Thanks for listening. For earlier access to these episodes, access to Ask Me Anything sessions, and extended breakdowns of historical and current events, Please consider joining our Warning Premium community by clicking the link in the description to this episode. I'm very pleased today to be joined by the former Democratic Party Chairman of the great State of Ohio, David Pepper, an author of multiple books, including his latest, Saving Democracy,
a user's manual for every American. Welcome David Pepper.
Thank you, it's honored to be with you. Steve.
David, you were the chairman Democratic Chairman, Democratic Party Chairman of the state of Ohio, which has become a Republican state in recent years, but up through the two thousand and four Bush election, which I was part of. In two thousand and eight, was considered to be the really top swing state along with Florida that decided the election.
Just in a nutshell, what happened. This was a state that narrowly went to George Bush in two thousand and four, Barack Obama in two thousand and eight, to Donald Trump by two thousand and sixteen, and coming into twenty twenty four, this looks like a Republican state except for and we'll talk about that in a minute, some of the overreach of the party and in the election snapback, but in a nutshell for people who are not from Ohio, talk
about what happened, and then secondly, talk about how corrupt the state has become under the one party rule of the Ohio Republican Party.
Sure, and a great question, and it brings back painful memories when you were celebrated. I wasn't four all day. We were being told that Carrie was going to win, and I was out of the poll trying to help. But big picture, you know, I think it's fair to say that Ohio always lean, has always leaned a couple points to the right, and only it's been quite fifty to fifty, especially for state out sorry, state level elections, you know, governor others. So if you're winning Ohio as
a Democrat, you're gonna win. You're going to win the country. But it's it's not a fifty to fifty proposition to begin. It's a little bit uphill from there. But obviously good candidates think Barack Obama could win it. What's happened, you know, A couple of things. One, I mean, there is there we have become a bellweather. Now I'm afraid of how you can use the powers of state government to make
a state hard to win if you're a Democrat. The old old margins of victory that wet Barack Obama, for example, enjoyed in eight and twelve have been made far more difficult by pretty relentless purging of voters in Ohio. That's
made the margins harder to achieve. You know, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both won Cuyahoga County by a greater percentage of registered voters than Barack Obama did, but because there's so many fewer registered voters thanks to years of purging, their actual raw vote margins were lower significantly than Barack Obama. So the base of Ohio's Democratic side has actually got a little smaller. And you could blame Democrats that are not firing up the base enough, but we also know
that purging's part of that. There's no doubt that Donald Trump also, though, really started a fire in parts of the state that weren't turning out as much true rural but also flip some areas like the Valley to some degree, and all the way down the Ohio River on the east side of the state that Ted Strickland used to win handily. So our base has gotten smaller through purging
and less energized voters. And Donald Trump took a part of the state that used to vote for Democrats and has moved it in some case because he's talked about issues like trade in the way that Democrats there used to talk about it. And you add that up in a state that used to be more swing has gotten harder to win. So you put those two together, it's harder. But it doesn't mean that a Sheriff Brown couldn't win in twenty four And it also means that Tim Ryan
people don't give him enough credit. Tim Ryan lost by six when the governor candidate lost by twenty six, massive overperformance. That's a winning effort in a normal year with good turnouts. So it's still achievable for a Democrat, but it's gotten a lot harder with some of the trends I talked about.
Well, Tim's a good friend of mine and I was involved in that race and it was as good a political campaign as I've ever been involved in. But you just you just can't win if the top of the ticket goes down by by twenty six points.
And and I had a theory about that race, and it was that Mike DeWine, I think was evaluated by Ohio voters as he's been around for a long time.
He's not going to do anything to particularly make my life more difficult. He's drama free. But not so long after the election here right where we're two years after or less than a year after. You know, the governor has seen seemed to be on his back. Heels uh to be severely weakened, and the Republican extremists in Ohio
have overreached and been severely rebuked in recent weeks. And why don't you talk about that, talk about the issue and how you see that as a party chairman, as the winds are blowing out there that may well be contrary to what we're constantly told is going to happen from Washington, d C. Which rarely ever does.
Yeah, well, let me just say, Mike the Wine benefited from this long time image of being an old type of Republican, the more moderate one. He was actually quite responsible during COVID and I think versus Tim, Mike the Wine did very well in suburbs that Tim then ended up winning tim Ran ended up winning as well, so he really benefited from a responsible response to COVID that got a lot of credit with more moderate voters, including women.
That's all dramatically changed since the second term began. We are now a bellweather, not as to who's win the presidency. We have become a bellweather as to what it looks like when a far right group of extremists takes over your state through a Jerrymaer state house. That's what we now represent and what this is why I wrote this first book called Laboratories of Autocracy. We are what happened.
