Jen Psaki: Don't Speak to Me

Hello and welcome to the Bullard Podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller. I am just delighted to relive my election night trauma with my friend, the host of Inside With Jen Psaki. She was White House Press Secretary for Joe Biden. And she's the author of, say, more lessons from work, the White House and the world. It is Jen Psaki herself. How you doing? I'm good. I mean, was that the last time I saw you in person? I guess it was, right? I was two weeks ago, I guess. It feels longer.

What I've thought about since you raised this is what people don't know is you spend all this time knowing where the election is headed, right? But the decision desk, you have to wait for the decision desk to call it in any network. So you and I and Alex Lupica, who's my amazing executive producer, I couldn't do the show without, were in the green room talking about, okay, we're about to go on television for three to four hours. We may or may not know the outcome of the election during that time.

Yeah. Let's talk about how we're going to handle it in the moment, right? Because you have to think a little bit about when a race is called. And also, how are we going to talk about it before the race is called? This is the kind of strange awkwardness of middle of the night over and under caffeinated green room combos.

It was awkward. I was very happy to spend it with you. Could have been with worse people. Thank you. You're the best after dark guest. I don't tell anyone else who listens that is another after dark guest, but you're the best one. Yeah, I do thrive at the 3 AM hour. And it also, in this case, was about

delaying our feelings a lot, I think, during that period. I don't know about you. I was very conscious of, like, I don't want to be on, you know, any Newsmax blooper reels the next day, you know what I mean? Of what's happening on cable, I want to just be serious about this and do analysis and kind of save my little feels for, you know, some other time. But I don't know, were you also conscious of that?

Yes, I was thinking a lot about, because we knew for a couple of hours where it was headed. And, you know, surprises happen. And we'd also talked internally about there can be a range of outcomes. We don't know what the American public is going to do. That's what elections are.

about your kind of responsibility when you're anchoring something or you're a guest or you're a host, is to not lose your mind in the moment. You don't need to stress people out further. And I think what I was so grateful to you and Michael Steele and Molly and others for being a part of was as much as we had not called the race, we had spent a couple of hours doing a little

introspection about how we got here and that felt appropriate for the moment as people are trying to make sense of it. People who are up at three and four in the morning of which there are a lot an election night. Especially on the west coast. One thing that I was thinking about at that night in the little script that you and Alex were writing while it was sitting there trying not to get you out of your game and doom scroll and prepare my own personal takes. In that script you use the word digest

I think four times. We're digesting the results. Hopefully you didn't end up using it four times in the end. We're digesting them all together. I'm digesting. You're digesting. I was digesting. The reality was neither of us really digested it in that night because we had a job to do. So I'm curious. We're two weeks out. You've had the chance to actually digest. And I'm wondering, well, how are you thinking about it differently from when we were in that green room together?

Well, what I meant by that, and what I still mean by that at the risk of using the word digest again, still digesting, is that, and we've seen this, there's a tendency to knee jerk claim what the reasoning of a loss was, right? And this happens not just in 2024, but happens every cycle. You and I have been through a combined, I don't even know how many presidential, Senate, other races. And that's rarely accurate.

that initial knee jerk reaction. So by digest, I mean, taking the data as we learn it. Now we've learned a couple of things as information has come in is that it is not a massive sweeping mandate that, you know, Trump won a smaller percentage of the popular vote than many president-elects have won over the last several decades. He's still one. He's still won all seven swing states.

Yeah, I just had a couple of things with that, Mandy. Let's just go over that for a second, because we haven't really done that on the podcast yet. And it's a good point. Trump's now under 50% of the popular vote. So he's still a one to popular vote, but he won't have a bare majority. His margin is actually, I'm saying this from Harry Anton, so shout out Harry. His margin is 44th of 51 since 1824. So only seven races since 1824 were closer. Four dams, one in Senate seats. We know that, but just to kind of put it in a little more context,

In 2016 or 2020, there were zero examples of that, where the president did not carry all the senators on their coattails with them. Here's one that jumped out to me. The GOP is on track for the smallest House majority since there were 50 states, and it was going to be small. I didn't realize it was that small. Again, we're going to talk about the bad parts of the mandate, but it is a little bit more limited than maybe it looked at 4.30 in the morning on election night.

correct. There are still interesting questions that I can't answer that I'm still exploring, including the misread by myself and others on abortion, the politics of abortion rights. And by that, I know you know what I mean, is abortion rights initiatives in a variety of wording were passed in seven states. Three of those, if I were remembering correctly, Trump won, maybe more, three of them at least.

