hands of this administration. Now, I think they're going to give a lot of it away, but I don't think all of it and this one might be a bridge too far. I don't know how we're going to have a military if we decide that women can no longer be in positions of combat, because everything I've read is that military recruiting is extremely tough right now. And that we must have more women in the military in a variety of roles, including combat and leadership roles if we want the military to continue to be the most powerful fighting force on earth. Which I think they do want. I think they want them not to fight, but I think they want to build up the military in part because that enriches a lot of people. I think that a big goal of this administration is going to be many, many people making money over building up the technological capabilities of the American military. You can debate the pros and cons of that, but I think that is a goal.  

Sarah [00:07:37] And then women in the military thing, if we're talking about what they are articulating as a critique and problem, that has come up quite a bit particularly with Pete Hegseth and some other members of the MAGA media. It came up a lot when he had the assassination attempt. This is something that I heard from my own MAGA friends and family that are like there shouldn't have been a female Secret Service agent, that there's these women in combat critique. And so, yeah, I think that that is something that they clearly say is a problem they have with the current leadership inside the military that they want to bring to an end. And I agree with you this is where the rubber meets the road. This is going to happen a lot with this administration. You might have critiques, but what happens with the fallout from any changes you make on the ground? Be it with immigration or the military. We also have John Ratcliffe. He's a former Texas representative who was the acting director of national intelligence at the end of the previous Trump administration. He's been tapped to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. I don't have a lot of faith in this pick either. We'll see how the United States Senate feels about this. The one that really caught my attention that I kind of did a little bit of like head in the hands moment was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee being the ambassador to Israel.  

Beth [00:08:57] You don't think he's going to get things worked out in the Middle East in a way that affords dignity to all people?  

Sarah [00:09:02] I do not have a lot of faith in that. And what concerns me is that this feels like more of the same which was in 2016. I've said this a million times. I feel that the foreign policy approach of the first Trump administration is a direct line to October 7th. The sense of we will not let you at the table. You do not exist. We don't care what your priorities are. And I think that that further radicalizes very dangerous parties and pushes other parties further along the path to radicalization. And so this pick concerns me that the Middle East envoy pick makes me feel a little bit better, but not a lot.  

Beth [00:09:46] I don't know yet how to calibrate my reaction to some of these choices because it is unclear not only how people will act in these jobs, but what the jobs themselves will mean, what their responsibilities will mean. Because we know from the first Trump administration that he does not have a particularly disciplined or constrained approach to leading the executive branch agencies. And so how much power will a Mike Huckabee have versus the Middle East envoy, versus Jared Kushner, versus Trump himself just hanging out on the phone with Bibi. It's just hard to know. When I hear about Elon and Vivek and their new DOGE department haha, that could be extremely significant. It could also be giving the guys with the biggest egos that we can't really get rid of something like Magna-Tiles and saying go build a house. I just don't know what any of these things are going to mean yet. And so I'm trying to Not lose my mind over anything and just wait and see. I feel like that's all I can do.  

Sarah [00:10:57] Yeah, I think what I'm trying to do is take the arguments they're making, that they're articulating seriously. So with the government efficiency, I'm not going to do what I've done, which is say because they made the argument there's ridiculous and there's nothing there. I think Emily Oster wrote a really great piece for The New York Times about the public health critiques at the core of some things that we are tempted to roll our eyes at. Like fluoride in the drinking water and raw milk. And I think her argument, as I read it, which was like take some of this seriously, and I did that. I just felt for years, if it came from their side, I just took this posture of there's nothing there because they're ridiculous. And I don't want to do that again because I don't think it was effective and it's not true. And especially with like Make America Healthy Again. You guys, I gave birth at home twice. I don't have a lot of legs to stand on as far as rejecting any criticism of the medical industry. And also, my child's a type one diabetic with a chronic disease that can't be cured with sunlight and diet. Thank you so much.  

[00:11:57] I'm trying to make myself a good ambassador here. I understand what you're saying. This is the reality. So I thought there was a really good piece in Persuasion that said, of course, there's government inefficiencies. If our response is Ellen and Vivek are a joke, the government runs great, we're not going to get anywhere. Because that's not true. We all know there are inefficiencies. And this piece was like the inefficiency is not that we need to shut down whole entire departments. And the inefficiency is not like the wrong people are standing in the way. The inefficiency often inside the bureaucracy is that people do have common sense things they can do, and processes and rules stand in their way. And I thought that was a really, really smart argument, something that I've seen evidence of, something we hear from Governor Shapiro and Governor Moore in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Often, government does stand in the way, but not out of some nefarious plot but because we put processes in place and we never say are they still doing what we want them to do. So, look, if Elon and Vivek are going to do that, great. And I'm willing to engage with a fair mind around some of this stuff.  

