>> "washington journal"

continues. host: welcome back to "washington journal." i'm joined in this segment of our weekly spotlight on podcasts by the cohosts of pantsuit politics, sarah stewart holland and beth silvers. welcome to both of you. >> thank you for having us. host: sarah, tell us about the podcast. how did it start and what is it about? >> we started back in 2015. we really started because we wanted to have the type of

conversations we were not seeing anywhere else, critical conversations where you could say i don't know or i think i might have changed my mind about that. we thought maybe our moms and friends will listen but it turns out there was an entire community of people that were hungry for more holistic conversations about what was happening in the news. host: i will remind our viewers that if you would like to talk to our guests, you can do so on our lines by party affiliation. democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 and independents (202) 748-8002. where did you get the name pantsuit politics? >> sarah had the name for quite some time. she had been heavily involved in politics for her career and was considering a podcast where she would talk to women running for office. i came along by happenstance. i was on parental leave and asked if i could post for her on her blog.

she said, i am thinking about a podcast. would you be in? i was working full-time but i trusted sarah right off the bat and i knew that we had something special that would really work on me and make me a better person so i jumped in with not a lot of information and seven years later, here we are. host: you guys are on opposite sides of the spectrum. how did you get to know each other? how do you approach those differences? >> we were on opposite sides of the political structure -- clinical spectrum when we started the program. i changed my party affiliation in 2019. i am now a registered democrat. i am more accurately an independent but in kentucky we have closed primaries. i have really complimentary personalities. she tends to run hot, i run cooler. she is passionate. i try to stay calm. it is that personality

difference that has taught me the most. knowing that we care about each other, where we disagree even significantly on policy issues, we are able to talk through it and always come away more informed, having learned from each other. host: sarah, you guys have written two books together. the latest one is called "now what: how to move forward we are divided about basically everything." tell me about that book. what are you hoping readers get out of it? >> our first book was called "i think you're wrong but i'm listening." it was the lessons we learned over several years of podcasting but it was very high-level and we have a lot of people that read that book and say, i listened and i am still frustrated. now what do i do? that is where the second book came because we realize that matters who you are talking into when talking about politics. are you talking to your dad?

are you talking to a coworker? are you talking about national politics? we really try to break down those levels of connection that we share with one another all the way from family connections to global connections so that we can say when we are talking to a friend versus someone in our church congregation, how does that change the dynamic of a situation and the conversation and how can we unpack that to have more fruitful conversation. host: let's talk about the midterm election results. you have been talking about that on your podcasts. sarah, your reactions. what are your takeaways? >> it feels like our political analysis is lagging a little bit behind our political reality. it felt like with the midterms we were having so much of these are the regular roles of midterm elections. i felt the whole time that so much is different. how can the regular rules apply? i felt confirmed in that instinct when the results came in and things are different.

everybody feels it. listeners file. a word be kept using his weird. it felt weird to us. when the results were weird, it was confirming. this different reality is starting to show up in the election results themselves. host: beth, your reaction to the midterm election results and the red wave that was expected that did that really happen. >> i think it did not really happen if you were looking at the key races where the districts were competitive. i am comforted that for the most part we had candidates cross the finish line who have not been actively trying to undermine elections and i am comforted by the turnout that voters still trust our process. i think it is important to look at the next level and see how many races are not at all competitive and when we analyze the results, we tend to forget about the seats we take for

granted because of where they are located. i am hopeful we can begin to have more conversation about that slow work that candidates do in seats that are plus 15 or be plus 15. how, get more money to those candidates? how can we make sure that both parties are even more than two parties are putting forward thoughtful people who appeal to a broad segment of voters. ? host: let's start talking to some of our viewers. jessica is calling us from kansas on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have lots of worries about the upcoming election, especially concerning donald trump running for 2024. my thoughts are scrambled about this because i have mild autism and i am very worried about our democracy concerning him and all

of that. i would like to hear your thoughts about the january 6 insurrection. thank you and god bless. have a good day. host: sarah, do you want to take that one? >> yes, i think beginning to think about 2024 is anxiety-producing and we encourage our listeners to remember how rapidly things change in politics. however we feel about how things are right now, they will continue to shift and change particularly over the next two years. two years is a long time in american politics. when i start to feel that anxiety rising, i remind myself so much could change in two years and that is not to say any upcoming campaign seriously but to put it in that perspective.

