This Election Is the Tiebreaker Over Trumpism

Summary

Podcast Summary: Matter of Opinion – "This Election Is the Tiebreaker Over Trumpism"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Matter of Opinion
• Hosts: Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, Carlos Lozada
• Description: Hosted by Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, and Carlos Lozada, "Matter of Opinion" is a New York Times Opinion podcast that delves into diverse topics every Friday, ranging from politics to pop culture.
• Episode Title: This Election Is the Tiebreaker Over Trumpism
• Release Date: November 1, 2024

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "This Election Is the Tiebreaker Over Trumpism," hosts Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, and Carlos Lozada engage in a comprehensive discussion about the 2024 U.S. presidential election. As the election draws to a close, the trio reflects on unexpected campaign developments, past election experiences, and the potential long-term implications of the current political climate dominated by Trumpism.

Key Discussions

1. Emotional Landscape and Pre-Election Sentiments

The episode begins with the hosts sharing their feelings leading up to the election results. Carlos expresses excitement, challenging the prevalent narrative around self-care and anxiety management in the current political discourse.

• Carlos Lozada (00:29): "I'm feeling great. Everyone's like, are you engaging in self care? How are you controlling your anxiety? Like, is it terrible to say that I'm excited?"

Ross humorously counters the acceptability of such emotions, setting a light-hearted tone before delving into serious analysis.

2. Unanticipated Campaign Dynamics

Michelle notes that the 2024 campaign unraveled differently than expected, highlighting the unpredictability of the race.

• Michelle Cottle (05:10): "This campaign has not gone at all the way any of us expected it to."

Ross identifies the Trump indictments as a pivotal moment that reshaped the Republican nomination landscape, consolidating Trump's support despite potential Republican chaos.

• Ross Douthat (06:03): "The indictments helped him because they deepened the persecution narrative."

Carlos expands on this by explaining how the indictments fortified Trump's position within the party, sidelining rivals like Ron DeSantis.

• Carlos Lozada (03:33): "We've been told the race is deadlocked for so long. I want to know who actually wins this election. This is the third straight election we've had with Trump on the ballot."

3. The Role and Decline of Ron DeSantis

Michelle applauds Ross’s prediction about Ron DeSantis’s campaign faltering due to a lack of charisma compared to Trump.

• Michelle Cottle (07:50): "Ron DeSantis looked awesome until people found out that he was, in fact, Ron DeSantis."

Ross concurs, attributing DeSantis's decline to his inability to match Trump's celebrity-driven appeal.

• Ross Douthat (09:41): "He ran a very bad campaign... would have been competitive absent the indictment cascade."

4. Project 2025's Impact

Carlos discusses the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, emphasizing its negative reception across the political spectrum and its potential influence on the election outcome.

• Carlos Lozada (11:07): "Project 2025 became perhaps the longest lasting and most effective talking point that the Democrats have had in this campaign and became a massive albatross for the Republicans."

Ross questions the long-term significance of Project 2025, suggesting that issues like the Dobbs decision on abortion might overshadow it.

• Ross Douthat (12:15): "If Harris wins, people will point to the Dobbs decision and abortion more than they will point to Project 2025."

5. Consequential Nature of the 2024 Election

The hosts deliberate whether the 2024 election stands as the most consequential of their lifetimes. They compare it to past pivotal elections, debating its potential for realigning political coalitions and enduring policy shifts.

• Carlos Lozada (27:44): "Elections are consequential if they mark a big shift in political coalitions or lead to long-lasting changes in policy and governance."

• Ross Douthat (22:25): "2016 will be the most consequential election, if not of my lifetime, because it turned populism into a central phenomenon in American politics."

Michelle and Carlos explore themes like identity politics, the impact of Trumpism on younger voters, and the potential for enduring gender and racial divides.

6. Rhetoric and Identity Politics Concerns

Michelle expresses apprehension about the Republican Party's strategy to divide voters along gender lines using sexist rhetoric, fearing long-term societal repercussions.

• Michelle Cottle (33:00): "I'm quite nervous that the Republican Party will come away from this with the lesson that the way to win a close presidential election is to divide the men and the women."

Ross echoes these concerns, highlighting the risks of politicizing identity issues like abortion.

• Ross Douthat (33:31): "If the Harris campaign wins on an abortion message, it would create a depressing future for American liberalism."

Carlos adds his worries about the perpetuation of dehumanizing rhetoric, regardless of the election outcome.

• Carlos Lozada (36:03): "There are things you can't unring. That is something that troubles me."

7. Personal Anecdotes from Past Elections

To provide a personal touch, the hosts share memorable experiences from previous election nights:

• Michelle Cottle (43:00): Recounts the chaotic 2000 election night between George W. Bush and Al Gore, characterized by prolonged uncertainty and eventual exhaustion.

• Ross Douthat (43:00): Reflects on the anticlimactic 2012 election night, where the expected suspense never materialized as Obama's victory was swiftly confirmed.

• Carlos Lozada (44:58): Shares his first-time voting experience in 2016, emphasizing the excitement of registering to vote with his young child despite the disappointing outcome.

Insights and Conclusions

The hosts collectively assess that while the 2024 election is undeniably significant, its ultimate historical impact will be clearer only in hindsight. They emphasize the role of this election as a potential tiebreaker in America's ongoing relationship with Trumpism, determining whether its influence will wane or solidify further.

• Carlos Lozada (25:29): "Consequences happen later. We can only determine this in hindsight."

• Ross Douthat (24:03): "America is in the most difficult position of my lifetime in terms of our power, capacity, and the different kinds of threats we face."

Michelle concludes with a hope for peace and moderation, despite acknowledging pervasive societal divisions.

• Michelle Cottle (38:28): "I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful."

Notable Quotes

1. Carlos Lozada (00:29): "I'm feeling great. Everyone's like, are you engaging in self care? How are you controlling your anxiety?"

