This week, Sam Stein and Sonny Bunch sit in as The Atlantic's Tim Alberta drops by to discuss the gender gap, how Harris and Trump are navigating appeals to each sex, the Trump campaign "kitchen sink" moment, and Harris's trip to the border.
I read just today that the gap between men and women has grown NOT because Trump and the GOP are doing that much better with men, but because post-Dobbs, women are flocking to the Dems.
You political smarties are looking at that, right? I mean, it's pretty much your job to know those things, yeah?
I take issue with the notion that democrats "in general" don't want any restrictions on abortion. How about just keeping the law that was in place for 50 years?! Were Democrats out there pushing this unlimited abortion agenda? No, they were not! Abortion was never a problem until Republicans wanted to stir up religious concerns for the Southern vote. I think women just want to have medical care. I know women who've had abortions and none of them would have considered an abortion outside the framework of Roe. Outside that framework is miscarriage, lack of viability, or murder.
I wish you would stop saying immigration is a bad issue for Harris and that Biden dragged his feet for three years. He didn't take executive action three years ago because he wanted to work in good faith with Congress to pass legislation (the best option). Had it passed, Harris certainly would have that bill to point to as success on the border. Instead, she can now point to Trump and Republican hypocrisy and political opportunism. Biden only chose to go the executive action route once Trump and the Republicans scuttled the bill. As for this being a "bad" issue for her that she shouldn't want to call attention to, I beg to differ. She has a very strong record on the border as a prosecutor, she has solid plans, and she makes it clear that there's a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. She's the only of the two candidates whose ideas make any sense. Trump is only "strong" on the border because he fear mongers and his uncritical followers go along with it. There is nothing of substance there, and he never did anything good on the border when he was in office, so there's a track record to point to. She needs to go after this so-called strength of his and show that she is the one with real ideas and the goods to execute.
This entire conversation about termination is astonishingly clueless. (Not to mention the fact that the commentary is from four white men.)
You are talking about “how much restriction” - this entirely misses the point.
The ISSUE is about the locus of control and who makes the decision.
I am Catholic.
I am also a Pediatrician who dealt with fetuses with anencephaly and many other horrible birth defects for forty years. I had to deal with extremely premature deliveries. I had to counsel couples shortly before the mom was going to deliver a baby that might be 20 weeks or 26 weeks. We wouldn't know until the baby was born. (To put this in perspective, a baby's eyelids can be fused until later than 24 weeks.)
I would help them to understand that a 20 or 21 week baby was simply not viable and it was not an option to resuscitate that child - that there were very well designed guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists which laid out options. Most guidelines suggest comfort care and no true intervention under the fetal age of 25 weeks. Or 23 weeks? Or 24 weeks? Even the guidelines by people who do this for a living are difficult!
I also gave the parents a very clear understanding as to WHY these guidelines existed. That a 22 week baby only weighs one pound. That the TOTAL blood volume of a 1 pound baby is 4-5 ounces.
To make this real, understand that if you need to draw 5 ml (1/6 ounce) from a baby to help diagnose and treat them, you have just removed THREE PERCENT of the baby's total blood. That’s just ONE blood draw…and premies often require several samples per week. It is very common for babies this tiny to require multiple transfusions simply to replace blood taken for testing.
I would explain that trying to provide intensive care for these tiny, tiny infants was extremely difficult and painful with very high rates of permanent damage if the child even survived.
This was not to be cruel. It was to help them to have a medical imagination and to be realistic so that after having factual medical information they would know exactly what they were choosing.
I would go away to give the parents time to process. Then we would make a joint decision.
I have worked in many settings. I have never once in forty years seen any medical personnel treat this process superficially, casually, or with anything but compassion.
These decisions absolutely do NOT belong with ignorant, ideological judges, lawyers, and legislators who have zero understanding of on-the-ground medical decision making.
They belong with the family and caregivers. Full stop.
Don’t frame this issue like the media.
Don’t “frame” it at all.
Accept the reality that families should make decisions about the medical care for themselves and their loved ones. Leave them alone. They are suffering as they choose, regardless of how they choose.
Yeah when right wingers like at National Review talk about abortion on-demand or abortion extremism in the Democratic Party they don’t realize the public has never been passionate about abortion restrictions in the last semester. Most who support abortion in the first trimester don’t feel the need to police later term abortions because so many of those will be out of some sort of complicated circumstances quite often medically necessary circumstances.
Most people that tend to get abortions for various social reasons as opposed to medical ones like damage to the mother want to have the abortion early especially if they are concealing the pregnancy. So the Republicans talk about abortion the day before birth is a classic red herring because even in those circumstances there are extenuating circumstances nuance the issue.