as far as the january 6 insurrection, i think the wheels of justice are turning. i know that they do not turn fast of us for most of us but i feel confident the process and the justice department and that they will carry out those legal proceedings with professionalism and with transparency and that we will continue to see people held responsible for their actions. host: sarah, your reaction to president trump announcing that he will be running for president. how did you react to that? >> i thought you were asking beth. it was difficult. it is difficult to see him stand up there and get this other chance when so many of us feel that he should be and is being held responsible. it was low energy. it was low-energy. it felt like his heart was not in it. we talk about that on our show.

he even sense that the political reality has changed and will continue to change for him. host: richard in boston, massachusetts. democrats mine. caller: good morning. i have a question for beth. i was wondering why she switched parties and became an independent. and also i wanted to also point out that i've been a democrat since the 1990's. i don't understand how people can switch parties. it is the poor people for the democrats and the rich people for the conservatives. i don't think that can change. >> i grew up on a small dairy farm in western kentucky and initialing what republican

because i have the sense of needing to solve problems more locally. i saw the effect of regulation on small farms. regulations that were well intended but tough outside large context. that was my orientation. i was never into the culture war of either party. in 20 i felt that i was not representing at all to our audience with the republican party stood for and i probably never did that because my view shifted significantly from 2017 forward and it felt more honest to my listeners for me to change my registration. here in kentucky i noticed that the candidates in my local ballot were shifting right word and they direction i couldn't support. i felt that my effort as a citizen was better on the democratic side. i am perfectly willing to change my mind again. partisanship i think is the

least interesting thing about me and i hope it is about most people. i love changing my mind and seeing what is happening in the world, what question is presented by an election or a race and be honest with myself about how i feel the best direction is at the time. host: in michigan, the republican line. caller: yes. i am sitting here -- talking about. i don't understand why people say to investigate one person and not investigate the other. we should have some transparency. it should be fair. we should start at the front end and work our way through.

let's find out what is in the closet of biotin like we are finding out what is in the closet of trump. we need some transparency. host: would you like to take that one, sarah, about the appointment of the special counsel? guest: i think the appointment of the special counsel is an attempt of -- not transparency. it isn't like they are going to work in front of us the long process of investigation, but an attempt to show that there is some removal from the biden administration so that we don't feel like there is one administration investigating another administration. i think that was merrick garland's intention. to support that neutrality. with the midterm results and republican party taking the house of representatives, it is highly likely that we will see some investigations into the biden family. i don't know if that is the

investigation must be equal on both sides. i think that that implies that the actions of both administrations is equal and that is almost never true. i think that administrations are as different as the people who make them up. i think that we will see some of that in the house of representatives. that is what the caller is looking for. host: virginia beach, virginia, independent line. caller: my question is about being hung up about party affiliation and ideology. why aren't we more concerned about trying to fix problems? why aren't we more concerned about being americans and doing what we can do to bring about solutions? why are we so caught up? why aren't we more like our parents, the greater generation that we always speak of? host: beth, do you want to take that? guest: i agree. i love a problem-solving

orientation. we have a chapter in our book about trying to keep ourselves in the future oriented problem-solving space. i agree with the caller about that. i agree that i'm trying to understand as a person who is not highly attached to either party, is there something really beneficial in the work of the parties, particularly at the local level where you are recruiting candidates and training them, people who invest in the party to a great service to the country. it is the level to which we decide the party speaks to something about our identity, an announcement of our identities, worldview, and a declaration of who we are against that we are losing our way. i am hopeful that the midterms will be an opportunity for us to say that as americans we are for each other. there is a lot going on in the world where we need to be for each other. we have many challenges to tackle. partisanship could go in the direction of building up people who can do that problem-solving for us. that would be a much better

situation than we find ourselves in where it tells us who we are against. host: we have a tweet from mary lou who says, as a former republican, now independent, i will say my former party will go the way of the whigs. it attracts the worst of our country for candidates. look at their agenda, hate, take away the rights of women/girls, voting rights, would you think, sarah? -- voting rights. what do you think, sarah? guest: our two system is extraordinarily limited when it is winner take all. some of our experiment thing with different approaches, but it is almost like we just need new names every time. it is not like the democratic party of today is the democratic party of the 1960's. we should call them something different. it is a trigger that something has changed and evolved. yes, we have these two parties,