2. Ross Douthat (06:03): "The indictments helped him because they deepened the persecution narrative."

3. Carlos Lozada (11:07): "Project 2025 became perhaps the longest lasting and most effective talking point that the Democrats have had in this campaign."

4. Michelle Cottle (33:00): "I'm quite nervous that the Republican Party will come away from this with the lesson that the way to win a close presidential election is to divide the men and the women."

5. Ross Douthat (24:03): "America is in the most difficult position of my lifetime in terms of our power, capacity, and the different kinds of threats we face."

Conclusion

"This Election Is the Tiebreaker Over Trumpism" offers an in-depth analysis of the 2024 U.S. presidential race, exploring its unexpected developments, pivotal moments, and potential ramifications for America's political future. Through candid discussions and personal reflections, Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, and Carlos Lozada provide listeners with a nuanced understanding of where the nation stands and what lies ahead in the post-election landscape.

Transcript

[Sponsor Voice]

This podcast is supported by US Bank. At US bank, when they say they're in it with you, they mean it. Not just for the good stuff, the grand openings and celebrations, although those are pretty great. But for all the hard work it took to get there. Because together they're proving day in and day out that there is nothing as powerful as the power of us. Visit us bank.com to get started today. Equal housing lender member FDIC.

[Michelle Cottle]

How are we all feeling?

[Carlos Lozada]

I'm feeling great. Everyone's like, oh, you know, are you engaging in self care? How are you controlling your anxiety? Like, is it terrible to say that I'm excited?

[Ross Dowsett]

It is actually terrible. You cannot say that.

[Michelle Cottle]

From New York Times Opinion. I'm Michelle Cottle.

[Ross Dowsett]

I'm Ross Dowsett.

[Carlos Lozada]

I'm Carlos Lozada.

[Michelle Cottle]

And this is Matter of opinion. Carlos, you want to do your tagline?

[Carlos Lozada]

I only do it when I'm doing the. This is matter of opinion. But yes, where thoughts are allowed. And in fact, these are the last election thoughts we're ever going to have. Because it's the last. The last conversation we have before the election.

[Michelle Cottle]

No, this is the last election period.

[Ross Dowsett]

There will be more elections of a sort.

[Michelle Cottle]

Ross, you're so naive.

[Ross Dowsett]

Whether there will be more matter of opinions is for our paymasters to decide.

[Carlos Lozada]

Yeah, okay.

[Michelle Cottle]

Already. We've gone way off track here. I'm gonna pull it back.

[Ross Dowsett]

Pull it back.

[Michelle Cottle]

Pulling this back. We're reining this back in, people. It is go time. Carlos is correct. This is the final Matter of Opinion episode before the election. Ross, are you picking out your cabinet office? You getting ready for your confirmation?

[Ross Dowsett]

Let me just put away that note from Senator Vance here. No, I am a liar. Would never consider such a thing. Unless Elon. Unless they called, I mean, dictator of Mars. Oh, see, Viceroy of Mars. I think I would take it.

[Carlos Lozada]

No, you just want Australia.

[Michelle Cottle]

Australia.

[Ross Dowsett]

Australia. The Southern Ocean. Yeah, Viceroy of the Southern Ocean.

[Carlos Lozada]

Remember when Lex Luthor says he just wants Australia, he tells Zod that's all he wants. Come on, Lex.

[Michelle Cottle]

I'm going to have to, like, rein this back in again. Way out of control.

[Ross Dowsett]

I'm very Zen.

[Michelle Cottle]

Are you?

[Ross Dowsett]

I feel like I have a lot of acceptance. I have tried to take a very providentialist approach to this election. I think when it's this close, it really is up to God. If God chooses Kamala Harris.

[Michelle Cottle]

Is that what we're calling Trump now?

[Ross Dowsett]

I mean, well, Carlos mentioned Zod.

[Michelle Cottle]

Yeah.

[Carlos Lozada]

We've been arguing about this for so long. We've been talking about it on this podcast for so long, we've been told the race is deadlocked for so long. I want to know. I want to know what voters think and what they want. I am ready to be clarified.

[Ross Dowsett]

I endorse Carlos Take. I think, you know, for those in our profession sitting with this like, 47 to 47, 48 to 48 election for months and months, it just deprives us of, you know, the ability to make sweeping generalizations about America, which is like, what our business is. Any generalization you make, we need clarity. You have to qualify. You have to be like, well, here is the amazing trend in America. But if, you know, 300 votes go a different way in Pennsylvania, forget everything I just said. So I too, am looking forward to knowing to some degree at least, pending several recounts, what.

[Michelle Cottle]

And how the insurrection goes, what the.

[Ross Dowsett]

Great and good American public thinks.

[Carlos Lozada]

I want to know what Michelle thinks. But before I want to say that I didn't make my statement just as a journalist, as those of us in our profession, as Ross, as Ross says.

[Ross Dowsett]

You'Re so tacky, as Viceroy of the.

[Carlos Lozada]

Southern Ocean, simply as a citizen, as a voter, as an inhabitant of spaceship Earth, I want to know who actually wins this election. This is the third straight election we've had with Trump on the ballot, right. And with sort of a semi establishment Democrat on the other side. We've seen Trump win, We've seen Trump lose. This is the tiebreaker for America's love affair with Trumpism. And I wanna know who gets the rose.

[Ross Dowsett]

Third time pays for all the rose.

[Michelle Cottle]

You had to bring the Bachelor into it.

[Carlos Lozada]

You know what? I've never even seen that show. I just know the lingo. Michelle.

[Michelle Cottle]

No, there will be no predictions.

[Ross Dowsett]

How. How are you, Michelle? How are you?

[Michelle Cottle]

I am exhausted. I am worried about a lack of clarity even after the election.

[Carlos Lozada]

Where'd you get that again?

[Michelle Cottle]

I am. I know. Don't be ridiculous. Of course it will all, all, all be above board. The fact that they're already trying to set ballot boxes on fire doesn't disturb me at all.

[Carlos Lozada]

All right, so you do need the self care.