Recent Atlantic interview from July which will illustrate exactly what Bill is talking about re: the environmental permitting process which results in slowing down green energy gains. We can't have it both ways folks. "Texas Beats California on Wind and Solar. Why?"
Re: the discussion of the Latino electorate it seems to me that the issue of mass deportation should, it seems to me, impact both English- and Spanish-dominant households the same. Think about how it would work.
First, I can’t imagine how many people it would take to deport tens of millions of people, but clearly the Feds couldn’t do it alone. Could state and local law enforcement take up the slack without distracting from their primary roles? Would the federal government have to fund their deportation role? Would civilian vigilantes be “deputized” to participate?
Second, think about the impact on the American public. How do the enforcers distinguish among undocumented immigrants, those with permission to be here, and citizens? Will there be a requirement that everyone carry a passport or other ID? And if you’re rounded up, will there be a process to prove it’s an improper arrest or are you just out of luck?
Finally, if an agency, federal, state, local or vigilante is trying to meet a quota (or, if paid by the head, increase their revenues), I can imagine them running amo
k arresting everyone in sight.
So why in God’s name would any person of Hispanic heritage not be scared to death of Trump?
Yeah not just Hispanic heritage but we live in a time where layers of bureaucracy result in many cases of mistaken identity or mix-ups.
If you undergo large scale deportation let’s say even 1 million illegal immigrants, there are going to be mixups and people could be deported on bad identity mistakes or especially those currently in the immigration court system that are still adjudicating their cases.
Add to that the strain on communities if Trump essentially subcontracts local law enforcement to assist in the deportations. Then add on the crime that would be induced from the paranoid climate that would ensue and the damage to communities as families are torn apart.
I believe in deporting illegal immigrants that have shown they are a danger to the community such as those that commit violent crimes or flaut the driving laws and illegally cause accidents. But just being here illegally shouldn’t be sufficient to remove someone.
He is a conservative thinker across politics he hasn’t just done entertainment. He was a fill in host for Mona before in Beg to Differ as well as a guest host on the Next Level before.
Overall he’s a very insightful man that brings a fresh perspective that fits across several of the Bulwark podcasts. If you were to listen to the Beg To Differ episode he hosted or the Next Level last year he hosted with a great debate on gas stoves, you might change your view.
Hearing Mona say 'manosphere' was such a pleasure; as are her pauses as she considers how to describe the world we're dealing with. Truly the Queen of Bulwarkia (can't find the youtuber who does Bulwark sketches but they're brilliant)
Can y’all keep taking Sunny out of the culture/movie closet? He has a different perspective that I think really adds to the conversations every time he’s on a different pod than just his own.
1. On abortion: yes late term abortions are unpopular. This has always been true. However, I think the anti-abortion people keep conflating where the public has and is on abortion. Fundamentally, roe was popular because it allowed a woman and her doctor to make choices. Sometimes on very few occasions they choose to have late term abortions that aren’t medically necessary. This is very very rare. The reason why sometimes you would see polls that showed abortion as unpopular is a classic American tradition: disliking things that they believe can’t change. It’s a free vote to say what Americans love “I don’t like the system.” Now voters see what they always knew: Republican legislators want to control women.
2. Immigration: I love Mona’s rant and I agree with all of it. However, those arguments are intellectual reasons for immigration. Racism is not a problem that can be solved with intellectual arguments. Sonny said it best but I think he even misses the point: a lot of people don’t want the Indian doctor or Chinese engineer or Singaporean lawyer to come here. I don’t know what the solution is but we are going to move to dramatically decrease both legal, refugee, economic migrant and illegal immigrant.
If Democrats win then legal immigration will continue to rise because they is consensus for it because the Democratic Party has shifted toward increased legal immigration. It can partner with corporate boards and Chamber of Commerce republicans that want caps raised.
Comprehensive immigration reform is needed to control illegal immigration and to speed us citizenship claims. However, the executive can control a lot on refugees, legal immigrants and tps.
Rajeev, this absolutely won’t happen. You know that. The president cannot increase legal immigration. That is a law. Congress would have to pass a law. First, there is no chance that dems will even try. Second, the republicans will just filibuster it. What would be the point.
The hard caps (I think from early 90s around 700000) are binding by law. But I don’t think we’ve reached the limit each year. There are limits the President can set from year to year as well as increasing countries that classify for protected status or refugee status. We’ve seen Biden use a more expansive definition of some of the immigrants from various countries. The H1B visas was a big deal a decade ago trying to increase them as well as keep graduate school stem foreign students here stateside.