but they are different. because we call them the same thing it is limiting our debate, it is limiting people's abilities to evolve in their partisanship. we are in the two-party system, for better or for worse, at least for the immediate future, though the pace of change in american politics continues to increase. in the two-party system we almost need that trigger in our language to remind ourselves that this is a different party than it was 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago. that's true for both parties. host: patrick, maryland, democrats line. caller: good morning to you. i would like everyone to try to listen to what i'm saying. before i do, let me say maga this, maga that, maga people. you need to say that these are americans who have concerns. at the same time latin people are not illegal aliens.

for that i would like to apologize, as an american. you guys are not from another planet. this is the deal. this is what is going to happen. what i am hearing is the kicking of the can. i have been hearing the kicking of the can for the last couple of years. for those, you look at the midterms, the midterms actually exemplify the kicking of the can. i do believe that the american people, democrat or republican, are getting sick and tired of it. young people are getting sick and tired of the election. they are getting sick and tired of no solution. especially with the republican party. what is going to happen is now that mccarthy is now the speaker

what is going to happen now is two years of campaigning where nothing gets done. let's say for january 6 mccarthy is going to want to get rid of it. is going to be nothing -- it is going to be nothing but back-and-forth with immigration, the border wall, hunter biden, ukraine. what will happen also is that all of this bickering back and forth doesn't solve anything. so, no one knows about whether or not medicare or social security is going to be solved in four years. no one is going to know about whether or not your medical insurance is going to decrease, or whether or not your pharmaceutical drugs are going to decrease or increase. in other words, americans need to understand and focus on the issues and demand that their elected representatives are held

accountable. no one knows, based on this midterm election. when you are in that ballot box and you are alone whether you are republican or democrat. there is yet i hear of a poll that speaks of a republican that gets in the voting booth and votes democrat and a democrat in the voting booth who votes republican. your thoughts, please? host: sarah? guest: i want to say that i think it is very easy to become discouraged if you are consumed in american politics because of the conflict and the investigation and the negative campaigns that take such precedents in the coverage. i think it is important to fight that cynicism and realize we just had four pieces of major bipartisan legislation come through congress. it is one of the most active congresses we've seen in the

podcast. that legislation has a long time to take an impact, but we are talking about millions invested in mental health, infrastructure, climate change mitigation, new energy sources. i'm really encouraged. when i can feel myself get into the space of nothing changes, there's always fighting, all this conflict, i remind myself that there are impactful pieces of legislation. even since they have come back from the lame-duck session they have passed legislation around the nondisclosure agreement. that is important legislation. i think it's important because that does not bubble up in the same way that the conflicts do, but there is important solutions being presented and passed all the time in congress. i think it's important to give our eyes on that so we don't get in that cynical place where we feel that it is just politics and nothing ever changes. host: woodstock, illinois, pamela on the republican line.

caller: good morning. i just wanted to say really quickly, i completely agree with pamela who called in from michigan in regards to we can't pick and choose which side we want to investigate. which side we want to play the media on and give that attention to. we have to be honest as americans, as human beings. we have to get back to what this country was founded on. we need to open our bibles and start looking at what god expects of us. when we have a president, or anyone running for president, who says anything that is opposed to that truth, that is what we have to stand for. when you look at scripture, there is no hatred. there isn't. we can pretend there is, the media can try to claim that there is, they can try to make it look like it's there, but it

isn't. host: what do you think? guest: i am also a christian. where i disagree with the caller is in determining that we are fundamentally a christian nation. america at its core is a place for people of all faith and no faith to exist together in community. i agree that my faith is one in which unity, love, kindness, respect for each other is paramount. i don't really need that to be reflected in my government or media coverage as much as i want to cs adhere to the principles that we all belong together, equality and justice in the eyes of the law are important. i don't think that means everyone gets investigated equally. it is an enormous exercise of power to open an investigation in congress or the department of justice about anyone. i think it's more important a good cause exists to do that