Beth [00:13:01] I think it is not at all a bad idea to have something outside the departments taking a look at the overall structure of things. I think that the Government Accountability Office is extremely valuable for that very reason. To take a really particular example of something that I think could be improved in government in Project 2025, in the section about the Defense Department, Chris Miller, who wrote that section, talked pretty extensively about procurements and how difficult process is in making sure that our military does get what it needs and that it's getting the latest thing that it needs and that it's getting it at the time that it needs it and in the quantities it needs it. And how often there are (to put it colloquially) stupid roles that get in the way of people doing what obviously makes sense in those circumstances. And we have listeners who have experience in this field, both on the government contractor side and within the Defense Department who wrote to me and said, "Yeah, he's right about that. This process really needs to be reviewed." That is the kind of thing that people like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, if they choose to, could bring value to.  

[00:14:19] The question that I have is to what extent will they have respect for people who know things? Because good consulting is a mix of bringing your own fresh eyes and experiences and willingness to ask questions and poke at things that have been treated as sacred, combined with respecting the people who are in it every single day and who really know it better than you do. Can those guys thread that needle to do some really good work here? I think they could if they got really serious about it. I don't know how they're going to approach it. I don't think that naming the department after cryptocurrency is a great start, but maybe that gets it out of his system and he really focuses in and maybe there is enough room there. My first reaction is I don't think D.C. is big enough for all these egos, but maybe it really works. I'm open to it if it does. I agree with you, I don't want to just roll my eyes or meme everything and act like this is the dumbest of the dumb and there's nothing real here. I also think that there has to be some give on the side of assuring people who are doing good work in government that they're going to have a seat at the table in these conversations.  

Sarah [00:15:35] And to the other end of that reaction to the we're playing violin on the deck of the Titanic while we sink into fascism. When I read really granular political reporting, it brings me enormous comfort. Let me give you an example. Perc had some reporting from Mar a Lago that there's been a real chill since Donald Trump picked Marco Rubio for secretary of state. Because there was the perception that Ric Grenell, who has been very, very loyal to Donald Trump the moment January 6th happened and on, got left out in the cold. That he wanted this pick and he didn't get it. And that he is the best, fullest representation of MAGA. There is a lot of sense around the fact that Donald Trump is plucking representatives from a very close margin in the House that they need. And that people were like, well, I thought we were trying to be loyal to get his staff through in the house and all these other people jump ship and got positions and I wish I had, too. Just some bickering, some like they're not MAGA enough, why are we getting left out?  

[00:16:47] And it just reminds me that there's a real mental trap that I think I fell into a lot with the George W Bush administration. That when your opponents win, there is this ability to see them as all powerful or organized, they have the best media, they have the best longest term plan, everything they do is so efficient and right and they're working for this. And if we don't tighten up and get everything right because they get everything right, and if we don't get everything right, they're just going to death march us into fascism. I felt that so strongly during the George W Bush administration. It felt like they were better at everything, that they never argued, that they were aligned and that was the threat because we were not like that, and they were and we weren't seeing it clearly. And so when I read things like this, I'm like, don't do that again. Be careful. Remember that this is still a big organization of human beings with different priorities and different ambitions and, like you said, big egos. And so not to see blind obedience and blind loyalty as a risk where it doesn't even exist. You know what I'm saying?  

Beth [00:18:05] I do. And I think on the other side of it, to take seriously what is serious. Because it's also not the case that every single person here is incompetent and only has media skills or only fits that central casting mode. There's a lot going on here and the government is so big and complex that even if you walk in wanting to blow a lot of that up, you have a lot of work that you have to do and you've got to put people in positions to do that work. And then once they get in position, they will be obstacles even if they promised you that they would be facilitators of your agenda. It's just human nature. So with the dynamics that we understand from 2016, the dynamics that we understand from what happened around January 6th, the dynamics we understand of the campaign that Trump just ran and everything that we know is coming down the pike for this administration in terms of their inbox, I just keep telling myself, Beth, there is so much more that you don't know than what you do right now. And it will come and we will analyze it as it comes. But don't borrow problems and panic and huge victories for the administration or huge defeats for America before they land.  

Sarah [00:19:22] Yeah, I think that's hard. I just think that's a hard practice. It's a hard practice to decide what is real. When I was reading about the reporting in the Wall Street Journal about the purging of the generals, I mean, purging of the generals can really send you into a frenzy. But I thought, wait, hold on. This hasn't happened yet. They haven't signed it. What does it mean? What will I have to go through? What are they actually mad at generals about? It's hard. It's a hard practice not to panic because that neural pathway that either panics or laughs at Donald Trump is really well-paved in my brain. And I'm just trying to remind myself that neither of those approaches worked because they're conflicting. We were trying to sell to the American people always that he was an inexperienced, narcissistic joke and also the biggest threat since World War Two. That's a hard argument to make, and I think that's probably why it failed. And I'm just trying to remember all that.  