Those are statues. The president can try to increase them be an EO. Then they are challenged in the court. Like right now. Biden’s EO is like 60 days from being overturned just like all the others before him. Don’t get me wrong I want to increase H1Bs but this will not happen
I agree about the need for a woman and her doctor to make choices based on the viability of the fetus and the health of the mother, as it was under Roe. When I hear, "Democrats want abortion to be legal with no restrictions", it's disengenuous and misleading. It sounds reckless. Late term abortions are extremely rare. If the public is serious about protecting the health of the baby and the mother, which Republicans are not, then "no restrictions" is necessary.
Yep. The problem is, honestly, with the idea of “restrictions.” Yes it makes for a fabulous talking point and political add. However, that rhetoric gets turned into legal statues which then gets interpreted by lawyers for both the hospital and litigants.
Let’s use just a dumb example. Let’s say a woman gets pregnant. The timing is a bit off but she is happy have a baby. Then in the 22 wee& she finds out that the child has a 50% of surviving or 10% or 90%. Pick a number. It doesn’t really matter honestly because the month we to be is the one who has to deal with all the consequences
In the Orthodox Church, many parishes have seen huge influxes of curious newcomers since the pandemic - disproportionately young men, though not necessarily white.
A couple of years ago there was a big wave of people coming to us from the alt-right, but that seems to have subsided for now. Many of them did not stick around, but we are working on assimilating the others.
My wife is a huge Star Trek fan. She and her Trekie friends love to point out that JD Vance says “Females” in the same way that the alien Ferengi race says female. Since females have no rights in Ferengi society it’s not said in a nice way.
I might be wrong but I thought the first rule of acquisition for Ferengi’s is once you have their money you never give it back. Maybe JD Vance is a ferengi just worse looking with less charm.
Notice I said my wife is the Trekkie. She has to show me clips to gain the little bit that I posted. We belong to different nerddoms. She’s sci fi/horror and I’m history.
I read just today that the gap between men and women has grown NOT because Trump and the GOP are doing that much better with men, but because post-Dobbs, women are flocking to the Dems.
You political smarties are looking at that, right? I mean, it's pretty much your job to know those things, yeah?
I take issue with the notion that democrats "in general" don't want any restrictions on abortion. How about just keeping the law that was in place for 50 years?! Were Democrats out there pushing this unlimited abortion agenda? No, they were not! Abortion was never a problem until Republicans wanted to stir up religious concerns for the Southern vote. I think women just want to have medical care. I know women who've had abortions and none of them would have considered an abortion outside the framework of Roe. Outside that framework is miscarriage, lack of viability, or murder.
Tim Alberta is such a "get" for any political discussion, I wish I could listen to him for hours.
Not to diminish the joy of pure common sense from favourites Sam, Sonny & Bill Galston, but I never get to hear Alberta speak.
So when are we also going to at least talk about punishing the businesses that use illegal labor?
I wish you would stop saying immigration is a bad issue for Harris and that Biden dragged his feet for three years. He didn't take executive action three years ago because he wanted to work in good faith with Congress to pass legislation (the best option). Had it passed, Harris certainly would have that bill to point to as success on the border. Instead, she can now point to Trump and Republican hypocrisy and political opportunism. Biden only chose to go the executive action route once Trump and the Republicans scuttled the bill. As for this being a "bad" issue for her that she shouldn't want to call attention to, I beg to differ. She has a very strong record on the border as a prosecutor, she has solid plans, and she makes it clear that there's a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. She's the only of the two candidates whose ideas make any sense. Trump is only "strong" on the border because he fear mongers and his uncritical followers go along with it. There is nothing of substance there, and he never did anything good on the border when he was in office, so there's a track record to point to. She needs to go after this so-called strength of his and show that she is the one with real ideas and the goods to execute.
This entire conversation about termination is astonishingly clueless. (Not to mention the fact that the commentary is from four white men.)
You are talking about “how much restriction” - this entirely misses the point.
The ISSUE is about the locus of control and who makes the decision.
I am Catholic.
I am also a Pediatrician who dealt with fetuses with anencephaly and many other horrible birth defects for forty years. I had to deal with extremely premature deliveries. I had to counsel couples shortly before the mom was going to deliver a baby that might be 20 weeks or 26 weeks. We wouldn't know until the baby was born. (To put this in perspective, a baby's eyelids can be fused until later than 24 weeks.)
I would help them to understand that a 20 or 21 week baby was simply not viable and it was not an option to resuscitate that child - that there were very well designed guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists which laid out options. Most guidelines suggest comfort care and no true intervention under the fetal age of 25 weeks. Or 23 weeks? Or 24 weeks? Even the guidelines by people who do this for a living are difficult!
