The episode centers on Trump’s post-election efforts to overturn the 2020 result, with the hosts describing a “low-energy” but still dangerous attempt involving legal theatrics, pressure on certification boards, and officials being punished for disputing fraud claims. They argue that while the effort looks incompetent and is unlikely to succeed because the margin wasn’t close, it has been politically effective at binding much of the Republican Party and its voters to the narrative that the election was stolen. The conversation turns to Georgia, praising Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger for resisting intense pressure from Trump allies while warning that ongoing “rigged election” rhetoric could depress GOP turnout ahead of the Senate runoffs. They also discuss how Republican ambitions for 2024 are constrained by Trump’s hold on the party, and they criticize conservative attacks on Raphael Warnock’s religious sermon as hypocritical and racially inflected.

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.