Beth [00:20:25] It's easy to feel, though, because those are both ways of feeling some kind of sense of control or having your feet on the ground or understanding the situation and being able to put things in the categories which we all want. I want to respond exactly as listeners expect me to when they reach out and say, tell us what mass deportations would look like or tell us what shutting down the Department of Education would mean, how would it happen? But the true thing sitting here today is that I do not know. I could tell you in theory how it would work based on existing rules and norms and historic practices. But what I know, again, looking at the first Trump administration, is that where there were guardrails, sometimes the administration upheld them and sometimes they ran right over them. And sometimes when they ran right over them, the courts checked them and sometimes the courts did not. And so it's one foot in front of the other for me right now because everything else is worth the piece of paper that I type it on. Everything else is just speculation until they get in there and we see what they're going to do.  

Sarah [00:21:44] One foot in front of the other I think is the approach. And we're going to take that approach next as we talk about down-ballot races and referendums and what we could possibly learn from those.  

[00:21:54] Music Interlude.  

[00:22:04] Beth, I want to start on a positive note. The first thing that I think we can learn from the down-ballot is that a lot of you have decided your name should be on it. She Should Run, an organization that's dedicated to dramatically increasing the number of women running for office, has seen a 743% increase in applicants, Beth.  

Beth [00:22:26] That's awesome.  

Sarah [00:22:26] I'm really excited. I'm going to have somebody from She Should Run on the Good News Briefs so we can really just swim around in that fun fact. Because it does seem like on the macro personal level what we're hearing from so many people, and I think what we have felt at different times is it's time to go micro. It's time to find a place for my voice and my name on the ballot and my spot in the local library board or whatever the case might be. And I think that's a beautiful takeaway.  

Beth [00:22:57] I do, too. I don't give up on the macro at all. But I think that asking how can I do something meaningful is exactly the right next step. And if you are a person who thinks that that meaningful service could come in the form of running for office, I'm so glad that we have so many organizations out there to equip you to do that. And She Should Run is a great one with a really nice track record.  

Sarah [00:23:21] Well, what else do we think we could learn from the down-ballot, Beth? There were a lot of ticket splitters in this election. A lot of people who voted for Donald Trump voted for Tammy Baldwin, Ruben Gallego, Elissa Slotkin. I mean, it happened over and over.  

Beth [00:23:39] Two kinds of ticket splitting, right? Because there were people who voted for the other party in down-ballot races. There are also people who skipped the down-ballot. They showed up just to vote for Donald Trump and no one else. And I think that's really interesting and worthy of asking questions about. Not asking questions in a conspiratorial way, in a way of like why do so many Americans see the presidency as more valuable than the people who serve locally or see the presidency is more relevant to them than folks in the Senate or a local mayor's office or anything in between? 

Sarah [00:24:15] I think that conspiratorial thing I'm glad you said it, because I do want to talk about it just real quick. Everybody, please stop. Please stop. Don't do that. Don't do that thing where, where are the missing votes? I know that conspiracies are an answer when the questions feel impossibly hard or the reality seems detached from our understanding of things. And I just think when I look at people's reactions in that way, when I look at people say where are the missing votes in North Carolina or start talking about Elon Musk and Starlink, I just think we have a story about Donald Trump that we clung to so tightly that it became a superpower for him. Because it blinded us to things. I think you really see that in the 2022 midterms, we took takeaways that weren't there because we decided it's like confirmation bias, which I think is the strongest psychological reaction that happens inside a human brain.  

[00:25:20] But we were acting like the only people on the right had confirmation bias. That only people on the right were blind. Of course, we're blind to our own things. Of course, people from the center all the way to the far left have blindness. That we use Donald Trump to tell ourselves that we were right, that we saw things clearly. And I think that was like this weird invisibility cloak that he used. It's almost like he's like a shield. He absorbs stuff so that things get missed. Do you know what I mean? But I also think that with this ticket splitting and with the people who turned out to vote just for him, I think what is a takeaway from 2022 from every election he's ever been in, I still feel good saying he is unique. He turns out low propensity voters in a way that they have not found someone else that can. Do you feel strong in that observation?  

Beth [00:26:17] Absolutely. I especially feel strong in that observation because of the people who show up to vote for him and no one else. And I think that tells you that something different is going on with him. I especially think about like a Sam Brown losing in Nevada. That is, to me, powerful evidence that people have a connection to Donald Trump that does not translate to a connection to every person he endorses or every agenda he supports. I think about here in Kentucky our amendment too that was defeated that we've talked about, the school choice amendment, a huge percentage of the advertisements I saw for that and the mailings that I received about it said President Trump needs you to vote yes on two. Now, Kentucky clearly loves President Trump. He won by a lot here. And that amendment lost in every single county despite his endorsement. So there's a ton of cognitive dissonance to hold around the fact that he is unique and he clearly has coattails. But those coattails only extend so far and only certain people benefit from them. I mean, it's complex.  

