Note: This transcript has been edited for grammar and clarity. The recording took place on November 15.     

Sam: Midterms, huh? 

Nate: You know it. 

Sam: The race to look at for the midterms, that really encapsulated the way that voters felt, was the Pennsylvania Senate race. The way that the vote shook out, the way that voters' concerns were met by the candidates, was indicative of the way that the general electorate felt. Seeing the way that someone like John Fetterman, who I think was very much underestimated by the news media, very much disregarded by a lot of the mainstream Democrats, was able to win over a Trump-endorsed candidate for a couple reasons. Thing number one: similar to a lot of candidates that Donald Trump endorsed, they were hilariously flawed. I mean it wasn't exactly the hardest task ever to cast Mehmet Oz as a carpetbagging, out of touch elite. But when you compared that to who John Fetterman was, and the campaign that he ran, obviously running the “every county, every vote” campaign, that was very effective, at least in my opinion. 

Nate: I mean, yeah, he's just purely a local, you know. He was a mayor, and then he became lieutenant governor. I think he's just someone who is so clearly born and raised there that I think he's able to connect with pretty much all Pennsylvanians. 

Sam: Right. And I think it'd be wrong of us to kind of shirk, like you said, how he very much looks the part. I mean obviously there's kind of the comical side of the hoodies and shorts he wears, how gigantic he is, but the fact is that's just all part of how genuine he is, at least in my opinion. 

I really picked up on, if you look at the map, where Fetterman in, I think 64 of the 67 Pennsylvania counties, outran Joe Biden, often in the rural counties like Cameron County, where only about 1,500 votes were counted. Fetterman ran ten points ahead of Biden in Elk County where only about 11,000 votes were counted. He ran eight points ahead of Biden in Green County, only about 13,000 votes counted. It's very clear that those are the margins, when looking at the statistics, that helped him win the election by as much as he did. Winning by four and a half points in a state as contested as Pennsylvania, that's no easy feat, especially for someone like Fetterman, who had been under immense media scrutiny following his stroke, as well as from running an unabashedly liberal campaign. 

Nate: Yeah, there's definitely something that speaks to how he energized the vote, you know? Looking at exit polls, he performed well in most categories; it's impressive. Especially among women, which I think we all kind of expected coming into this election, he really did perform well.

Sam: I thought it was very interesting how in the weeks leading up to the election the media narrative shifted away from Dobbs and the legislative summer the Democrats had, between the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) and the Inflation Reduction and Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS), towards the inflation crime narrative, which I think was a bit media-manufactured. I think a lot of people expected voters to vote based on inflation and crime, disregarding the fact that the most influential decision regarding rights in America in the past 60 years had been decided that summer; as well as a set of candidates that, as the fall came into focus, it was very clear that they were increasingly extreme and out of touch with where the average American was on a whole host of issues; from abortion, to guns, to marijuana, to a whole host of other issues that, again, they were just completely out of step, and I think Oz was no exception. I think that Oz was almost a caricature of extremism, kind of personified into this quack snake oil salesman that somehow won the Republican nomination. But I think it's a trend we saw across America looking at folks like Blake Masters, Don Bolduc, Kari Lake.

Nate: All of whom lost.

Sam: All of whom lost. I read a New York Times article today, election deniers up for major office of swing states, 15 ran, two won. A real rebuke of those extremist, out-of-touch, right-wing hawks. 

Nate: Yeah, I mean, there's definitely been a pattern in the Republican primaries: where Trump backs a candidate, and that candidate just waltzes to the nomination, but then gets, you know, seriously smacked down in the general just because, when you look at just the Republican party, it get pretty skewed to the right. 

Sam: Yeah, and I think, interestingly enough, we've characterized Mehmet Oz as kind of this poster boy for all these things that happened when Oz is really the only Trump endorsee that didn't really waltz through his primary. I believe it took three days after the primary to call. I think, again, because Oz is just a hilarious, flawed candidate who was just so easy to attack, we saw lots of money going into the Fetterman campaign coffers. This stuff like the crudité video or the just obnoxiously weird videos that people had dug up from Oz's Instagram, or the campaign announcement video filmed in a New Jersey house. 

Nate: To me, the whole thing about the experiments he ran when he was a doctor that killed… I believe the statistics were 300 puppies killed.

Sam: Right? And even the debate, which a lot of people had expected to hurt Fetterman; the numbers are now showing that it hurt Oz. Oz I think had a horrid gaffe: when he was asked about abortion rights, he declared that he wanted an abortion decision to be between a woman, her doctor, and local elected officials, which I think really overshadowed any concerns that I think voters had over Fetterman’s stroke.

Which again, is not to say that Fetterman did well in that debate. He, at many times looked lost for words or looked a bit shaken up. It’s understandable for a man who had, two months earlier, had a stroke, but I think many people had expected the stroke to have much more of an impact than it did. 

Nate: And then, looking at Pennsylvania in general, we saw lots of races go the Democrats’ way—district seven and district eight: Cartwright and Wild, both by the skin of their teeth, won reelection.

Sam: Yeah, they ran phenomenal campaigns. I think house races are, as unfortunate as it is, kind of dependent on the big ticket names running above them. In this case, Pennsylvania obviously had two of the best between Fetterman and Shapiro. I think candidates like Wild, like Cartwright, like Chris DeLuzio in the 17th, ran really good, clean campaigns against these out-of-touch MAGA extremists. So I think Pennsylvania really give us a very clear picture of where the electorate is. It was clearly a repudiation of extremism and these out-of-touch MAGA Republicans. I think it's going to be really interesting to see whether or not the Republicans are going to learn that taking away the people's right to vote is not popular with the people who are voting.