That means that there were people and including in the other states that he didn't with. There are people who voted for Trump and also voted for abortion rights protection ballot initiatives. And I think that would have shocked me a couple of weeks ago. And now I'm thinking, why would a shock me? People are complicated and how they look at issues and people they vote for. That, I think, is a wake-up call.

I think I saw this story this morning, and I've heard some analysis of this, but I think this is very interesting and an interesting lesson for Democrats, that Democrats did very well among those who are very, very engaged, right? And not as well among those who are not. That is why I think they did better in the special elections and even why there wasn't a red wave two years ago, but it is a big wake-up call, and it should be.

And it's an inverse of Obama era. It's an inverse of how we came up, right, where we came up. Yeah. And ever since I worked for Obama on both of his presidential campaigns, I went to nearly every political presidential event he ever did. People keep saying this is like all sorts of political prog prognosticators. All you have to do is recreate the Obama coalition.

Nobody can recreate the Obama coalition. Nobody can recreate anyone's coalition. Everybody's coalition is different. So I think the challenge is, what is the coalition moving forward? And it's going to depend on who is the candidate in 2028, which we don't know the answer to. The other piece I've thought a lot about that I don't have the answer to is the massive issue that Democrats have, aside from your wonderful podcast, MSNBC and others,

And you've talked about this. I'm as a listener. There is a huge disadvantage that defenders of freedom, of rights, democracy have versus the other side. Because there is no, I hate to short-hand it to the Joe Rogan or Theobhan. It just doesn't exist on the other side. There are different rules played. And the eco-chamber or the ability to get your message out, it just doesn't exist.

That is a issue that needs to be solved. I don't know the answer to it, but that is definitely a root problem. The third thing I would just say is immigration politics, the politics of immigration, which has always been a difficult issue. It's changed a lot.

In this country, the politics of it, and what I mean by that, is on the Democratic Party side, and people who would be considered moderates or independents, or even just basic would historically be Democrats. And one of the tells for me on that was when the bipartisan immigration deal, which was very conservative, and I think would have lost 20 to 25 Democrats a couple of years ago, only five or six voted against it,

There is still an out of touch way that there's not an acknowledgement of that as an issue that people are concerned about in communities. It's misunderstood in a lot of ways, but that is another one I think that is a lesson learned. I kind of jumped around a little bit there. I'm not sure that was like a perfect thesis, but just some of the things I've been struck by as I've thought about it.

The buckets there for me are abortion, the coalition, the Democrats changing coalition away that was unhelpful to them in presidential elections and the media stuff. So let's just take all three of those really quickly one at a time. The abortion one to me, the misread was just simply, it's kind of a little bit of an old wives tale actually, that there was this Karl Rove genius in 2004. I was like, he's this evil genius to put gay marriage initiatives on. And it really like helped Republicans that much that year. And I think that there's like mixed debt on whether that's actually true.

And I think in this case, in presidential years, people turn out, people are going to turn out, especially now, like we've had record turnout in 2020 and nearly this time, right? And so like the notion that we're going to put abortion ballot initiative on the ballot, and there's going to be all these people come out of the woodwork, like to me, that was the theory that didn't play out. Yeah.

And in a sense, it almost backfired, I think, in some places, where there are people that are already going to come out that are pro-choice that are like, OK, great. I can have my cake and eat it, too. I can have a secure border and reproductive rights in Arizona. And that's a pretty common overlap of views, by the way.