We are what can happen to a state that's been generally moderate when it's been hijacked by a jerrymannered extremist group. And that's why what we are seeing and living in Ohio is just like Missouri. It's just like Tennessee, and it's a downward spiral. And what was so great in what we see in states like Ohio is cowardly moderates who know better, like Mike DeWine and John Hughestead and others in Portman before them. They never stand up to it,
and so the far right takes over these states. And what issue one was was a far right kind of a jail break. Try to say, Okay, we are living in these extremist legislative districts, we want to pass things that we know the people of how don't agree with.
And because we've gotten away with jerrymandering, because the state Supreme Court is in the same hands of the party that controls our state House, we know that the only check on us, on our extremism and our lack of accountability, the only check are the people themselves going to the Constitution. And these greedy right wingers said, we're gonna get rid of that check too. We don't want any checks left.
And the great and Mike DeWine, like he always does, like he did with Jerry Mannering, went along with all of it. And the great news last week is, and this is really important, a multi partisan coalition of people Democrats of course, but independence and a whole lot of Republicans and a whole lot of counties that you guys would have been planned on winning. And oh Ford, since when you were running those campaigns, said hell no, we may not agree on everything, but we see this for
what it is. It's a power grab by extremists. To destroy a house democracy. We're not for it, we're voting it down. That's why Casey was against it. That's why Bob Taff was against it. That's why Democrats were against it. And you'll love this, Steve being having run in Ohio, that's where Delaware County. That's why Delaware County voted against it. That's why Portage County, that's why Butler County, a very republican large county, fifty to fifty, it almost reached a majority. Know,
And so you saw this really broad. I would say it's sort of a new pro democracy coalition saying we see what this is. We may be Republicans, but this is not what democracy is about. And they joined hands with independent Democrats and we felt the thing. So it
was a great day. That was basically Mike the Wine allowed himself to be taken in by the far right like he always does, and people saw it as a far right attackle democracy and it was rejected accordingly, which was obviously a great day, not just for Ohio but across the country.
And what's the fallout, excuse me, what's the fallout been? Since people, the far right politicians who brought this to Ohio voters tried to foist it on them, are saying, what about it? Are they chasing it all?
No? Again, most of these people have in their entire careers, especially the state House members, never been in the world democracy. They've been in districts that they cannot lose. So their reaction isn't just like nothing they do is the behavior you'd expect any normal democracy. Their reaction is not also what you'd expect normal democracy. What would you and I do?
And if we were in anything close to competitive districts and this happened, we'd say, the voters are spoken, we've learned our lesson, We're going to eat some humble pie. We'll do things differently. What have they done, like Franklin Rose this horrible sector of state we're stuck with, or the state Senate president who's basically been in Jerrymaner District's whole life, they've basically repeated all the rhetoric that was
called out by the voters. Well, this is just the left wing taking over the Matt Huffman, the Senate President, said we're going to do it again. So almost none of the people really in charge of this thing have learned a lesson in Franklin Rose and you'll recognize this behavior. He's now in a primary for Senate, so he's tripling down on the rhetoric because he wants to grab as many the Yes voters as he can for his own primary. So they have to learn the thing. Now, what what
is the side for democracy? Need to learn? We need to learn that when we when we when we break bread across all sorts of divides to protect democracy, we can win. So we need to win. We need to learn our lesson, even as the other side clearly, stubbornly in some cases, with a whole lot of whining, failed to learn their lesson, which is, you go for broth throughtect democracy in the state of Ohio, You're going to lose.
Do you do you have any sense of Trump deflating at all in Ohio with normal people, either by fatigue over the accumulation of criminal accusations, fatigue over the constancy of the news coverage, or just fatigue over Trump demand.
Anecdotally, I'd say yes. I mean I think he will win big in the Republican prime. I think his endorsement in the Senate primary like it did you know, saving a JD. Vance, who is mired a third or fourth depending on the day. I think his endorsement in the
Republican primary here probably settles that primary. But more broadly, I do think I think he's a worse candidate than he wasn't either sixteen or twenty, believe it or not, because all he's got now is this set of trials and these crazy statements about him being our retribution or whatever they are. It's not a campaign. I mean, it's
just almost bizarre. So I have had, you know, family friends, die hard Republicans who my guess is didn't didn't voted for Trump in sixteen twenty, who now say to me things like, I can't even watch him on TV anymore, it's too much. Now does that mean that Biden wins Ohio? Maybe? I think it means it could be closer. I think it means it could be close enough that Sharon wins in a way that Tim Ryan couldn't overcome a twenty six point deficit. I think the Biden Trump of margin
is close enough that Shared can win this race. I think I would greetly probably will be.
So.
I think that there is some and this is true nationally. Trump's gotten so sort of far into the bizarreness that I think some of his appeal in sixteen about forgotten America as he would put it, and some of his appeal in twenty I think now it's really down to just such a bizarre sort of feel for that campaign,
the way he talks about it. Everything's backward looking. For example. Yeah, I think there's some fatigue here, and I've heard people express it literally as I can't even watch my TV anymore when he's talking and the person is saying this, I'm sensing. Voted for him twice.