[Michelle Cottle]

Yeah.

[Carlos Lozada]

Okay.

[Michelle Cottle]

But that brings me to my question for both of you. It is a time honored tradition, it's almost mandatory now to say that every presidential race is the most consequential of our lifetime. So today we want to discuss whether this is true this time around by looking back at key moments on the campaign, what we got right and wrong along the way, how we're going to feel about the outcome, whatever it may be. So, first, let's look back. I feel safe in saying this campaign has not gone at all the way any of us expected it to. Like a year ago. This is not how we thought it was going to go two years ago. It's, you know, going back even farther. This just wasn't what I was expecting. So let's start there. What do you see as the significant moments or moment from this campaign, besides Biden actually dropping out, that got us to where we are today? You can. You can't do the Biden dropping out, because that's just too easy, I would say.

[Ross Dowsett]

I mean, I think a crucial pivot point. I'm calling an audible here. We talked about this in advance. I'm changing my mind just thinking about what I expected from the race. I actually think a really crucial pivot point were the Trump indictments, in hindsight, because I was going to say Musk's Trump endorsement and just the wider phenomenon of the sort of emergence of, like, a pro Trump faction within the American elite. And I do think that has been a big deal, but it will only really be a big deal if Trump wins.

[Michelle Cottle]

If he loses, can we send Musk to Mars to be Grand Vizier?

[Ross Dowsett]

Or Musk is going to Mars no matter what, or he's sending ships to.

[Carlos Lozada]

Mars, he's parallel parking them.

[Ross Dowsett]

I think the moment where the election was sort of pushed in the direction it ultimately took was the moment when the indictment started against Trump and he effectively, really quickly reconsolidated Republican support, and it just stripped away all of the momentum that his potential rivals for the nomination had built up.

[Carlos Lozada]

So, Ross, you mean the indictments helped him because they deepened the persecution narrative. They.

[Ross Dowsett]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, and I want to be clear. I think it's totally plausible that Trump would have been the nominee even without the indictments. I don't want to say that they absolutely made him the nominee, but there was, I think, a pretty clear scenario of Republican chaos set up where DeSantis did well in the early states and other people got in and Trump looked weak and so on. That scenario would have given us, I think, generally, a pretty different landscape for the election. It might have even created the scenario where Biden would have dropped out earlier. I think part of why Biden stayed in was his own sense of, like, I am the one guy who can beat Trump.

[Michelle Cottle]

Yeah, right.

[Ross Dowsett]

And then also the Democratic sense of, like, oh, man, the Republicans are nominating Trump again. It'll be okay if we run the.

[Carlos Lozada]

Same play and not doing so poorly in the 20, 22 midterms. That also probably gave Biden a sense. A sense of being bolder, right?

[Ross Dowsett]

Yep. No, I think. I think that's right. But I do think the indictments clearly set us on a course towards the Trump renomination. And the Trump renomination locked us into the kind of campaign that we've been watching play out. This very close campaign, whose closeness was not even altered that much in the end by the really dramatic reshuffling at the top of the Democratic ticket.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, I want to play off of that, because what I see as the moment is tied to that, which is that for a couple years there after the insurrection, there was a lot of talk about who was going to fill the Trump but not crazy shoes. And the leading contender was Ron DeSantis. I mean, there are a whole lot of Republicans who thought that Ron was going to be their guy. So, you know, whether we're talking funders or pundits or all these folks who were dreaming of Trump but not crazy, and then it turns out that Trump but not crazy is just another narcissistic, a hole who nobody likes. And DeSantis flamed out exactly as spectacularly as I'm going to take my victory lap here, I predicted, because you can't be a demagogue without charisma. And I kept saying this and kept saying this, like, oh, no, he's so smart. He's so Trumpy. He's so populist. He's so angry, he's like, yep. But he's a raging jerk. And without the kind of carnival barker celebrity showmanship that is what sells Trump, ain't nobody buying. So once he flamed out, it was clear that it was gonna be Trump. And once it was Trump, everything else just kind of followed because this is America, and we are a tribal people when it comes to politics.

[Carlos Lozada]

Ross, you were on the. I won't call it the DeSantis train. Maybe the caboose.

[Michelle Cottle]

Oh, you can call it the desantis.

[Carlos Lozada]

The desantis caboose. I don't know what. You know, like, how do you. Do you agree with Michelle's view here that Ron DeSantis looked awesome until people found out that he was, in fact, Ron DeSantis?

[Ross Dowsett]

I think that DeSantis ran a very bad campaign, and I think he had some of the personal weaknesses that Michelle described? I guess we're sort of picking the same point of departure for the campaign. I do think that the indictments mattered. They narrowed dramatically the space that a figure like DeSantis had to operate in. And I think that he would have been competitive in the early primaries, might still have lost to Trump, but would have been competitive absent the indictment cascade.

[Carlos Lozada]

It was also the ordering of the indictments. I thought that, I mean, maybe that's like way too picayune, but like, I.

[Michelle Cottle]

Don'T know, like, maybe not.

[Carlos Lozada]

I do think that the documents indictment would have been sort of a better case.

[Michelle Cottle]

But anyway, Carlos, it's your turn.

[Carlos Lozada]

Carlos, what do I think was consequential.

[Michelle Cottle]

And by the way, later, something from like 1987.

[Carlos Lozada]

I want us to later get into what we got right and what we got wrong. I loved your victory lap on DeSantis, Michelle. So when we look back on what is consequential, who won will be crucial for that, I think.

[Michelle Cottle]

Don't go out on a limb there, Carlos.

[Carlos Lozada]

And so. No, but. So I'll give you one for each outcome, right? If Harris wins, then X thing was consequential. If Trump wins, then Y thing was consequential. If Harris wins, I think that something that happened on April 21, 2023, was very consequential. Do either of you know what that was?

[Ross Dowsett]

I'm gonna look at my calendar. Hold on.

[Michelle Cottle]

Come on, come on.