Yeah, well, as you stated, it's like, yeah, obviously, but like leading, no, I mean, meaning leading up to it. And I was a part of this too is like this assumption that these were going to be big drivers. I mean, the other thing since you and I both come from that messaging backgrounds and it's easy to, you know, be a backseat driver on messaging, but I'll do it for a second is the democratic party way of talking about the economy has become so academic and so poll tested sounding.

that it's just not connecting, right? There's nothing wrong with having an opportunity agenda, but nobody knows what the heck that is, right? And if there is a lesson from the Affordable Care Act I can offer, it is that all of the time we talked about it as this sweeping healthcare bill, the Affordable Care Act, people were like, I don't want a sweeping thousand page bill. You were probably part of the ad making against it.

Yeah. I started to turn the corner and actually to Harris's credit, she did some of this. It just wasn't, it wasn't the dominant thing. It's when you start to talk about the pieces of things that will actually help people's lives that people can bite into, right? Or speaking about things, frankly, in English and not in poll tested. I mean, God bless Sean Kerry. I love him. He was one of my favorite bosses I've ever had. But I laugh about his 2004 campaign slogan to remember this. It was like stronger, safer,

and more secure at home and abroad. It's like, what is that? You know, I mean, so, yes. Speaking in English, OK, we're going to get to the big reason why Jen Psaki is on is obviously that just.

cruel, this backhand that she gave to the Never Trumpers on MSNBC last week, because we have to ask this out. But since you've talked about, well, we'll save you. That's our little teaser. We'll come to that. But since you've talked about speaking in English, to me, this actually relates to the eco chamber more than actually building out left wing media sites. I got it.

Because there is one way to look at this, which is liberals don't have enough pro-pro-progressive media. And it's like, that's not really true. I mean, Podsave America does pretty well. There are a lot of liberal influencers out there that do pretty well. Maybe not as many, but could there be more? Sure, absolutely. But to me, it's more like in this big middle ground where there are guys like you mentioned Joe and Theo, who are like,

They're interested in Trump, but they're not Charlie Kirk. They're not down the line. Like down the line conservatives. I don't know Joe. I know Theo. Theo's just a bro. Like he has some conservative views, some liberal views and whatever. And like the inability to go into those spaces and talk to those people and be normal is a little bit of a problem. Like how can you communicate to people who are not highly engaged in normal language?

First of all, I think that there's a fearfulness that sometimes people run with that is never a winning strategy. I'm not saying she did. She did Brett Baer and did other things. I think in general, as we look forward, the lesson here is to be more fearless in terms of what's the worst thing that's going to happen. It's just really, and some of it is like people build up these people as if they are

You know, like, you know, it's so much smarter or so much more able to talk. Like the oven was going to run circles around Kamala. So that is a lesson. There is still an element within the old schoolness of the Democratic Party, maybe Republicans too, where it's like, you know how we can get our message out in a print copy of the Washington Post in the opinion page. And you're like, no.

That is not how you can get your message out, right? That's still lingering. I think it's changing, but I do think thinking about things a little differently is a part of, I hope, what people do moving forward. For sure.

Yeah, ideology is obviously important. And in 2028, I want the Democrat that's the squishiest, probably. This is no secret. But the candidate quality thing for me in 2025 is, who can just go and talk to people and sound normal? Yes. And that's like the new, I don't mean it in the dumb way, like, oh, I want to have a beer with them. I literally just mean, who's capable of having, because these are how the conversations happen. Who's capable of seeming authentic?

on social media in podcasts. If you're not running your own social media at some level, I don't know if you should be the candidate for 2028. You just gotta be able to talk. That's how people talk now. Why would you outsource that to a 24-year-old?

It's also a huge opportunity because it reaches, if you do it well, and if you're on all the platforms, way more people than most interviews you will ever do. And you can just speak directly or do directly. I know. I share that hope with you.

All right, so this is where we have our agreement, obviously. It's two comms people. We want good communicators to all the problems. Not that Kamala is good in certain ways, but that wasn't her strength. She obviously wasn't running her own Twitter and in long form interviews. I think she could have been better, frankly, if they'd let her get more reps, as I don't think she was incapable of it, but for whatever reason.

that wasn't her strongest. She was great in the debate. She was great in, you know, but that wasn't it. And next time I think you just need people that are stronger at that. Yeah. She was great in the debate. She was great at the convention. She's also, her background is more of like a law and order. I mean, you know, like she's like, I will defend like our institutions and our system. And it turns out that's not the message people are looking for. She's not as naturally, and this is not her fault. This is just like what we learn from the electorate in terms of what they're looking for.