Do you expect him to be the Republican nominee?
I do, I do. I just one, I think that he clearly has a lock on the party two except for to their credit, Chris Christy and Asa Hutchinson. The others just yes, let's give pench credit. I think he's speaking up someone on January sixth, not enough the rest of them. You're not going to beat someone who's ahead
of you if you just basically give them cover. And so the top people against him are all basically saying, yeah, all these trials are nothing, but you know, the weaponization VIAJ like, I just think it's a group of very weak candidates. I think this Sandus is especially shown from the very beginning. Personally, this is not a major league candidate. He just example, Yeah, he's a terrible candidate. As a party chair, you are assessing candidates all the time. This
guy reminds me of the worst candids. He stands in the back of the room, can't talk to anybody, Just not comfortable his own skin, you know. So I just think that the main candidates are weak already. None of them really wants to take him on, and the ones who are willing to take him on, I'm glad they are, but I don't think they're really players. So yeah, I
expect him through the worst of it. I just don't think even the worst situation in terms of the legal path he's stuck on right now, divert from him winning the primary.
I was talking to my friend Matthew Dowd last week, who's as smart a guy as I've ever met when it comes to American politics, and he had a couple of observations about the Santas and one was basically, can you believe how bad he is at this? And it's it's shocking right as a as a national candidate, he's kind of been, I think, falsely lifted on this kind of hot air of assumptions by the national media absent
absent any merit. But secondly, what he said was how disconnected the politics in Florida has become from from national politics. Because if if he's their guy, and and apparently he might be judging by the by the size of the landslide reelection, Uh, it just doesn't fly in the rest of America. And and I wonder when you when you look at the Democratic Party, there's something that's not talked about enough. In my view seven years on since Trump
came down the escalator, Trump is beating who exactly right? Meaning? What is wrong with a party that it could conceivably lose to these people? What is it when you honestly look at the Democratic Party? And I come at it from a perspective as a former Republican who was always a moderate in my politics, that both of these parties are extremely important institutions in the history of the country, in world history for the advancement of human free eat
them and democracy. But what is it about the Democratic Party that it has become so estranged from so many Americans that this mag of movement is seen as any type of alternative at all.
No, that's a that's a great question, and it goes back to something I really focus on in the book that you mentioned in this Saving Democracy book. You know, I think on most of our core issues, we actually are in step with mainstream America, you know, a middle class based economics, public education, a woman's right to choose. But I think in many ways the way we run doesn't highlight that. Normally, when the question is called on these issues, like in Kansas, we win, or like in
Ohio last week, we win. But one of my biggest sort of passions, if you hear me at all, is we got to run everywhere, because if we don't run everywhere, we're not communicating what we're for. We're letting them communicate who we are without us actually fighting back. And so what's happened? And when I say we're not running everywhere,
that we're not even making an effort anywhere. It's fifty percent of the Tennessee Republicans who voted out those two justices no opponent the prior November fifty percent of them. Basically Oklahoma, it's above sixty, Texas and most states it's in the thirty or forty percentage. And when we're not in the fight in these areas a, we're not holding extremism accountable, and their extremism is a loser. We are
seeing it lose all over. We saw it lose with every election denying sector of state candidate in a swing state last November, they lost everywhere. We see it lose again when it's exposed and they're bringing it out more and more of the Destantus and Trump primary. But if we're not in the fight exposing it for what it is and then saying what we're they're winning. And they're not only winning, they're defining the term. So I'll say
it in this way. So much I see so much people, so many people sorry, taking credit for the good things that the Biden and Democratic bills did around infrastructure and chips in all these red states. In Ohio, the lieutenant governor runs around Ohio and he takes credit for all of it. And if you're not running it everywhere, you're not even there to raise your hands and say, oh, actually you had nothing to do with this, that was our side doing it. We're the ones that lifted the
middle class. We're the ones that invested in infrastructure, and so what do they do when we're not running? They blame us for problems. They mischaracterized why those problems happen. You know, the reason that rural schools are suffering a lot of states isn't because of some caravan for Mexico, It's because the state houses voted to decrease funding for those schools. But if you're not running everywhere, they get to blame it on the people that aren't even in
the game. And then we also aren't taking credit what we're doing. So I think that on core issues like you go back to and you, I assume agreed with me that Joe Biden's State of the State of Union was a masterful speech. Almost everything he talked about, you know, whether it's economics or social security or whatever, was very popular and it was a good speech. The reason they shouted him down was they didn't want people to hear
about unpopular positions they have. But when you're not running everywhere, you're not able to give that communication where it needs to be heard, and you end up getting turned upside down all over. So I think that core messaging and core positions are actually quite strong. But we're not executing in a way that we're having. Most people in all the places you're talking about here are message and so I think there's a lot of work to do. And
this is what I go through this book. Build an infrastructure that values running everywhere, that says we want you stepping up to run even in tough places. We celebrate you as a patriot when you do that. And then when you're in those places, message on the things that they are doing badly in those places. And all over states like Ohio that are corrupt. You mentioned the corruption. We have massive corruption Ohio, the biggest bribery scandal in history.