[Ross Dowsett]

No, no, don't hold on. Just tell us.

[Carlos Lozada]

That was the publication of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 mandate for leadership, the Conservative Promise. Project 2025, that 900 page document, which I have read every page of, became perhaps the longest lasting and most effective talking point that the Democrats have had in this campaign and became a massive albatross for the Republicans. The polls have found that if you've heard of it, you don't like it across parties. You saw it all over the Democratic convention. You saw it in Harris's closing speech at the Ellipse. She said, Google Project 2025. That's part of the closing message. The Trump campaign had to fight mightily to distance itself from it. It just became a messy, messy thing that has provided an easy anticipatory playbook for all the fears that Democratic voters have and that maybe even other voters who are kind of on the fence think is a problem. And so I think that if Harris wins, I would not be surprised if we see that that played a non.

[Ross Dowsett]

Trivial role, don't we think? Probably. And you know, this is an argument against interests, obviously, as a pro lifer. But if Harris wins, people will point to the Dobbs decision and abortion, I think, more than they will point.

[Carlos Lozada]

Oh, of course.

[Ross Dowsett]

Project 2025.

[Carlos Lozada]

Oh, absolutely. I mean, with fundraising, with so much Dobbs has been. It's. It's remarkable to me how the Democrats can take the biggest thing they've lost on and make that like, the path to victory.

[Ross Dowsett]

Well, all politics is loss aversion.

[Carlos Lozada]

The second if Trump wins. I think there was a moment when the party could have moved past Donald Trump. And I think when Kevin McCarthy traveled to Mar a Lago and bent the knee just a few weeks after the assault on the Capitol, I think that was a significant moment. I think that created, to use a term I'm starting to hate, a permission structure for Republicans to just jump back on board. And McCarthy kind of like set a tone there. You know, it wasn't clear that they were going to stick with him. In hindsight, it seems inevitable, but at the time, I don't think it was obvious to all. And so I think that that was a significant moment in particular that set the party on the path that then, Ross, you've outlined as sort of having these other moments as well.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay. Some things have become clearer in hindsight, but I'm wondering what you think you got wrong in this campaign that we don't need to wait for the results.

[Carlos Lozada]

On for, but you also got to take a victory lap, Michelle. So I want to know what Ross got completely right and then what he feels he got completely wrong.

[Michelle Cottle]

Did Ross get something completely right?

[Ross Dowsett]

I think I was right about Biden, wasn't I?

[Carlos Lozada]

I mean, yes, you were the only one among us.

[Ross Dowsett]

Our colleague Ezra Klein gets the credit as the world's historical actor because he is considered a liberal in good standing, whereas I'm obviously not. But, yeah, I think my commentary about Joe Biden's condition, his likelihood to finish the race, has held up quite well. And I should say I also did get right that in the crucial moment where, you know, there was, you know, the disastrous debate and then everyone wavered back and forth about, you know, are they going to be able to remove him, even though I had every incentive, and you guys remember me laughing at you during this period to have a sort of schadenfreudistic desire to see the Democrats be unable to jettison Biden.

[Michelle Cottle]

You said they wouldn't be able to.

[Ross Dowsett]

No, no, I said hard. No, I said they wouldn't.

[Michelle Cottle]

You said it's not gonna happen.

[Ross Dowsett]

No, that's not true. No, I wrote. I wrote. I have the receipts to use another phrase that I hate. You want me to Google it? I wrote a column. We'll be able to get rid of Joe Biden. See, this is we're live.

[Carlos Lozada]

When you say you had every incentive to watch the Democrats fail at this. I just had incentive journalistically as a pundit to be right. Or incentive because you want Trump and Vance to win the White House.

[Ross Dowsett]

No incentive, just at a more like, lizard brain level. The deep unpleasantness of being a conservative who doesn't like Donald Trump and watching the Republicans be unable to rid themselves.

[Michelle Cottle]

You don't remember this show, Carlos? This is why I thought Ross was doing the schadenfreude, because he's talking, he would talk about like, see, it's so hard. And I don't like, I remember Lydia on that one talking about how she thought he would wind up stepping aside if it came to that. And you're like, well, it's really hard. And we argued about the difference between ousting a sitting president and why the Republican Party was different because he wasn't even in office.

[Carlos Lozada]

It seems there are many receipts.

[Ross Dowsett]

I said there are receipts for different products. I definitely, I will direct you to July 6, 2024. Why Biden is unlikely. Well, I don't know why they gave it that title, but anyway, I, to quote myself, I think Biden will bow out, his current protestations notwithstanding, because of three differences between the current circumstance and Trump's position eight years ago.

[Michelle Cottle]

I am always, I'm always willing to let the columns have the last word because you're just talking straight out of your butt on the show. Ross. I understand.

[Ross Dowsett]

I mean, the show, you know, it comes, it goes. It's, you know, it's. It is.

[Carlos Lozada]

No, but Ross did. I will, I will, I will give you credit, Ross. There was a moment when the four of us, the four of us, back when, back when Lydia hung out with us Globetrotter, when the four of us had to answer, you know, who do we think is more likely to leave the race, Trump or Biden? And I believe that three of us said that we thought Trump because of the.

[Ross Dowsett]

Yes. No, I said that's because of the.

[Michelle Cottle]

That's definitely true. Yeah.

[Carlos Lozada]

And Ross, you came last. You came last. And you were like, ah, just to be contrarian, I'm going to say Biden's going to have a health episode or something like that. So we'll give you that.

[Ross Dowsett]

Thank you.

[Carlos Lozada]

I hope I cited you correctly. Full faith and credit, Ross.

[Ross Dowsett]

All right, Carlos, what did you get? What did you, what were you right about?

[Carlos Lozada]

What did I get right or wrong?

[Ross Dowsett]

Just, I think it's time to be right.