Sarah [00:27:27] Yeah. And I just try to remember and keep present even when people survived in a ticket splitting situation like a Ruben Gallego, I also want to be careful where it was also the weaknesses of his opponent, too. You always have to kind of hold that if you win, which I don't believe that the Trump administration is going to do. Again, don't hear me say that I think Kamala Harris was a terrible candidate and ran a terrible campaign. I do have some money questions. Not for nothing. But you have to be clear-eyed that your opponent did have weaknesses. And she did. She was closely linked to the Biden administration. There are absolutely anti-inflation, anti-incumbent, global forces. I don't think Donald Trump and his team is going to clear-eyed assess that, but I want to do that. I want to make sure I'm looking at Ruben Gallego strengths and not just Kari Lake's weaknesses. I want to make sure I'm assessing Josh Stein clearly while also acknowledging that Mark Robinson was a scandal plagued candidate. Even in Kentucky, I love Andy Beshear, but Andy Beshear has a lot of high name recognition and a brand related to his father that I think we always have to keep in mind. So I just want to make sure we don't read any result, even ticket splitting, as Donald Trump is a specific case. And see all these Democrats, everything they did was right and they were great candidates. You know what I'm saying? I'm just trying to be so clear-eyed. It's probably annoying.  

Beth [00:29:13] It's absolutely annoying to be in your own head and trying to be clear-eyed because everything is a question and that's hard. And it is much easier now to look back at previous cycles with new information and see them differently than we saw them at the time. So it's like how can you do this honest, open assessment where you're trying so hard not to confirm your own worldview through the analysis, where you're trying so hard not to get to a result that you just feel would be best. And also just acknowledge we can only know what we know now. This will look different-- this election, all the things we're trying to be so clear eyed about now will look different to us four years down the road because we'll have more information even about what just happened.  

Sarah [00:30:00] Yeah, I'm looking back at my own gut reactions where I thought, of course, this is the first presidential post Dobbs, post January 6th. And I would get all this anecdotal evidence from you guys and from my own life of Republicans that were voting for a Democrat for the first time and think, did I believe that? Did I want it to be true? I mean, I knew. I kept saying I know this is anecdotal, but this is what we're hearing from our audience or what I'm seeing in my own life. When the data coming back from this election is that abortion was not decisive and that there were still voters who supported abortion expansion and voted for Donald Trump. I think he was successful at distancing himself from that. Because, again, we know it's true nobody believes that Donald Trump is a pro-life ideologue. I'm sure even pro-life ideologues.  

Beth [00:30:47] I think especially pro-life ideologues know that he is not.  

Sarah [00:30:50] And also he is responsible for the overturning of Dobbs. He specifically picked Supreme Court justices who would do that. So it's like both things are true. And how do you walk through that as a voter, much less as somebody trying to look at what these races have to teach us in these referendums?  

Beth [00:31:07] And could it be true that people think that he's right, that it's okay for states to decide this? Then they're angry at what their states have decided, but then they're not angry enough to kick out a bunch of incumbents in state legislatures or governor’s mansions to get there? I don't know. I think people are really mixed bag on this topic. And some of their opinions are incredibly thoughtful and others are not at all. And it's so frustrating. I don't know how you craft strategy around that, but I do think that's the reality.  

Sarah [00:31:38] And I think with abortion, it's so hard. David Leonhardt had a great write up and he was talking about abortion has expanded even in the states with abortion bans because of access to medical abortion through the mail. So I think people don't feel all the way the short term ramifications of abortion limitations. And I think the ways that abortion has really affected reproductive care, the limiting of doctors in rural areas, the terrible impact on care in which women with wanted pregnancies are not getting the care they need and dying. I just remember everyone's not going to blame the same people I blame. I watched a video one of our listeners sent us that was like this MAGA influencer, but like real cherry, like real palatable. Do you know what I'm saying? She was doing all the things to make herself seem nice. I don't know how to put it any other way.  

Beth [00:32:41] A rose gold hat instead of a red one.  

Sarah [00:32:43] Right. And so she was saying, like, "If you are an Amber Thurman, the person you need to blame is your doctor because they have committed medical malpractice and you're in a bad hospital system." Some people are just going to blame doctors, especially if we get this Make America Healthy Again. The playbook, there is clearly blame the medical industry and doctors for everything. It's their fault. It's not regulation. It's not policy. They don't care about you. And they're the enemy. And so I'm just trying to-- people are not going to draw the same conclusions and blame the right people. They're not going to be mad at the same people I'm going to be mad at. And what's my answer to that? Because, again, it's not going to be for me personally saying everything doctors and the medical industry does is great and they have your best interests at heart all the time. That's not an argument I can make in good faith because I don't believe that. I don't think it's nefarious, but I think there are problems. Again, I couldn't even make it in good faith. I gave birth at home twice and I have a diabetic son. So I'm trying to find my path forward to say, I see what you see, but I don't blame who you blame. And that's hard.  

