Loading summary
Transcript75 lines
- [00:01]
Evan Osnos
I'm curious if you guys think Elon Musk is worth a trillion dollar pay package. What do you think?
- [00:06]
Jane Mayer
I don't think anybody's worth a trillion dollar pay package. What can I say? It might be worth quite a bit to the other party as a target.
- [00:15]
Susan Glasser
Does it come with automatic sending him to Mars at the end of it?
- [00:19]
Evan Osnos
In a funny way, one way to interpret this is that this is essentially the shareholders paying him to to stay out of politics. Cuz the theory here is the only way he makes these benchmarks is if he doesn't continue to tank the image of everything he's associated with commercially. So in a subtle way, they're basically saying, we will pay you a trillion dollars to close your mouth.
- [00:46]
Jane Mayer
I'd take that deal.
- [00:53]
Susan Glasser
Welcome to the Political Scene from the New Yorker, a weekly discussion about the big question, American politics. I'm Susan Glasser and I'm joined today, as ever, by my colleagues Evan Osnos and Jane Mayer. Hey there, Evan.
- [01:05]
Evan Osnos
Hey there, Susan.
- [01:06]
Susan Glasser
Hi, Jane.
- [01:07]
Jane Mayer
Hey, Susan. Hey, Evan.
- [01:11]
Susan Glasser
Wow, what an eventful few weeks it's been. We are now officially in the longest government shutdown in US history. The first elections of Trump's second term have gone democratic in a big way. And somehow the midterm elections are now only a year away. To gear up for this endless and high stakes election season, we thought we'd try something a little bit different today. So we asked you to send in questions about the 2026 midterms. And thank you, so many of you did. Today we'll hear and read your questions, do our best to answer them, and try to make sense of it all together. We do this show every week and we know you listen, but it's just so exciting to hear from you all as well. So thank you. Now, before we jump right into the listener questions, of course, let's unpack a little bit the news of the week. There's a lot of it. Evan and Jane, earlier this week we saw really resounding wins for Democrats across several states. And while it was expected the Democrats would win, I think the scale and scope of the margin was not on anybody's dance card. So do you buy into the, let's just call it, wave of little bit of giddiness we're hearing this week? It's a long road to the midterms. What are you thinking? Is this the week, as I put in my column, that America really started clapping back at Donald Trump? Or is it just another roar of protest from a part of America, blue America, that already Hates Donald Trump.
- [02:44]
Jane Mayer
You know what I was seeing analysts saying, if there was more than a 10 point margin in some of these races, it was gonna be send a gigantic message. And I really think it did. I think what it showed was that Trump is vulnerable. He seemed before this all powerful. Now people are beginning to say, oh, he might not be that popular. They may have to break with him in some ways. And he's lost some of his voters from the last time around. So I think it sent a big message. What do you.
- [03:16]
Evan Osnos
Yeah, I think that the dominant message is here. People don't like this. They don't like this. They don't like the meanness, frankly. I think some of that is just wearing against the story people tell themselves about this country. The brutality that we see on television and in clips of ICE raids, I think there's the telling data, as you suggested a moment ago, is if you really look in places where Trump has, has been successful in the past, and you look at places like some of these rural areas in Virginia that in theory are supposed to be Trumpy and they were going for Democrats much more squarely. And I think that or not coming.
- [03:55]
Jane Mayer
Out, I mean, low propensity voters that he pulled in last time were not there this time. So I mean, you can over interpret it, but it shows there's a path. Susan, what do you think?
- [04:06]
Susan Glasser
Well, I think there's the big issue that probably shaped us more than anything, which is the economy. And Donald Trump said on day one, prices were magically gonna go down. He said a lot of things were gonna magically happen, like then to the Ukraine war on day one. But this one is one that, you know, Americans, whoever they are, blue America, red America, rural, urban. This one they care about every time they go to the store. And not only did he not succeed in doing that, but in fact, as anyone who has gone to the grocery store can tell you, prices have gone up and up. It really struck too that, you know, there's almost this, this reversal, right? Donald Trump was the one last year hammering away at the Biden administration's record on this, saying inflation was literally the worst inflation in the history of the world. He actually repeats that phrase that, you know, when I came in, it was the worst inflation ever in American history. You know, what the inflation was a year ago and what it is now, it's basically exactly the same. And so now it's, Donald Trump is the one who's in denial about this, you know, affordability crisis that we have in the country. And I think it, that Unifies, you know, for all this talk about Democrats being divided, what unified candidates, whether it was New York City's new mayor on the left or Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger in the center left, they were all talking about this. They were all talking about the things that voters actually care about. And I think that's the template, you know, that might matter in 2026.