[Carlos Lozada]

We had a conversation about the role of identity politics. In American politics. And I, I said that I thought that Trump would go, like, full on identity politics in the latter stages of the campaign. And I even said, somewhat in jest, that he would combine the transgender politics and immigration politics. And I said, he's going to have an ad about a transgender swimmer immigrant crossing the Rio Grande. And I came close because I can't see any ads aside from the ones about transgender immigrant inmates getting operations.

[Ross Dowsett]

And so you clearly had read through all of Kamala Harris positions from 2020, and so you could see the vulnerabilities.

[Carlos Lozada]

So that's a thing that I think I got right in a way that I never imagined. I don't think I was making a serious prediction. A thing I got wrong is that I, you know, and this is related to Ross thought earlier and that I overestimated the impact of the indictments and the convictions and the rest, but in the opposite direction. Like, I thought that there was some remnant of voters for whom that would be a bridge too far, rather than the fact that it would completely support his victimization narrative and only lock down his control of the nomination and of the party. But those are the two that I would highlight. Identity politics and the Trump indictments.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, I'm gonna go with what I did wrong, which is that I thought that, you know, Trump taking one to the ear would have a longer tail to it, but it just seems to have vanished. I mean, maybe unless he wins, then.

[Carlos Lozada]

Russell be right, that he was a.

[Michelle Cottle]

Man of destiny, still thinks it's fake. Oh, he's a man of destiny.

[Ross Dowsett]

He's a man of destiny.

[Michelle Cottle]

We just don't know in which way that's going. All right, well, now that we've done our laps, you know, good and bad mea culpas, let's take a quick break here, and when we come back, we'll get back to the question of most consequential election of our lives. Or is it dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. We'll be right back.

[Carlos Lozada]

With Instacart, you can get all your holiday essentials delivered in as fast as 30 minutes, whether it's the white elephant gift everyone will want to steal or the secret ingredient that makes great Grandma Jo's cookie recipe so great. Just download the Instacart app to find recipes, shop ingredients, and whip out dishes so delicious, your aunts and uncles will.

[Michelle Cottle]

Forget to ask about your love life.

[Carlos Lozada]

Enjoy free delivery on your first three orders. Service fees and terms apply.

[Sponsor Voice]

This podcast is supported by Carvana. With Carvana Value Tracker, you can track your car's value anytime, anywhere. If you want to know what your car is worth, Carvana Value Tracker analyzes your car's make, model, condition, market and more to give you the value for your vehicle. Carvana will even let you know when your car's value changes with update emails so you're always up to date. However you value your car, know it's worth with Carvana Value Tracker.

[Michelle Cottle]

And we're back. Let's look to the future. Now, I raised this question at the start. Now I want us to dig into it. Is this the most consequential or important election of your lifetime?

[Carlos Lozada]

First of all, all presidential elections are enormously consequential because we're entrusting somebody, somebody with the unimaginable powers of the American presidency and we're deciding how zealously we're going to check those powers by who we elect to Congress. So they're all important. And politicians always tell us, as you say, this is the most consequential of our lifetimes. In her speech at the Ellipse this week, Harris said, it will probably be the most important vote you ever cast, not just like so far into your lifetime in the foreseeable future, the most important vote you ever cast. And of course, Trump says if he doesn't win, we won't have a country anymore. So that seems kind of important, too. I mean, okay, even if you feel it's so important just because Trump is on the ballot, then 2016 was kind of consequential, too. 2020 was consequential. That was supposed to be the time. Didn't. Who's the guy who's president? Oh, Joe Biden. Yeah. Joe Biden said you can be forgiven for saying that. In his inaugural address. He said democracy has prevailed. Does it just prevailed until the next election? So I don't think that saying like it's most important, it's least important, it's less important is a significant metric. Maybe 2012, because if Romney had won then he would have run for reelection in 2016. There would be no Trump presidency then. So maybe, really, if you're terrified of Donald Trump, 2012 was the election that you care about. So, yes, consequential, the most consequential, I have no idea. Because consequences happen later. We can only determine this in hindsight. That's why they're called consequences.

[Michelle Cottle]

Ross, what about you?

[Ross Dowsett]

My guess is that looking back, 2016 will be the most consequential election, if not of my lifetime, at least of this phase in history, because that was the moment when there were big divergences in policymaking that were made possible because of that election. Obviously, the composition of the Supreme Court is crucial to that. But also it turned populism from a marginal phenomenon to a central phenomenon in American politics and Western life and obviously put Trump at the center of everything in a way that we've all been living with ever since. And I think if you write the history of this period, if Harris wins, then it will be sort of seen as the end of the Trump era, pending his, you know, his 2028 campaign. But even if Trump wins, there'll be sort of endless attention paid to JD Vance and Elon Musk and a host of other sort of characters. Like, there'll be some sort of opening to whatever weird thing comes next. But 2016 was part of this. Like, I feel like generally in the mid 2010s, starting from my perspective with Pope Benedict's resignation, which, as a Catholic, I think was this, honestly, this sort of metaphysically significant event that was very significant. But there have just been sort of a series of wrenches where we went out of a certain kind of, like, banal end of history timeline and into a much weirder timeline. And I think the fundamental weirdness shift was eight years ago, not this time.

[Carlos Lozada]

Around, and not just here. Right. I mean, like, Brexit was happening. I mean, it was a larger phenomenon than just the US Election.

[Ross Dowsett]

Right. But had a few things gone differently. Right. Brexit is a good example. Had Trump lost and Brexit lost, the landscape of just sort of how people do politics in the Western world would have looked very different, and maybe the populism would have boiled over in some completely different way. But that was the break point. To me, what makes this election distinctive is just how difficult America's position is in the world. I think we are in the most difficult position of my lifetime in terms of our power, our capacity, and the different kinds of threats we face. And I'm not saying, oh, this will be the most important because Harris will defeat Putin and Trump won't, or Harris will, you know, lose a war to China and Trump won't, I don't know. But I do think if we look back and say 2024 was a big election, it will be because of things that happened in the world thereafter and how either Trump or Harris react to them. And that I think that is sort of novel. America, even after 9, 11, we've just been in a really strong position on the world stage since I was 8 years old. And we're not in that strong a position right now. And that's sort of the most capital H historical thing I see going on right now.