Nate: Yeah, and we've seen more of this across the entire country. Colorado 3rd and Washington 3rd were both races that Republicans should have won easily. Washington 3rd went to a Democrat. Colorado 3rd is about a thousand vote difference. In Colorado law, if it's within 0.5 percentage points, it's an automatic recount. So I won't even count that one out. 

NOTE: (Since the time of recording, Colorado 3rd has been called for Republicans, but with a ~550 vote difference.)

Sam: Right, and it's really interesting to contrast that with Republicans who didn't run as MAGA election-denying candidates: candidates like Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensperger in Georgia, to an extent Ron DeSantis in Florida, though I think that's a bit of a different animal. Candidates like Phil Scott in Vermont. 

Nate: Sununu in New Hampshire. 

Sam: Absolutely, all are examples of how this election wasn't a statement that America is a center-left country. There is still very much a path to victory for Republicans in traditional blue states. Phil Scott (the incumbent Republican governor) won, I wanna say 64% of the vote in deep, deep blue Vermont. 

Nate: 71%.

Sam: 71% of the vote in a state that also elected a Democrat with 65% of the vote to the Senate: Peter Welch. I think a big takeaway that I had from the midterms is that—and maybe this is me being a little hopeful—but this could be the beginning of the end of the Trump stranglehold on the Republican party. In recent days, polls have come out showing that Trump is not a guaranteed lock for the Republican nomination, even as he prepares to make his announcement tonight (the announcement that he is planning to run for president in 2024). I mean folks like Ron DeSantis, like Liz Cheney, even folks like Tom Cotton, who could go for the nomination. It's not a sure bet anymore that Donald Trump is going to be the nominee, which I think is a net benefit for American democracy. I would say that I think that's reflected in that enormous rejection of these Trump extremists.

Nate: And you know, we're talking about the rejection of Trump extremists, but it wasn't all that. We're looking at the Nevada Governor race. We shouldn't frame it as if it's been a complete rebuke. But also, Hobbs’s win in Arizona is a seat that had previously been held by a Republican against Kari Lake, who is a hardcore Trumpist, shows that it was progress. In one way it's a mixed bag, but also it looks relatively good on that end. 

Sam: Right. I think Hobbs's victory is also very interesting, given that I think the media narrative around the Arizona race had been that Kelly, the Democratic incumbent in the Arizona senate race, was probably going to cruise to reelection as he did, but that Kari Lake was going to win that governor's seat. That’s a narrative I always had a hard time believing.

Nate: There's not a lot of split ticket voting these days. 

Sam: No, and especially saying that Blake Masters is too extreme, but you know, Kari Lake is right up your alley. That's a really tough needle to thread. 

Nate: That struck me as a weird thing. I was wondering what it is that the media thinks Kari Lake has that Blake Masters doesn't, or what Hobbs doesn't have that Kelly does. I just didn't see that much of a difference in the quality of the candidates that there should be a huge difference in the electorate. 

Sam: The one side note I will make on Arizona is that the Democratic Party really galvanized all their resources to campaign for Kelly, Hobbs, and other down-ballot folks such as Adrian Fontes, who's running for Secretary of State and who won as well, against another extremist. One name that was noticeably absent from pretty much every Democratic function and every Democratic event: Kyrsten Sinema. She did not show up at any events for any of her fellow Democrats; it didn't shock me when I read it.

Nate: I think that one, I can only speculate, but if they lose the Arizona race then they'll be like: you know, who we really need is Sinema. I think in some ways she was probably hoping that they would lose there. Especially since it diminishes her power to have more Democrats in the Senate. When it is at a 50-50 split, it gives her power and gives Manchin power. That's what all politicians pretty much want: power. 

Sam: I think overall this was a midterm that I think more than anything replenished my faith in American democracy, seeing that a lot of voters—a lot of independents, Democrats, and Republicans alike—came together and voted for what's right: to reject extremism on both sides. So I think this isn't by any means like, the Republican party is dead in the water and the Democratic Party should be chalking up an easy, either reelection for Biden or re-upping of the party in the White House for 2024. However, I think it shows that the majority of the American people recognized the threat that MAGA extremism was for the future of the country.

Nate: It is actually a really impressive outcome for Democrats who kept governorship in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and almost flipped the Senate seat in Wisconsin. The trifecta in Michigan for the first time in 40 years, since 1984, having the state Senate, the State House, and the Governor's mansion, it means a lot.

Sam: Taking seats they should have in Massachusetts and Maryland. There was no sign of an anxiousness of the voters of those states to keep Republicans in power, instead opting again to go with Democratic trifectas in the State House, the state Senate, and the Governor's mansion.

Even Pennsylvania—control of their State House is still very much up for grabs. The New Hampshire State Legislature as well is similarly open. Both of those houses are still very, very close in places where Republicans have had significant numerical advantages. I think a lot of people were stepping up and voting Democratic, even if they weren't necessarily die-hard liberals themselves.

Nate: So the overall message of this [election] is that people rejected extremism. It was a good midterm, good in whatever sense of the term: for Democrats compared to what was expected, which is when it's a midterm and your party is in the White House, it's usually not great, and they seem to have weathered the storm. I think that's the message, the big overall picture I'm seeing from this midterm. People were expecting a red wave, and it didn't really come. Obviously Republicans still have a really good chance of winning the house (Republicans have now, at the time of writing, won the House, with the margin yet to be seen). That's typical, but it's really interesting to see how voters acted one way in an atypical way in a year that should have just been typical.