She's not as naturally somebody who could be like, let me talk about your small business and like what you're having trouble with. And that turns out that is equality at this moment. We'll see where we aren't a couple of years that people are looking for.

This podcast is sponsored by MD Hearing. MD Hearing is an FDA-registered rechargeable hearing aid that costs a fraction of what typical hearing aids cost. MD Hearing's Neo model costs over 90% less than clinic hearing aids. The Neo fits inside your ear, so no one will even know it's there. Plus, MD Hearing just launched the NeoXS, MD Hearing's smallest hearing aid ever.

MD Hearing recently cut their price in half. That means you can get high quality rechargeable digital hearing aids for only $297 a pair. MD Hearing was founded by an ENT surgeon who saw how many of his patients needed hearing aids but couldn't afford them. He made it his mission to develop a quality hearing aid that anyone could afford. MD Hearing has sold over 1.9 million hearing aids and they offer a 45-day risk-free trial with 100% money back guarantee, so you can buy it with confidence.

Still on the fence about MD Hearing, they were just selected to be the hearing aid supplier for top Medicare Advantage plans. So they are a brand you can trust. This holiday season, get the hearing you deserve with MD Hearing. Go to shopmdhearing.com and use promo code THEBOARK to get a pair of hearing aids for just $297. Plus, they're adding a free extra charging case, a $100 value, just for listeners of the BOARK. That shopmdhearing.com and use our promo code THEBOARK.

and get a pair of hearing aids for just $297. All right, let's get to the ideological side of it and let's get to our TIFF. Jen Psaki was on, I don't know, was it Morning Joe? I don't know which one you're on. I forget when I said live. You say that if you're not a frequent appear on MSNBC, you're like, I'm not sure what the shows are calling it.

I know what the shows are called. I forget which one it was. I consumed it like normal Americans on social media rather than what I didn't watch you live, which I obviously do for Inside with Jen Psaki. But on the other shows, when you're a guest, I can't watch me all the time. I hear you. I try to catch you, Tim. And I appreciate them. Let's listen to what you have to say.

Democrats and people who voted for Harris and are scared about Trump should just be sober about and curious about is not just why did people move toward Trump, but why did Democrats and people who had been with the party for some time not come out and turn out for Kamala Harris and not turn out for the Democrats?

There were many headwinds here. There is sexism. There's racism. All of that is true. But I also think there is a real question I hope people start looking at about who people are listening to. In my view, there was an overlistening to and an overlifting up of people who left Trump, not people who left the Democratic Party.

The people who left the Democratic Party are the people who are going to win in the future. The people who left Trump, the never Trumpers who have important voices and have, that is not the winning coalition. And I think that is a takeaway. And the last thing I'll say, because I've been thinking about this a lot.

is the part of that piece, the who you're listening to, is also this argument you just touched on this Mika about fascism. Fascism and the threat of democracy is a huge issue in this country. It's one that should be talked about. Journalists should talk about it. People should dig into it. It is not a good closing message to reach to the masses of the country. People don't relate to it. It's not understandable. And I think that, I hope, is a lesson.

All right, so some people on the left, like the kind of burnish left. Yeah, we're like, yes, cleaning you like, yes. Jen's even Jen Saki gets it. No Liz Cheney anymore. Get Liz Cheney out of here. And I don't really think that's what you were actually trying to say. So before we argue about this, why don't you just kind of expand your remarks a little bit on what what your point was.

Can I just say, and I realize I've been working in this town for a long time in politics, it still is hilarious to me that I'm like an institutionalist, because I worked for Barack Obama, whoever was like, that guy's got no chance. Like, it's like, kind of, here we are. What I meant is this. I think hindsight's always 2020. I don't think that the closing message of our democracy is under threat.