[Michelle Cottle]

I'll take 2016 as well. But coming down to kind of a slightly more American focused level, which is that we talk a lot now about how the youngest group of voters, the cohort of the young men that Trump is talking to, or the young women who are making this a boys versus girls sort of race. These people basically don't know anything different than Trumpian politics. 2016 broke all the norms. They basically have grown up with the idea that politicians are liars and clowns and politics are a joke, and it's all about trolling and policy is ridiculous and government service is ridiculous, and it's all conspiracy theories dialed up to 13. And you can say that we were on that track for a while, but nobody has gotten away with it to the degree that Trump has. And I think that, again, I have maintained he is a singular figure in our politics in part because he started out as a celebrity, and America worships celebrity more than it worships anything else. And I think that he has locked that into the current generation of young voters in a way that we're going to be paying for for a long time to come. That's not a global perspective, but I do think that he has changed the way an entire generation looks at politics and what they understand it to be.

[Carlos Lozada]

One thing that solidifies that point, Michelle, too, to my mind, is semantic, but it's how even under the Biden presidency, we still think of this as the Trump era, right? Absolutely. And it's noteworthy to me how Harris campaign is about turning the page, is about not going back, when in fact turning the page from yourself, from the Biden, Harris administration. But it makes sense because we do think of this era in broader terms than who controls the White House. Which gets me to something I want to ask you both. What makes an election consequential? Before we think about like, does this one fit or does that one fit? What earns its status in the pantheon of among the most consequential ever?

[Ross Dowsett]

I mean, one traditional answer that we haven't had in American politics for a long time is that the most consequential elections are the ones that establish durable governing majorities. And that's why people look at, famously, the election of Franklin Roosevelt. It's why people look at the Jacksonian revolution in the 1820s. And it's why people look at, depending on how you cut things, either some of Richard Nixon's victories or Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory as ushering in a Republican realignment. And one thing that is notable about our politics, and our colleague David Brooks wrote about this paper from Yuval Levin and Roy Teixeira that's worth looking at on this front. Like why the two parties can't claim real majorities anymore. That's a big question that hangs over our politics. Trump sticking around is putting an exclamation point on this larger trend where it's like, oh, you think there's going to be an enduring Democratic majority with Barack Obama?

[Michelle Cottle]

Well, that was Rui's book, right?

[Ross Dowsett]

That was Rui's book, right. But, but guess what? Republicans are going to take back the House and Senate like that. Or you, you know, Joe Biden thinks he's going to be an FDR level president. And the next thing you know, Trump is knocking at the door again or George W. Bush going further back. You know, long term Republican majority just disappears over just a few years. No one right now thinks that 2024 is going to be that kind of election. Even if Trump wins, everyone says, oh, it'll still be basically a 50, 50 nation. I think the most surprising thing in a way would be if, in hindsight, to use Carlos's point, the most interesting thing would be if 10 or 15 years later we look back and say, ah, to our surprise, the Harris majority or the second Trump majority actually became a durable majority in American politics. That would be a departure from how recent elections have gone.

[Michelle Cottle]

Carlos, what do you think?

[Carlos Lozada]

The only other thing that I would point to, and of course these go together, is elections are consequential if they mark a big shift in political coalitions the way Ross outlines, also if they lead to sort of long lasting and durable shift shifts in policy and governance. So like definitely FDR. Right. 1964 led to the advance of civil rights. 1860. Right. Lincoln, significant. Right. The end of slavery. I mean, you know, in, in a sort of micro sense, even though it had macro consequences, I think the election of George H.W. bush and to have him in charge of kind of the end of the Cold War, I think was a non trivial result. So I would point to those two factors. You know, did it mark big changes in political coalitions and did it mark big significant endurable changes in policy and governance?

[Michelle Cottle]

I do think your point about 2012 and the fall of Mitt Romney is even more dramatic than people think about. Because if you'll recall, the Republican Party had been so convinced that it had done this big autopsy and it was on a new path toward more outreach to women and minorities. And then Trump showed up and won. And that basically just blew up any last discussion of whether the Republican Party was going to go in a kind of more gentle or kind of more inclusive direction. And instead it has gone full.

[Carlos Lozada]

And then the guy who ran the autopsy became Trump's chief of staff.

[Ross Dowsett]

Well, and wait a minute, wait a minute. And if we're not making predictions, but if Donald Trump wins the election, he will win, most likely with the most racially inclusive coalition of any Republican in my lifetime. So there you. There you have it. The.

[Michelle Cottle]

And the biggest gender split.

[Ross Dowsett]

That. That too.

[Carlos Lozada]

Well, that's.

[Ross Dowsett]

That too.

[Michelle Cottle]

Ever.

[Carlos Lozada]

Friend of the moo. Friend of the moo. Kristin Soltis Anderson just wrote about this. Right. About whether this is a realignment election or a reboot election. Right. And the case for realignment is precisely the one that you two are picking at different sides of right now, which is that the electorate goes from divided along race and class lines to gender and education lines. Right. And that would be a significant shift in the way we do politics.

[Ross Dowsett]

I don't think that you can call it, though, just to be pedantic, a realignment election if you still end up at a 50.

[Carlos Lozada]

50.

[Ross Dowsett]

At a 50.

[Carlos Lozada]

50.

[Ross Dowsett]

I think it's more like, yeah, the Trump. Trumpism has found a way to essentially trade a bunch of ordering more than realignment. Yeah. Upper middle class, suburban votes potentially, you know, for not just white working class, but also African American and Latino votes. And that obviously is a big deal. But it's not a true realignment unless you get a real majority.

