10:43
Today on the Playbook podcast: 10 years after Bernie Sanders made economic populism his political calling card, he sees Democrats winning across the country thanks to his ideas. And he has a warning for party leaders who still won't listen. This is the main topic of the day. And among the town gossip: President Trump is taking the Republican Party's crushing defeat in the midterm elections with surprising calm, while Vice President J.D. Vance is blaming the war on Iran, with Trump's blessing. Hello, I'm Megan Messerly. Today is Thursday, November 5th. So, I'm here with Playbook co-authors Adam Wren and Will Stakin. Guys, how are you feeling? How much sleep did you get after election night? Are we still alive?
How exhausted are we? I think I slept for about two hours. I don't know, what about you, Adam? Perfectly. Yes, not much. I'm in my third hour, so, you know, we're all just. yeah, we've had a lot of sleep here, but. I keep thinking, "Oh, the midterms are over, things are going to slow down," but no, it's still going on. It is now 2028. This is not. It never ends. We are simply moving from one election to another. But we should move on to the main topic of the day, which concerns a person who was not on the ballot, although it seems like he was. And I'm not talking about President Donald Trump. I'm actually talking about Senator Bernie Sanders, also known for his 2016 presidential campaign
Yesterday, he released a video celebrating the victories of 16 new senators and congressmen he supported. So, in this video, they go one after the other. For our listeners: In this video, Bernie is holding hands and campaigning with all these different candidates and saying, "Senator-elect," "Senator-elect," "Congressman-elect." This looks like a real show of force. It's like a compilation of the best moments. What do you guys think about this? Many Democrats are now releasing their own videos about the results of the midterm elections, but this one, in my opinion, surpasses them all. The song choice is quite good. But it's impressive, and when you think about it, Bernie
Sanders is already 85 years old. He may have campaigned harder than ever in this midterm election and clearly saw that even though, as you said, his name wasn't on the ballot, his movement was. And, of course, now he's going to celebrate the victory I noticed that there was one particular candidate I supported that didn't seem to make it into the video. I didn't see Grant Plath. A. Shocking, just shocking. I know. It took me a second. By the way, putting aside all the accusations against Grant Platner, what would it mean if this hadn't happened and Grant Platner had won? So, would that be an even bigger mandate for the Bernie wing?
Who knows. Yes, it really does look like this populist brand of politics is having its heyday. I remember 2016 when Bernie was running in Nevada and I was covering him and it was, "Wow." It's like a rebellion. No one else does this. And now we see candidates in all these states, in the House and Senate elections, who are advocating this agenda, and now it is becoming something that the Democratic Party really has to reckon with. So, Will, you spoke with Senator Sanders yesterday. What were you talking about? How is he feeling? How is he doing? Yes, he might be a little tired. Like I said, he's 85 years old and he's been traveling all over the country, how long has this been going on? Yes
, exactly. I'm tired too. So, I wanted to talk to him because, as you said, it seems like we're still a little stuck in 2016. But it really does look, God forbid I say it, like a potential ending, doesn't it? There was Bernie, who insisted on economic inequality as the main driver of voter turnout. He ultimately lost to Hillary Clinton then. But 10 years later, the Trumpism that has dominated the last 10 years among Republicans seems to have been put to some extent in place this week. In a way that has never happened before. To a large extent, if you look at candidates like not only Abdul El- Sayed in Michigan, but also candidates who are winning in red states like Texas, their message really mirrors what Bernie Sanders was doing in 2016.
What is it about? It focuses on billionaires. It focuses on income inequality. It's focused on what he can do to help.you know, it's not left or right, it's top to bottom. I mean, these are all messages, especially those during Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign , where he really tried to avoid the pitfalls of the Democrats, namely: getting involved in culture wars and identity politics. I think this seriously let them down in 2020. But it was during that first race in 2016 that he really, you know, emphasized that message. And that's exactly what Talarico did. And I asked him specifically about that Talarico, and I asked, you know, given the fact that it was so successful, what did he think about it? And he said to me, and I quote, "If you
ask me if I'm shocked that the argument about economic justice, fighting the oligarchs, and protecting the working class works in Texas, works in Ohio, and works in Montana-no, I'm not shocked, and that's what I've always believed." I could almost hear it in Bernie's voice. It's a very Bernie-like quote, you know. I won't try to imitate a Brooklyn accent. I could try. Yes, yes. But yes. You mentioned the culture wars, which I think is really interesting because there were so many memes and jokes online, like… I remember January 2025: everyone was saying " MAGA has taken over Washington," and now people are like, "Oh, do I need to
add pronouns to my email signature again?" Something like this. And it's worth noting that this is a midterm election cycle where there were many "firsts." Indeed, there are many moments that happened for the first time and are worth noting. The first Muslim senator, the first black female governor, the first openly gay senator, the first Native American female governor. Many first achievements. But what did Senator Sanders say about this cultural-political moment and how does it fit into the bigger picture?