I also gave the parents a very clear understanding as to WHY these guidelines existed. That a 22 week baby only weighs one pound. That the TOTAL blood volume of a 1 pound baby is 4-5 ounces.
To make this real, understand that if you need to draw 5 ml (1/6 ounce) from a baby to help diagnose and treat them, you have just removed THREE PERCENT of the baby's total blood. That’s just ONE blood draw…and premies often require several samples per week. It is very common for babies this tiny to require multiple transfusions simply to replace blood taken for testing.
I would explain that trying to provide intensive care for these tiny, tiny infants was extremely difficult and painful with very high rates of permanent damage if the child even survived.
This was not to be cruel. It was to help them to have a medical imagination and to be realistic so that after having factual medical information they would know exactly what they were choosing.
I would go away to give the parents time to process. Then we would make a joint decision.
I have worked in many settings. I have never once in forty years seen any medical personnel treat this process superficially, casually, or with anything but compassion.
These decisions absolutely do NOT belong with ignorant, ideological judges, lawyers, and legislators who have zero understanding of on-the-ground medical decision making.
They belong with the family and caregivers. Full stop.
Don’t frame this issue like the media.
Don’t “frame” it at all.
Accept the reality that families should make decisions about the medical care for themselves and their loved ones. Leave them alone. They are suffering as they choose, regardless of how they choose.
thank you for this
Yeah when right wingers like at National Review talk about abortion on-demand or abortion extremism in the Democratic Party they don’t realize the public has never been passionate about abortion restrictions in the last semester. Most who support abortion in the first trimester don’t feel the need to police later term abortions because so many of those will be out of some sort of complicated circumstances quite often medically necessary circumstances.
Most people that tend to get abortions for various social reasons as opposed to medical ones like damage to the mother want to have the abortion early especially if they are concealing the pregnancy. So the Republicans talk about abortion the day before birth is a classic red herring because even in those circumstances there are extenuating circumstances nuance the issue.
Recent Atlantic interview from July which will illustrate exactly what Bill is talking about re: the environmental permitting process which results in slowing down green energy gains. We can't have it both ways folks. "Texas Beats California on Wind and Solar. Why?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKuleXSJKUo
Re: the discussion of the Latino electorate it seems to me that the issue of mass deportation should, it seems to me, impact both English- and Spanish-dominant households the same. Think about how it would work.
First, I can’t imagine how many people it would take to deport tens of millions of people, but clearly the Feds couldn’t do it alone. Could state and local law enforcement take up the slack without distracting from their primary roles? Would the federal government have to fund their deportation role? Would civilian vigilantes be “deputized” to participate?
Second, think about the impact on the American public. How do the enforcers distinguish among undocumented immigrants, those with permission to be here, and citizens? Will there be a requirement that everyone carry a passport or other ID? And if you’re rounded up, will there be a process to prove it’s an improper arrest or are you just out of luck?
Finally, if an agency, federal, state, local or vigilante is trying to meet a quota (or, if paid by the head, increase their revenues), I can imagine them running amo
k arresting everyone in sight.
So why in God’s name would any person of Hispanic heritage not be scared to death of Trump?
Yeah not just Hispanic heritage but we live in a time where layers of bureaucracy result in many cases of mistaken identity or mix-ups.
If you undergo large scale deportation let’s say even 1 million illegal immigrants, there are going to be mixups and people could be deported on bad identity mistakes or especially those currently in the immigration court system that are still adjudicating their cases.
Add to that the strain on communities if Trump essentially subcontracts local law enforcement to assist in the deportations. Then add on the crime that would be induced from the paranoid climate that would ensue and the damage to communities as families are torn apart.
I believe in deporting illegal immigrants that have shown they are a danger to the community such as those that commit violent crimes or flaut the driving laws and illegally cause accidents. But just being here illegally shouldn’t be sufficient to remove someone.
Enjoyed the guest today. Thank you.
Wow, I really dislike Sonny Bunch, like X-PAC. Sorry not to be more constructive, but why is he here?
He is a conservative thinker across politics he hasn’t just done entertainment. He was a fill in host for Mona before in Beg to Differ as well as a guest host on the Next Level before.
Overall he’s a very insightful man that brings a fresh perspective that fits across several of the Bulwark podcasts. If you were to listen to the Beg To Differ episode he hosted or the Next Level last year he hosted with a great debate on gas stoves, you might change your view.