then everyone feels it is being applied to both parties equally. host: i want to show you a clip and sarah i will ask you to respond. this is fox and friends, former vice president mike pence was reacting to donald trump's announcement that he will be running in 2024 and what he thinks americans are looking for in leadership. [video clip] >> it's a free country. the president is entitled to announce his intentions wherever he desires. but i honestly believe that we will have better choices come 2024. >> better choices than donald trump? >> i do. i don't think anyone could have beaten hillary clinton other than donald trump in 2016. i write that in my new book and i learned that on the campaign trail with him in 2016. the record we created, rebuilt our military, revived our

economy, secured our border, it's something i will be proud of. as i've traveled the country over the last two years, people have repeatedly come up to me and said we want to get back to the policies of the trump-pentz administration. i think there is a genuine desire for leadership that could unite the country around our highest ideals. and leadership that would reflect more of the civility and respect that americans show each other every day. i am out of politics now. once you get out of politics and we moved back to indiana, you realize the american people actually get along pretty well most days. it is our politics that is deeply divided. i think i have a sense of the american people. they want a new style of leadership that will reflect the way they deal with each other every day. host: the former vice president. sarah, what do you think?

>> i agreed that americans get along most days. i disagree mike pence is out of politics. he is so extraordinarily careful. to move away from trump that way saying we will have better choices than him i think is a big movement for him and probably around his plans for 2024. that's why struggle with the idea that he is out of politics. he is not wrong that people are -- i don't know if they are hungry for a new style of leadership, but they are hungry for trump-style leadership in a more careful package. especially the far right wing of the republican party. i don't know what type of leadership that independent and moderate americans are hungry for. i think that that is a tougher analysis, even with the results

of the midterm coming in. i don't think that he is wrong that they are ready to sort of move on. in particular, i think from the backwards facing past elections some of the best analysis that i've read is that americans like to talk about the future in elections, not the past. host: on the independent line from bedford, new hampshire. hi, david. caller: good morning. a few questions. actually, transparency is number one for me and i'm getting upset over these elections and results and the way they are flipping, number one. i can quote from the bedford general election in bedford, new hampshire. we have all republicans all the way there except maggie hassan, chris pappas are democrats.

write down the line is all republicans -- right down the line is all republicans. we had two and those got flipped. this is a democratic town. i think we should have an audit in every town. i don't like the election results getting flipped. i don't think they are honest. i think we ought to go to paper ballots number one. what happened with arizona? what is going on with that? you have, what, three weeks and you still ain't got results? host: beth, do you want to take that? guest: i think the caller is right to remind us that elections are administered locally and we have different processes through the united states. that's important to keep in mind when we talk about the integrity of our elections. i do think that secretaries of

state have been working hard, especially since 2020, to make sure that their processes are airtight where they can be. we still have lots of volunteers. you will never have a perfectly run election. the question is usually, are we confident any errors won't change the results? i understand that it is weird when you get a mixed result. we have a very republican legislature and a democratic governor. our democratic governor and republican secretary of state have worked hard hand-in-hand to make sure our elections are well-run and secure. anyone who has questions should talk to their county clerk to get insight on how the process works, visit the secretary of state website, but i see enormous progress in making sure that our elections are run transparently and securely. sometimes the delay in counting is making sure that those things happened. host: angie from johnson city,

tennessee, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. listening this morning it is disheartening to hear these people talk because we have become so polarized and divided down the middle. everyone has forgotten at the end of the day we are all american. the sad thing going on now is we watch media, and media is 100% to blame for what is happening in this world right now. when i listen to all these people telling me this and that and trying to get me to go democratic -- unfortunately, due to the lack of a better word, ignorance, i was a democrat for many years. i worked in human resources and learned how things worked in this world. we have absolutely no transparency. just like the gentleman said with the voting, it shouldn't take three to four weeks for a vote to be counted. it doesn't happen in a third world country. that we have a president that goes to a country and doesn't know what country he is and when he represents us -- it is -- i

am in tennessee. i'm sure you have seen the reports. we have californians, people from illinois, everyone from blue states running to our state. these are republicans and democrats. democratic values are working so well, why are these people overrunning all of the states that primarily vote red. it makes no sense to me. host: sarah, what do you think? guest: i think that states have single party rule, california or mississippi, are fragile in a way. when you have leadership that's not checking each other, that has veto-proof majorities there is a weakness there. you can see that in some of the policies of democratic states and republican states. i think mississippi's water crisis is a great example. as far as elections, there are