The former speaker went to jail a month ago or two months ago. And every time you see a corrupt state, you see terrible outcomes. Ohio public schools who rank fifth of the nation fourteen years ago. Now we're in the mid twenties. You see small towns collapsing again, not because of caravans from Mexico, because of their policies and state
houses not working. Run everywhere, and then explain to them the reason these things are happening is because of their policies, and we're going to do better, and that's how you have someone like the new Demo Lora Kelly, the second term Democratic governor of Kansas. She ran on issues like that and won. So I think it all starts with
a different mindset. Be a national party, run everywhere, hold extremists accountable everywhere, and run hard on issues that frustrate everyday people that often are not doing well because of the policies coming out of these these rig state houses.
Do you view the extremism and the corruption as deeply linked?
Absolutely all, It's all once you have a I have these little sort of charts I go through in my book. Basically they're the two interests who love jerrymandered state houses are the extremists national and not just in state. National extremists who know that their worldview would lose every time in a fair democracy. They know Kansas would be their
future forever, or Ohio this last week. If you have a straight up vote on abortion bands, no exceptions that send rape victims to other states, they will lose every time. They know it, so they want to They want a jerry managed state house. But who also wants a jerrymandered state house? The special interests? Because often what do these special interests want they want a piece of the public pie.
When they get the public pie, public outcomes sintegrade, take public school money, give it to for profit scams like they did in Ohio. They were called doing so the public schools decline. So extremism and corruption are literally the outgrowths and ultimately the drivers of gerrymandering, because in a fair democracy, the corruption wouldn't work, the poor outcomes would
lead to accountability for the politicians creating those outcomes. Once you gerrymander, they know that they can have terrible schools and worse health outcomes and no infrastructure and still get re elected, just like they know they can pass things like abortion bands no exception of rape princess and get re elected. So both extremism and the corruption are sort of tied to the hip with these with these broken
state houses. And that's why we see what we see in Ohio, a downward spiral of both corruption and extremism. And the smart ones know they could you know, think of and you again, you've done this longer than I have. If you you're a politician, and you have dedicated your career to a path of extremism, out of touch with your voters, and corruption for which you could be held accountable.
You have all these screwed up incentives, as in one being, keep attacking democracy, because if you ever allowed a fair democracy back into your system, back in your district, you know that the candidate would beat you by pointing out how extreme you are and how corrupt you are. So once they're on this course of extremism and corruption, they really have this intense incentive to keep gerrymannering. And that's why you see these states. People think it can never
get worse. They can't keep suppressing. They keep gerrymannering. They know they have to because they would never survive at a fair democracy with records as extreme and as honestly corrupt as many of the records are.
There's a couple of things I want to talk to you about, but let me start here. The Trump mag of faction in this country. What number do you put it at?
I mean, my sense is it always shows up in the some level.
In the thirties, right, I'll stipulate to thirty five percent.
Yeah, that's what I mean.
And I'll and I'll say thirty five percent of the country is into this, wants it, likes it, you know, President President for life. Now. The danger for the rest of us how that group takes power is them plus enough apathy to have a temporary majority where they take power and are able to structurally do things from the system that make the practice of democracy very, very difficult when when you think about how to beat them. I'm very concerned right now about something that I see playing out,
and I wonder what your reaction to it is. First, the No Labels organization is not getting as much coverage I think as it deserves to get. But secondarily, if they are on the level, and that's an if, and and by on the level, I mean if they have the resources to secure BALLID access, which is a as you know, will will be in all fifty states, a cost that is that is upwards of one hundred million dollars in cash. But but they say they can do it,
they say they're raising the money to do it. So I presume that they can do it, right, that they that they're not saying that to go out and fall flat on their faces. If they do do it, the Democratic Party, the Biden White House doesn't get a vote on whether they do it or not. They're in a game. Then that's essentially a three way race, and a three
way race changes the dynamics of the race. One of the ways it changes the dynamics is it breaks the seventeen state monopoly where presidential races are decided, and it expands the field to at least thirty five forty states, bringing down the winning threshold right to the high thirties, which is a number within reach of Trump's hardcore base.
So my first question, how concerned are you when you hear Washington democrats talk about the race to come talk about it in terms that discount the possibility that, in fact, the race that's coming doesn't look anything like the race they're talking about.
I mean, I'm concerned partly because of no labels, and partly more broadly that when we basically only go into the states that we think matter in the current conception of swing states, we give up so much of the battlefield of democracy to the other side. So I am actually concerned before we even bring them into the conversation.
