Jamelle Bouie (2:48)

I think this is a difference in kind. I think what we're seeing with how Speaker Johnson Especially is handling the House is something novel. He's keeping it out of session. Right. He's essentially no one's meeting. And critically, there's not really negotiations happening, nothing to begin the process of trying to wind down the shutdown. It's as if Speaker Johnson and House Republicans are acting as if they have nothing to do. And I mean, what I find not baffling but just striking is even as this Snapchat cliff approaches, Republican members seem completely, by and large, seem completely indifferent to the fact that many of their constituents are about to lose food assistance. No matter what kind of old stereotypes they may throw out about who they think SNAP recipients are, the fact of the matter is that many people who are represented by Republican governors and Republican lawmakers are recipients of snap, and they're disproportionately children, disabled people and seniors. So just observing how House Republicans feel no urgency about this and have taken no steps to try to negotiate as if they have no obligation to, I find genuinely striking and something that Marxists as a different kind of phenomena.

Michelle Cottle (4:21)

David, what about you?

David French (4:22)

I'm going to agree that we are dealing with a difference in kind, kind of on two fronts here. So one is the absolute total subservience of the majority of the, of the legislative branch to the executive branch. I mean, that that is a thing. That is a difference in kind. Sort of this idea that whatever the President says we're going to snap into line and do, combined with an absolute abdication of, of the power of that entire branch of government. And so the impetus seems to be that so long as the President is ready to fight, there will be no real discussion here, there will be no compromise at all. That this is going to all be about who gets to point at the scoreboard at the end of this, whenever this occurs. And so you are looking at the absolute breakdown, at least so far, of anything approaching a legislative process. And look, this is not unprecedented to have differences between Republicans and Democrats in a budgeting process. And you know, what happens is they typically in year generations past, they would get in and hammer out, say a 65, 35 or a 70, 30 compromise that would leave sort of people at the extreme edges upset. But, you know, a majority would be at least accepted, you know, comfortable with it. And now just that very word, that word compromise is seen as synonymous with defeat. It's seen as synonymous, Anonymous, with humiliation and subjugation. And that is just, that is a difference in kind. And coming from a low baseline, I should say we're not coming. This is not Like a sudden change of an otherwise healthy and functional branch of government. This is like the utter deterioration of an already diminishing branch of government.

Jamelle Bouie (6:09)

I just want to add real quick to David's points that what's especially strange about the supplication of Congress of the Republican led branches to the President's kind of priorities and political stances is if you are a long serving member of Congress, the theory, and what has been the practice in the past is that that actually provides you a bit of insulation from the President's political priorities. Right? If you've been there for 20 years, from your perspective, presidents come and go, right? You're not the first President I've served with, you won't be the last one. So that gives you a level of, oh, I can break from the President here to an extent because I have a separate base of power from the President. And that's even more true. That's supposed to be even more true of senators who are elected on an almost entirely different schedule than the President. And what's striking, and this might be a product of the fact that so many members are relatively new, right, they've been there for 1, 2, 3 terms. But what's striking is how they really do fully identify their political futures with that of the President. Even in circumstances where it's clear to me at least that like Trump is dragging you down like, substantially, the incentive here actually runs in the opposite direction. But they cannot break from him.

Michelle Cottle (7:33)

Well, I'm interested in kind of particularly how Trump is impacting each team's behavior here. So my suspicion is that Republicans in Congress, who ordinarily are worried that they're gonna pay a huge price if they are participating in a shutdown or seen as obdurate, are counting on the President to do whatever that weird magic he does is to blame the other team, make this all about how the Democrats are doing something horrible. I have no idea if this will work, but I do think that they've done the cost benefit analysis and they find it, you know, less scary to risk being blamed by the public than to have to cross this president who they are absolutely terrified of. Whereas on the other side, the Democrats, if you talk about negotiations, the Democrats don't trust the Republican congressional folks to be able to stick to any promises they make because the Democrats have watched this president claw back stuff that Congress has already pushed through. So the idea that Democrats are going to agree to something with the confidence that it will actually come to pass is just out of the picture at this point. So I Think it's become a very ugly, hardened situation.