Beth [00:34:00] And what is the path forward in the short term while these laws are still in place to ensure that we don't see more women die unnecessarily? It is an absolute stain on our country that people are dying preventable deaths because of these abortion laws. And I think the vast majority of people agree with that. The vast, vast majority of people. And so if you run a hospital system, can you advocate within the hospital that we're going to take the risk, that we're going to let our doctors do what we believe is right even in the face of these laws and tell the attorney general of the state to come after us if they don't want to saving lives? If you have the skills to be a fantastic lawyer for doctors and hospitals who behave in the way that they think is ethical in these situations, can you get connected and provide those legal services?  

[00:34:53] I want to figure out how to fight those battles in real life and not just wait for them to be fought through electoral politics, especially because electoral politics have been disappointing around this issue in a number of places. So to me, again, whiteboard moment. Everything goes on the table. These things matter in so many different spheres. And I think the more we clearly attack them in so many different spheres-- an attack is an awfully aggressive word. It is my mood right now. But whatever it is: address, confront, meet the moment. I think the more people will be exposed to it and they'll see we are going to have to run someone against my 30 year state rep who goes virtually unchallenged every cycle if we want to start to build a group of people in the legislature who even understand this issue, let alone will vote in a way that moves it forward.  

Sarah [00:35:59] Well, I think as a feminist, as a person who is dedicated to equality and has been my whole life, I'm really trying to listen for what I'm hearing from women on this, particularly conservative women. I thought there was a great piece that was like I told you so about the trad wives. This was not just some isn't this adorable social media trend? This was telling us something. I think that viral moment where the girl was like, I want to be a trad wife; I want a baby on my hip, but I have to go have a job is something we shouldn't just laugh at. We should take that seriously. I think that we need to think about what voters, particularly women voters, are saying about what they feel their choices are and what they wish they were instead. And that's not to say I'm about to go get a ballerina farm maid subscription because I'm not. But there's always been conservative women.  

[00:37:00] I would really like someone to write a history of this Phyllis Schlafly and beforehand all the way to Ballerina farm; like this very specific type of conservative activism that comes from women. Because I think just being like tool the patriarchy is not productive or helpful. I really want to engage with this in a way that doesn't try to convince Ballerina Farm, but does take seriously the millions of women who follow her whose party registration might surprise you. Who are intoxicated by that, who feel left behind or ignored or silenced in the lived reality of their lives as working women and mothers. And how do we engage with that? And I think you see some of that around abortion in these down-ballot referendums and you see some of it in social media comments. And I want to engage with that. I really, really do.  

Beth [00:37:56] And it's very difficult for me as you engage with that without going right to the issues that are important to me and the worldview that's important to me because I can easily say, well, one reason that it's so difficult to imagine a future for the young woman who said she would like to be a trad wife is because we don't have good support structures. We don't have good support structures for families who want to send their kids to child care. It's unaffordable. It's often not available. We don't have good support structures for women entering the workplace. We don't have good family leave policies. You know what I mean? I can just go to like, well, here's a list of things that I thought we should do anyway. And that's what I'm going to see in the comments that people are making right now. And I am trying to train my brain to stop doing that and to take it more slowly and to be open to everything that I am obviously missing. Because I am obviously missing a ton when I look at the numbers of how women voted in this election. And I understand that black women voted 92% for Kamala Harris. I got that statistic. Got it. Everybody else, I'm missing a lot. And I want to get it.  

Sarah [00:39:24] I have a hard question about that for us. Should we have gone to the RNC?  

Beth [00:39:30] I think my harder question would be, should we have gone to the DNC? The political faithful did not decide this election. So I want to know what spaces we can be in with more people who do not like news and politics, but who are shaping the future of these elections.  

Sarah [00:39:50] Yeah. And listen, but does that mean we should be on social media? Should we be listening to Theo Von and Joe Rogan? Like, where is that?  

Beth [00:39:59] I don't know.  

Sarah [00:40:01] Where is that space?  

Beth [00:40:02] I don't know because as many listeners as they have, that's still a relatively small percentage of the population, right? We're so fragmented that it's hard to get a read, but it's easy to think you have a read because so many people are accessible in your pocket.  

Sarah [00:40:18] Yeah.  

Beth [00:40:19] I do think we still need to go to a WWE match. Is that what they're called? I don't know. Events. I think we should go to, like, a NASCAR race. I've done that once. I think there are probably tons of places that we should go to just get a better sense of who people are and what they're doing. I don't know how to go though one time and get much from that because I think it's a lot about meaningful relationships over time with people who see politics very differently than we do that will help us start to get it.  

Sarah [00:40:55] I just want to say I did go to a professional football game and mini football games. So in some areas of my heart, I am doing the hard work.  