I think that the other side is basically their front line of attacking democracy and advancing extremism are the very states where we largely aren't there, And because we're not there, we make it easy for them, So I think we already need to have a much broader strategy. Democracy itself is what's at stake right now. If they're using state houses to make most of their progress, which they are,
we should be there anyway. But to your point, yeah, the no labels adds a whole new and dangerous wrinkle. And I go back. I don't want to claim to be a history professor, but there's so much parallel in our history to what we're dealing with right now. And the biggest parallel with what you're describing is there was a pretty serious faction for a number of years against
allowing white supremacy to retake back over the South. But those white supremacists were dedicated, and I don't know what the number was, but they were a big number in the South. And the reason they end up succeeding is they never gave up their unity, and at some point the folks that were dedicated to stopping them, like Ulysses Grant, who grew up not far from here, are very proud
of what his work was. Was they divided over other issues, and once they allowed their divisions on economic issues and other things to divide up what was a majority that had been standing up to white supremacy. Once they allowed themselves to divide, then the white supremacist in the South one and all of a sudden, we had Jim Crow for a century, and the same thing could happen here.
It's mid thirties. It's mid thirties. And if we allow the you know, the fifties and sixties that don't agree with this guy to divide up in the way that you're talking about, in the way that another candidate might divide up, we give away a majority that otherwise would prevail. And in the history of our country, is you let that happen the wrong time and you could be living with its consequences for generations.
I wrote about an Ohio man last week, James Garfield, who is not well remembered by the country. But when you look at American history, this period of time that you just refer to was profoundly shaded by two murders, two assassinations. So Abraham Lincoln in eighteen sixty five, and we talk about Lincoln as America's greatest country is excuse me,
as America's greatest president. But we forget and don't talk a lot about the fact that he was preceded by the man who before Trump was the worst president in American history, who's now the second worst because of Trump. And he was followed by the man who was the second worst, who's now the third worst, Andrew Johnson. So you come to eighteen eighty in Garfield, who only makes it two hundred days in office before he shot at combat.
Veteran of the Civil War, committed to civil rights, committed to the protection of Black American civil liberties in the South, his murder sets back civil rights really in this treat
as you suggested, for one hundred years. And the fact of the matter is that a devastating defeat, an absolute defeat in Civil War a few decades later has twisted into the lost myth that there was righteousness in the Southern cause, and that myth persists today, and it has not been dealt with in this country by our American society yet. But I want to ask you a political question that steeped in in what we just talked about.
This minority, this thirty five percent, that through deed, through action, through result is hostile to the concepts of American democracy, which require both sides to recognize you may lose the election, and you'll have to try again next time. To the concepts of pluralism, equal rights, the ethos of much of the media. A lot of the opposition in this era
has been to seek understanding of these people. Why do they feel the way that they feel, Why are they aggrieved the way that they are, Why are they angry the way they are. I've never been interested in it, just like I've never been interested at all in why Trump says the things he says around why he says it. I just take everything he says literally and seriously, because at the end of the day, there were people who followed him around carrying suitcases with the nuclear weapons codes.
I just know that that thirty five percent that no matter what the act of corruption is, what the act of depravity is, what the vandalism towards the country is, what the assault on our democracy is, they will be with him Trump over country one hundred percent of the time and seven years and there's no place to compromise politically.
A minority faction is going to bring the majority to submission, or the majority in this country who believes in America and American ideals is going to snuff out peacefully and at the ballot box. This minority faction and time is not on the side of the majority any longer. Seven years in what's your what's your reaction to that?
I generally agree. I mean both books I've written are literally about that. They're I hate to make it even worse for a second, but I do think this goes beyond Trump. I mean this a lot of the work to the lock in minority rules started before Trump ran. It started after Obama won, and it's part of a long history of some people being really you know, threatened
by a diverse majority getting its way. And that's why some of the worst beginning precursors of this began in eleven with jerry mandering and with certain types of voter suppression directly aimed at the Obama coalition. And it's been in place, it's been working all this time, and it began before Trump ran. He's made it worse. He's fuel and he's brought up the worst of some people. But I will say some of the things they are trying to do, like issue one, if Trump were locked up tomorrow,
they'd still try and do it. So he is a threat, and if he wins, we know how it would be worse than ever. But we also have to deal with there's a deeper effort here that it's at the state level that already was working to lock in minority rule through taking through certain instruments of government, including state houses, jerrymandering, courts, et cetera. And so and the reason I mean I had no plan I stepped aside in his party chair in December of twenty I had no plans to write
any books at all. But in about April twenty one, I had your same alarm bells in my head, like, my god, we're not seeing this threat. They are going after democracy itself, and we are still living as if they're not. We still are assuming that they're going to play by the same rules as we are, that they're not willing to break the law, which they are clearly willing to do. And so I literally wrote the first book in a matter of months, almost as alarm bells.