[Carlos Lozada]

Again, that's not pedantic. That's accurate. Yeah. Yeah.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay. So I want to get personal for a little bit. Not, you know, we don't have to, like, weep or, you know, sing God Bless America or whatever. But I have to admit, I mean, talking about the boys versus girls agenda, I am quite nervous that the Republican Party will come away from this with the lesson that the way to win a close presidential election is to divide the men and the women and go hard with the, you know, grossest bro sexist BS that I've heard in many, many, many years of covering elections, which is not good for me. It's not good for my daughter. I'm not even sure that it won't have, like, repercussions for just gender relations more broadly for years to come. This is what I'm worried about. Kind of. What. Is there anything along those lines that you want to.

[Ross Dowsett]

Sure. I'm worried that if the Harris campaign wins on an abortion, abortion, abortion presidential message that the Democrats will take the lesson that the way to win is to divide America along gender lines and convince young women that the essence of their political identity should be focused on making sure that they have the right to terminate their unborn children in the womb. That I think would be a very depressing future for American liberalism and would make me unhappy for my daughter's future.

[Carlos Lozada]

Carlos, do you want me to.

[Ross Dowsett]

Can you just sort of.

[Carlos Lozada]

Do you want me to be Solomonic here and. Oh, quote, split the baby. Split the baby.

[Michelle Cottle]

Carlos, the.

[Carlos Lozada]

I don't know that the gender divide is. This is not both sides. Isn't to say that everyone overestimates their mandate and everyone overinterprets the tiny slivers that may have given them a winning majority. When I pivot toward the future, I think a lot actually will not change, regardless of who wins. I think that we will continue on a path of being a mean country. I don't just mean mean as in, like, harsh or violent, though I do mean that I also mean, like petty and spiteful and small. And that. That bothers me. Um, I think if, like, you just have to see the closing arguments at Madison Square Garden to, To see what that is. And if Trump wins, I think those mean forces will have control of the state. I worry about the assault on, on immigrants. I think it'll become absolutely vicious if Trump wins. I. I think you'll see it in homes, you'll see it in churches, you'll see it in schools. You know, he didn't talk about tariffs. Not much. Or the economy. Not much. Or inflation. Not much. He said more important than any of that was, you know, the criminal migrants who are coming to destroy your communities. I think that the Enemy within rhetoric is more than just rhetoric. I think there are people who are thinking hard about how to operationalize that. It's no sort of conspiracy minded thinking of mine. I think to point out that the Enemy within is the book by Stephen Miller's mentor, David Horowitz, and published three years ago. And I think that there are people like Stephen Miller who are thinking about how to make that real. Remember when we were talking about the caravan right before the 2018 election, how that was the big thing and then everyone stopped talking about the caravan? No one cared anymore after the election was over. I don't think you can turn off the kind of rhetoric that has been dialed up. Vermin, thugs, enemies, poisoning the blood. Yeah, poisoning, yeah. Not to. I mean, there are many.

[Ross Dowsett]

You mean Like Nazi human garbage, that kind of thing. Our enemies are fascists and Nazis who want to destroy America.

[Carlos Lozada]

I'm not going to stand by and defend sort of dehumanizing rhetoric on any side of this election. And that's why I said that I think these are things that will endure no matter who wins. There are things you can't. There are bells you can't unring. And I think that is something that troubles me.

[Ross Dowsett]

Can I say something optimistic?

[Carlos Lozada]

Yeah.

[Michelle Cottle]

Oh, sh. Always say something optimistic.

[Ross Dowsett]

I mean, you know, I've said this before throughout the Trump era, and there have been times when I've been proven badly wrong. I think both the summer, fall and winter of 2020 were a period when this was incorrect. But I'm still going to say it again. I think that Americans have migrated a lot of their politics to a virtual reality where people say terrible things about their enemies because they seem like low cost things to say because it operates in a virtual and slightly unreal landscape. And I actually think Americans on both sides of the divide have been surprisingly good at sort of partially unringing bells when it comes to migrating back into the reality of American life. I think if you go back to the aftermath of January 6th, I knew a lot of people, liberals, who said, look, this is a fundamental change in the Republican Party and it's going to be like a paramilitary formation with terrorism and Ireland's troubles and all these things. Nothing like that happened. And I know conservatives and Republicans who look at the assassination attempts on Trump and say, this shows that if Trump wins, there'll be sort of massive liberal violence against Republicans and so on, and that could happen. And again, if it happens, you know, you can play this tape and say I was wrong, but in my pessimism about how Americans relate to each other in the virtual, I am also somewhat more optimistic about the general overall peace of our country and our ability to get along with one another as neighbors. In reality, then, I don't know, maybe you guys are a lot of our fellow pundits are. So I just wanted to put that out as, you know, a note of optimism that may be undone soon enough.

[Michelle Cottle]

It'll just be the occasional storming of the Capitol now and again.

[Carlos Lozada]

Ross, I hope that you are right.

[Michelle Cottle]

I do as well. I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful. All right. Hopefully next week we'll have some clarity on all of this.

[Carlos Lozada]

Oh, yes, everything. Everything will be clear.

[Michelle Cottle]

It will all become clear. And we can go forward into the new morning in America. But for now, we're going to Take a quick break and when we come back, we'll revisit some of our hottest and coldest election night memories. So stay with us.

[Sponsor Voice]

A place to call home. The freedom to live in safety. The opportunity to work for a better life. These are American dreams everyone deserves. But right now, across America, LGBTQ people could be denied the right to pursue their dreams. 65% of states have no laws that clearly protect LGBTQ people from being denied housing or other services. Get the facts and hear real [e-mail] brought to you by Love has no Labels and the Ad Council.

[Carlos Lozada]

Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces, and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@doctor Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder.