Beth [00:41:02] Yeah, I've gone to most of the home games for the Bengals this season. I'm at ballgames all the time. Love it. And this week I have been so into Kentucky basketball. It's been Mark Pope the new coach at Kentucky is my personal serotonin. Everything about it makes me so happy. I watch videos of the players. I read every article written about his family and his kids. It's really fun to be in a culture like that that has nothing to do with politics. It's really, really fun. And I do think you learn a lot there. For example, in my fandom, I came across a video where sports radio asks some of the Kentucky players what quotes they live by. And almost every one of these young college basketball players gave a Bible verse. There's a lot to learn in these spaces about where people are and what orients them and what's important to them. And I am really trying to tell myself that's a good use of time, too. That's informative and I need to allow myself to be informed by more than the latest piece in The Atlantic.  

Sarah [00:42:16] Look, put a pin in that. I think Chris Murphy is right, that part of this is a crisis of purpose and meaning. And I think you and I have felt that for a long time, so much for this episode. So I do want to turn to ranked choice voting, which we have supported and loved and lost big. Eight out of the 10 places where voters were deciding whether to adopt or abandon ranked choice voting, it lost. What are we taking away from that?  

Beth [00:42:43] I still support it and love it, and I don't want to give up on it. It is not surprising to me that at a time when we've spent the last at least four years talking about whether or not elections are secure, at the most basic level, did the person who got the most votes actually win? It's not surprising to me that something that adds complexity to voting lost. It's not surprising to me that there are really selfish partizan motivations around this, that it's not even as much about the process as like we don't want Lisa Murkowski to win again and so we're going to go after it. And it's not surprising to me that sometimes that works. I think the people who've been serious about ranked choice voting and a whole bunch of improve our democracy reforms know that it is a very long game; and they know that there are going to be fits and starts and that there's a ton of work to do. We had a conversation with the CEO of Represent Women and she was talking about ranked choice voting and she was saying the first thing we need to do is just show people that they know how to do this by saying, "What are your favorite flavors of ice cream?" And order the top five. It's building block work. And so I don't feel like I'm going to give up on this. And I do think that just like there are global anti-incumbency inflationary pressures that influence the presidential race, I think the fact that we have spent at least the last four years talking about whether we can trust our elections influence these races too, like there are macro factors and micro factors. So I want to stay the course on this, but also hear that like maybe this isn't there a moment.  

Sarah [00:44:33] I think the people who are opposed, who feel like this is a threat are going to be better organized. They're going to be able to really clearly articulate why this is a threat to parties and why this is a threat to people in power. Well, not clearly articulate-- clearly obfuscate. And that's the real issue. That's not surprising to me. I think that's definitely what happened in Alaska. And also, I think that the places where you can keep it simple, like, let's just do this for the party primaries we already have, let's just do this for the general as opposed to combining it with open primaries or jungle primaries is a better choice. I keep thinking nonstop about this math documentary that I read about in The New York Times called Counted Out. And if you are connected with this documentary, I would really like to talk to you. I would like to see it. I would like to talk to somebody.  

[00:45:20] I would like to make this a bigger conversation on our podcast that Americans have not a great grasp on anything involving math or complexity around math. And I think this is probably what's coming into play with ranked choice voting. And we have to deal with that underlying issue. This is where I'm really trying to be clear, like, what am I seeing and what am I missing below the surface? I don't want to just respond to the problem. I want to respond to aka Donald Trump and not respond to the problem underneath the problem, which is a crisis of meaning or loneliness or lack of critical analysis skills involving math. You know what I'm saying? It's so easy to respond to the problem you want to respond to instead of the problem that is actually facing you. That sort of motivated reasoning. Even to what you said about the statistic about black women, which I have also seen in a lot. Okay. I take that seriously. Now what?  

[00:46:25] Do we kick everyone else out but black women? Do we require black women to hold up the tent at a 95% rate until the end of human history. Do we lean into the idea that everything that happens in America is based on this original sin that we can't rid ourselves out of racism? I just don't know what comes next after that. If I take that seriously, the problem of racism, which I do, then what? It doesn't matter what we do, it doesn't matter how bad the opponent is. Donald Trump is uniquely unqualified. He's a felon. He's a narcissist. He's a con man. And still Americans choose racism. Then what? What do I do with that? Because I do feel like sometimes that is the problem we know how to talk about. Not that it's not a real problem. That's the problem we know how to talk about. And so we get stuck there. Because I don't think in a country of 330 million people, it's always one thing. I just don't. And so I'm just really trying to say, okay, I take that seriously. What do I do with that information? What do I do with that information next? Because I think we had some answers particularly around Donald Trump, who we're going to be dealing with the next four years. And I want to find answers that attack the problem and move us forward. And I do think there's an opportunity here for that.  

Beth [00:48:02] I think that's the right question. What do I do with that? That's how I feel about your point on math. There are a million different ways to say education is at issue in electoral politics. Education should not be as predictive of voting behaviors as it is right now. That's not good for the country. What do we do about that? Media literacy is a crisis. What do we do about that? And I don't think the answer is built as toxic a left wing media environment as exists on the right. That doesn't feel exactly right to me. I'm not opposed to having conversations about the effectiveness of communication in right wing politics versus left wing politics. But I don't want to fight fire with fire completely there. I also don't think it works to just walk around saying, "Well, people are dumb." That's not a path forward. 