Hearing Mona say 'manosphere' was such a pleasure; as are her pauses as she considers how to describe the world we're dealing with. Truly the Queen of Bulwarkia (can't find the youtuber who does Bulwark sketches but they're brilliant)
I think this is what you're looking for:
https://www.youtube.com/@hollyabf
Can y’all keep taking Sunny out of the culture/movie closet? He has a different perspective that I think really adds to the conversations every time he’s on a different pod than just his own.
Good conversation, enjoyed it.
I miss his guest host appearances on the Next Level. He is the perfect fill in for any of those three when they aren’t available.
2 comments:
1. On abortion: yes late term abortions are unpopular. This has always been true. However, I think the anti-abortion people keep conflating where the public has and is on abortion. Fundamentally, roe was popular because it allowed a woman and her doctor to make choices. Sometimes on very few occasions they choose to have late term abortions that aren’t medically necessary. This is very very rare. The reason why sometimes you would see polls that showed abortion as unpopular is a classic American tradition: disliking things that they believe can’t change. It’s a free vote to say what Americans love “I don’t like the system.” Now voters see what they always knew: Republican legislators want to control women.
2. Immigration: I love Mona’s rant and I agree with all of it. However, those arguments are intellectual reasons for immigration. Racism is not a problem that can be solved with intellectual arguments. Sonny said it best but I think he even misses the point: a lot of people don’t want the Indian doctor or Chinese engineer or Singaporean lawyer to come here. I don’t know what the solution is but we are going to move to dramatically decrease both legal, refugee, economic migrant and illegal immigrant.
If Democrats win then legal immigration will continue to rise because they is consensus for it because the Democratic Party has shifted toward increased legal immigration. It can partner with corporate boards and Chamber of Commerce republicans that want caps raised.
Comprehensive immigration reform is needed to control illegal immigration and to speed us citizenship claims. However, the executive can control a lot on refugees, legal immigrants and tps.
Rajeev, this absolutely won’t happen. You know that. The president cannot increase legal immigration. That is a law. Congress would have to pass a law. First, there is no chance that dems will even try. Second, the republicans will just filibuster it. What would be the point.
The hard caps (I think from early 90s around 700000) are binding by law. But I don’t think we’ve reached the limit each year. There are limits the President can set from year to year as well as increasing countries that classify for protected status or refugee status. We’ve seen Biden use a more expansive definition of some of the immigrants from various countries. The H1B visas was a big deal a decade ago trying to increase them as well as keep graduate school stem foreign students here stateside.
Those are statues. The president can try to increase them be an EO. Then they are challenged in the court. Like right now. Biden’s EO is like 60 days from being overturned just like all the others before him. Don’t get me wrong I want to increase H1Bs but this will not happen
I agree about the need for a woman and her doctor to make choices based on the viability of the fetus and the health of the mother, as it was under Roe. When I hear, "Democrats want abortion to be legal with no restrictions", it's disengenuous and misleading. It sounds reckless. Late term abortions are extremely rare. If the public is serious about protecting the health of the baby and the mother, which Republicans are not, then "no restrictions" is necessary.
Yep. The problem is, honestly, with the idea of “restrictions.” Yes it makes for a fabulous talking point and political add. However, that rhetoric gets turned into legal statues which then gets interpreted by lawyers for both the hospital and litigants.
Let’s use just a dumb example. Let’s say a woman gets pregnant. The timing is a bit off but she is happy have a baby. Then in the 22 wee& she finds out that the child has a 50% of surviving or 10% or 90%. Pick a number. It doesn’t really matter honestly because the month we to be is the one who has to deal with all the consequences
Sonny , when you are trying to describe how women feel about abortion , the word you are looking for is ANGRY . Not scared , but angry .
I think both are accurate. Angry about the past but scared about the future if elections don’t turn out as we hope.
The statement about the increase of young white males attending church was interesting. Correlates with Trump’s Cult
In the Orthodox Church, many parishes have seen huge influxes of curious newcomers since the pandemic - disproportionately young men, though not necessarily white.
A couple of years ago there was a big wave of people coming to us from the alt-right, but that seems to have subsided for now. Many of them did not stick around, but we are working on assimilating the others.
My wife is a huge Star Trek fan. She and her Trekie friends love to point out that JD Vance says “Females” in the same way that the alien Ferengi race says female. Since females have no rights in Ferengi society it’s not said in a nice way.
I might be wrong but I thought the first rule of acquisition for Ferengi’s is once you have their money you never give it back. Maybe JD Vance is a ferengi just worse looking with less charm.
Notice I said my wife is the Trekkie. She has to show me clips to gain the little bit that I posted. We belong to different nerddoms. She’s sci fi/horror and I’m history.