- [05:38]
Jane Mayer
It was interesting. I was reading, you know, people were surprised that there's such a gender gap. I think a lot of women do the shopping. I have to say, I do a lot of the grocery shopping. You're in shock if you're shopping. And then, of course, there's the tariffs, which are roiling the economy. And so we're looking at the possibility of some kind of return of stagflation, which was really a combination of high unemployment and inflation at the same time. It's a killer.
- [06:05]
Evan Osnos
Well, I mentioned earlier, some of these rural voters, they are getting slammed because not only are they paying more, but then also trade policies are wreaking havoc on the underlying economy for farmers. And then I think there's another piece. Look, I've been kind of, you know, droning on this year about economic inequality, but this is a prime demonstration of it because, frankly, for people at the top of our economic ladder, the stock market's roaring. It's a pretty good time to be wealthy in America, but there's this big hidden block of suffering. There's a lot of layoffs going on. There was a report out this week that there have been as many layoffs in 2025 as there were around 2008, 2009. So, you know, there is a tremendous amount of churn going on. And it's not described partly in the numbers because let's remember, the government is shut down right now, and they're not even measuring the full depth of economic.
- [06:57]
Jane Mayer
You know, something that I think is interesting about this, I'm curious what you guys think is you think of Trump, if nothing else, as a good marketer. He's like a salesman and has some instinct about how to connect with people. On selling himself, he seems so tone deaf and clueless to have had this Mar a Lago Great Gatsby themed party over Halloween while the SNAP benefits were being cut off, to be bulldozing the East Room to create a ballroom for fat cats. That's gonna be completely disproportional to the size of the White House.
- [07:34]
Evan Osnos
Don't forget the Mar. I don't see a lot of marble bathroom voters out there in this room.
- [07:40]
Susan Glasser
The answer is he didn't care about these elections. Jane, I think that you're right that Donald Trump is a great marketer, but his definition of politics is about himself. And he didn't even campaign for these folks. He didn't even endorse the candidate, the gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, because he anticipated, correctly, that she was going to lose. So part of it, right, is that he expected that they were going to lose both governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, and he sort of discounted it. But I also think this is a man who is on a power trip. He is a man who fears no political consequence. That is literally the only explanation for the Great Gatsby themed Halloween party. And here's a couple other data points that go to your point. In New Jersey, literally anyone who gave the whiff of concern about the election would not have, barely one month before the election, cut off billions of dollars in funding for the crucial building of a new tunnel under the Hudson river to take New Jersey commuters into New York City. This is, like, the most important issue for voters in northern New Jersey. And what did the Trump administration do? Literally cut off billions of dollars to punish New Jersey barely a month before the election. In Virginia, in it was like Donald Trump wanted the Republicans to lose, because how else can you explain how he's gone after the Virginia workforce, which is federal workers? All year long, he's treated them to a series of traumas, as we've discussed repeatedly on this podcast. And so in the middle of a government shutdown, again, it was like Republicans were trying very hard to lose, and not just lose a little bit, but lose badly in New Jersey and Virginia.
- [09:22]
Jane Mayer
Well, I mean, we'll get into this, but I get the sense that there's a dawning recognition that the stakes for these midterms could very well be personal, not just for Trump, but for everyone around him. Because if you listen to what Steve Bannon was just saying, he was just giving a speech where he said, if we lose, if we lose the House, if we lose the Senate, if we lose Congress, he said, some of us are gonna go to jail. And I include myself in that. He said they see investigations coming if they lose Congress, so they may not be so invulnerable.
- [09:59]
Evan Osnos
Yeah.
- [10:00]
Susan Glasser
Well, let's begin to hear not just from Steve Bannon, but from our listeners. And that is what we're gonna do today, and I think it's really great. I love hearing your voices. In particular, got a lot of smart email questions as well. We're gonna take turns Sharing those with the group. So who wants to jump in? We've divvied up. Who wants to start?
- [10:20]
Evan Osnos
You know, I'll kick things off here. The first listener question comes to us in a voicemail, and it's a theme that was raised by a lot of people, and that's the safety and security of elections. Let's listen.
- [10:34]
Susan Glasser
Hi, Nicole from Santa Rosa. It feels like holding onto the House majority in 2026 is key to Trump's whole agenda. So what are the actual chances of having a free and fair midterm election?
- [10:44]
Evan Osnos
What do you guys make of this? Jane?
- [10:46]
Jane Mayer
Well, first I would say when you ask about election integrity, we have election integrity. So I would say start with that, that we actually have free and fair elections in this country. And so you'd have to change things in order to slant it towards the people in power. I do not have 100% confidence that we won't see a lot of tampering in important key races. I think it's entirely possible we will see troops monitoring elections that are intimidating to voters. We might even potentially see martial. It sounds kind of ridiculous, but I think it's possible you could also potentially see the FBI sees voter machines. And that would not give me a lot of confidence given who's running the FBI. I mean, there are definite potential serious concerns. But we do have a system that has worked thus far. So I'd like to put to bed the idea that we don't have election integrity in this country. We do. It can be tampered with if something goes wrong. And I see on the horizon that possibility.
- [11:57]
Evan Osnos
Susan, what are you looking out for on that score?
- [11:59]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, I mean, look, Donald Trump has always been the guy who, if he can't win something fair and square, wants to change the rules. And what we're already hearing from him in anticipation of the next round of elections is, you know, all caps, social media demands to change the rules of our elections.
- [12:17]
Katie Drummond
Right.
- [12:18]
Susan Glasser
Just this week, in response to Democrat sweeps in these off year elections, what was Donald Trump saying in his all caps social media post? He's saying change the rules. Change the rules in the Senate, get rid of the filibuster, and then impose upon Democrats a new infrastructure for how we govern elections in the country. Among other things. For example, one of the things Republicans want, the Democrats have fought for years, is a federal voter ID law. Now, that's not going to happen anytime soon. In fact, it's very unlikely that the Senate Republicans are gonna go along with Trump's demand to get rid of the filibuster. That's what the Senate Majority Leader John Thune said. But I think it tells you that the direction of travel, anything that Donald Trump can do, and then some things that we think he can't do, but he was gonna do anyways, he's gonna do to change the rules. Cuz that's, that's who he is. He's the classic guy who fights with the umps.
- [13:10]
Jane Mayer
I think that's a great point. I just wanted to say one addendum on this issue of the federal ID laws, which is I actually spoke at some point with Khalida M. Who is one of the lawyers to Trump in the past. She is on the right and really claiming voter fraud and all of this sort of thing. And I said to her, okay, so you won a voter ID law. How do you feel about just issuing voter IDs to everybody in America then when they turn, you know, voting age? And she said, oh no, no, no, we don't want that. They actually don't really want national voting is what they really don't want is the full franchise. They want IDs that keeps their voters able to vote and stop other people. It's a form of voter suppression.
- [13:54]
Evan Osnos
And that idea of maybe voter intimidation too is one of the things to watch for. I mean, the idea that if you're acculturating people to the image of having troops in the streets, to having the National Guard called out, to having guys in uniform wandering around, it makes it a little bit easier if you then in the run up to the election say, all right, we're going to have them monitoring polling places or keeping an eye on things to prevent fraud. These are the little steps that are about getting people used to the idea of federal interference. Now, I will say one thing, which is elections are administered on the local level. It could be very different in very different places, but it's a real concern to be worried about. I think Trump is very worried about a third impeachment. I think he is concerned about all the things you mentioned earlier, Jane, about what could result of investigations if the House is in the hands of Democrats. So he has reasons to raise, and particularly after the experience of the last week where it was pretty clear that they didn't do well.
- [15:00]
Susan Glasser
Jane, you've got a listener question.
- [15:02]
Jane Mayer
Okay, well, this is an email from a listener. PG they write. With the states now heavily gerrymandered, is there even a slim chance for Democrats to take control of the House? What do you guys think? Susan?
- [15:17]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, absolutely. There's two Things happening here. One which is this crazy race to redistrict in the middle of a cycle that's never happened before. It's an extremely worrisome development, I think, from the perspective of kind of a gerrymandering arms race. Right. So, you know, it starts with Donald Trump pressuring Texas. Then California says, no way, we're not going to let that stand. They passed this week this referendum that allows them to. To redistrict as well. You have a number of other Republican states that have gone ahead with redistricting to try to maximize the number of seats they might get. So from the point of view of the polarization of our country, very bad news. But I think we don't really fully understand yet where it's going to be. Certainly California and Texas balance each other out. They both appear to be giving their majority party the possibility of five new congressional seats. So that, in a way, is awash between these two big states. I don't know exactly where the districts are going to land in the other states, but Democrats were very, very close in the House. They are, you know, five seats are under at the start of this Congress. That's a very narrow and even ungovernable majority for the Republicans. So Democrats started out with a very strong chance, given the headwinds that any incumbent party faces in a midterm election winning back the House. And I think this week's results show pretty clearly that when you have a big wave going, right, if you have, you know, a strong direction, that's going to roll over a lot of these, you know, kind of structural impediments that there might be. The other thing that I noticed this week that I think is a classic example of sort of like, be careful what assumptions you make about things. Republicans, you know, they were a little high on their own supply after winning the 2024 election totally. And in Texas, I think they got this idea that because there was a swing of Latino voters in border districts from Democrats to voting for Donald Trump in 2024, that somehow they could count on those voters forever. And that is one of the premises behind the Texas redistricting. It's not clear that that's going to work out. Those districts could backfire on Republicans and they might not win all of them. But I don't know. What do you think, Evan?
- [17:32]
Evan Osnos
Yeah, I agree with everything you said. I would also just remind Democrats, it's, you know, Democrats love to immediately gravitate to the worst case scenario. I do think it's worth reminding ourselves that in the midterm elections, it tends to be that the party out of power performs well, especially in a case like this where you have a very unpopular president, you have the Republican Party in control of essentially all the branches of government. So there is a strong incentive on the part of Democrats to get out there. But that is the key question. Will they in fact get out there? But just let's remind ourselves of what history is here, which is that the party in the White House tends to lose double digit seats, you know, something like 25, 26 seats if you go back to World War II. So Democrats have a tremendous opportunity here and that's something to put in the foreground so that people don't feel as if there is no chance at all.
- [18:25]
Jane Mayer
Well, just to rain on your parade.
- [18:26]
Evan Osnos
A little bit, I was waiting for that.
- [18:29]
Jane Mayer
If you listen to, say, Dave Daly, who's got a very good book called Anti Democratic out, he predicts that no matter how, how much redistricting goes on, that the Republicans are going to have the advantage in terms of redistricting because they have more districts that they can gerrymander to their advantage. But again, turnout will be the story.
- [18:49]
Susan Glasser
Yeah. All right. Well, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we'll turn to the future of the Democratic Party and how they might win back those independents who went for Donald Trump last time. The political scene from the New York will be back in just a moment. I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial director.
- [19:15]
Evan Osnos
I'm Michael Colori, Wired's Director of Consumer tech and Culture.
- [19:18]
Susan Glasser
And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is all about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley. At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.
- [19:37]
Evan Osnos
Right. So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.
- [19:48]
Susan Glasser
Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.
- [19:57]
Katie Drummond
The days are getting shorter, but they're also getting busier as we head into the holidays. And Quints has all the essentials you need to keep your wardrobe sharp and your gifting on point. This season's lineup is simple but smart and easy, with Quint's $50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like an everyday luxury and wool coats that are equal part stylish and durable. By partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans, Quince cuts out the middlemen to deliver premium quality at half the cost of other high end brands. So you can give luxury quality pieces without the luxury price tag. I just picked up the Japanese chef knife for myself and now I want to get one for all my friends. And at these prices I can might have to pick up the cashmere midi dress too so I can look cute at all the parties. Give and get timeless holiday staples that last this season with quince. Go to quints.com politicalscene for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. Q-U-I-N-C-E.com politicalscene to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com politicalscene.
- [21:12]
Susan Glasser
Okay, so Evan, we're gonna turn to a few questions we got about the future of the Democratic Party. Yeah, and I'd like to start us off with a couple of related emails. Listener Carolyn wrote in about James Talarico, who is a U.S. senate candidate in Texas who's not only winning praise from Barack Obama, but is really all the buzz among Democrats these days, she wrote. Talarico is a former teacher and Presbyterian seminarian. He talks about Trump era corruption in moral and spiritual terms. Is he at all on your radar?
- [21:46]
Evan Osnos
He is very much so. And I think not necessarily because there's anything like a surefire win for a Democrat in Texas. It's been several decades since they had a Democrat in the Senate. But it is exciting to see the way that he's talking. And as this listener suggested, here is somebody who's a Presbyterian seminarian. So he talks about God in ways that are multi layered, complex, credible. He talks about it in ways that make sense in Texas, but he's coming at it from a Democratic perspective. There was an amazing moment that circulated back in 2023, I think when he was talking about a gun bill in Texas. There had been mass shootings and he zeroed in on that key phrase that we hear so often that after there's been a terrible shooting, Republicans will call for thoughts and prayers. You can't offer thoughts and prayers on Monday and then debate a bill to loosen gun regulations on Tuesday. I believe in the power of prayer. I believe prayer can change lives. I believe prayer can change the world. But there is something profoundly cynical about asking God to solve a problem that we're not willing to solve ourselves. He said. God moves, God works through us. And it was an immensely powerful thing. I think we can, you know, we'll go through all the ways in which it's very hard for Democrats in a place like Texas. But he went on, Joe Rogan sat there for two hours, handled himself very well, and at the end of it, Joe Rogan said, you should run for president. So I think that we're talking in this episode a little bit about generational change. And a guy like him who has a very long road between now and Election Day is somebody who is introducing a new spirit into the election. That's worth watching.
- [23:43]
Susan Glasser
Well, speaking of Senate candidates, Evan, we did get another question in our sort of Senate lightning round here about Sherrod Brown. Not a new generation Democrat, but a Democrat who lost his seat but is now trying a comeback in Ohio. A lot of people think he has a really good chance to do that. He was seen as one of the Democrats who had the ability to still run and win on heavily red states in Ohio. It used to be a swing state when Sherrod Brown was first elected, not anymore. A very red area of the country now. What do you think about his prospects this time around and what does it tell us about national election?
- [24:22]
Evan Osnos
Yeah, I mean, I'll be curious what you guys think of it. Look, I think he has a tough road because he is running against a Republican senator who was appointed by a Republican governor to fill the vacancy left by JD Vance. Sherrod Brown is popular in the state. He didn't lose by all that much. He lost by something like 3 percentage points. But the track record on this is hard. It's a challenging thing to do. And one of the other things here is that there is going to be an effort to keep him out. He's been very vocal against cryptocurrency. He's not a big fan. And so I would expect to see a lot of dark money, as Jane would know, that may be pouring in from the crypto industry. But it's worth remembering he was in some ways reminding me of Talarico a moment ago. Sherrod Brown is a Democrat. He was talking about less about left versus right politics than about top versus bottom. And so he may find himself rhyming with our broader moment, perhaps more than people would assume.
- [25:23]
Susan Glasser
Yeah. Jane, you've reported from Ohio before. That's always what's been fascinating about Sherrod Brown is he always came from sort of the liberal, populist wing of the party. Right. He's always been talking about economic themes throughout his political career. And it does seem like it fits the moment. I meant to mention earlier in the show, Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary, admitted, I think this comment didn't get enough attention, that parts of the US Economy might actually already be, quote, in recession. So is that the moment for somebody like Sherrod Brown?
- [25:55]
Jane Mayer
It may be. He's not young and, you know, I agree. I think it's a tall order to win in Ohio at this point. But he's one of the original populists and he's a progressive populist. You know, I mean, he has a good reason for why he's coming back, which is important, I think, if someone's coming out of a loss, which is to say he hadn't planned to do this, but in watching what Trump's doing, he felt he had to get off the bench and get back in. And so he's got a strong message there, and I think he's quite beloved in his state. So we'll see. I mean, it'll be, it'll definitely be a race to watch.
- [26:34]
Susan Glasser
Well, speaking of generational change, Jane, and you know, new faces, as you pointed out, the elections this week have injected a lot of hopeful energy into the Democratic Party and a sense of generational change not only, but especially with Soran Mamdani's win in New York City. The midterms, though, are a long way off. The next voicemail from Tom touches on whether Mamdani's campaign could be a target for Republicans, a model for Democrats, or both.
- [27:02]
Jane Mayer
Hi, I'm Tom from Vancouver. I know the old cliche says all politics is local, but how likely is it for both Democrats and Republicans to tie their local races to Mamdani? Republicans using it to fear monger and Dems using it to usher in more economic populism? And if they try it, do you think the strategies will be successful? Well, I think a lot will depend, Tom, on how capable Mamdani proves if he can deliver on some of these promises that he has made, whether it's free buses or universal childcare or making the city more affordable, particularly housing, is really kind of a breaking point in New York at this point. So he's got to show that he can actually deliver, and then the labels don't matter so much. He'll just be a capable young, next generation person. I just came back from New York myself. The level of excitement is so incredible to see. I mean, and it's amazing to see so many kids, younger generation, so, so excited about this.
- [28:07]
Evan Osnos
That's a key point, I think, Jane. You know, I was in New York yesterday, and I'm struck that yes, immediately in answer to Tom's question, will Republicans use Mamdani as a kind of boogeyman nationally? Yes, absolutely. They already started. By Wednesday morning, there were ads running around the country about how this is the future that House Democrats want. And what was notable about it is, to your point about young people, is how differently the word socialism lands with older voters and younger voters. So younger voters, they kind of shrug at that. The idea of Democratic socialism doesn't seem as exotic. Now, obviously the question is, who matters more in an election? But this idea of just being able to invoke socialism as a specter of evil is not as clean a technique as it might have been 10 years ago. Susan, what do you make of that?
- [28:57]
Susan Glasser
Yeah, I mean, a couple observations. One, I think Jane is absolutely right to emphasize, like, his success is dependent on whether he succeeds on some level. And, you know, being mayor of New York, it doesn't normally involve you in big foreign policy debates over, you know, the future of Israel. Right. So he needs to do things like make sure that when there's a big snowstorm, the streets are shoveled. To that point. I actually asked a very senior Democrat former mayor this week this question about Mamdani. And I said specifically, hey, I love this idea about the free buses. You know, is that something that you think he can deliver on? And I'll tell you guys, there was a long pause. There was a long pause. And the answer is it would cost a lot and it would require real sacrifices and real organization to be able to produce something like that. And so. So one of the questions to look for, in this person's view, and I think it's smart, is what is Mamdani going to organize to do in the beginning of his term when he has the momentum? If he tries to do the very hardest thing first, he's going to fail. But if he doesn't immediately start organizing to deliver something in the first part of his term, then that's also going to be a big challenge. So just on the practical front, there's that. But, you know, the hammer and sickle thing, to your point, Evan, I saw this great report. You know, the New York Post had one of its classic covers, you know, tabloid covers. It was like red Hammer and sickle, you know, the, you know, the coming of the, you know, communist, Marxist, whatever to New York City. And it was meant as this kind of hit on Mamdani. But the report I saw said it was like, young hipsters throughout the city who were totally, frantically running around buying up those. And, you know. Right. It's like there's one party for whom irony is dead and another party that's embracing kind of like, you know, postmodern moment.
- [30:51]
Jane Mayer
I mean, they have a little vulnerability on this issue, given the fact that the Trump administration has now taken an ownership share in five major corporations, you know, when it comes to who's the communist.
- [31:02]
Evan Osnos
Good point, good point.
- [31:04]
Jane Mayer
Have some vulnerabilities here.
- [31:05]
Susan Glasser
All right, so we're gonna take a quick break, and when we come back, we'll talk about the changing of the political from Nancy Pelosi's retirement to Dick Cheney's legacy. The political scene from the New Yorker will be back in just a moment. If you've been enjoying the show, please leave us. A rating and a review on the podcast platform of your choice. And while you're there, don't forget to hit the follow button so you never miss an episode. Thank you so much for listening. I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global Editorial director.
- [31:40]
Evan Osnos
I'm Michael Kollory, Wired's Director of Consumer, Tech and culture. Sure.
- [31:43]
Susan Glasser
And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is about the people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley. And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.
- [32:02]
Evan Osnos
Right. So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are.
- [32:10]
Susan Glasser
Affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode. All right, so, Jane, you're up to talk about generational shift.
- [32:33]
Jane Mayer
All right, so we got a lot of messages about a generational shift in leadership. Here's an email from Julie about this. She wrote, a record number of congressional lawmakers are retiring in 2026. What does this mean for the makeup of the House and Senate? Susan?
- [32:54]
Susan Glasser
Well, look, first of all, let's. I think we do need to give a shout out here to the biggest retiree of them all, who just announced on Thursday morning that she would not be running for re election after a hell of a run. Nancy Pelosi, you know, you could argue, and I think it's a fair argument, that in some ways she was the most important, certainly elected woman in American history. And in two different stints as speaker of the House, she presided over historic Legislation, including being the speaker of the House when the Affordable Care act was passed during the Obama administration. She definitely became, I would say, Donald Trump's biggest scourge in his first term in office. And, you know, her passing from the scene is a reminder that this is a moment where we're going from one era in our politics into something new, that we don't know what it is. We're just talking about Mamdani. Is he the future of the Democratic Party, or is that a cul de sac? Are we just doing the thing that political analysts do and over interpreting the politics of New York City, which aren't really the politics of America? You know, I don't know the answer to that, but I do think it's right to give a shout out here to Nancy Pelosi, who has helped to shape this era and certainly led Democrats through a very challenging period.
- [34:09]
Evan Osnos
Yeah. And it is also a reflection of this generational change that has been building over the course of the last couple of years. Of course, we had the 2024 election, which hinged so much on questions of age and competence, but also who was in touch or out of touch with the electorate. It's notable to me how many people are choosing to leave Congress right now. You know, that tends to be a pretty cushy gig, but you've got actually a record of senators and members of the House who are leaving. I think it's like 10 senators, 34 House members, which is a sign of what you hear informally. I'm sure you're hearing the same thing when you find yourself at a dinner table or somewhere with a member of Congress who says it's not a whole lot of fun, it's not a job people are really dying to hold onto right now. I mean, particularly really young ones will tell you it's pretty gruesome. You can't do anything if you're in the minority, you're feeling really kind of inert, kind of bottled up. And if you're in the Republican side, you. I have less contact with that. But I think the numbers tell the tale that people are bailing out. I think a couple things that are worth keeping in mind. One is that when you do have a lot of open seats and you have a very low trust environment in this country, which is what we have, that's sort of the dominant ambient fact of politics. It creates opportunities for wildcards, for disruptors, for people who come in who are hard to anticipate but end up introducing very different issues or tone or Persona into the election. So it makes it especially lively. And I think that's the context where we are right now.
- [35:44]
Jane Mayer
I mean, I was struck by the way that Mamdani campaigned. He broke a bunch of different molds. He didn't just do a traditional campaign. He had things like a soccer match. He had things like a scavenger hunt in New York City. He doesn't want to be the kind of candidate that the younger generation and that people who are just alienated don't trust. He's trying to connect in different ways. And I think that's such a contrast to, if you take a look at Chuck Schumer, who seems to be kind of the face of the older generation of the Democratic Party in some ways at this point, and who didn't want to even endorse Mamdani for fear that, you know, he might catch something from him that would make the rest of the Senate be vulnerable. He's afraid. He's looking towards the midterms and trying to look out for the rest of his Democratic caucus. But he sort of treated Mamdani as a bit of a leper. And I think it has a lot to do also with money. The money in New York, the big money, was against Mamdani, and a lot of the big money goes to Schumer and to the old Democratic Party leaders, and there's a split there. And when it came down to choosing Schumer went with where the big money was.
- [36:59]
Evan Osnos
I also think, to your point about the different styles of the Mamdani generation, it's really noticeable. This was obviously a hipper undertaking than other things we've seen in New York recently. Susan mentioned how much. There's a sort of irony running through it, I think, to this question of whether or not he can achieve free buses within the next two years. I think in some ways it's less about whether he can actually deliver on that promise. He'll be judged perhaps a little bit the way that Donald Trump, by his base, they didn't necessarily think he was going to build a wall, but it was about an announcement of a direction of travel. But if that's what Mamdani was talking about, I'm not sure that people are necessarily gonna say, he didn't get me city run grocery stores, so I'm gonna punish him for it. It's more about is he. And this is something you hear in other states. Does he sound like somebody who's on my side and does he see them?
- [37:54]
Jane Mayer
I mean, basically just the way Trump saw people who he wasn't Gonna really help coal miners. He knew they existed.
- [38:02]
Susan Glasser
Well, I just. Just a quick observation on your point, Jane, which is, is Mamdani really going to play the role of New York City mayor or is he, you know, embracing his role as a national political figure, which is something pretty extraordinary for a 34 year old mayor elect of one city, even if it's our biggest, most important city. And I was really struck in his election night speech that he, he was absolutely leaning into, you know, you want me to be your face of the Democratic Party? I'm on bring it. And, you know, trolling Donald Trump, I mean, that was a, you know, kind of a power move in the speech, but it was a very confrontational speech. And it was a speech that said, I would like to be a national figure rather than, you know, be the pragmatic mayor of New York City who's actually focused on these promises. And, you know, in, in a way, that's why I think that, you know, national Republican strategists were the only cohort in America more excited about Mom Donnie than young progressives in Brooklyn on some level. But, you know, look, he's more dangerous. I also want to say, Jane, that you're leaning into what I would call, you know, an important aspect of Mom Donnie, which is the style and tone and kind of performance of politics in this rapidly shifting age. Right. That he has this facility and this gift for communicating privately. Donald Trump has been reported to admire Mamdani for exactly those reasons. One of the questions is in this debate about Mamdani, is the lesson going to be about his ideology and, you know, that this is where the Democratic Party is going, or is the lesson going to be about what he tells Democrats about how to campaign? And I think the question, when we see the answer to that question, we'll know a little bit more about where the party's heading. But meantime, we have only a little bit of time left. So I want to get to an important story this week that actually didn't get as much attention as I thought it might. And I guess that's because of the timing of the election, but maybe it's also because of this notion that we're moving on as a country. We got an email from a listener, Ben, that I thought would be an interesting and important note to end on. Ben writes, the news of Dick Cheney's death got lost a bit this week. But I'm curious, how are you all thinking about the former vice president and his legacy? Jane, you wrote a whole book about Dick Cheney's legacy. Or a part of his legacy. What did his passing from the stage this week leave you thinking about?
- [40:34]
Jane Mayer
Well, the book is called the Dark Side, and that was a phrase directly from Dick Cheney, who said, we're going to have to work kind of on the dark side during the war on terror. And what he meant by that was taking off the gloves and embracing things like what I would call torture, what he would call enhanced interrogation techniques, and basically enhancing presidential power to the point that they felt after Nixon that there were too many curbs put on the president and they wanted to return to a very strong executive. I think you could see very much the legacy of Dick Cheney that has grown out of control in Donald Trump. An imperial president who feels that no law can constrain him. It may not have been what Dick Cheney had in mind. In fact, he came out very strongly against Trump in the end, but he played a very big part in laying the table for that.
- [41:30]
Evan Osnos
Yeah, there's an irony that his career, in some ways, as you just so well described, Jane, laid the script for the expansion of presidential power, for reaching across norms and boundaries. And then towards the end of his life, he found himself trying in a rear guard action to try to hold on to the party or to the values that he believed were important. But frankly, you can't tell the story of what he was fighting against without looking at the record of what he did before it.
- [42:06]
Susan Glasser
This remarkable last act of Dick Cheney is interesting in the context of was he one of the architects of this expansive executive power that Donald Trump is taking to great extremes? At the same time, you have to also notice that in his final years, how remarkable was it for a man who believed in those expansive executive powers, who had been one of the rare Republicans who was willing to speak out against Donald Trump, a stark contrast, by the way, to his former boss, George W. Bush, who, you know, was known to, and certainly not like Donald Trump or what he stands for, but has been almost resolutely silent about the challenges to the country. Whereas Dick Cheney followed his daughter Liz essentially into vocal public opposition. And for me, an indelible final image in no way kind of washes away the previous record, but it's nonetheless kind of remarkable that. Do you guys remember the moment when Dick Cheney was with Liz Cheney, the only two Republicans who showed up on the House floor exactly one year after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol to mark the moment? And there was this. This line of Democrats who would basically consider Dick Cheney a war criminal for his advocacy of the preemptive invasion of Iraq. And here they were lining up to shake his hand, thanking him for being essentially this, this lonely Republican voice speaking out against Donald Trump. And, you know, it. It causes some reflection. Right. First of all, it is a reminder that there are many acts in a long life in American politics. Mamdani, the new mayor, 34 years old, exactly the same age as Dick Cheney when he first entered American public life as a, you know, meteoric wunderkind of the Cherry Ford administration when he became the White House chief of staff at the youngest ever age of 34. There are many acts. It's never too late, as I always say, to do the right thing. But there's a complex legacy here, too, that you can't wash away. So it's a really interesting thing to reflect upon. But it's not Dick Cheney's party anymore, is it?
- [44:12]
Jane Mayer
It's certainly not. Not to completely take away from the importance that he did finally say the right things. And he was there as a parent as much as anything else. And, you know, it had to be personal in a way before he saw the peril. And so, I mean, I guess I am taking away a little bit from it. I think the legacy kind of outweighs the final act. But that'll be for historians to judge.
- [44:40]
Susan Glasser
Indeed, for historians to judge. In the meantime, I think we have to say thank you to our listeners because this was a really, really great experiment. And I'm so glad that you all took the time to write into us, to leave us voice memos to share your questions and concerns with us. It's the first time we've tried this. I think we would love to do it again soon. And please know that you can write to the show anytime@the mailnewyorker.com just put the political scene in the subject line. And we really would love to hear from you. This has been the political Scene from the New Yorker. I'm Susan Glaser. We had research assistance today from Alex Dalia. Our producer is Nora Ritchie, mixing by Mike Kutchman. Steven Valentino is our executive producer, and Chris Bannon is Conde Nast head of Global Audio. Our theme music is by Alison Layton Brown. Thank you so much for listening. When news first breaks, it's everywhere. In the headlines, on tv, all over social media, in your push notifications. It's like a storm, but the coverage leaves you feeling unsatisfied. Well, that's where we come in. I'm Meghna chakrabarti, host of OnPoint. We ask the questions that still need answers. We analyze the meaning behind the news and why it matters to your life. We equip you with the knowledge you need to face the next news storm. On point is clarity when it counts. Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts from PRX.