Sarah [00:49:01] People are racist. People are sexist.  

Beth [00:49:03] Or people are racist. People are dumb. Christians are all nationalists and toxic. Because if everybody is toxic, then we just give up, right? Then we find something else to do with our time or move and decide to move to a place that somehow has no problems which doesn't exist or check out entirely, just decide that they aren't our problems anymore. So I think it's the right question to just say, okay, now what? This is what we understand. This is what we're seeing. How can we see it with greater clarity and how can we find things among the lists? Like we're going to have these lists and some of those lists are going to have really unsatisfying conclusions. But what do you pick out from those lists to say this is a thing where we could make real progress? So it does inspire me that so many of you are going to run for office because I think more people running for offices of all kinds long term is really, really good and really powerful. We get to some of where we are today because most people in national elected positions have come through a system where there wasn't enough competition. I really believe that. If you want the best and the brightest, you've got to have a lot of competition to get there and has to be an attractive field. A field that you want people to get into. And it's going to take people being willing to get into the field before it's attractive to make that happen. So I'm excited that so many of you want to do that.  

Sarah [00:50:37] And I do think that this is an opportunity on so many levels. I really liked what Matt Iglesias wrote with the historical analogy of 2004. Because you'll hear me a lot recently bring up this is what it felt like with W. This is what we missed because I think there are a lot of historical parallels. And he rightfully talks about when the Democratic Party felt washed in the aftermath of George W Bush's second election. The last time a Republican won the popular vote might add in 2004, that there was a lot of really positive energy in Democratic politics. He says peril focused the mind and leaders became more serious about tradeoffs and less indulgent of frivolity. Smart people grew bolder and less risk averse. New institutions were created and some old ones were reinvigorated. And I feel that. I think there was a reason I could not sleep last week because my mind was just aflame with the possibility. There was so much in my head and online and being talked about. And there was just a lot of people asking hard questions, being interested in big solutions and the big energy. And I find that so invigorating.  

[00:51:58] And that's what I feel right now and that's what I'm just trying to lean into, because I think the hard thing to keep an eye on is that some people created careers and created organizations and created spaces that profited off the old approach to Donald Trump. Perhaps for good reason, right? Because they thought this was the way forward, because they thought that this was the way to do it in this anti-Trump coalition. Look, some of our growth was built on the reality of the first Trump administration. And so what I don't want to do is just be beholden to that financially or otherwise, where I can't learn, where I can't see what's coming next, where I can't contribute to what's coming next. I want to be really focused and I want to ask the hard questions and I want to abandon what might have felt good and felt right and perhaps was right for the time, but is no longer serving us either inside the Democratic Party as online creators, as Americans who care about what comes next.  

Beth [00:53:16] I shared this on our Substack. We are about to have a team meeting to talk about the next chapter of our work. And in preparation for that, I'm reading Seth Gordon's book, This Is Strategy, and I loved what he wrote about what strategy is at the beginning of the book. He said, "It's a philosophy of becoming. Who will we become? Who will we be of service to? And who will they help others to become?" I think that is the perfect framework for all of us who want to be part of solutions, who want to be engaged civically. And that can mean a ton of things. That might mean that you're going to get into electoral politics and go hard. It might mean that you are working, as so many of our listeners are, with refugees and with immigrants and with people who are concerned about mass deportation.  

[00:54:04] It might mean that you're getting involved in childcare or just raising your family and trying to really help your kids understand how to use social media and how to not be misled and to not fall down ideological rabbit holes. There are so many ways to contribute. But I think having a moment of intention here at the beginning is so important to me. And that's why I'm struggling to be like, ugh, he's not qualified to run the Department of Defense. No, he's not. But that is not the most important question to me today. Here today, as we're still getting our arms around the results, the most important questions to me are who will we become? Who will we be a service to? And who will they help others to become?  

Sarah [00:54:48] So we're always happy that you join us here as we ask these questions and we try to decide for ourselves and for each other and for our community how we keep asking those questions and how we keep thinking about who we want to become next.  

[00:55:03] Music Interlude.  

[00:55:12] Beth, after the election I thought, oh, the holidays. And then about three or four days later, I was like, you know what I need? I need a little Christmas. I need some carols. I need [inaudible]. You know what I mean? I need a little Christmas now.  

Beth [00:55:26] I'm with you. I have already started wrapping gifts. My Christmas cards should be in the mail coming tomorrow. Jane asked me if she can put the Christmas tree up. I said sure. Never have I ever put the Christmas tree out before Thanksgiving. We're going to this year.  

Sarah [00:55:40] Really?  

Beth [00:55:40] Really.  

Sarah [00:55:42] You only have one Christmas tree.  

Beth [00:55:43] I am a day after Thanksgiving one Christmas tree kind of girl. And I have already purchased a small Christmas tree to go in my work area, so I'm adding a Christmas tree to my house.  