countries that take a long time to count the vote and there are contested elections. there was one in africa we covered in our show. the idea that this only happens here, what i've learned is that is never true because there are human beings trying to govern themselves all over the world and they run into similar problems. it is a process run by human beings. it is not going to be perfect. there are going to be flaws and mistakes that happen. but not to be discouraged and to decide that that is proof that there is some conspiracy against us. that is true of media. when we use the word media it becomes a vision in our head and we forget that there are human beings writing in the new york times, human beings walking the halls of fox news.i am even guilty of that myself when we were interviewed on fox news that i was surprised people were nice to me. they are human beings. of course they will be kind to

me. media has become this character in our heads. we feel like it is out there beyond our control. it is not that all aspects of media are within our control, but we have seen shifts in people consumption where they are like, i don't want this i will move to this model. the media company sort of responded in turn. there is no stasis when there is human beings involved and things will continue to shift and change. if we want the sense that we are not just our partisanship, that we are in this as americans, fighting that cynicism where we can is important. host: on the democrats line. good morning. caller: i would like to make a couple of statements and ask a few questions. i believe that the republican for the most part offer a comfort zone for the racists. i will ask this question.

what did george washington and the first black president have in common? another question is, what was worse, calling cap her neck not honoring the flag -- calling cap -- kappernick not honoring the flag or january 6. and if we put donald trump in the room with nixon, would he be accepted? george washington and obama, both of their mothers were white . host: sarah? guest: i was afraid that there was going to be a quiz. i got worried. i think that historical -- i like his historical thought

experiment. what would happen if you put trump in a room with nixon or eisenhower and would he be accepted? putting past presidents together in different configurations is interesting. i think that there are aspects of donald trump, i think there are historical components of donald trump we are he stands out among our former presidents as really approaching the job differently. that is the most gracious way that i can put it. i think the caller is recognizing a historical -- ahistorical moments in the trump presidency. host: on the independent line, mike. caller: ladies, i think that we have forgotten a very important lesson from american history. specifically 1920-1933 when we foolishly passed the prohibition of alcohol.

it was a clear violation of american principal that the pursuit of happiness, not the wise pursuit of happiness, is a natural right. today we have a foolish replay of alcohol prohibition with drug prohibition. alcohol prohibition, the targets were italian and irish americans. drug prohibition the targets are black and brown americans. they represent a disproportionate amount of inmates convicted and imprisoned because of drug prohibition. their lives are permanently damaged with these prison terms. anyway, may i have your comment please? host: beth? guest: it is interesting to begin the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is not embodied in our constitution.

in kentucky we have a state right to the pursuit of happiness. i like that framework for a lot of issues. with respect to drug prohibition, i favor the legalization of marijuana and i think that that is where our federalist process is working well. where you see states telling the federal government that we will challenge you because we think that it is that important. i think that it will be interesting how that expands beyond marijuana. i agree with the caller that we have written too many people off and the justice department has produced inequitable and unjust results in terms of over sentencing and overcharging people for drug use. i think that we have to be careful as we learn about drugs, their effects, how they affect our health care system, how they affect our public safety. there is research being done on different drugs and we see states respond accordingly. i'm encouraged by the progress. it is much too slow. i am encouraged by the

conversation that more people are becoming aware of how disproportionately should on the republican line. caller: i am a first time caller and i would like to tell america some of the reasons, i don't have the time to say very much. some of the reasons i voted for donald trump and phi get the opportunity, i will vote for him again. first, when he was in office, i could go to the grocery store and buy everything that i needed. my income, i am 79. my retirement income is 18,000 a year. the price of grocery at the store means a great deal to me. since biden has been in office, i have not been able to fill my

car up with gas when i need to because the gas has doubled. host: let's get a response because we are almost out of time. sarah, last word. guest: i think it is important to listen to the reason why people vote for the candidate you might not agree with. even if those reasons are difficult to hear. i think the economic argument is difficult because the president has so little control over the broad global economy you can see those prices in the global economy and the government. all that being said, the reason someone votes is essential to listen to when we are trying to engage in conversation with our fellow americans. host: and that is the last word

sarah stewart holland and beth silvers