Yeah, I mean, for him, this is kind of proof of his arguments back in 2016: focusing on wealth inequality, putting pressure on, you know, big business, on billionaires, making this the argument that he thinks can really resonate in red states. And not to get bogged down in the culture wars and identity politics that he and many Democrats believe have failed the people. I actually asked him about this specifically and said, "If this is what Democrats should do, is there a way to avoid the trap of falling back into this identity politics?" And he said that Democrats essentially need to have the courage to stand their
ground. And it's not so much a choice not to support it, because he is, of course, completely for equality for women and different races. He's all for it, but believes there needs to be more focus on wealth inequality and the courage to stand up to the many people who push you into culture wars. And someone like Talarico-that's someone I think he would point to as someone who did it incredibly well. Now, it's worth noting that Senator Sanders traveled to Texas, but did not campaign with Talarico. So I'm not sure how much he can directly attribute it to himself, but at least the inspiration is there.
Yes, speaking of Talarico, Adam, you spoke on the phone with Senator-elect Talarico yesterday. He was, of course, supported by Senator Sanders. As Will noted, he didn't run a joint campaign with him, but he really built it on this economic populist message. Apparently, some of this worked. Texas voted for a Democrat in a statewide election for the first time in nearly 30 years. I thought this part of your conversation was very interesting. Elon Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars against you. Congress has said it is going to investigate his activities. Do you think they should do this?
I mean, it would be more beneficial to remove big money from our politics, to ban corporate political action committees (PACs), to ban super PACs, so that billionaires and trillionaires can't buy our elections. I mean, of course, there should be accountability for any violations, if they occurred. But I think people are eager for systemic reforms that will prevent this from happening again, whether it's Elon Musk, or Tim Dunn, or Ferris Wilkes, or any of the other megadonors who tried to push Ken Paxton into the U.S. Senate. So, Adam, explain this to me. What does he mean here? Yes, Megan, as Will says, there are indeed echoes of 2016 Bernie here. I asked Talarico if he thought Elon Musk should be investigated.
And remember, look, Elon Musk just spent hundreds of millions of dollars, you know, calling Talarico weird, saying he wants to transgender children, saying all kinds of untrue and mean things about Talarico. And Talarico replied: "No, I think it would be better to remove money from politics altogether." Which, by the way, is very reminiscent of another candidate in these by-elections- Abdul El-Sayed. Money out of politics, money in your pockets, and healthcare for all. So it's striking to hear that this economic populist message has a perspective far beyond Bernie's generation. Mhm. And I find it very interesting. Again, we've talked about this so many times on the podcast, but this tension between populism and progressivism
, between populists with their healthy labor politics and, you know, all these "wok" culture wars. And that will be the million-dollar question: how will Democrats overcome all of this on the way to 2028. I have a question for both of you. Given what you said, Megan, and what we see in the tape, where, you know, X turned into BlueSky for at least a few days. And, you know, there are levels of irony here that I think we need to sort out, where a lot of Democrats make fun of "wok one," go to "wok three" and make fun of the whole thing. But I'm curious if you think Democrats will be able to avoid some of the pitfalls of the culture wars. I wonder if this victory is so big that they won't be
able to resist diving into it again. Will they look at someone like Talarico and hold back, saying, "This is actually exactly what they should be doing"? I mean, what do you think about that? I mean, talking to people, you know, there's not much hope that the Democrats will sort it out and come to an agreement. It's going to be "Kumbaya", right? Many would like this to happen, but I don't think it will be that simple. And yes, to your argument, it was a stunning victory for the Democrats. Especially if we think about year 28 and the primaries, a lot of the
conversation will be focused solely on the party base. And there will be many people who will not want to put these issues aside. So what could help whoever becomes the Democratic nominee in the general election in 2028 .These are not things that can be sidestepped, these are issues that they will have to address during the primaries. Will, thank you very much for joining us. Good luck in your work. Thank you for inviting me. Now it's time to move on to the other topics that everyone is talking about this morning, and I want to start with the White House's response to all of this.
I was just amazed at how normal it all seemed. How do you assess this? We expected it to drag on for days, that we would be counting ballots in many states, but it all ended so quickly and without much fuss. We have not seen any statements from the president about interfering in the election. It just looked like a normal, strangely normal election. What do you think about this? Yes, Megan, there was a certain normality to it. To some extent, it was a victory that could not be faked. It was too big for Republicans to deny, and too compelling. But what was really interesting to me were the
different versions within the party itself as to the reasons for what happened. We heard Senator Jim Banks, an ally of Vice President Vance, say it was the Save Act. The law was not passed, so the Republicans felt oppressed and did not come to the polls. We heard J.D. Vance say it was about war. We heard the president say it was because his name wasn't on the ballot. My question when I woke up was: How in the world is Vance going to justify his intention to run in 2028 after something like this? And of course, the best and most convenient way to do that is to go to war, because, Megan, you know, we saw some signals, there were quiet leaks about how he was questioning the generals
working on the Iranian issue, how he was resisting, but if they were going to go into Iran, he wanted it to be quick. He officially stated to the Washington Post that this conflict would not last long. And so this is a real problem for him But at the same time, Iran and war is the simplest explanation that also preserves his political future, because if this is a broader denial of the president's program, it will be very difficult for him to justify why he should run in 2028. That is, Trump gave Vance space for his own messages, you know, even after the war began, the president admitted that the vice president, and I quote, "philosophically is a little different from me." Which is a very interesting way of saying that
maybe he wasn't a big fan of this war. So yesterday my colleagues and I published a piece about how this post came about. There were many questions after his appearance: is Vance taking too much of a risk by making such a statement? Did he have permission to do this? Is this a break in relations with the president? Let me remind viewers: this is a 614-word post that Vice President J.D. Vance published on X yesterday morning. In it, he laid out his version of why things went wrong for Republicans during Tuesday night's "bloodbath." And in the end, he placed the blame
squarely on the war in Iran. We talked to several different people. A senior White House official told me, and two others confirmed, that yes, Vance did indeed warn the White House in advance. And also, Vance wrote this post himself, all 614 words. So, to your question-it's very interesting how the vice president is trying to position himself now, he knows that he needs to create a certain distance. But what really interested me was the president's reaction when he was asked about it by reporters yesterday-he left space again, saying, "I know he feels that way about it." I think he.I think, I think everything was okay.
I think it was good. But then he also said that he might not run. How do you view this in the context of all this talk about 2028? Will we have Republican primaries? I think Trump often has good political acumen. And the fact that he gave such an answer, I think, is telling. Yes. And you know, especially when we see Ted Cruz posting his long posts, you know. Right. DeSantis' interview with Stephen A. Smith before the election.
Yes. Me, I'm laying the groundwork. I think the most likely outcome after Tuesday's election, Megan, is that we'll see a much broader slate of Republicans in 2028 than we did just a day ago. Yes, definitely. You know, it would be much more interesting for all of us reporters. Meanwhile, the president had a little fun in his own way. I was shocked. We talked about the fact that, you know, this didn't drag on, and the interference in the elections wasn't like it was during the last elections. Even the president himself was surprisingly calm. I don't know if "calm" is the right word
, but the president exuded a certain calm. He went to inspect the ballroom yesterday, which is currently under construction. So let's watch a snippet. It will be not only one of the largest, but, I think, the most beautiful ballroom in the world. They tried to get it for 150 years. And for the media, it's the people who built it. There are about 525 people here. And they really worked hard. Steelworkers , the steel work is almost complete. As I understand it, this will be the last element of the structure. It amazes me because, you know, it's the thing he loves the most.
The election seems to be limited to this, you know, speech at the Lincoln Memorial pool And on the other hand, the next day he inspects his ballroom. We know he loves these construction projects, but for me it was such a fascinating visual representation of this election, the state of affairs, the frustrations of voters, and what's on his mind. How did you take it? He didn't understand the message. He didn't get the message that voters sent Tuesday night on spending, corruption and affordability, and frankly, that's pretty shortsighted, and I'm sure people in his own
party and some of his advisers feel the same way But in the end, you have to let Trump be Trump. He cannot be controlled or taught, and this authenticity sometimes works to his advantage and sometimes to his detriment. That's right. Especially when we see how corruption has become one of the main issues for many voters. So we'll see how Vice President Vance and other potential 2028 candidates handle all of this in the likely primaries. We will be monitoring this closely. That's all for today. Don't forget to subscribe to the Playbook podcast. You can also watch episodes on YouTube and the new Politico app. Download it today. Want more news and analytics? Subscribe to the Playbook newsletter at politico.com/playbook. We will be back tomorrow. Have a nice day