Sarah [00:55:55] That's how it starts. You've broken the seal.  

Beth [00:55:58] I told her put it up when your heart feels ready. It's fine with me. Let's go. Let's do it.  

Sarah [00:56:03] I am not a single Christmas tree kind of girl. I have, I believe, one, two, three, four, five full sized Christmas trees, maybe two smaller Christmas trees. And so I learned several years ago that the day after Thanksgiving won't work because it's too much work. It's exhausting. I can't get all my Christmas up in that short period of time, so it trickles out slowly. You're going to have like three or four full sized Christmas trees before you turn around. Here's what comes next. You'll be like, "Yeah, I want a Christmas tree in my office." Then you're like, "I need a Christmas tree where we watch movies. You can't watch a Christmas movie without a Christmas tree. I need a Christmas tree where we have Christmas dinner, obviously." You're going to see. It's going to spread like a virus. The best kind of virus.  

Beth [00:56:45] We'll, see. I have a very open floor plan. So my main level Christmas tree, the Christmas tree, you can see pretty much everywhere. You get it while you're eating. You get it while you're watching movies. I get it while I'm cooking. So I don't know. And I also really hate storing things. The only thing that made me sad about getting a second little tree was just like where am I going to put this? So we'll see. But my heart is open. Listen, I am also ready for the holidays. I'm ready to plan fun things. I want fun, fun, fun on the calendar. I'm looking at an open house day organized around Christmas movies where I just send out an invitation with movie times.  

Sarah [00:57:21] That's a fun idea. 

Beth [00:57:23] If you want to come for Home Alone, come. If you want to come for the Nightmare Before Christmas, come. But this is what we're doing. Snacks all day. Come as you like.  

Sarah [00:57:29] That's a good idea.  

Beth [00:57:31] I want max of fun on the schedule.  

Sarah [00:57:32] I'm really bored with my open house. I've done it every year for, like, 15 years.  

Beth [00:57:37] You want me to just make this plan and send it to you?  

Sarah [00:57:39] Maybe. Because I did get an outdoor movie screen. So if it was like a pretty day, people could just come and chill. I think I might just do an outdoor movie night and that might be the Christmas party this year. I don't. I'm thinking about it because I am kind of bored with what I've done every year and I'm ready to shake it up and do something new, even though I do believe in traditions. But I really like that idea. That's a fun idea. I just need the things. I need the cozy and the baked goods and the movies. I just need a little Christmas now. And Thanksgiving is just a part of Christmas. Not neglecting Thanksgiving. We all know how I feel about the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. I just want it all right now.  

Beth [00:58:21] I'm not hosting Thanksgiving this year for the first time in a long time. Not any version of it. All of our plans are different this year, so I'm happy to kind of breeze by it. But say hello to relatives, enjoy a meal with others. But Christmas definitely has my focus.  

Sarah [00:58:37] I'm so excited. If you guys have fun, holiday plans, party ideas, I want to hear them because I'm ready to mix it up. So I'm excited to hear from all of you. I'm always excited to hear from all you because I love all you people. So if you have an idea for, I don't know, running for office or a new policy idea or a Christmas party, we take it all here at Pantsuit Politics. So thanks for listening. We'll be back in your ears on Tuesday. Until then, don't forget to check out the Pantsuit Politics fan gift guide, speaking of holidays on our website. And until Tuesday, keep it nuanced, y'all.  

[00:59:11] Music Interlude.  

Sarah: Pantsuit Politics is produced by Studio D Podcast Production.  Beth: Alise Napp is our Managing Director. Maggie Penton is our Director of Community Engagement.  

Sarah: Xander Singh is the composer of our theme music with inspiration from original work by Dante Lima.  

Beth: Our show is listener-supported. Special thanks to our executive producers.  

Executive Producers: Martha Bronitsky. Ali Edwards. Janice Elliott. Sarah Greenup. Julie Haller. Tiffany Hasler. Emily Holladay. Katie Johnson. Emily Helen Olson. Barry Kaufman. Katherine Vollmer. Laurie LaDow. Lily McClure. Linda Daniel. The Pentons. Tracey Puthoff. Sarah Ralph. Jeremy Sequoia. Katie Stigers. Karin True. Onica Ulveling. Nick and Alysa Villeli. Amy Whited. Lee Chaix McDonough. Morgan McHugh. Jen Ross. Sabrina Drago. Becca Dorval. Christina Quartararo. Shannon Frawley. Jessica Whitehead. Samantha Chalmers. Crystal Kemp. Megan Hart. The Lebo Family. The Adair Family. Genny Francis. Leighanna Pillgram-Larsen. The Munene Family. Ashley Rene. Michelle Palacios. 

Sarah: Jeff Davis. Melinda Johnston. Michelle Wood. Nichole Berklas. Paula Bremer and Tim Miller. 

Alise NappComment