And I think Liz Cheney is courageous and has done things I wish many other people would have done, right? And speaking out, I don't think that was the right closing message. I also think there was an over-reliance

in cable, and I know I'm a part of that system, and podcasting and other places in prognosticating by people who had left Trump, right? This is what I said, right? As if they were predictors of where the totality of the electorate was, and not enough

discussing, engaging, understanding of the people who were pissed off at the Democratic Party and had long been Democrats and were like, I'm not voting. I want nothing to do with this. Maybe I'm voting for Trump. Maybe I'm not voting at all. And that was a huge blind spot that we're all guilty of, you know? I think the people who are never Trumpers, and I'm not just saying this because I guess you're one or you're one, I put you in a different category because you're like a political comms expert too.

Yeah, sure. I'm like the, I don't know. I mean, I'm kind of like the prince of the Never Trumpers, but sure, whatever. You can, I can also, I wear multiple hats. And you know that like my love for Sarah Longwall knows no bounds. So I think it's not like these aren't relevant voices. They are relevant voices. They are courageous people, way more than so many people who work for Trump. It's that, is that the face and the message you are putting forward for the closing argument of your campaign? And should every element of progressive media be doing the same thing?

when there is a big blind spot for what we're missing. I like actually 100% agreed with you. And I thought it was so funny that I saw all the lefties that were like, this means no more to Miller and Liz Cheney. And it's just like, that's not exactly what Jen was saying. And I agree with this. And I think that in a lot of ways, it's funny. It's like,

Part of the reason why Liz Cheney was there was because she volunteered. And in politics, raising your hand is a big part of it. And frankly, sorry to some of our more progressive folks, had a bunch of super progressive people that are concerned about Gaza, then also prominently raising their hand to be like, and by the way, I disagree with Kamala Harris on this one issue in Joe Biden. But it's so important that we have her, and I want to campaign with her, and I want to be there, and I want to root her on and cheer her on.

Welcome to that. They would have put that forward. I mean, we were offering, you know, so that's part of politics is showing up. Yeah, it's true. I also think it doesn't mean that the risk of authoritarianism isn't an issue. It is an issue. And like the future of our democracy, all issues and like people in the media on podcasts, whatever your lean is, should continue to talk about that.

but also that doesn't mean that should be the campaign closing message and that's part of my point.

I'm mixed on the campaign closing message thing. I think it was defensible because it kind of worked in 22. To me, I think that you're the insight that you have that is correct, that is, I think the most damning of all of us. I'm not pointing to any fingers, but even like, I tried to do this, but it's hard. It's like, I was nervous the whole campaign. I was like, part of these key democratic groups, working class, black and Hispanic voters, this isn't really so much the case with young voters. People were engaging with that issue over Gaza, but particularly working class voters. Let's just say that.

It was like, when you brought up, I don't know, these numbers aren't looking that good, or I don't know, these focus groups don't sound that good. A lot of times the pushback from like, establishment democratic circles was like, no, no, no, no, no, don't do, yeah, you don't say that, that's not true. Like, voters of color will come through for us in the end. Like, at times it almost implied it's like, it's almost racist to kind of say that they might not. Like, focus more on white people. The white people went for Trump again.

figure out what happened in 1965 that might describe that. That's all fine to talk about. But like, it was happening. Like there was a key voting block that was leaving Democrats and it felt like the discussion and analysis of that was shut down rather than lifted up. And I think that's, I'm maybe putting words in your mouth, but I think that's kind of what you were trying to say. And I agree with that a lot if it was.

Yeah, it also wasn't a part of the discussion in most media either, right? It was like Will people believe that there were headed sort of authoritarianism and vote for Paris or will they believe it doesn't matter? And that actually wasn't how it played out in any way. I mean, if you look at the exit polls, people were split in the country and exit polls are imperfect. I'll just preface.

That's not true. We're split in the country and who was the bigger threat to democracy. It is an important issue in our country. You're right. It worked in 2022. But if we are in the moving forward phase of the game here, I do think the Bernie bro ish.

Or I don't even know if that's the right way to define it. But the view of some in the Democratic Party that like we've lost our thread here on being the party of the working class, when working class voters aren't turning out to vote for us, is to me the big glaring red flag one of them out of this election. Do you need a hug? Are you feeling upset with me? Or you feel okay?

No, I'm not. I agree. Like it's great. You know, some people just want to hate the never trampers because it's easy and it's nice or an easy punching bag. And that's fine. I don't mind. I can take the punches like particularly left to people and I'm like, literally, we were all like, we just want to beat him. Like do whatever.

Like, literally, if David Pluff called me, I wasn't like, David, you really need to put Republicans in the cabinet and support tax cuts. I'm like, I'm like, do whatever. Like, fucking whatever it took to be. Like, that's what never Trump cared about, so we didn't go what we wanted. And this is my point. If you came to me,

A month before the election said, hey, our strategy is we're going to add Nikki Haley voters to make up for the fact that we're going to shed black and Hispanic voters all across the country. I would have been like, no, don't do that. Don't do that, actually. That's not a good trade.

right it's not going to happen but that did feel like it was at some point part of the view i don't know i'm not in the campaign it's not whatever everybody can kind of look forward my point is also like in this is not any fault of any never trumper but when you have people

on who have left Trump, right? Or they were longtime Republicans. And you're saying, what is going to happen with the totality of the electorate? Like, how do they know? They're not in the electorate, in like Nevada or in Georgia. And it's like, they're not speaking. They've never lived in their democratic base. So I think that's also, to me, a specific lesson learned. And that's sort of on the media and all of us.

If it's just acknowledged, baseline acknowledged, Democrats are not doing as well as working class voters. There's a theory of the case out there that's like need a more populist economic message. There's a theory of the case out there that's like you need to compromise more on cultural issues. There's a theory of the case that it's like you just got to go on more bro podcasts and be more bro-y and talk more normal. Maybe there's door number four, which is you just let Trump implode and people come back to you. You don't have to do anything. Do you have a view on which of those doors you think is the most likely for success at this point?

I mean, and that's some combo. Look, let me just talk about the cultural issues though, because you mentioned 2004. And like one of the lessons from 2004 that I think was an overwrought wrong one from Democrats was, we can't talk about gay marriage ever and nobody can be for it because that's how Bush won the election, right? That was the lesson. And right now you have people coming out and saying, we can never speak of trans kids in any positive fashion. And you're like, wait a second.

First of all, there was an ad that was run that was effective about Kamala Harris' answer to an ACLU questionnaire and her answer for a couple of months in 2019 about supporting the funding paying for gender affirming care for undocumented immigrants in prison.

First of all, I don't know who supports that. Why would most people support that? So let's just be clear about that. That doesn't mean that you can't say, you know what, there are kids out there who are struggling through mental health issues, who were born in a body they don't feel like is their own, and we can be humane and support that as a society. I've also seen, and because I went after him the other little bit, I can just say this.

seth molton who i know and he is a good member in many ways but he has been pulled into the right wing of sphere theory like every community across the country has trans girls who are beating up girls who were born girls and like

all of these things. This is not an issue across the country. Of all of these states, so many states have passed these laws that ban trans youth and sports. You know what, in a lot of these states, they don't have a single example. They have zero, they have one, they have two. So the other risk here is being so pulled into trying to be contrarian that you're not looking at the facts of the issue and if it's an actual issue. And so that's also driving me crazy.

I agree with all that. On the other hand, though, if the view is just like, if there's a Democrat that says I don't think that biological males who have transitioned should be playing in girls' sports, I think it's a complicated issue. I agree with you. It's not that like there are very few examples of it and it's way over indexed in the culture. Like if a Democrat has that view, like shouldn't you just let him have it? Like do they really need to be protested?

No, I don't think people should be protesting people, but I also think people who get they get pulled into it like I'm gonna real talk you. This is something we should say that like we are just all because I am a father of girls and like I have a daughter too. This is not a universal issue. So like let's call out their bullshit. That's what I'm saying, right? It's like

There's a little bit of like falling prey to the like, what some of the right wing of sphere is saying. Check the facts, read the fine print. I think there are certain issues Democrats should be more outspoken about, including like, I'm not sure who is for the federal funding of gender affirming care in prison. I like why, right? But there are- Yeah, that's fine. Let's just probably move that one to the side. Those two prisoners got love them like we- Well, that wasn't had, right?

But there are a range of issues that I think there's a risk here of like people losing some humanity in order to feel like they're speaking out against whoa, whatever the heck that means. All right, on that topic in the news last night, Nancy Mase.

formerly moderate Congresswoman from South Carolina, sent about 17 to, I guess that's probably happening while we're going on live here. So I think Nancy Mase has sent like kind of in a two dozen or so tweets by now about how she does not want Sarah McBride, the new Democratic transgender member from Delaware to be in the women's bathroom in Congress. She's passing a bill. She's going to the parliamentarian.

Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that she will get into a physical altercation with Sarah McBride if she dares enter the women's bathroom. Thoughts? Get a life. Nancy Mase and Marjorie Taylor Greene. I mean, like, this is the issue of the nation right now is like another member of Congress using the same restroom. Wait till they hear there are unisex bathrooms in some restaurants. It's going to blow their freaking minds.

I'm not a girl, actually, also. I just have a little follow-up question with you. Do you see each other's genitalia in the women's restrooms? Very often, as two adult women, do you see each other's- I don't know what they're doing in the restrooms, but most people do not. No, you go in a stall. Why is this the issue in this moment in our country that Nancy Mace is trying to pass a bill on? That is a baseline question.

I know why, politically. She's trying to, like, get her maga creds. Feels mean and, like, an overreach to me. I don't know. I don't really want my daughter to be in a bathroom with Marjorie Taylor Greene, but I'm not, like, going to the government to have them create any rules about it. You know, sometimes you're in a society, you just have to be just be a person in a society, you know? Yeah, exactly. I think some members have bathrooms in their offices, don't they? Yeah. Some? This doesn't feel like a real problem.

It feels like not a real thing. I need somebody to investigate that question. I should know this. I've worked on the hill. I don't remember. As evidence by all the tweets she sent about it. Everyone's getting this at the very end. It's been an interesting cabinet choices from Donald Trump. That's a diplomatic way of describing it. Yeah. I'm wondering which cabinet choice is the most alarming to you, Jen Psaki.

Well, I feel like there's a lot of Matt Gaetz alarm. So I'm not going to pile onto that because that's obvious. I do think that Tulsi Gabbard is an undervalued alarmist, alarming one. And I talked to Abigail Spamberg about this last night and what she said stuck with. And she's like a former undercover CIA analyst person. I'm probably butchering her amazing background.

Person in DNI can do things that nobody will ever see in the public, including take Russian propaganda and put it in the PDB, right? They can share intel from our allies and partners who we rely on for information in order to keep our own country safe and our men and women serving overseas safe and put it into hands that shouldn't be in.

She is an apologist for Assad, a person who has killed thousands of people with chemical weapons, and for Vladimir Putin, a person who hacked our own elections and has also invaded a sovereign country. And she is somehow the nominee to oversee the intelligence.

system in our country. It sounds weedy, but like, hey, we got to be weedy sometimes. And that one I think is an undervalued alarming nomination. Jen Psaki, this is a great place to end because I have wonderful news for you. Being most alarmed about Tulsi Gabbard and name-checking, Abigail Spanberger is the most never-trumpy thing that you could have possibly done. You are welcome here. These are your people, whether you like it or not.

We are worried about Tulsi and we love Abigail. Okay, first of all, she's running for governor of Virginia where I live. But also, I also have said, which is true, the Democratic Party message is a little geared toward people like me, college-educated, coastal elite white people. That's also true. I'm not an ever-trumper. I work in Democratic politics for 20 years, but it can't be geared toward me, you know? Amen. It's all good. You know, there were other people trying to divide us, Jen.

It was never going to happen. Okay. It was never going to happen. We're not going to let any outside. What is the divide? It's these and these troubling times we have to stick together. All right. Our messages don't speak to us. We'll be fine. Yeah. We're with you. Yeah. Go get some new people. Right? Yeah. You got us. It's right in the name, actually. Never Trump. So you don't need to pander to us. Go get, go get some other people. Anyway, Jen Psaki, everybody will stick around. I've got to.

I've got some thoughts on favorite of the pod Jared Polis. Many people have been wondering what I think about that. I'm going to share it with you guys next. I appreciate Jen Psaki so much. Can't wait to hear your Jared Polis thoughts.

All right, y'all, so Jared Polis, favorite of the pod. Sent out a few tweets that have people kind of pissed. They're pretty long, so I'll put them in the show notes. But in short, he was quasi-endorsing RFK for HHS secretary. And in doing so, he cited RFK support for lowering drug costs, taking on big pharma, opposing pesticides, shaking up the FDA, promoting childhood nutrition as reasons to be excited about

his potential role for running HHS. He also acknowledged disagreement on vaccines in the tweets. As a prominent Polestan, my inbox and mentions flooded, as you might imagine, with demand today, either find out what the hell's going on with Jared, or that I denounce his harmful views.

And clearly, anybody who listens to me knows that I do very much disagree with him on the matter of RFK. The guy is not my cup of tea. Think he's a cooke. Think he's dangerous. I've invited Jared on the pod to discuss. I'm sure we'll do it soon.

But while we disagree on the merits of having a brain-wormed secretary of health and human services, politically speaking, I do wonder if Governor Polis is doing something that we should at least listen to. So stick with me for a second. Rather than jumping out his throat with burn the witch, as soon as he puts something out you don't like,

Maybe there's a more healthy way to engage with people within the anti-Trump coalition who have heterodox views on various issues. And maybe there's some lessons that could be learned from a politician who is succeeding in blue Colorado, while Dems and many other blue states and purple states and red states have shed the bet. Because here's a rude awakening for everybody.

If you look at the favorable unfavourable ratings, RFK is maybe the most popular active politician in America. He is 46% favorable and 41% unfave in a poll I saw this week. And many of the people who like RFK were not too long ago, reliable Democrats. Is the plan for the party to do everything possible to repulse anyone who is drawn to anti-establishment views? Because that feels like a loser to me.

I don't see a ton of evidence that there's a big majority in this country for norms abiding, establishment loving, protectors of the status quo. As much as I wish we did, let's just be practical here. If Democrats are going to cast out the hippie-ish libertarian weirdos and give them to the Republicans, and they're also going to shed support with working class black and Latino men,

And they're also going to protest people like Seth Moulton for simply sharing Martina and Avitalova's view about where the line should come when dealing with trans women and women's sports. And the plan is to make up for all those losses by bringing in a handful of college-educated Republicans who don't like the culture war. That's a losing trade. Again, I wish this weren't the case.

If Chris Coons, Adam Kinzinger, establishmentarian unity ticket could save the country, I would be its biggest supporter. But if wishes were fishes, fuck, I don't remember how that saying goes, but if wishes were fishes, Donald Trump wouldn't be the fucking president. I'll tell you that much. So maybe rather than witch burning, democratic politicians should be more attuned to finding areas of common ground with people who agree with them on a lot of stuff, but also have some cookie views.

It's a little crazy to me that I'm the one saying this because again, I find RFK to be ridiculous across every metric. I was never a leftist anti-vax hippie. I'm not into cooking ghee or beef tallow. I have not read Good Energy by Dr. Casey Means. I don't buy non-GMO organic foods for my child. She had mac and cheese for dinner last night. I don't follow Maha fitness influencer gurus on the internet.

But do you know who does? Lots of people that used to vote for Democrats, but have left the party.

So in conclusion, Jared Polis, totally wrong to suggest RFK should be confirmed as Secretary of HHS. I look forward to hashing that out with him soon. But at the same time, Jared Polis is right to be trying to figure out how to appeal to people who have lots of left-wing views, but don't conform to liberal right speak on every single thing and even have a few nutty theories. And right now,

I'm open to any ideas that will dislodge people from Trump's con and bring them back towards the light. Focusing on areas of agreement, over disagreement, I don't think is the worst first step. We'll see you all tomorrow for another edition of the Bullard Podcast. Peace.

I don't wanna tip the toe but I don't wanna hide But I don't wanna feed this monstrous fire Just wanna let this story die And I'll be alright

Not you please sit in silence Baby girl, this just me and you Cause I don't wanna argue But I don't wanna fight My tongue, yeah I think I'd rather die You got me misunderstood But at least I look

The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.