See the battle for what it is. It's not some sort of clean little battle for a few federal swing stakes. This is an all out battle for democracy itself. It's been the same battle we've been in for centuries. Those are the stakes, and if you're gonna win that battle. You gotta fight it very differently than the short sort of cycle mindset of federal battles. So I've been alarmed about it. I've tried to get the word outse best
I can. And once you see though that it's a long battle for democracy, you also can start to see though how to win it. One to realize it is a long battle. It's not some short cycle battle. Two, it's a battle you got to take everywhere the front line is in these states. So go start contesting in these states. Start this is how Tim Ryan ran his campaign. Way, Start campaigning in the parts of the states that we've even been in too long. Start using far more of
your footprint in life. Don't just give a little money, don't just do a little volunteering a few months to go. This is a as you fight it, as Steve Bannon fights on the other side. They don't quit in December. They're not quitting after last week. You got to fight it all the time. You got to use everything you have in your network, in your life to lift the battle, to lift democracy. And then, of course we have to
focus on Trump. But you also have to start to see and this is something we haven't seen it goes beyond Trump. When Biden won in November of twenty and beat Trump, but then Republicans down the ballot still won the Arizona State House and all those other state houses. Those Republicans within months were attacked, as we saw, We're attacking democracy through phony audits, more jerrymannering, depriving voters of
water at poles. So don't just have the contrast be Let's have Biden beat Trump run the extremism that we now know. Therefore, after Dobbs especially, make that trest clear through every state house race. So I'm alarmed. Like you, I feel good about a winning streak once the people care about democracy start to see the battle as a
state as a state level battle. We've won Kansas, we won the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, we won in Ohio, and that shows you the potential of the pro democracy majority when it's energized and when it sees a risk to democracy right in front of it. We have to wage that battle and make it clear that that's what's on in twenty four this November, by the way, in
Virginia as well. And that's why right now, recruit everywhere, get candidates on these ballots at all levels everywhere, and gear up, not in mid twenty four, for November twenty four, start gearing up. Now. If we do all that, I
think we can win. But if we don't do that, as you're saying, yeah, we are literally the make or break moment for democracy that we and these little kids behind me these photos, they'll spend the rest of their lives digging out from it if we don't succeed the next couple of years with a real pro democracy strategy and not just to win a few swing state strategy.
So, uh so, let me ask you, Let me ask you a question about that, because there's a there's a there's a threshold issue in in American politics right now, so far as it concerns Donald Trump, right, so what with the American people the body politic and just take a side party labels writ large, the country does not want the Trump Biden rematch.
Do you agree with that? I mean, I think polling would would suggest that. Yeah.
Now, the Democratic Party nationally right is going to deliver on their side of the equation in terms of giving to the American people a candidate they don't want to run against, to run against Trump Biden Trump. Now, I'm gonna say the one thing that drives me more nuts that anything that's said by any national Democrat is this. And it's the idea that they want Trump in the general election because he's an easy candidate for Biden to be.
So there's a duality around Trump, right, And there's Trump the threat, and I think he is a threat. I think he is a threat to the continuity of the American Republic. And then there is Trump the prop the boogeyman Voldemort. Put Trump's name into the email, you raise money, Put Trump into the ad, you get ratings. Put Trump into the newscast. Right, at least he used to right
the numbers, The numbers go up. And so I don't want to see Trump come forward right into a general election because I don't think there's a more irresponsible position in America or a more delusional one, which is the idea that he can't win a general election again, because he absolutely can win a general election again. Any any do you take any issues with anything, with anything else?
When I say that he knows he's obviously incredibly dangerous, I think these things are very unpredictable. When I say that I think he's going to be the candidate. It's not because I necessarily want that. I just think that he will, and I don't know, I don't understand that. And I'm with you, you no, I agree. I mean, you don't want this man, well, only one ballot away from being president. And that's a highly risky proposition that I think we're all going to be dealing with.
I think I think that fifty years from now, there's gonna be all sorts of infrastructure in this country, and you're gonna look back like we did growing up at things that were built during the depression years. When was that built? I was built in the nineteen thirties, it was built in the nineteen fifties. You, Joe Biden is the infrastructure president and then some that people have dreamed about for a couple of decades, and his and his legacy on that front puts him, in my view, on
the same plane as Eisenhower. I think that he is the most effective foreign policy president coming out of a big ditch since George Herbert Walker Bush. If you look at the end of the Cold War, the First Gulf War, extremely successful. But I'm gonna I'm gonna challenge you on a a Biden proposition, and and give you a chance to make the make the Biden case. Respond to this argument, which is, none of that matters, not a thing. He was elected to do one thing, break the extremest threat
to the country and it's still here. Didn't get the job done. Therefore, maybe it's time for Gavin Newsom, Maybe it's time for Gretchen Whimer, because at the end of the day, the defense of democracy has not succeeded thus far against this maga threat somebody and somebody, and it's the top guy in the world we used to live in is the guy that gets to blame for that. Not that he's a criminal, not that he's a bad person,
but that he fell short. And in fact, this is someone who has fallen short doing that while doing all of these other great things. But it doesn't mitigate that on this thing, the threat in fact may be worse.
