Swing State Sweepstakes (with Steve Kornacki)
34:14 Share

Do you want to be a more empowered citizen but don't know where to start? It's time to sharpen your civic vision and ignite the spark for a brighter future. I'm Mila Atmos, and on my weekly podcast, Future Hindsight, I bring you conversations to translate today's most urgent issues into clear, actionable ways to make impact. With so much at stake in our democracy, join us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Thank you.

It's time to cut through the noise and make a real impact. So tune into the future of marketing, a special series from the PropG podcast sponsored by Canva. You can find it on the PropG feed wherever you get your podcasts. From Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is Stay Tuned in Brief. We're now just about three weeks away from the presidential election and the race remains tight and swing states will likely decide the outcome.

What are the key battlegrounds this year? Which voters are shaping the race for the White House? And how can we make sense of the polls? Joining me to discuss is Steve Kornacki. Steve is national political correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC, and he and his fan favorite electoral map have been covering all the latest political news this election season. Steve, welcome to the show. It's a real treat. Great. Thank you for having me. I'm glad to be here. Although this is an audio format, I have to begin my questioning with this. Are you wearing khaki pants?

No, I'm not. I'm wearing comfortable pants. Comfortable, not khaki pants. The record will reflect. Are you anywhere near a scoreboard of any kind? One of my tabs is ESPN.com, so I guess that counts. Okay. So let's get to it. We have a few weeks left before the election, although I guess that's a misnomer because early voting begins in various places. So that's just the end of the election. And so the subject for today is swing states. How many swing states are there?

We say there are seven core battleground states. And how do you define swing state? How close does the race have to be in a state for you to call it a swing state? I think it's a combination of how close it was in the last election, how close it's been, how much money, how much energy is being expended by each campaign. Are they sort of backing up the campaign?

the perception of the state as a swing state by actually treating it as a swing state. And then, you know, the polls in all these states, if you just average them, are no more than, you know, two and a half, three points in either direction. Are any of these seven, I'm going to name them because I think I know what they are, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada. Are those the seven? Seven for seven. Seven for seven. Are those the same seven you would have called swing states in 2020 and 2016?

No, it's a good question because it's a great thing for people to think about. I always, you know, there's an analogy here, I think, to that. What's that thing about the frog who's in the water that's, you know, they're slowly raising the temperature. Boiling water. Yeah, you never notice. And it's sort of, I feel it's the same with sort of the political debate.

the political map of the country, there are these changes that kind of happen and you don't really notice them minute by minute. And then you look up and you realize how much everything's changed. Four years ago at this time, we were talking about Florida and Ohio and Iowa as swing states. Those are now firmly in the GOP column? That's right. These are states that went...

Ohio went eight points for Trump in 2020 on top of going eight points for him in 2016. But folks who have a long memory with this stuff, I suspect some in this audience might, political junkies out there, you might remember the 2004 election came down to Ohio. It was the king of swing states 20 years ago. Florida, the 2000 election, Tim Russert, Florida, Florida, Florida. So what's happened in the last not even decade?

To push Florida, Ohio, and Iowa red.

One word, Trump. You know, Donald Trump's emergence has scrambled aspects of our politics. It's scrambled aspects of each party's demographic coalition. And it's accelerated some of the demographic transformations that were already happening within each party's coalition. And that has really affected a state like Iowa, a state like Ohio. These are states that have longstanding

sort of blue-collar white populations, populations of older blue-collar white voters. And these are voters who were, who voted Democratic, not just at the presidential level, but in, you know, all sorts of state elections, congressional elections, you know, right through until, really until Donald Trump came along. And his relationship

rise kind of precipitated this huge shift in those states among those voters and really kind of realign them. That same type of voter, you know, a blue collar white voter. I mean, we would say sort of statistically a white voter without a four year degree. When you look, you know, in the South at a state like Georgia, for instance, that realignment had happened a long time ago so that the shift wasn't as perceptible. But in those sort of upper Midwest, Midwest states, it's been huge.

So we talked about three states that used to be battleground states, not so much anymore, swing states. Are there any states that are not on this list of seven that used to be that went in favor solidly for Democrats in the last number of years? Sure. I think Virginia would be at the top of that list. I mean, I remember being in my 20s or my 30s.

And Virginia was pretty solidly red, wasn't it? I was going to say, yeah, not just from, I mean, it had a very short period as an actual swing state. It went from, you know, red in 2000, 2004. It was legitimately a swing state in 08 and 12. And by 16, we were treating it as a blue state.

So it really got two cycles there kind of as a swing. We still call it a southern state though, right? That's an interesting debate. Where exactly is the Mason-Dixon line, I think?

I call it Northern Virginia and then the rest of Virginia. And it's Northern Virginia that's really catapulted that state into the Democratic column? That's a very large part of it. You know, when you talk about Fairfax County, you know, Alexandria, Arlington. But also, there's been pretty significant movement in the Richmond suburbs. The traditionally Republican Richmond suburbs, they are still much more politically competitive than

than the immediate D.C. area in northern Virginia. But Democrats have had substantial growth there. And then, you know, I think the sort of the toss-up region would be sort of the Hampton Roads, you know, Norfolk, Virginia Beach, you know, that area. Interesting. There are some states on the battleground list that I recited earlier, you know, given this conversation, that used to be pretty solidly red and now are toss-ups. Let's talk about Georgia. What happened there?

Georgia is demographic transformation is a huge part of it. You know, the Atlanta metro area is one of the fastest growing metros in the United States. Just sort of massive in-migration population growth and the, you know, demographically, the groups that are kind of, you know, migrating into that area, you're seeing a population that's diversifying significantly.

It's younger, college educated often. These are sort of demographic categories that really favor Democrats. And so you're just seeing there's sort of a nine-county core in and around Atlanta, Fulton County, where Atlanta is. I call it the blue blob of Georgia. Yeah.

just dramatic population growth in these places. And it's just every election, a lot of these counties by leaps and bounds are becoming more democratic. Cobb County, which is right outside, you know, Atlanta, kind of a classic Atlanta suburban county. The Atlanta Braves moved up there a few years ago. Some folks might remember this was a core Republican county for

For decades, George W. Bush just clobbered Kerry there, Mitt Romney over Obama, and now it's a double-digit Democratic county. This just happened in the Trump era. In 2016, it was basically dead even, and then in 2020, it was a 14-point Biden win. And it's massive. It's massive. It's growing. Do you think that Georgia will go the way of Virginia, that in four or eight years, we'll be talking about it as a solidly blue state, or do you think it'll remain a swing state for several cycles?

It's it's offset what I'm sort of describing there is is still offset by there's a very large kind of rest of the state area where Republicans, you know, still can can run up the score and they still can make up for a lot of a lot of what they might lose. I think that where Republicans have to worry and where I'm going to look in Georgia on election night is just outside that nine county blue blob I'm describing.

And there are two counties. One is Cherokee County and one is Forsyth County. And Cherokee County is one of the top. It's big. And it's I would say it's exurban in character. It is one of the top vote producing plurality producing, I should say, counties in the United States for the Republican Party.

And what's happened there is Trump will win it. Trump will win it decisively. But we're seeing a Republican margin that's come down from, you know, a decade ago, like 60 points down to about 40 points. And in a county the size of Cherokee that the Republicans really count on to sort of, as I say, offset all those other areas, they can't afford.

can't afford more slippage there. And Forsyth next door, it's a pretty similar story. So those are two places I'm going to spend an awful lot of time on election night looking. Have the Democrats made further inroads there? Because if it's down to 35 or something, the math gets very hard for Republicans. Let's talk about North Carolina. Do I remember correctly that it was North Carolina that effectively put Barack Obama over the top in 08?

Uh, he did win it. Um, I'm trying to remember that night too. I don't think, I don't think it gave him 270, but my, my recollection is, and there was, there was, there was champagne freely flowing where I was.

That seemed to seal the deal for him, even if it didn't put him at 270. But it was a long time ago, so I may have forgotten. Sure. Yeah. I mean, it was a momentous win for Democrats. You know, really, they're only one in sort of the modern era, you know, in North Carolina, you know, on a night when Obama got up to 365 electoral votes. So it was, you know, it was a huge win for them. And they... But then not since...

Yeah, I mean, I'd say they did come. They came close in 12. And I think in the context of 2012, a little closer than some people were expecting. It's an interesting state because it's, you know, it's next to Georgia there. But it hasn't swung and bounced around the way Georgia has, you know, where Georgia was.

you know, eight points for Romney, five points for Trump, 2016 flips over to Biden. Carolina kind of swings in that, you know, Obama wins it by two points. He loses it by two. Trump wins it by three. He wins it by a point and a half. It stays, it's a much, it's much less elastic. I think that's the term that's kind of in vogue. It's a less elastic state politically. I have a question about Pennsylvania. I want to spend a couple of minutes on Pennsylvania. You wrote recently about

that when Trump first came on the scene in 2016, the Democratic advantage in party registration in Pennsylvania was over 900,000 votes. It's almost a million. And you're saying in this piece, look at 2024, that's been cut almost in two thirds down to about 330,000. How can you have a 570,000 party registration swing in favor of the Republicans and the state is still a dead heat?

It's related to what I was describing a minute ago about that blue-collar white demographic, white voters without four-year degrees in sort of the northern tier of battleground states. These are voters, again, who in a lot of cases a decade ago or even a couple of years ago might still have just called themselves Democrats. And if they didn't, many of them were just registered as Democrats. It just was sort of an ancestral thing. So you're saying that in recent years –

the party registration didn't reflect the actual voting habits. It did right up until 2016. You know, I mean, the swimmers... I see, I see. So the party registration is lagging.

Yeah, by a couple of years, I would say. And I think it's I think it's it's catching up. And the other thing is just if you if you really zoom out and look at it over like a, you know, decades long thing, there was a huge this wasn't just Pennsylvania. There was a huge shift to Democrats when Obama came on the scene. Oh, seven. Oh, eight. And in some states, there's just you could if you do a line graph, it just explodes with Obama. And there's sort of a longer term, you know, evening out. So it's a little bit of a long artifact of that, too.

Is there a most important swing state among these seven? And if so, why is it Pennsylvania?

I would look at it as Pennsylvania just be numerically. I mean, it's 19 electoral votes. Is that the biggest one of these? Yeah. Okay. And then Georgia, Carolina would both be 16. Michigan would be 15. 11, Arizona, 10, Wisconsin. So Pennsylvania, is there any, from your reporting or observation, is there any buyer's remorse on Tim Walz versus Josh Shapiro given the electoral bounty in Pennsylvania? Yeah.

Um, to me, that's the one that that's the post election. If Harris loses and she loses Pennsylvania, they're going to blame that. That's going to be the what if that hovers over politics for a few years. Any other state among the seven that is interesting in your mind?

I guess we're all interesting, but... Yeah, yeah. The northern ones are to me just in the sense that you have that added layer of this is where the polls were off in both 16 and 20, and particularly in Wisconsin and Michigan more so than Pennsylvania. Yeah, why were the polls... What's in the air or the water there that the polls are off? Yeah, not to be a broken record, but it's the blue-collar-white demographic there.

The depth of their support for Trump, the scale of their turnout on Election Day was not adequately captured in the polling at the state level in either 16 or 20. There's a lot of theories about why those voters were missed, but they were. And so it hovers over those states more than the others. The polling was pretty good, actually, in Georgia. It was good in Arizona. The misses were Wisconsin, Michigan.

In the science of polling, which I only vaguely understand, is it the case that you have an under-assumption or an over-assumption of a particular category of voter in one cycle? Don't you then accommodate that and realign your model for the next time? And does that fix the problem? Or then do new distortions enter into the fray in those four years, rendering polling just inherently these days unstable and unreliable?

Well, not to get too wonky about it, but the quick history of 16 to 24 on this stuff in those states is that traditionally what a lot of pollsters did, you know, when they looked at any state was they looked at the broad demographic categories. So like, you know, by race, white, black, Hispanic, and they would make sure that the pool of respondents reflected, you know, what the statewide mix was.

And what happened in 2016 was there's this trend in our politics, as I said, that exploded when Trump came along, where you look at the white vote and you could split it in half. And the white voters with four-year degrees are getting more Democratic, and now it's exploded. White voters without four-year degrees are getting more Republican. Trump comes along and it explodes. So there's a chasm between the two groups right now. And so it turned out when you looked at the 16 polls that just having a representative number of white voters in the polls was

If you had too many white voters with college degrees, you didn't have the right mix. And it skewed your poll. And that's what happened. So the fix that was supposed to get this all done for 2020 was, you might have heard the term, waiting by education. And, you know, they were going to make sure that the white sample now reflected the college-non-college divide. And yet it happened again, the same miss. And so where I think it falls then, the explanation is you can get

So Trump is going to win the non-college white vote, let's say, by 35 points, 68, 32, something like this. So you're taking your poll and you're trying to make sure you get the right number of white voters without college degrees. Well, if that's a demographic, if the pro-Trump side of that demographic, for whatever reason, lots of theories on it, does not want to take your poll or is refusing to take your poll, then you're going to keep poking around and eventually you're going to get the much smaller side of that.

white non-college electorate that's actually democratic. And I think that's what ended up happening in 2020. They got the right number, quote unquote, of white voters without college degrees, but they happened to get the democratic side of it, which does exist just in smaller numbers. And so the real question, I think, that looms over 24 in the polling in these states now is whatever that was that was keeping –

a shy Trump voter effect. There's all these theories that have been advanced. Has that been addressed? Is that less of a thing? Is that not a thing anymore? Because if it's not, then these polls are much more accurate. Is that an ambulance full of Democrats rushing to Pennsylvania? I was hoping that wasn't the perils of Midtown Manhattan. This is the, you know, but I want to acknowledge the ambulance. I have a question that occurred to me as you were speaking in trying to figure out

how to predict an election. What do you make of these betting sites? Various prominent people, particularly wealthy folks who have a big microphone, I won't name any names, turn to the betting sites, which at least

in the last few days showed a tilt away from Kamala Harris. One I saw, I can't vouch for the popularity of any particular betting site, but it was 54% Trump, 46% Kamala Harris. And people will say, well, these are better and more accurate than the polls because there's real money on the line. But the people who are betting don't know any better than anyone else. Is there any correlation between what the betting sites say and actual election results?

So, yeah, I haven't looked close enough to give you a definitive answer here. My experience with these in the past, you know, looking at them, you know, without any precision has been I I've noticed like when it comes to what I have in my mind here is the veep stakes here.

I remember looking at some of the stuff around the Veepstakes this time, 2020, and seeing some kind of what I thought were clearly ridiculous possibilities. It seemed like there was a lot of money in there that if you were kind of reasonably sharp, you could potentially take advantage of. That was my impression of it. Can we talk about Texas? Is this...

a quixotic hope of the Democrats to turn that big, gigantic warehouse of electoral college votes blue? It is. It's the way whale for them. Yeah. I mean, always talking about it. Right. That would be game changing. If Texas turned into Virginia, that would be a game change in electoral politics, right?

Certainly a state that size. What Democrats are running up against, there's a couple of things, but the unexpected thing they're running up against in Texas is what we saw in 2020 and what the polling is suggesting has has actually accelerated in 2024. And that is the movement of Hispanic voters away from the Democratic Party that they've been more traditionally aligned with and toward the Donald Trump Republican Party, obviously.

It was most pronounced in Texas in 2020 in deep South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley, you know, around the border. You could light up some of those border counties. I mean, there's one I have in mind that Hillary Clinton had won. It's 97% Hispanic right on the border. Hillary Clinton won it by 60 points in 2016, 6-0. And Joe Biden won it by five in 2020. So what happened? 55 point loss. Um,

This is where the Republicans and the Trump Republicans actually have. And this this turned up in our recent NBC poll. We took a national poll of Hispanic voters and we found that Donald Trump has a double digit advantage over Kamala Harris on the border. And these counties pretend to be.

particularly on the border in Texas, where you saw the most dramatic shift, you know, from the Democrats to Trump. And I think the border had a lot to do with that. I think more broadly, when you get away from those counties, there is a broader shift of Hispanic voters away from the Democratic Party. And there you see it

What's emerging is an age gap and a gender gap. Hispanic voters under 50, much more than Hispanic voters over 50, moving toward the Republicans. Male Hispanic voters, much more than female voters. In fact, you barely see it among females. But our NBC National poll of Hispanic voters had the Trump-Harris race essentially tied among men and Harris up 26 among women, Hispanic women.

I feel like it's a common refrain among political commentators to say that Trump just plays to his base, whatever that means, that he's not trying to expand his constituency. And yet he has, hasn't he? In the way that you describe.

Yeah. And I think the thing with Trump is you wonder, you know, a lot of campaigns will try to design and draw up the strategy that's going to win the new constituency. And I suspect that the thing that's happened with Trump is there's there's an improvisational quality to a lot of what he does. And it's almost it's almost accidental, but it happens. And it's so interesting.

I find it one of the kind of, you know, incredible ironies of our modern American politics. If you can think back to the end of the 2012 election when Obama beat Romney and the Republican National Committee commissioned what they called their autopsy report on the 2012 election. And they came up with, OK, they said they lost the Hispanic vote by 46 points.

And how they said, how are we going to fix this? And they came up with a roadmap which involved embracing comprehensive immigration reform path to citizenship, moderating rhetoric on immigration and the border. And what they got in 2016 was Trump. And if the polling is accurate, what's going to emerge from 2024 win or lose for the Republicans is is the most sort of racially and ethnically diverse coalition they've put together in modern times.

Maybe the answer to this is Pennsylvania for both subparts of my next question, but maybe not. If you are a enthusiastic Democrat and you want to help Democrats win the White House this November, where is it that you should go volunteer? And same question for a Republican.

Yeah, I mean, it is like Pennsylvania is kind of the boring answer. I only say it because I just I play with the 270 scenario so much. And just, you know, if you lose Pennsylvania, you necessarily have to win two others to make up for it because nothing else is quite as big. But I would say, you know, the one that has kind of the game changing potential, I think, you know, either way would be North Carolina. And I said, because that's the one of the seven

that was a red state in 2020. The other six were all blue states. So Trump and the Republicans are playing offense in six swing states.

And most of their scenarios kind of assume that they hold North Carolina, the one that they were able to get in 20. If they lose that, that's the only one that brings their math backwards. And it's a big one, you know, 16 electoral votes. So, you know, I think for Republicans, you really want to protect that one because a lot hinges on it. And for Democrats, you could shut a lot down if you could flip that one. Will we know in all likelihood who has won the election on election night?

It's possible, but there are a lot of things that prolong the result in 2020 that have not changed significantly.

in 2024. And the three states where I think that's the most pronounced in would be Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. If Arizona and Nevada are reasonably competitive, it's almost necessarily going to take till later in the week or the weekend to get those states called. It's just the way these elections are administered, there's going to be a big, big pileup of ballots that they take some days to process.

Pennsylvania is one where I'm not quite sure what to think. We obviously it took till Saturday after the election last time around. The reason it did was they introduced a vote by mail, obviously a COVID thing in 2020. And, you know, they were just overwhelmed with these ballots. What made it really difficult for Pennsylvania in 2020 was they couldn't the counties and the vote sites closed.

by law, could not begin processing the mail of ballots until 7 a.m. on Election Day. And processing, I mean, it's a process, you know, to open the envelope, match signatures. It takes a long time. It's cumbersome.

Now, in 2024, that law has not changed. So that's why there's the potential, I think, for Pennsylvania to go real long again. But balance it with I suspect we won't have the same scale of vote by mail this time around as we did in 20. And these counties, you know.

Again, procedurally, their hands are tied, but they also they do know a little bit more about, I think, how to how to handle this. So that may speed things up, too. But that processing, you know, a lot of other states, you can they can spend weeks before the election processing these mail in ballots so that, you know, come Election Day, they treat them like any other ballot. They just stick them in machine. They vote. They count them up and and spit them out. And it takes a couple of minutes. You know, not so in Pennsylvania. Yeah.

