The episode centers on the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, mixing relief at Joe Biden’s win with anxiety about Donald Trump’s refusal to concede and Republicans’ reluctance to acknowledge the result. The hosts discuss how close the race remained in key states, what the margins suggest about Trump’s enduring influence, and the likelihood that claims of a “stolen” election become a loyalty test within the GOP. They also dig into practical risks of a delayed transition, including the role of the GSA in formally starting it and the potential public-health consequences as COVID surges and a new vaccine headline collides with partisan incentives. A major theme is whether political reality and governance can reassert themselves once Trump loses presidential power, or whether a post-presidency media ecosystem and grievance politics will keep Trumpism dominant. Throughout, they contrast past norms of concession and democratic legitimacy with what they see as a new, more corrosive Republican posture toward elections and accountability.

The hosts discuss fears that the Trump campaign could contest or undermine election results in key swing states by challenging mail-in ballots, pressuring Republican legislatures, and sowing distrust even in a clear Biden win. They debate how realistic worst-case scenarios are, but agree that sustained claims of fraud could erode democratic legitimacy and normalize an alternate reality for a sizable share of the country. The conversation then shifts to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and the GOP’s push to confirm a replacement, with attention to how vulnerable Republican senators may be prioritizing loyalty to Trumpism over electoral strategy. They argue Democrats should keep the focus on process fairness and, more importantly, on practical stakes like the ACA and Roe rather than attacking a nominee’s religion or escalating rhetoric about court packing, to avoid distracting from COVID. Finally, Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller highlight former Pence COVID task force aide Olivia Troye’s account of White House interference in the pandemic response and the administration’s retaliatory smears, framing it as both intimidation and evidence of deeper institutional decay.

The hosts break down the Republican National Convention’s messaging and production, noting a split between speakers who lean into Trump’s grievance politics and others who deliver more traditional Republican themes aimed at suburban voters, along with a debate over whether tactics like using the White House for convention content (and potential Hatch Act violations) matter to actual voters. They then explore what they call the 2020 election’s central paradox: polls show a steady Biden lead, yet the mechanics of voting and counting—especially mail ballots, litigation, and delayed results—could make the outcome unusually uncertain and contested. The conversation turns to the shootings and unrest in Kenosha and how ongoing protests, looting, and armed civilian presence are shaping public opinion, with Sarah citing focus-group and polling evidence that “law and order” concerns may be rising. Throughout, they argue over whether Trump can successfully exploit fears of disorder to win back wavering voters, and what Biden should do to condemn violence while keeping focus on Trump’s failures and divisiveness.

Bill Simmons, Sean Fennessy, and Chris Ryan revisit Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion in the context of the 2020 coronavirus outbreak, focusing on how uncannily the film captures modern pandemic anxiety through its early depiction of transmission, public panic, and everyday hygiene behaviors. They discuss Soderbergh’s stylistic choices—fast global structure, grounded realism, and withholding “day one” until the end—as well as the unusually stacked cast and the decision to play the material completely straight rather than as a star-driven hero narrative. The conversation digs into the movie’s research-based approach to epidemiology and vaccine development, and how its portrayal of institutions and global cooperation now feels both plausible and more fragile than it did in 2011. They also highlight the Jude Law character as a prescient take on misinformation, profiteering, and conspiracy culture amplified by modern media. Underneath the thriller mechanics, they read the film as a critique of corporate and environmental forces that can trigger outbreaks, and reflect on why Contagion has been “reinvented” by real-world events for today’s audiences.

The episode examines whether democracy is in decline by comparing the United States’ constitutional design with recent democratic backsliding in Europe. Jeffrey Rosen argues that James Madison’s “cooling” mechanisms meant to curb mob passion have been eroded by polarization, social media, and a more direct, personality-driven presidency, making deliberation and cross-party compromise harder. Anne Applebaum traces how polarization in Poland (and parallels like Brexit) shifted politics from economic debates to fights over identity and national belonging, showing how democracies can be weakened when a determined minority changes rules to entrench power. The conversation explores how disinformation, echo chambers, and distrust of shared facts intensify these trends, and whether American institutions and constitutional “religion” can still constrain leaders who challenge norms. They close by debating if democracy is “dying” or simply facing recurring cycles of instability, and what it would take to rebuild trust and effective governance.

The episode looks at how prepared the world is for the next major pandemic, using the 1918 flu as a benchmark and contrasting today’s medical advances with modern vulnerabilities like dense urban living, global air travel, and the rise of new pathogens. Ed Yong reports from places including the Democratic Republic of Congo and U.S. public health labs and hospitals to show how frontline preparedness depends on underfunded, often invisible systems and workers, and how crises repeatedly trigger a “panic and neglect” cycle as political attention and money surge and then fade. The conversation explores how fear, misinformation, and xenophobia can worsen outbreaks and distort policy, arguing that border closures and demagoguery are counterproductive compared with calm leadership, trust-building, and sustained investment. They highlight promising efforts such as faster vaccine-production capacity, CEPI’s vaccine development, and the Global Health Security Agenda, while warning that budget cuts and isolationism weaken international relationships needed for early detection and containment. The episode closes with lighter “keepers,” including a novel recommendation, reflections on dying baob...

The episode examines Paul Manafort’s career arc from Republican political consultant to global fixer, focusing on how he helped corporations, oligarchs, and authoritarian leaders “launder” their reputations and secure influence in Washington. Franklin Foer argues that Manafort both exploited and accelerated the erosion of political norms, using tools like lobbying, PR, and quasi-democratic elections to make corrupt actors seem legitimate, with Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska as central examples. The hosts connect Manafort’s personal and financial unraveling to his decision to join the Trump campaign, framing his indictment as both an exposure of long-running practices and a potential deterrent that has already prompted belated compliance with foreign-agent disclosure rules. They also discuss the ethics and consequences of leaked and hacked information in journalism, weighing corruption-exposing transparency against the social and personal need for privacy. The episode closes with lighter “keepers,” including recommendations and reflections on “Halt and Catch Fire,” Springsteen on Broadway, and the book “Shop Class as Soulcraft.”

The episode takes stock of the early Trump presidency, focusing on how a norm-breaking president tests the resilience of American institutions and the Republican Party. Legal scholar Jack Goldsmith argues that courts, the press, the bureaucracy, and civil society have so far constrained some of Trump’s most extreme impulses, while warning that Trump’s real long-term damage may come from provoking other institutions into abandoning their own norms. The conversation then shifts to the GOP’s internal struggle between establishment leaders and a Trump-aligned base, with Mindy Finn describing how Trump has reshaped party incentives, primary politics, and attitudes on issues like Russia and identity. Finn and the hosts discuss what, if anything, Trump has clarified for Republicans about economic discontent and the limits of past outreach strategies, alongside concerns that the party may be trading broader demographic appeal for short-term power. The episode closes with reflections on what the speakers want to “keep,” including community solidarity after Hurricane Harvey and moments of perspective outside the daily political churn.

Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote Donald Trump’s 1987 bestseller “The Art of the Deal,” says he feels deep remorse for helping create the public image of Trump as a uniquely successful tycoon. After watching Trump launch his presidential campaign and cite the book as a credential, Schwartz concluded Trump had even come to believe he wrote it, reinforcing Schwartz’s view that Trump would lie easily and often. Though urged by colleagues to stay out of politics, Schwartz decided to speak because he viewed Trump as impulsive, self-centered, and potentially dangerous if elected. The article recounts how the book originated with publisher Si Newhouse, how Trump’s hunger for attention shaped the project, and how Schwartz took the job despite seeing it as a “Faustian bargain” driven partly by financial pressure. Schwartz says that if he were writing the book today, it would portray Trump far more negatively and carry a title like “The Sociopath.”

Drawing on Plato’s Republic, the author argues that democracy’s expansion of freedom and equality can erode respect for authority and expertise, produce social fragmentation, and create conditions in which a demagogue can rise by attacking elites and promising to cut through democratic paralysis. Plato’s would-be tyrant exploits popular resentment, presents himself as relief from excess choice and conflict, and ultimately leads citizens to surrender democratic constraints for the promise of order. Watching Donald Trump’s ascent, the author sees unsettling parallels with this dynamic and worries that American democracy’s susceptibility to a charismatic outsider is being tested. While acknowledging Plato’s context and bias, the author contends that the United States historically buffered itself against mob passions through institutions designed to filter popular will, but many of those formal and informal gatekeeping mechanisms have weakened over time. The result, the author suggests, is a more direct and open system that increasingly favors outsiders and may be less protected against the kind of demagoguery that can turn late-stage democracy against itself.

The article traces how Paul Manafort, a veteran Republican “political technologist,” moved from being hired by Donald Trump for delegate strategy to trying to take broader control of the campaign, leveraging decades of convention management and behind-the-scenes influence. It argues that Manafort’s power has long depended on discretion and a “double-breasted” model that fused campaign work with lobbying, extending from major corporations to authoritarian foreign clients. The piece highlights Manafort’s role in Ukraine advising Viktor Yanukovych, portraying it as a consequential example of his ability to reshape perceptions and shift political outcomes, including drawing Ukraine toward Russia’s orbit. It then follows Manafort’s connections to Trump back to Roy Cohn and Manafort’s early partnership with Roger Stone, describing the firm’s rise through Reagan-era patronage networks. The article also notes Trump’s earlier use of the firm’s political tactics in the 1990s, including a racially charged campaign against Native American casino competition that led to a state fine and apology.