David French (9:00)

Well, absolutely, Michelle. And that does raise a really important question. What's the Democrats end game here? I mean, I think the Republicans what's going to go forward is pretty clear to map out as far as the process. We don't know the outcome the process is going to be. They're just waiting for the king on the throne to raise his scepter in a particular way and to say, you know, make a deal, don't make a deal, hold the line, whatever. We know all Republican eyes are on Donald Trump, but what is the Democratic end game here? Because Michelle, you, you said it very well that they can't trust a deal with this president. I mean, you know, the President has taken a position on executive power. That is, in essence, I get two vetoes. I get the veto that is in the Constitution, the one where I veto legislation. It can be overridden by super majorities in both houses. But also I have this other veto which is just called executive power. And I get to choose which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce. And so that then raises the question, what is the Democrats end game here? If there is no deal that they can rely on at this point, we seem to be in a situation where we're just waiting for someone to crack or break. And then in every day that passes, the cost of cracking or breaking to your own side becomes higher. Of course, something could pop very quickly and, you know, break the logjam. But at this moment on as we record, I'm not seeing how that happens.

Jamelle Bouie (10:28)

Yeah, I don't know how it happens either. I mean, this is what we're seeing. What we're seeing are the problems with this imperial notion of executive power. This is why this is bad, because it actually renders governance impossible to do if there's no commitment to the broader rules of the game. One of the rules of the game being Congress does a thing and the President carries it out. And to the extent that the President has any wiggle room, it's if Congress gives him wiggle room. But absent that, we pass spending, you carry out the spending. But if you're not gonna follow that rule, that's not gonna be on the table anymore, then you can't govern it anymore. The only thing that can happen is for Republicans to just unilaterally govern. Right. And they don't want to do that either. So I, I don't know how this ends. And what I want to say is you can't have a forever shutdown for like, very practical reasons. You don't want every air traffic controller to quit. Right. Like, you don't want the properties owned by the federal government to fall into disrepair. Right. Like, there were actual things that have to happen for the country to run. And there is some wiggle room and redundancy over the course of a month, maybe if we're stretching it two months. But beyond that, it matters that the federal government is operational. It seems to me that the President thinks you can have a forever shutdown, and that in the president's conception of things, the shutdown gives him more power through some magical, convoluted, transmogrifying mechanism that no one understands. The shutdown means the president is even more powerful.

Michelle Cottle (12:05)

Well, that I was. I was gonna nod to that, because we are seeing him. I mean, he's been happy to use the shutdown as a tool for doing what he. I mean, we've seen Russ Vaught at the OMB talk about how they're gonna just take this and run with it. They're gonna try to lay off federal workers en masse. And right now, the courts are currently blocking this, but this clearly is something that they're willing to experiment with. Trump has taken money from a rich donor to help pay the military, which, I mean, David, is that even legal? I mean, they're. They're freezing congressionally appropriated funds for projects in states they don't like. Basically anything that they can do to just kind of, you know, disrupt the whole functioning of government, especially in blue areas. Trump is going headlong into this, and his response is always like, you know, come at me, bro.

David French (13:01)

Oh, I. I don't think there's any question that this. If Donald Trump could engineer a situation where the Congress stays out of session or the House stays out of session for the rest of his presidency, I think he'd be totally fine with that. I honestly think that he has no real desire to work with Congress in any substantial way. Otherwise, you know what? He would have had a very different opening to his presidency. His party controls the House. His party controls the Senate. And instead of this flurry, this tsunami of executive orders, if he had an actual governing agenda to sort of dictate how America is going to be governed for the foreseeable future. He'd have had a legislative agenda. He'd have walked in passing actual laws. Instead, he came in with a giant amount of executive order vaporware. And so what you've done is you've created a situation where the President is more powerful than ever, but presidential actions are more ephemeral than ever, because they're all channeled through Eos, rather than using his power to actually shape and change the law. And so this is so unstable, it's just. It's hard to overemphasize how unstable this makes American governance.

Jamelle Bouie (14:09)

Yeah, how unstable, how unreliable. I mean, it's bad for business. Like, I'm not one to be super solicitous of the business interest, but if you are someone who makes money, this level of instability and inconsistency in government operations is in top. Like, how do you plan for the future? Right.

Michelle Cottle (14:27)

Well, globally, it's a problem, too. Right. I think other countries cannot remotely predict what our foreign policy or trade policy or anything's going to be.

Jamelle Bouie (14:35)

But I wanted to say just a real quick comment about Russ Vought. I feel like so much of the coverage of Vought is about how he's some kind of, like, evil genius. And the photo they always pick has him with, like, bags under his eyes and they're kind of bloodshot.

David French (14:51)

Lord.

Jamelle Bouie (14:52)

Right? He looks like a Sith Lord. He looks like he's, like, asking, you know, Anakin, has he heard the story of Darth Plagueis. Right?

David French (14:58)

So I love that reference.

Jamelle Bouie (15:00)

That was for you, David.

David French (15:02)

Thank you.

Jamelle Bouie (15:04)

So, but, like, all he's doing is just breaking the law, right? All he's doing is saying, I'm just not gonna follow the law. And it's like, you don't have to be a genius to just be like, I don't think the law counts anymore. And I find it very frustrating that, like, so much of the coverage of him buys into this image of this, like, devious, plotting, scheming vizier when it's just like, no, he's just a guy who's decided the law doesn't apply to the president anymore. Right? And that's all. And if there were a Congress interested in, like, enforcing its prerogatives, you could just cut that short in an afternoon. Right? You drag Rasvad up for oversight hearings. Like, what are you doing? Do we need to hold you in contempt?

Michelle Cottle (15:42)

Here's my question to both of you, which is that, yes, Trump is, you know, authoritarian. Curious, I guess we'll call it. But how much of this do we think is that? Either the people around him or even some of the establishment Republican players knew that this Congress and that Congress in general for years has been basically abdicating its responsibility on all kinds of level. And so they were basically ripe for a takeover. I mean, you can certainly blame Trump for a lot of the extreme degree that we're looking at as to how far he has taken over congressional power. But Congress has been happily shoveling that out the door and letting the executive branch or the judicial branch do its job. And so if you're standing around looking from the outside going, you know, all it would take would be a really kind of strong man in the White House to take advantage of this and input whatever policies or changes I'm interested in. So as much as I like to blame Trump for what's going on, I feel like we should spend a lot of time here, maybe smacking Congress as an institution as well.

David French (17:00)

Yes, absolutely, Michelle. I mean, look, one of the trigger phrases, I'm not a big fan of, like, trigger warnings and things like that, but I do have a trigger warning for myself, which is the phrase co equal branches of government. Don't say that around.

Michelle Cottle (17:12)

I remember that.

David French (17:13)

I'm going to remember, don't say that it causes involuntary spasming, because it's Article 1 for a reason. Like, if you actually look at the constitutional structure, it's not that the legislature is supposed to reign unchecked and supreme. It's just that think of the legislative branch, in the formulation of the founders is like first among equals. This is the one that you can't spend any money without it. It can fire the president. It can fire any member of the Supreme Court. You're not supposed to be able to go to war without it. I mean, all of the basic fundamental functions of government, you just can't do, in theory, without Congress, according to our structure. And this is intentional because Congress is crafted to be the most representative part of our tripartite system of government. And so what we're seeing here isn't just congressional abdication in an abstract sense. What we're seeing is constitutional devolution, almost like a constitutional revolution, where Article 1 is receding down to, like, Article 3 level, and Article 2 is Article 1 now with a bullet. And it's not the way the system was supposed to be created or administered. And it's putting huge strains on us, just huge. Because if Congress is basically irrelevant and the presidency is decided, really, by the swing states in the presidential election, then the vast majority of Americans have no meaningful say over the core functioning of the American government. And that creates a real, again, all of these things, everything we're talking about, they're all destabilizing.

Michelle Cottle (18:50)

So, Jamel, this is kind of leading directly into what you've been writing about this week. And before we jump in, I just wanna note that I have done a lot of reporting on this among senators. And both sides know this is a problem, and both sides are really unhappy about it. It's just a question of how do you address it. And you have been talking this week about an imperial Congress being potentially needed to push back because we've reached such an imbalance at this point.

Jamelle Bouie (19:21)

Yeah, I feel like that's a term of art just for what David is alluding to. Just like a very active Congress that is taking its role in the constitutional firmament very seriously. So I think I'm interested in writing quite a bit about is Reconstruction. And if you're sort of basically familiar with the timeline, there's two parts of reconstruction. There's presidential reconstruction under Andrew Johnson, and there's congressional reconstruction after Johnson. Basically after Johnson's impeachment begins a little earlier than that. But basically Congress sidelines Johnson and really takes the full reins of Reconstruction. It's Congress leading the pack. It's Congress spearheading constitutional amendments. It's Congress doing the kinds of close oversight and monitoring. It's Congress flexing its authority in really aggressive ways. And I think that is what I'm talking about when I say something like an imperial Congress, a Congress that recognizes the full sweep of its formal and informal powers and then just uses them to try to shape things in the way that it wants to be shaped and engages with the public. And there's still room for the other branches to push back, of course, but the key thing is the other branches are responding to Congress, not Congress responding to the other branches. It changes sort of the direction of the energy in the system.

Michelle Cottle (20:37)

So is there any practical path toward that, do you think so?

Jamelle Bouie (20:43)

I've been thinking about this, and some of it's structural. Right. Like over time, for a variety of contingent reasons, a variety of reasons that reflect the fact that this is like a big, complex modern country, modern economy. Power has siphoned up to the executive branch. I think a little bit of that is basically unavoidable. But. But I think some of this really is just the members themselves. I think that if a newly elected majority of the members said, we don't want this to be so leadership focused, then it wouldn't be right. If the Senate said we really want to be active, then they would be. And I do think that some of this is actually just like cultivating an ethos among members, among people who want to be members that think of themselves not as passive members of a party, like active members of a legislature who have a lot of individual power, but I also think it reflects the absence of real ambition. Real ambition not simply to ascend to a higher office, but ambition to use the office you have in the most aggressive and maximalist way that you can.

Michelle Cottle (21:54)

So before we get your take, David, I just want to throw in one of the things that senators have complained to me about in respect to this whole leadership focused way that it's run, is that fueling that problem in part, is, unsurprisingly, the way that money is dealt with. The Senate leaders control huge campaign funds that they can decide who gets this piece off and things like that. And that is a very powerful tool in a system where money is just so vital to surviving in these campaigns. So, okay, that's just one piece of that, David, you know, kind of. What is, what is your thought on, on all of that?

David French (22:37)

Yeah, you know, I think we're going to be in a difficult position until a fundament there's a change in a certain fundamental reality. And that fundamental reality is that every Republican member of Congress believes that their entire career, every Republican member on Congress knows that their entire career, their place in that House, depends on Donald Trump's approval. So I think even Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, if Trump came out and said he needs to go, then Mike Johnson loses his job. And why do we know this? Because look at the last 10 years. How many people are left in the Republican Party that who Donald Trump has specifically targeted? I mean, I can think of one in the state level, Brian Kemp in Georgia. This is somebody. He's the Harry Potter, the boy who lived of sort of the GOPE with.

Michelle Cottle (23:26)

A kind of magical reverence.

David French (23:28)

Yeah, exactly. How did you pull this off? But this will not last forever. So I think there's two. A couple of things to point out here. Number one is it's a mistake to think this will be a 50, 50 nation forever. We've had the 50, 50 moments in American history, and the logjam has always broken in a particular direction one way or the other. The logjam tends to break if you go back and you look at American history many, many times when you've had extreme presidential power and abuses of presidential power, that's been followed by a snapback by constitutional amendments or Congress acting in some decisive ways once the logjam is broken. And so I have some ideas for.

Michelle Cottle (24:06)

You have thoughts?

David French (24:07)

I have thoughts. I have constitutional amendments that I think could really help this. And I know that sounds pie in the sky because we have a logjam right now, but the logjam will break. And I think there are some lessons we have learned about the original 1787 constitution that just lend themselves to abuse. And the Antifederalists spotted this coming from miles away. So, for example, the pardon power. The pardon power is a republic destabilizing vestige of monarchy that needs to be fundamentally reformed. That's one. Here's another one. The first sentence of Article 2 is, as George Clinton wrote, as Cato, an Antifederalist, vague and inexplicit. And that lends itself to lots of mischief.

Jamelle Bouie (24:53)

Can I. Can I interrupt real quick? When you said George Clinton, I was like, is he about the, quote, Parliament Funkadelic?

David French (24:59)

And then I, of course, normally, I would.

Jamelle Bouie (25:03)

Normally he's thinking New York lawmaker George Clinton in the. Yeah, okay.

David French (25:08)

Yeah, yeah. Not Parliament Funkadelic. Yes.

Michelle Cottle (25:10)

Okay. Let me just throw in. You guys are such geeks. I love it. Sorry. Continue, continue.

David French (25:15)

But here's another one that I think is an important idea. Expand the House. So I think there's a number of ideas of reform that are floating around out there that can help prevent this situation from happening again. But we have to get through this moment. And the real impediment here, the real impediment is the primary voters. Even something as grotesque as January 6th did not break that bond between Trump and the primary voters. And so in that circumstance, they think legitimately there are no lines that Trump can cross where he will lose the loyalty of the primary voters in the Republican Party.

Michelle Cottle (25:56)

I do think we have to wait until this cult of personality has. However it's going to end, has ended. Before we can move on from this. That fever has to break. But then I do want an episode devoted entirely to David and Jamel's list of amendments and reforms. So I'm just putting my.

Jamelle Bouie (26:17)

It's funny David said that, because I myself have, like, on a document like me, sort of putting together like an amendment. I had no doubt. How do we constitutionalize a series of reforms that prevent this from happening again? What I throw in there is just in the same way that the first lines of the 14th are basically over turning dred. Scott, I think. I think we need to constitutionalize overturning Trump v. U. S, which is just a ruling that, oh, totally agree. To be fair. I guess some reasonable, reasonable people can disagree about that ruling. Can they?

Michelle Cottle (26:51)

But can they really?

Jamelle Bouie (26:54)

But at the very least, I think what we're seeing is that how a corrupt president interprets it is as a license to do whatever they want. And I think there needs to be Some sort of constitutional clarification of the President's criminal liability.

Michelle Cottle (27:07)

Okay, so I'm changing my. We're now gonna have a whole series of episod on this because clearly one's not gonna do it. So now, before we switch for our closing recommendations, I did wanna take you guys back. Cause we haven't been together since the magical renovation project of the East Wing began, which to me smacks of Trump trying to take us towards some kind of glorious. I don't know, it's got like old empire written all over it, you know, a gilded ballroom or whatever. And I have been, I guess, pleasantly surprised or taken aback by how much this has really ticked off a lot of the country. Were you guys surprised by this?

Jamelle Bouie (27:47)

I mean, I'm not surprised that people are mad. It's crazy. It's a crazy. It's. Listen, when they were. When he was like, I want to put up a ballroom, I was like, all right. I mean, it's ugly, it's like garish. But if it's just going to be like looming over the White House, you know, whatever. I don't like it, but whatever. I would prefer that he went to Congress and said to Congress, I need money to build this thing.

Michelle Cottle (28:10)

Well, why do that when you've got rich friends who'll do whatever you want.

Jamelle Bouie (28:13)

When they would do it immediately? Right. I mean, it's because this is like a.

Michelle Cottle (28:16)

But he doesn't need Congress, Jamel.

Jamelle Bouie (28:18)

This is a pay for play operation. I would be shocked if a ballroom ever gets built. But then when I open up my computer and I see that they've demolished the East Wing as if it belongs to him, as if it's just something he can do. The White House is very distinctly not a palace. Right?

Michelle Cottle (28:35)

Yeah. Give it time. There's so much gold.

Jamelle Bouie (28:38)

The palace in the Capitol is the Capitol. Right. The White House is a relatively modest executive mansion by design. And as imperfect as American democracy is, as often quite bad American democracy has been. The White House is this symbol of the relationship of the government to the people. It's open to the public for the most part. Right. You can go visit it, you can go hang out. You don't need to be a rich donor. You can just go and given the importance of the symbol to, I think how Americans conceive of themselves. And symbols matter. Right. These things really do matter to how people understand themselves. It makes total sense to me that you'd be like, even if you're basically sympathetic to Trump, you'd be like, wait a sec, here you know, this isn't yours to demolish. And if you want to tear it down, you at least have to go to Congress. You have to go to us and ask us if we are going to allow this.

Michelle Cottle (29:36)

But isn't this project, then, the perfect metaphor, the perfect symbol?

Jamelle Bouie (29:39)

Oh, yeah.

Michelle Cottle (29:39)

You know, he's taking a wrecking ball to.

Jamelle Bouie (29:43)

It's a hat on a hat. It's so on the nose.

Michelle Cottle (29:46)

Yeah.

David French (29:46)

I don't care if there is a ballroom built. In other words, that. Do we possibly need a ballroom? I'm very open to that argument. I'm totally open.

Michelle Cottle (29:54)

I like to dance.

David French (29:55)

I'm not open. I'm not open to the idea that the President can just demolish any part of the White House on his own authority or all of it. Like, what's the limiting principle here? You know, you hate to go, you know, from White House to Venezuelan boat strikes. But as I was talking about the other day, what's the limiting principle here? To stop Trump from designating anybody as a terrorist enemy and ordering their death. Like, what's the limiting principle? What's the limiting principle? Can he demolish the whole White House? And when you see the White House demolished, just suddenly part of the White House just demolished with no real conversation or discussion, it has a very kind of tangible effect that other things don't have because it's just right in front of people's faces. But one last thing before we get to our recommendations, I just want to say, Michelle, somebody needs to stage an intervention for both Jamel and for me, because I also have a Google Doc of constitutional amendments. So it's. Is there a name for this condition? Is there something like that?

Michelle Cottle (30:56)

I've come up with one before.

Jamelle Bouie (30:57)

Next time, we need Nerdlinger. That's what the name is.

Michelle Cottle (31:00)

Nerdlinger. That works for me. Okay, guys, so let's end on some lighter recommendations maybe, or at least something that does not involve a Google Doc, perhaps. David, go.

David French (31:15)

Okay, bear with me here, because this show has changed a lot in its evolution. So season one of the morning show on Apple TV was, like, very heavy, like prestige tv. I felt like. Like a very cinematic, weighty, like, really well done, in my view. And then seasons two, three, and now we're, I think in four, got just sort of like a soap opera. More like, you know, do you remember Dallas and Falcon Crest from, like, the 1980s?

Michelle Cottle (31:47)

I'm sorry, have you met me? Of course I do. Yeah.

David French (31:49)

Yeah. So all of a sudden, it's gone from kind of this big meta commentary around me Too. To something much more like Dallas and Falcon crest for the 2000s. And I just gotta say, I'm here for all of it.

Michelle Cottle (32:02)

You're there for that.

David French (32:03)

I'm here for it. So the morning show, Apple. It's been great.

Michelle Cottle (32:08)

It's on my list. Because you are reliable, I have to say. You are my list.

David French (32:12)

I'm nothing if not reliable in streaming recommendations.

Michelle Cottle (32:14)

Okay. Jame.

Jamelle Bouie (32:16)

I've been trying to catch up with movies. I usually watch a lot of movies every year. Last year, I think I clocked like 230 movies. This year, I've just been not watching for whatever reason, just not watching this much. But I'm trying to pick up the pace again and try to catch up with stuff that came out this year. And I watched the 28 years later, which is the kind of Legacy sequel to 28 days and 28 months or 28 weeks or whatever the previous two films. And I went into it thinking it was just gonna be, you know, like, I like those other two movies, but it's just gonna be like a fun zombie picture. What I was not anticipating it being was an actually very thoughtful coming of age story and at times quite profound and moving kind of meditation on life and death and rebirth and coming to terms with the nature of the world in which we live. There's zombie thrills and it's kind of gruesome and stuff, but the emotional core of the film is. Is so thoughtful and there are moments of genuine visual and emotional beauty in the film. And it's this legacy zombie sequel. So I'm gonna recommend 28 years later. It is like, I think it might be my favorite film of the year so far.

Michelle Cottle (33:31)

Really.

Jamelle Bouie (33:31)

I'm so shocked by how deeply felt it is. And it has maybe the best child actor performance I've ever seen.

Michelle Cottle (33:39)

Yeah, I've seen it.

Jamelle Bouie (33:40)

He carries the film well.

Michelle Cottle (33:42)

I'm gonna pivot and I'm gonna do less a recommendation than a plea. And I don't want it to be like a kind of downer. But I want to recommend that as we roll into November, you find a local food bank and donate. I have a friend who launched one during the pandemic and they are just overrun already. Even before we get into the Thanksgiving season, I've had other friends come to me asking how they can get in touch with her and donate. I've got my husband contacting the local food bank in our neighborhood. It's one of those things where it's good for your soul and the need is just overwhelming. So that's mine.

David French (34:21)

Wonderful suggestion, but I'm just gonna say you made us look bad, Michelle. Like around the Thanksgiving table, when people say, what do you want for Christmas? And someone says, I want a new car. And somebody else says, I want a new boat. And somebody else says, I want suffering to stop in the world.

Michelle Cottle (34:35)

No, no. See, I would have pitched Sinners the movie, but Jamel had already gotten me with his hor movie. We can't have too many horror movie recommendations. So fine, donate to your local food bank, get out there and watch the horror movie centers. Is that better?

David French (34:50)

There you go. There you go.

Jamelle Bouie (34:51)

Okay.

Michelle Cottle (34:52)

All right.

Jamelle Bouie (34:52)

All right.

Michelle Cottle (34:53)

And with that, we're going to end it. Guys. Thank you so much. I have missed you. We'll leave it there. Have a great election day and I will see you next week.

Jamelle Bouie (35:00)

See you next week.

David French (35:01)

Thanks, Michelle. See y' all later.

Podcast Host/Announcer (35:30)

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur Bishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Allison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing, and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.