[Michelle Cottle]

And we're back. Today, instead of our usual hot, cold, we're going to do something a little different. In honor of the election, I want us to take a trip down memory lane as preparation for next Tuesday, I was thinking maybe we could all share a story from another election night that stands out for us personally. So I'll go first while you guys get your thoughts together. And I want to take us back to what prior to the Trump years was probably the weirdest election night in modern memory, which was 2000. So George W. Bush versus Al Gore. It was a closely divided America even back then. And if I recall correctly, I was about to start some new CNN show with Jake Tapper. And so they had sent Jake to Nashville for the night, I believe. And I was in Austin and we were both waiting for the election to get called. It was raining, if I recall. Although maybe that's just like psychic projection at this point. And it just kept getting later and later. And I'm standing in front of the Texas Capitol and people are freaking out. I think one of the CNN producers who went on, I think she went on to work and the Bush administration later starts weeping. People are trying to get information out of Florida. It's like the whole system starts melting down. And finally I'm just like, that's it. I'm going back to my hotel room. You guys can call me when they figure out who's won.

[Carlos Lozada]

Did they call you 36 days later.

[Ross Dowsett]

Or whatever they called you three weeks later?

[Michelle Cottle]

They called me, like days and Days later, it was just not. It was not glorious. So that was kind of the defining election night PTSD experience for me.

[Carlos Lozada]

Huh. You know, that election. I think I was just recently dating my now spouse and romantic. Oh, yeah, yeah. Bush. Gore was like. Was so hot. Box. The.

[Ross Dowsett]

Sorry.

[Michelle Cottle]

Hanging. Hanging chat.

[Ross Dowsett]

Hanging chat. I am.

[Carlos Lozada]

You know, you're ruining this memory for me now, Michelle. No, it's that we were watching just the two of us on tv, and we literally fell asleep on the couch, and then we woke up in the morning, and it's like, who won? Yeah. And of course, we didn't know. Yeah.

[Michelle Cottle]

And until you found out, you had to keep dating, and it just went on and on and on, and next thing you know, three kids later.

[Carlos Lozada]

I blame Florida.

[Michelle Cottle]

Love it.

[Carlos Lozada]

I blame Florida.

[Michelle Cottle]

We all blame Florida.

[Ross Dowsett]

Ross, I want to pick 2012, which Carlos mentioned earlier as a highly consequential election, precisely because it was such an anticlimax as an actual election night. Because that was an election, as you may recall, where the national polls were basically 50, 50 at the end, where Nate Silver was talking endlessly back when he worked for the Times about how the state polls were all leaning Obama's way, and Obama was going to win, but, you know, Republicans thought Romney was going to win. And I remember settling into that evening thinking, you know, this is going to be a really interesting election night. Maybe not 2000 Florida level Interesting, but, like, down to the wire, you know, we won't know who wins till after midnight. Get some recounts, have some fun. I was sort of up for a lot of spectacle, and then it was just over, like, 45 minutes in. It was like, nope, Obama's got this easy win, and. No, no, but it's not. I mean, and 2012, young pundit Ross was incredibly disappointed by the boringness of that election night 2024. Ross is sitting around thinking, wouldn't it be great if election night 2024 again in either direction? You know, I am accepting of all outcomes, but if there is an outcome quickly, and it's like, man, country just went for Trump. Oh, Kamala got the Obama majority back. That's it.

[Michelle Cottle]

You're cool with that?

[Ross Dowsett]

I'm ready for a night like 2012 again. Carlos, how about you?

[Carlos Lozada]

So I'm gonna pick 2016. And the reason I'm gonna pick 2016 is not because of all the things we've discussed today about how important this election was and the populist upsurge and blah, blah, blah. Sorry, I don't mean to get my pedantic Voice when I start channeling. Ross, my apologies.

[Ross Dowsett]

I think you should do the whole podcast in that voice.

[Carlos Lozada]

No, that was my first election as an American citizen.

[Michelle Cottle]

Aw.

[Carlos Lozada]

So my first presidential election was 2016, and I remember, like, going to register to vote, and it was a very exciting thing. I'm going to. I'm going to. You know what? I'm going to do something that we shouldn't do when it's a podcast, but I'm going to text you guys the picture when I went with my youngest to register to vote. And there you should have it. And he was like, three, and he was so excited to go, and he just couldn't. He couldn't contain himself. And then when he gets there to the Board of Elections, he's so disappointed because he's like, where are they? Where are they? Because he assumed that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were, in fact, going to be there and that we could choose between them, like, right then and there.

[Michelle Cottle]

Love it.

[Carlos Lozada]

And so that bummed him out, but it was super exciting for me. Later that night, we had a bunch of friends over to the house to watch the returns, and they weren't really excited about the ultimate result of the election that night, and I wasn't either. But I still had that sense of exhilaration about just having been part of this process at all. And so 2016, in that sense, will always be a special memory for me.

[Michelle Cottle]

It completely warms my heart. That's a fantastic story. All right, guys, I will see you on the other side.

[Ross Dowsett]

That's right. Or in the purgatorial limbo that awaits us.

[Michelle Cottle]

It's gonna be all good. It's all good.

[Carlos Lozada]

You mean after Benedick stepped down? Is that what you mean?

[Ross Dowsett]

Yeah, I mean, you said it, not me.

[Carlos Lozada]

See you guys.

[Ross Dowsett]

See ya.

[Michelle Cottle]

Bye. Thanks for joining our conversation. Please keep a close eye on this feed next week as we all watch the election results come in. We might be back with you sooner than next Friday. And if you have any questions about the election results, we want to hear it. Share it with us in a voicemail by calling 212-556-7440. And we might just respond to it in our post election episodes. You can also email [e-mail] while you're at it, give Matter of Opinion a follow on your favorite podcast app and leave us a nice review while you're there to let other people know why they should listen. Matter of Opinion is produced by Sophia Alvarez Boyd, Phoebe Lett, and Andrea Betanzos. It's edited by Jordana Hochman. Our fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary, Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Original music by Isaac Jones, Afim Shapiro, Carol Sabaro, Amin Sahoda and Pat McCuster. Mixing by Pat McCuster. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. Our executive producer is Annie Rose Strasser.

[Carlos Lozada]

Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more@doctor Horton.com Dr. Horton America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder.