Will the Summer of Trump Indictments Shake Up the Election?

Summary

---

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode: Will the Summer of Trump Indictments Shake Up the Election?

Date: August 18, 2023
Panelists: Jane Mayer (Host), Susan B. Glasser, Evan Osnos

---

Episode Overview

This episode, hosted by Jane Mayer alongside Susan B. Glasser and Evan Osnos, delves into the extraordinary summer marked by four criminal indictments against Donald Trump and explores the political ramifications as the 2024 presidential election looms. The conversation dissects the unique features of the Georgia case, Trump’s resilience in polling, possible disruptions to the campaign, “known unknowns,” and how external events might still reshape the race. Through rich analogies, historic parallels, and sharp political analysis, the episode examines not only the legal jeopardy facing Trump but also the structural realities and wildcards that could alter the electoral landscape.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Sets the Georgia Indictment Apart?

• Broader Scope and Unpardonable Offenses
  • The Georgia indictment is distinct because, unlike federal charges, it cannot be nullified by a presidential pardon (since it originates from state court).
  • It features a racketeering conspiracy against Trump and many associates, making it wide-ranging and comprehensive ([03:36]).
• Televised Trials and Spectacle
  • Georgia proceedings are likely to be televised, unlike federal cases, potentially creating an O.J. Simpson-like national spectacle during the election year.
    • Susan Glasser:

      “It’s very likely to be televised. And that is an enormous difference … is this going to be a spectacle a la O.J. Simpson?” ([05:44])

2. Indictments: Threat or Asset for Trump?

• Boost Among Republican Base
  • Trump’s narrative of victimhood amid indictments seems to boost his popularity within the GOP; recent polls show his support climbing after each indictment ([06:02]–[07:30]).
  • Evan Osnos:

    “Trump has been saying quite confidently that every new indictment helps him ... There was a poll … that shows that 7 in 10 Republicans are now in favor of Donald Trump. That is up from 60% about.” ([06:04])

• Lessons from Berlusconi
  • Comparison to Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, who turned persistent prosecution into a badge of honor with his supporters ([07:00]).
    • Notable quote from Osnos, citing journalist Sandro Stilla:

      “Berlusconi harvested this underlying sense of distrust … People arguing, ‘Why does Berlusconi have 20 indictments and the other guy doesn’t even have one?’” ([07:32])

3. Racial Dynamics and the “Reverse O.J.” Fear

• Potential for Racialized Backlash
  • The panel discusses anxieties that televised Georgia proceedings could provoke white grievance politics, framing Trump as a target of the justice system’s supposed bias ([08:30]).
    • Jane Mayer:

      “You’ve got a Black prosecutor, and two of the most important characters … are Shay and her mother, Ruby Freeman, who were election officials who were Black. … There may be the ingredients here for a reverse O.J. Simpson kind of dynamic where you would have … white racial grievance coming out of this.” ([08:30])

4. Legal and Political Timing

• Trials Unlikely Before the Primaries
  • Major court proceedings are expected to stretch beyond the Republican primary schedule; most voters will have cast ballots before any verdict is in ([09:32]–[11:22]).
    • Susan Glasser:

      “Millions and millions of voters are already gonna be casting their ballots when the vast majority of these cases are either still ongoing or have yet to actually begin in a courtroom.” ([09:44])

• Entrenchment and Polarization
  • Even clear-cut convictions may not sway the GOP base but would dramatically deepen divisions ([11:56]):

    “People get very invested in their teams … The idea that people would invest themselves and in fact double down in their embrace of a man who’s been accused of serious criminal misconduct, that strikes at the heart of the democracy.” ([11:56])

5. “Known Unknowns” and Wildcards for 2024

• Age and Health of Candidates
  • Both Trump and Biden are advanced in age. Unexpected health events could force one or both parties into chaotic succession (“known unknowns”) ([17:09]–[19:44]).
    • Evan Osnos:

      “If you took Biden out of this, we’d all be talking about Trump’s age. That if he has a moment in which he starts to look old, … that has a political slingshot effect that's stronger.” ([18:14])

• What If Trump or Biden Withdraws?
  • Panel speculates on Republican and Democratic alternatives if either frontrunner becomes incapacitated or leaves the race, with Kamala Harris or a free-for-all likely for Democrats, and a weak GOP field outside Trump ([21:08]–[24:03]).
    • Susan Glasser:

      “They all seem to be standing around either waiting for the vice presidential nod or just waiting to survive long enough in case Donald Trump isn't the guy.” ([23:48])

6. The Hunter Biden Factor

• Potential Distraction and Political Risk
  • A surprise reversal in Hunter Biden’s legal case could echo the Clinton-Comey October 2016 surprise, acting as an “ill-timed reversal” that affects campaign momentum ([24:29]–[27:25]).
    • Susan Glasser:

      “Once you also unlock a special counsel process … think back to the Bill Clinton era … that begat the Monica Lewinsky investigation, that begat his impeachment.” ([25:52])

7. The Power of Media Moments and External Shocks

• “Lightning Bolt” Moments
  • Panel notes that campaign-altering gaffes or viral moments (e.g., Dukakis in a helmet, Access Hollywood) rarely alter the landscape unless underlying weakness exists ([27:45]–[28:53]).
    • Evan Osnos:

      “What is the impact of one of these lightning bolt moments is it tends to not transform the contours of a campaign so much as X-ray it and magnify what has already happened.” ([28:44])

• True Unknowns: Financial Crisis, War, AI, and Deepfakes
  • A global financial crisis, horrifying escalation in Ukraine, or “AI-generated” fake content could profoundly reshape the election context ([29:00]–[32:39]).
    • Jane Mayer:

      “Listening to Susan, the American public is set in its divisions … It’s because we have two fully evolved media ecosystems that will filter any kind of issue through their own side.” ([30:25])

    • Evan Osnos:

      “It's a particularly modern artifact, which is the role that leaked recordings or doctored or created media products could play in this process ... It could be child's play in an era in which you can essentially generate something very fast, and it would take a while to figure out what's real and not real.” ([31:16])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Evan Osnos on populist reaction to indictments:

  “In some ways, the threat is the asset when your entire campaign presents you as a victim.” ([06:02])

• Jane Mayer on the possible ‘reverse O.J. Simpson’ effect:

  “There may be the ingredients here for a reverse O.J. Simpson kind of dynamic where you would have racial grievance in the other way, white racial grievance coming out of this.” ([08:30])

• Susan Glasser on structural division:

  “Millions of Republicans would choose him anyways. And I just think that's a recipe for further division and clash and at a minimum, enormous uncertainty.” ([10:54])

• Evan Osnos on party reckoning:

  “The only way you eradicate this virus from the party is by losing, losing over and over and over again.” ([13:28])

• Susan Glasser on AI and deepfakes:

  “All of that kind of stuff could be child's play in an era in which you can essentially generate something very fast, and it would take a while to figure out what's real and not real.” ([31:16])

---

Important Timestamps

• [02:55] – Setting up the episode theme: the summer of Trump indictments.
• [03:36] – Susan Glasser on why Georgia’s indictment is different and its implications.
• [06:02] – Evan Osnos explains how indictments have boosted Trump’s support.
• [08:30] – Jane Mayer on racial dynamics in the upcoming televised trial.
• [09:32] – Division already present, regardless of trial outcomes.
• [17:09] – Discussion starts on “known unknowns” and wildcards.
• [19:44] – What happens if Biden or Trump must withdraw?
• [24:29] – The Hunter Biden investigation and parallels to Clinton-Comey.
• [27:45] – Lightning bolt political moments and their real impact.
• [29:00] – External events: recession, war, AI, and the dual-media reality.
• [31:16] – Risks posed by AI, fake content, and media manipulation.

---

Tone and Style

The conversation balances deep political insight with a conversational, at times irreverent, New Yorker tone. The analysts challenge each other’s assumptions, draw on history, and bring both granular knowledge and big-picture perspective to a political moment they agree is both disruptive and deeply uncertain.

---

Conclusion

While Donald Trump faces unprecedented legal jeopardy and the prospect of unprecedented campaign/trial overlap, the panel finds little evidence that the indictments alone will upset his command of the Republican race. Still, they warn that a combination of structural polarization, unpredictable events, new technologies, and unforeseen scandals means the 2024 election remains fraught with risks, both for democracy itself and the basic functions of party politics. External shocks—some familiar, some novel—may still upend even the most entrenched assumptions.

---

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school. Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker.

[Susan Glasser]

That's.

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

That's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Susan Glasser]

Jane and I have just learned something that we didn't know about Evan. He's a violent objector to the pickleball consensus.

[Evan Osnos]

Okay, we're gonna go there. That's fine.

[Susan Glasser]

You know, I mean, I just didn't know that about you.

[Evan Osnos]

Is it a consensus? I think it's an insurgen.

[Susan Glasser]

Jane and I are part of this.

[Jane Mayer]

We're not part of shows. It's character. No, I'm sorry to say, establishmentarianism. I mean, I am sorry, but it is an insider kind of thing to love tennis.

[Susan Glasser]

Let the record reflect you're just a conservative. Small C is what we're learning.

[Evan Osnos]

Well, what I've discovered is that pickleball seems to be predicated on the idea that you're supposed to have fun out there. And I don't understand how we're supposed to defend that. Tennis is challenging, ultimately frustrating, and ruins your body, which is a morally defensible activity.

[Susan Glasser]

Yeah, that's definitely old fashioned conservatism. I think that is like Evan's view of tennis. And by the way, wait, Trump, I.

[Evan Osnos]

Have to say Pickleball is the Trumpism. This is really going to get. We're going to get a lot of letters. Pickleball is the Trumpism of sports. All right, I said it is.

[Jane Mayer]

It's because it's the popular one. It's the popularists.

[Susan Glasser]

But Donald Trump doesn't play sports. Let's just be clear.

[Evan Osnos]

But if he did, he. He'd play pickleball.

[Jane Mayer]

Welcome to the Political Scene, a weekly discussion about the big questions in American politics from the New Yorker. I'm Jane Mayer, and I'm joined by my colleagues Evan Osnos and Susan Glasser. Hi, Evan. Hi, Susan.

[Evan Osnos]

Hey, Jane.

[Susan Glasser]

Hey, there. Great to be with you.

[Jane Mayer]

It has been the summer of serious and damning indictments against Trump. As you've heard by now, the fourth in Fulton county landed this week. It charged Donald Trump and 18 others, including Rudy Giuliani, in leading a criminal conspiracy to overturn the Georgia election results in 2020. But according to polling so far, none of this seems to have significantly changed the state of play in the 2024 race. So we have to begin by talking about this week's big news. Susan, is there anything in this Georgia grand jury indictment that really sets it apart from the other three? Where does it rank in all the lists of legal threats, do you think, to Donald Trump?

[Susan Glasser]

Well, that's a very interesting question, Right, because you have these four cases. Now, first of all, we don't really know the answer in terms of where it ranks yet because we don't even know when these trials are gonna happen, at what point in the political calendar they're gonna play out. Imagine a scenario where if Donald Trump has already been convicted in multiple of these cases, especially the two federal cases brought by Jack Smith, then you could view Georgia as sort of just coming after the fact. But if, on the other hand, he somehow has been acquitted by a jury or it's still uncertain, or there are appeals, then the Georgia case, even though it comes last of the four, could end up being the most significant. The other reason, of course, that it could end up being the most significant is if Donald Trump were actually to win the presidency. He has said very clearly, I think he has advertised his intention to use the power of the presidency, either to pardon himself, to possibly use the Justice Department and order them to stop prosecuting himself. That's out of reach for him in Georgia. He doesn't have the power to pardon himself from a state charge. And so this, I think, indictment is very important in that respect, number one. Number two, it's much broader than the other three indictments, it indicts not only Donald Trump, but a wide ranging set of his associates. And it basically says they're all linked together in a racketeering case and they are a conspiracy. And it's like a live action version of the January 6th committee report, essentially now in federal court. So it's a very broad indictment. And the other way that I'm still wrestling with, but I think it has profound implications for our 2024, is that it's very likely to be televised. And that is an enormous difference for from the federal cases. As you know, the federal courts have just sort of never embraced the broadcasting era. They have never been comfortable with cameras in courtrooms. We're looking at a situation in Georgia where the default setting is to televise this. And, you know, is this going to be a good thing for our democracy in the middle of an election year? Is it going to be a spectacle a la O.J. simpson? Are we, first of all, just on a purely selfish level, can you imagine we're all gonna end up having to be glued to our televisions watching this play out? I just think that is very disruptive in ways that we haven't all fully come to terms with.

[Jane Mayer]

Evan, what do you think and how do you think that the Trump campaign's looking at it? Is it a threat, an asset? Both.

[Evan Osnos]

Yeah, that's a good way to put it. I think in some ways, the threat is the asset when your entire campaign presents you as a victim. And what we know is that Trump has been saying quite confidently that every new indictment helps him. He says it helps him in the numbers. And the truth is that's actually correct. I mean, there was a poll that just came out this week. It was taken before the Georgia indictment, but it shows that 7 in 10 Republicans are now in favor of Donald Trump. That is up from 60% about. Yes, it's gone up over two months. It's up really substantially. And, and, you know, in some ways, I was thinking a lot about Berlusconi this week. You know, remember, of course, Silvio Berlusconi in Italy? He faced a total of 35 criminal court cases over the years. And at one point, finally, he was only convicted of one for tax fraud, false accounting, and embezzlement. But he was, in fact, sentenced to prison. And then by the time this all happened, you know, he'd served so much time sort of in court and so on and so on, that they really only gave him a year of community service, and he was banned from politics. And he came back, and people sort of wonder about how that was possible. This guy was eventually elected to the European Parliament, eventually to the Italian Senate. And there was a wonderful piece in the New Yorker back in 2013 by Sandro Stilla. And, you know, he writes about Italy, really knows the place. And he had this way of describing it that I thought was just terrific. He said that in a sense, Berlusconi harvested this underlying sense of distrust that was out there among a certain kind of Italian voter. And at one point, Sandro had overheard a group of young men arguing about the absence of criminal investigations into the opponent, into Berlusconi's opponent. They said, why does Berlusconi have 20 indictments and the other guy doesn't even have one? Which they took to V as a sign that clearly the deck was stacked against Berlusconi. So I'll just mention very briefly that, you know, the argument against the fact that this ultimately serves Trump is that the general election voter is no more attracted to Donald Trump today than they were two months ago or two years ago. And there was an interesting observation just the other day by Sarah Longwell, who is a great observer of Republican politics, a sort of never Trumper. And she said that in order, in fact, for Trump to win with a general election voter, Trump needs, as she put it, to embody the voters grievances and not his own grievances, and he is certainly not doing that now.

[Jane Mayer]

Well, I think to what Susan was just saying, to what you're both saying, that when I think of this trial being televised and the likeness to the O.J. simpson trial, my fear is that it will very much like O.J. channel larger grievances. And in the case of O.J. simpson, he was seen as a symbol of black grievance against unfair justice system. And my fear is that if you think about this trial a little bit, if it goes to Georgia first and it's on tv, you've got a black prosecutor, and two of the most important characters in it who Trump is being charged with having undercut are Shay and her mother, Ruby Freeman, who were election officials who were black. And I'm afraid there may be the ingredients here for a reverse OJ Simpson kind of dynamic where you would have racial grievance in the other way, white racial grievance coming out of this, and resentment against the, you know, sort of racial justice and the justice system generally.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, and frankly, you already have that even before the prospect of any trial. I think you've seen a really striking aspect of Trump's response to this kind of unprecedented situation is to the Trump playbook. Attack, attack, attack beyond offense. Who is he attacking? He's attacking prosecutors, and it's not just in Georgia. You know, he's attacking the black judge in Washington, D.C. federal judge in the Jack Smith January 6th case. He's attacking the black prosecutor in New York City who has indicted him, the first indictment. So I think he's, he's. Donald Trump is. Subtle is never a word that is going to be applied by anyone to Donald Trump. And I think that he embraces a specific kind of divisive, dare we say, racial politics. The other point is about the timing. I'm gonna keep coming back to this because I think it's so significant that in a way, it's actually hard for us to wrap our minds around. But these are not gonna be resolved as the Republican primaries unfold. Millions and millions of voters are already gonna be casting their ballots when the vast majority of these cases are either still ongoing or have yet to actually begin in a courtroom. Very likely, at least, given what we know of Republican primary schedules in the past, that the winner will be essentially all but determined before a single one of these cases has been definitively wrapped up one way or the other. And so even let's say that justice speaks, and there are very clear cut results in all these cases, and even let's just say that the country says, wow, okay, this was a strong case, it was well prosecuted, he's been convicted, you still are gonna have millions of Republicans who ch him anyways. And I just think that's a recipe for further division and clash and at a minimum, enormous uncertainty.

[Evan Osnos]

Can I ask. But here's the thing that, yes, that's all true, but here's the thing I'm trying to identify just for myself, I'm trying to sort of clarify in my own mind how much is this a real precipice and a false precipice, meaning that, okay, let's say exactly what you described, Susan, takes place, meaning Republicans choose this guy. He ends up then going to trial and so on, and he loses. We know that in the existing conditions right now, if nothing else changed and a lot more.

[Susan Glasser]

You mean he loses the general election?

[Evan Osnos]

Yeah, he loses the general election.

[Susan Glasser]

Imagine the money for the country.

[Evan Osnos]

But it ultimately proves that the guy is an unattractive candidate and remains an unattractive candidate.

[Susan Glasser]

That increases the level. At a minimum. That's what I'm saying, at a minimum. You're talking about enormous further discord. And polarization. If the Republicans. In your scenario there, Republicans have chosen a nominee who becomes a convicted felon at some point in the course of the thing. Well, people get very invested in their teams and you know, politics has become ever more of a team sport. The idea that people would invest themselves and in fact double down in their embrace of a man who's been accused of serious criminal misconduct, that strikes at the heart of the democracy. They're not just gonna be like, oh, nevermind, in your scenario there, you think that, like, it's gonna just be okay.

[Evan Osnos]

And they're gonna send Donald Trump to.

[Susan Glasser]

Jail and then he's gonna lose resoundingly and then half of the country is gonna be like, oh, fine.

[Jane Mayer]

Just timing wise, though I agree with you, timing's really important. I think timing wise, it's very unlikely that Donald Trump will be going to jail before this election one way or the other. I mean, first of all, you're talking about 19 co conspirators in Georgia. It took two and a half years just to get the indictment together. We're not likely to see a trial there before this election, at least not according to the experts I've talked to. But Republican voters, unless they've been, you know, Rip Van Winkle asleep, are aw that the person that they might be voting for is highly likely to be convicted. And it's not like, oh, this is a surprise that came out of the blue. I had no idea. I thought he was right.

[Susan Glasser]

But that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying.

[Jane Mayer]

They know there's a risk there.

[Evan Osnos]

And I think.

[Susan Glasser]

That's not what I'm saying.

[Evan Osnos]

What I'm saying is that in the end, the only. I mean, this is like you have to listen to Stuart Stevens and other Republicans who have said the only way you eradicate this virus from the party is by losing, losing over and over and over again. And that's what I think actually, in a way, this is a moment where it's, you know, Republicans are gonna get the candidate they want and they deserve. And if he is so unelectable that I agree with you, it's gonna put the country through agony. But that's the only way that you begin to try to get a party climbing out of this.

[Susan Glasser]

I think you guys are just misunderstanding. No one's saying that they're gonna be surprised by these court cases. What I'm saying is that it is way, way more risky for the country to have an aggrieved minority of the country to have chosen someone explicitly because they're being, quote, unquote, persecuted to then have that person become the nominee of the Republican Party, and then to be convicted and then possibly even to be sent to jail. One of the reasons that everyone was so concerned about proceeding down this route of sending the leader of a political party to jail in this country is because there are millions of people who are not gonna accept that outcome, who are gonna be even more aggrieved, who are potentially gonna be even more violent, who are going to not just say, well, the courts have spoken, so it's totally fine to send him off to jail in a jumpsuit. This exacerbates a kind of disunion. And, you know, I'm not advocating that it's a bad thing to have done it, but I will say that it was very slow. And as you pointed out, Jane, it took two and a half years to get these indictments. According to the Washington Post, the Justice Department did not even begin seriously investigating this case against Trump that is now brought until more than a year after the events in question. And it does. There's nothing we can do about it now. But it certainly seems to me that it would have been a lot better to have had these court cases not converge with the 2024 election calendar.

[Evan Osnos]

I would turn it around. I would say instead of taking the head of a political party and putting him on trial, the problem is that you're taking a. An alleged criminal and putting him at the head of your political party.

[Jane Mayer]

I think that's. And he's doing it. I mean, and there are some who think he's doing it on purpose so he can, among other things, give himself some. Some excuse and some immunity and some access to funds that he needs for all of these legal systems.

[Susan Glasser]

But all of these things can be true. I mean, we obviously, we agree on all these things. Of course it's true. Like you.

[Jane Mayer]

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 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.

[Susan Glasser]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial Director.

[Evan Osnos]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of Consumer Tech and Culture.

[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.

[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.

[Susan Glasser]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Jane Mayer]

We've all covered unexpected upsets, so the three of us wanted to explore what could actually shake up this election. Let's take a look at some of the wild cards, the unknown unknowns, even the known unknowns, and try to get a sense of what might happen during this election year. What are some of the other hazards that you guys think we need to be looking at as we sort of anticipate what could happen ahead? One of the biggest, of course, is age. And that would not affect Trump and his legal problems unless he, at the age of 77, is the one who has age related afflictions or worse that make him have to drop out. It's Biden, I think, who everybody's worrying about at the age of eight.

[Susan Glasser]

But maybe we should be talking more about Trump and his aid. Exactly. And his health.

[Evan Osnos]

And in some ways, there is a potential political effect that is larger with Trump than there is with Biden. Look around Biden. There is a feeling that they were sort of glad, frankly, as awkward and difficult as it was, that he had a stumble, you remember on stage when he tripped over a sandbag, that in a sense it was better that it happen in the year 2023 than in the year 2024, because you're essentially acculturating voters to the fact that, look, that's what happens when you've got somebody this age with Donald Trump, whose whole certainly is. I know. Well, that's how I, you know, that's what they say. But remember, Donald Trump's entire image is that he's somehow kind of beyond the reach of things as puny as mortality. And in fact, if he begins to show his age, let's remember he is a. If you took Biden out of this, we'd all be talking about Trump's age. That if he has a moment in which he starts to look old, that that has a political slingshot effect that's stronger than if it's the guy that we always talk about.

[Jane Mayer]

I mean, I think you could argue that his preoccupation with saying the same things over and over again about how he was Che out of his reelection last time have very many echoes of some old people I know who can't kind of stop talking about the past.

[Susan Glasser]

And I'm actually talking about a known unknown that is actually like a disqualifying health event for one or both of them. I mean, I think age as a factor is kind of baked in actually for both Trump and Biden. Although I totally agree that we don't focus as much on Trump's not only age, but obvious incapacity for this job or any job. But putting that aside, like, you know, if the exercise here is sort of the known unknowns, I mean, to me, almost the most clear cut known unknown that would be changing the nature of the campaign would be that one or both of these candidates is not ultimately the candidate of their party because of a health or age related event.

[Jane Mayer]

It obviously could happen. I mean, and in the past, we have seen incumbents decide not to run for reelection. It's been a long time. But lbj, as you may remember, decided not to run for reelection. It was really for political reasons.

[Susan Glasser]

I don't remember it, but I have heard tell.

[Jane Mayer]

And, well, what happened was his vice president then got in Hubert Humphrey, and was seen as sort of the very unexciting establishment candidate. I think we could imagine what would happen would be Kamala Harris would get in, but you can also imagine it would be a free for all.

[Evan Osnos]

One of the things that would be a factor here is that there would be this kind of groundswell of response from Democrats, frankly, because there is this real neurosis and anxiety around Biden. And I think you would have a party that would organize itself emotionally faster than it might logistically.

[Jane Mayer]

I mean, I can't tell you how many people have said to me over the last month or two, God, can't he just get out of the way? But I mean, people. And then immediately when someone says it, the other Democrats say, forget it. It's, you know, snap out of it. This is what it's gonna be. Get behind him.

[Susan Glasser]

But our exercise today is like, okay, but what are the known unknowns? Okay, scenario one, Donald Trump dies or withdraws. Scenario two, Joe Biden dies or withdraws. Scenario three, there's some massive successful candidate in the Republican primaries. I don't think we think that there could be somebody who challenges Biden. No, but Republican primaries.

[Jane Mayer]

But we really talked about what, okay, so what happens if it is Trump who withdraws? What do you two see then happening? If something happens to Trump that knocks him out, what happens next?

[Evan Osnos]

That's actually the scenario that Democrats are really scared of, because if you end up with Ron DeSantis or Tim Scott or any of these others, and it's a crapshoot about who it might be, but they are actually a threat on the age issue to him, I do think that fundamentally changes the dynamics.

[Susan Glasser]

Don't you think Democrats are less scared of Ron DeSantis now than they were, say, six months ago?

[Evan Osnos]

100%. I think there's no question. But it's a different set of things to be scared of. I think we started this conversation, say, talking about the kind of deep anxiety about what this country faces with Donald Trump running for. For president. And I think that would just turn this into a much more conventional campaign in which Democrats have to be worried about the fact that they don't have a bunch of little kids running around the Iowa State Fair as the child of their candidate.

[Susan Glasser]

So do you see any of these contenders who is actually a viable candidate, or would it be somebody outside of the field that exists now?

[Evan Osnos]

I can't imagine somebody else. I mean, they've already got a field of how many people running.

[Susan Glasser]

So who would it be?

[Evan Osnos]

I don't know. I mean, at this point, it's probably Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis. You go down the list. I mean, I don't think there's.

[Jane Mayer]

What do you think it's too early?

[Evan Osnos]

Yeah. What's your read?

[Susan Glasser]

I think it does depend actually on the time in the primary season when this were to occur. Same thing in the Biden thing. Right? Like, the later that it is, the more it's likely that Kamala Harris would end up being by default or actually because there's no process to be the nominee. The sooner that it happens, the more it's possible. On the Democratic side, there's a wide open field and somebody else emerges from a primary like Gretchen Whitmer. I think that's probably true in the Republican field as well, that the later on Trump were to exit the race, the more the need for a kind of a safer figure or default figure steps in versus a kind of like really crazy and wide open primary process. I think the ones that you mentioned, I mean, again, DeSantis has shown his weakness, but it depends on the timing. Republicans inside the Beltway love to talk up Tim Scott. I am not sold on that. I think Nikki Haley is an extremely, not only ambitious character, but may potentially have the virtue of being a possible second choice for a wider range of constituencies. But she's much more of a traditional Republican. Unlike Chris Christie, she's a traditional Republican who's chosen not to go in the Trump bashing league. But it's very hard to see anyone who really emerges. I mean, that's the signal fact that we've seen about this Republican field so far is that essentially there are a bunch of not serious candidates who aren't really running against Donald Trump and aren't really serious about being the person who deposes Trump. They all seem to be standing around either waiting for the vice presidential nod or just waiting to survive long enough in case Donald Trump isn't the guy.

[Jane Mayer]

I mean, in a way, what we're saying is it's a pretty weak field. And despite the sense of anxiety, it is a pretty weak field that Biden is up against, including a Trump who's in this position legally. I guess one other wild card, which is a legal issue for Biden to think about, is the Hunter Biden situation. Have either of you picked up anything in the way of how much of an anxiety that is provoking within Biden world?

[Evan Osnos]

Well, I think there's no question that this is not how they thought they were gonna be contending with this issue. They really did think this was going to be, as a formal matter closed. They knew this would be a kind of feature of the right wing fever swamp. But the idea that there's going to be potentially a trial and a sort of ongoing legal drama is a source of great discomfort and anxiety. I don't think that there's concern that they think that it's gonna produce any evidence of a linkage between Hunter Biden's business activities and Joe Biden. I mean, they have been looking over this more or less for five years, looking for anything that could blow up and they don't see it. And so it would take something that would be a real shock for it to be disruptive. But I don't think you can undervalue how much this is going to be a, I don't want to use the dreaded D word, a distraction. It's more than that. It's a factor that there can be.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, and timing, again to the point, about just the extreme volatility of the political moment that we live in. Think back to Hillary Clinton and Comey. It wasn't the original decision in the summer of 2016 to close the investigation of her in a way that was somewhat ambiguous. That was really the issue, of course, it was the fact that they appeared to reopen it, although it turned out really for sort of technical and bogus reasons. In October of 2016, right before talk about. Exactly. So I would say that Hunter Biden, in my thinking about it, Hunter Biden has been very poorly handled by the Biden White House. Let's not forget this sort of screw up. I mean, there's no other word for it than this. You know, the Biden spiked the football moment by having Hunter Biden appear at the state dinner. They clearly thought that he was being vindicated, that the case was over or it was a sort of in your face political misjudgment. But I think your point is an excellent one, Evan, that they've been looking into this for five years. And clearly the thing that the Biden people would want to know most of all is is there any real exposure of the president? Hard to imagine that occurring. It's much more realistic, it seems to me, to imagine a very ill timed reversal in the case or once you also unlock a special counsel process. We saw that. Think back to the Bill Clinton era and the Whitewater independent council. Not a special counsel, but independent counsel that begat the Monica Lewinsky investigation, that begat his impeachment.

[Jane Mayer]

These independent or special counsel investigations, they are wild cards in and of themselves. Exactly, exactly. They can be total runaway trains.

[Susan Glasser]

And it's really about the timing in many ways.

[Jane Mayer]

And honestly, I have talked to people in the Hillary Clinton camp actually fairly recently, and they contend that it was the reopening of that investigation by Comey that lost her the presidency.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, I frankly think that's not even all that controversial of an argument. I mean, analytically speaking, I totally agree with that.

[Jane Mayer]

They've said they've seen the numbers and gone through it and that's what it comes down to. So. All right guys, when you're looking back, trying to think about what could happen ahead, what are some of the flukier or more sort of lightning bolt like things that have happened in campaigns that you guys think of, that you think could affect things here as they unroll. I'm just curious.

[Evan Osnos]

Well, I mean, the example I think that every kind of amateur historian invokes is you take dukakis campaign in 1988 where he had a. There was a kind of cascade of moments. One, he was pictured wearing this helmet in a tank that made him look.

[Jane Mayer]

Like we look right now with these helmets on.

[Evan Osnos]

I know. And it played into the kind of, you know, he was running against a war hero and it just played into. And then there was another moment. Of course, this is the sort of indelible moment was that was during a debate when he was asked about what he would do if his wife had been raped and murdered. And he gave what was perceived to be this very sort of clinical and kind of bloodless answer where he said, I still would oppose the death penalties. I always have. What I think is interesting about it is if you actually go back and you look at that year and you look at that campaign, that the reason why those had so much of an impact on him was because his campaign was already ailing. And I think that's one of the things you have to bear in mind, trying to evaluate what is the impact of one of these lightning bolt moments is it tends to not transform the contours of a campaign so much as X ray it and magnify what has already happened.

[Susan Glasser]

Well, and I think that's a very important point. Look, we all know there are a lot of examples in history. Debates inherently are volatile and therefore a risk factor for campaigns. So that's an obvious known unknown, especially general election debates. We haven't talked at all about the other kind of known unknowns, which is some kind of exogenous event that changes the political context entirely. And the ones that I've been thinking about before this conversation are, number one, a kind of global financial crisis. The last example actually of a kind of big event that did definitely reshape the political context headed into election was the 2008 global financial crisis. It wasn't probably the end of John McCain, but it was probably the definitive moment when it became clear that he was gonna lose. I think Evan's point is well taken. Obama. Obama already looked very strong. He was already making a strong case for sort of history. There was the natural change vote in the country after two terms of George W. Bush. Internationally. I do think some kind of dramatic or terrifying escalation on the part of Russia in the conflict with Ukraine, use of nuclear or chemical or biological weapons, either in that conflict or in some other conflict that could definitely have reverberations in our politics. But that's why I think our conversation is as exhausted as we are of the sort of Biden, Trump, Biden, Trump. Is it gonna be them? I actually do think that they themselves are the biggest X factor heading into 2024, because I do think that people are pretty darn set on their parties at this point.

[Jane Mayer]

I mean, I think you could argue that the pandemic played a big part in the defeat of Trump. So that's an outside event that he really couldn't handle adequately in the eyes of many voters. You know what I would argue, though, is that listening to Susan You're. The American public is set in its divisions, and I think that's true. But I think there's a reason why, and it's quite different and increasingly so, from earlier campaigns. It's because we have two fully evolved media ecosystems that will filter any kind of issue through their own side. So no matter what it is, you know, if it's a terrorist attack, one side will portray it as something to rally around the flag, the other side will portray it as weakness. Whatever it is, it's that you've now got two sides that are gonna just completely have completely biased coverage, I think.

[Evan Osnos]

And can I add an element to that which is sort of related? It's a particularly modern artifact, which is the role that leaked recordings or doctored or created media products could play in this process. I mean, I think that's a scary thought. It's really scary. And it's not one that was AI office. Exactly. You know, in some ways, last time around, there was Donald Trump's Access Hollywood tape. Of course there was. Remember, Mitt Romney was record Talking about the 47% who are against him. All of that kind of stuff could be child's play in an era in which you can essentially generate something very fast, and it would take a while to figure out what's real and not real. And we saw a little taste of that in 2020. You remember when Hunter Biden recordings were beginning to come out. And one of the things that did not get fully understood until later was that this Chinese fugitive who is now under indictment, named Guo Wengui, and it was Mother Jones that actually brought attention to this, that he was directing his followers in a very effective way to manipulate, distort, to reframe and falsely frame some of these things and to push them out through these networks, which eventually made their way into conservative media.

[Jane Mayer]

And of course, working with Steve Bannon. So I think this is a good point to end on. One of the biggest known unknowns is a new one, which is AI and its effect on a campaign like this.

[Susan Glasser]

I feel like I want to crawl back in my back.

[Evan Osnos]

Summer vacation.

[Jane Mayer]

Please.

[Susan Glasser]

No.

[Jane Mayer]

Come on. And this is gonna be an incredible story, and we need to cover it. And.

[Evan Osnos]

Right.

[Susan Glasser]

We're gonna have to.

[Jane Mayer]

You're not gonna be able to resist it. You may complain, but I know you too. Neither of you are gonna be able to resist it for one minute.

[Susan Glasser]

But will we? On any given day, the challenge will be do we cover the courtroom or the campaign?

[Evan Osnos]

Is there a campaign outside the courtroom?

[Susan Glasser]

This is the campaign.

[Jane Mayer]

I think it is the campaign. The medium is the message. This has been the political scene. I'm Jane Mayer. We had production assistance today from Alex d' Elia and Dan Richards. Stephen Valentino is our executive producer. Our theme music is by Alison Leighton Brown. Thanks so much for listening. We'll see you next week. Right now, we are living through some of the most tumultuous political times our country has ever known. I'm David Remnick, and each week on the New Yorker Radio Hour, I'll try to make sense of what's happening alongside politicians and thinkers like Cory Booker, Nancy Pelosi, Liz Cheney, Tim Waltz, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Newt Gingrich, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Charlamagne, tha God, and so many more. That's all in the New Yorker Radio Hour. Wherever you listen to podcasts from prx.