Let me respond. There have been moments I've been frustrated about the intensity of the battle for democracy, I think early on, when I don't think I don't think there was enough attention to it or sensitivity to it. But my bigger response out of this, aside from moments of frustration, is This is not a conventional political battle. This is a long, much longer term battle. And I don't think it is the kind of battle you win immediately or even in one term. This is long, is the this
is the arc of our country. And so I would say, you know, again, I'm not here to represent Joe Biden, but I would say that that he did articulate late in November, late in twenty two the threat, and we started to see some countercyclical results in terms of some of the underpinnings of why we've been losing democracy when we elected those when we did it, defeat at every election, Denial running for secuar state that in a normal off year quote unquote off year midterm, we would have lost
those races. But that extremism was exposed. We picked up the Pennsylvania State House, what it was it double digit seats. We picked up the midtermer we're supposed to lose. We pipped up the Michigan State Senate, state House. So we've won these these special elections. Again, normally you wouldn't win these when we had the White House. So in the long arc, in the battle for democracy, Trump it remains the threat that he is. We have to defeat him
next November. But what I liked it, we're starting to see, and I'm an optimist in the end, despite the dark topics of my book, which is the democracies under attack of a threat, we're starting to see some pick up in the awareness of how we protect democracy. We're starting to gain some wins like we didn't know how last week, and in the long arc. I'm feeling a little better than I was two years ago, because two years ago
we didn't even see these things as a matter. But I think that there are there some voters who are thinking what you did, which is I thought voting right should be more protected over the next Over the last four years, I thought Jerry man Ering might see an end that it hasn't. I'm sure there's some frustration, but I also would say the battle for democracy is a
longer term battle. And I think, as you said, in fifty years from now, In fifty years from now, we'll be able to see where the years twenty one, twenty two, twenty three, and twenty four together, the moment where people saw Trump saw the state level attack and geared up in a way that defeated over the coming years, that followed this moment a wariness were not. I think it's a little soon to say, well, someone had a couple
of years to solve it and didn't. I just don't think the broader battle for democracy is determined on that timeframe, even though, as we're both saying, we're it's sort of the inflection point of that battle right now through the next couple of years.
Here's the thing that I fundamentally feel disoriented about and I can't get a handle on. And it's how much of this is all completely illusory? Oz behind the curtain, and let me let me ask the get into it this way. I'm looking at your kids behind you. I am a I'm a girl dad. And I took my ten year old to the Tailor Swift concert and talking about it afterwards, and so I saw it in Los Angeles. Must have been ninety thousand people sold it out six
nights in a row. And I said to my wife, I have never been anywhere with that many women in my life, not even close. Easy kind of guess ninety percent of the crowd female little girls wearing their friendship bracelets right, women in their thirties and their twenties. People are handing out their French A bracelets to each other. Now I have a good sense of how the media covers Trump and the ubiquity with which they cover him, and the attention that the Trump rally gets, as crazy
as they are, as small as they've become. Now, I suspect if Donald Trump was selling out stadiums with eighty five ninety thousand people all over America going full maga, like, our level of being freaked out about that would be incredibly high. Now he's covered like he does do that, when in fact his world has become pretty small, right and in terms of the places he goes in the crowds he attracts. In essence, certainly, the media doesn't cover the world through the prism of the ninety thousand a
person nightly gathering. We're the friendship bracelets are being handed out. They're both real, they're both happening. Violence isn't breaking out all around us everywhere all the time in America. Normal people don't and never have like having politics in their face. Twenty four seven, and all of the experts and all of the pollsters have basically been wrong for seven years.
Everything that you're saying anecdotally, well when you look out in the country when the test comes at this quiet result, and over and over and over again, Americans are saying no. And to me, what you can never know, because we're fifty two. What was the sense of urgency to danger in nineteen thirty nine, in nineteen thirty eight, What did it feel like the people who were urgently alarmed who turned out to be correct? What did the zeitgeist in the culture feel like? And you just can't know, You
really can't get a handle on it. Say for the fact that you know that in democracies, people rally towards facing danger very very late. They move late, but when they face it, historically, at least in this country, they've done so very very very decisively. And so I wonder if you think about that, in wonder how much of what we perceive is the threat in front of us
has already largely dissipated. The prognosticators in Washington just haven't gotten caught up to it as it works its way out, and they just don't pay attention to the actual election results where these things are worked out already, in places like Ohio, anything, they're there.
Yeah, I mean, I think that the other side has done a very good job of hiding their extremism and how it impacts everyday people for a long time. I mean, but they know it. They know that if fully exposed, it will cost them elections. And what's happened especially since Stobbs but Trump did it Marjorie Taylor Green dous. Every day people are seeing it now in a way they weren't. And when they see it, they clearly are reacting to vote against it, either because they're tired of it or
they're scared of it. And that's why, you know, again, we should take it seriously, We should run knowing that if they ever win, the danger of that is horrible. But now that people are seeing and the post dobs really matters here, it's not just that they see a threat to democracy. They're starting to see through things like Dobbs, but other issues. Well, the reason they're attacking democracy is to inflict things on my life that not only do I not agree with, but that will make my life
a lot worse. And once they see the connection between the attack on democracy, this you know, flirting with authoritarianism, and the everyday issue like post dobs, that will change their life because a minority is going to rule over them on issues they care about. That combination is really dangerous for their side. And as you see when people who may not want to engage in the thirty thousand
foot level, you know, conversational on democracy or jerrymandering. See, oh, the result of that, the result of that issue one is my own choices in my life where I live in Ohio. It's that ten year old rape victim being forced to go to Indiana. That combination is very dangerous for them. And if we do a good job of making it clear that that's why they're attacking democracy, that's what Donald Trump will do in your state, in your community. That's what you know that state house will do in
your community. That's what I think we we we pile together some wins. And the reason, going back to your point about no labels, the reason I so worry about them is because that will interfere. I believe with the potential of a majority finally coming together next year and saying we're done with all this, and the danger they're
bringing is a disruption of something. And I hope, you know, I hope, and I think if we all do everything right, that we can finally say, you know, the hell with this Trump stuff, and the hell with the extremism all the way down the state level issue where they're atacking democracy, and and so anything that gets in the way, I think, which is some momentum in a little winning streak that's building in more quiet elections that could really come through
in a big election, is a threat. And that's why I agree with you. But the threat that is that what otherwise could be a nice winning streat for democracy that we're building and seeing happening right.
Now, that that coalition which which you're referencing is a coalition and its component parts right, its largest part will be Democrats, its second largest element will be independents, and it's and its third largest element, sizable and very important one will be disaffected Republicans who you need to be part of the coalition. We're running out of time here.
Let me let me give you the last pitch here, make the pitch right that that you would like to see, you know, made out of the White House, out of the National Democratic Party to Americans that tells them to come together into a coalition. I mean, the one thing that we have not heard in seven years is basically someone from the Democratic Party I think very directly saying I don't care you're a Democrat, you're an independent, you're a Republican. I'm talking to you today as an American.
Right, I mean what I would say. I'll do my best at this, but I think one side has clearly lost its way, and it is caught up in a very fringe approach to almost everything in American society day that most people just do not agree with. They sometimes hide it well, but we see it playing out in Florida. We see it play out with a ten year old rape victim being sent to Indiana because they passed something here that only ten percent of fewer of Ohioans agree with.
And that side understands that its viewpoint is actually deeply unpopular. And the reason we keep running into things like issue on or Jerrymainering is because they're trying to keep in place policies that would never sustain broad the broad majority consensus of as you say, Republicans, Independence, and Democrats in Ohio.
And so I think what Democrats need to pitch on is going to back for a middle class of middle class based economics that lifts people all over states like Ohio, not the narrow one we see from the other side a belief in certain public institutions like public schools that I don't care if you're in your rural or you're in urban Ohio. These are the centers of our communities. Let's lift them. So. I think there's a broad common
agreement on most of where America needs to go. One side doesn't agree with that viewpoint, that's why they're trying to suppress democracy, and the other side, I think needs to do a much better job of bringing everyone together around those issues. I think remove a lot of the crazy stuff. I think that Joe Biden, as you said, has done a very good job on most of those issues. I think his state of the State of the Union
speech actually weave them together very well. And I think in the coming year, the assignment is to take those elements of that common sort of fabric of what we want to get done and to make sure we're talking about it well, we're talking about it all parts of this country, and we're exposing that the other side doesn't
agree with them. Was any of those things, and most of that agenda on the other side is something that at best thirty five percent agree on, and in many cases far less and the reason why we see them always rigging the rules of democracy is because they know that and they know they would lose if we have a straight up vote on what we want to do versus what they want to do.
Well, we'll leave it there, David Pepper, thank you very very much for taking the time this afternoon. Wise words and great counsel for everybody listening. American democracy is under threat. It is not self sustaining. We're approaching the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It's a momentous achievement and one that will require this generation of Americans to recommit to a sense of duty, obligation, and
responsibility and also common sense. You know, I tell my kids this, someone will always be in charge. And in the case of a state like Ohio, if you give away the right to write your future, the people who take it may not have your best interest at heart, but rest assured somebody will take it. You show indifference towards who's running things. People take advantage of it every every time. One of the central lessons of history and and one of the real dangers in the democracy.
M m hmmmm, h m h m hmmm.