So I've been assuming that if Donald Trump wins the presidency again, that that's the universe in which he will also get the Senate to be Republican. Is that fair? Yeah, I think it's hard to see how that wouldn't be the case. Okay. What about the other way around? If Kamala Harris wins the presidency, not a done deal for the Senate with the Democrats or yes? Um...

It's unlikely because the simple math is if the Democrats lose two out of West Virginia, which everyone assumes is already, you know, is gone for them. Yeah. Montana and Ohio, you know, barring a surprise loss somewhere else, the Republicans are at 51. So Democrats are probably going to win Ohio. Am I right?

I, here's the thing that- Steve, Steve, come on. What Democrats are up against- I get 10 emails a day from Sherrod Brown. Surely, surely he has a lot of money. Yeah. Well, not counting texts. Yeah.

In 2016 and 2020, the two previous times Trump was on the ballot, there's a grand total of one single state where the vote for president and the vote for Senate diverged by party. And that was Maine in 2020. Susan Collins, Republican, wins. Joe Biden wins the state.

And the fear for Democrats is that they've got some Senate candidates right now who are looking pretty good, even in states that are, you know, overall very competitive at the presidential level or, you know, Harris is even leading in some polls in the presidential level. The fear for Democrats, though, is that 16 and 20 told us these things ultimately sync up.

that voters ultimately get to the polls and, you know, if they're voting for Trump, they're voting Republican. If they're voting for Harris, they're voting Democratic down the line. And do these advantages that these Democratic Senate candidates, somebody like Sherrod Brown, who's certainly outpacing Trump in Ohio, but his victory requires necessarily a significant number of Trump voters to vote Democratic for Senate. Does that disappear when people actually get the ballot? That's the sort of the wild card there and elsewhere.

I just want to point out for the record that as you were speaking, I looked at my laptop and I got a notification of an email from Sherrod Brown. We summoned it. I was going to read it aloud, but we don't have the time. But everyone, if you're listening and you're a Democrat, please support Sherrod Brown. Get more people to the polls on your side in Ohio. Do you spend time thinking of, or is it a useless exercise, but do you spend time thinking of

what a reasonable scenario is that will unfold given the best information you have about where each state is, or is that an impossibility? Sort of gaming out election, I mean. Yeah. Yeah, we actually have- Like a plausible, like what's, you know, putting all the, you know, hand-wringing aside and overconfidence aside, what's a plausible scenario for Kamala Harris? What's a plausible scenario for Donald Trump?

Most plausible scenario for Kamala Harris is just something I think that involves massive suburban turnout, further Democratic gains in the suburbs. And they made substantial gains, you know, last time around. And, you know, a Trump scenario, I think, involves minimizing the suburban bleeding and realizing the kinds of gains among nonwhite voters. Hispanic voters are

largely, but also black voters, black male voters. That's where you see a little bit in the polls actually realizing those, you know, on election day. And Pennsylvania is a real interesting state, as good as any, because the

Those suburbs right outside Philadelphia, I'm going to look at Chester County in particular. There's no county in Pennsylvania that's become more Democratic in the Trump era than Chester County. Is Harris, you know, getting an even bigger number there than Biden got in 2020? And what does the turnout look like? And there's a string of, you know, small cities, midsize cities throughout eastern Pennsylvania. Some call it the Latino belt cities like, you know, Hazleton and

Allentown and Redding, where if the Trump gains with Hispanic voters are real, he's going to, you know, dramatically reduce what's been a pretty big Democratic advantage in a lot of those places. And that would counter Democratic gains in the suburbs. So those are, you know, are both of those things happening? Is one happening more than the other? Is one not happening? Those are some of the places I'd look for and things I'd look for. On election night, November 5th,

What is the ballpark figure that reflects the number of hours of sleep you'll get that night? Is it an above zero number or not? Oh, it's zero. Zero. Because it's, I can almost- So what do you do? Do you carbo load? Do you drink a lot of coffee that night? Like how do you, what's your training regimen for election night? It's, election night is not tough. If I got to go around the clock on election night, and I fully expect that the pattern on this is,

Wisconsin will, I'm guessing, will come down to the city of Milwaukee, which counts its absentee vote. That would be the mail-in vote, the early vote on its own. It generally gets released three, four, five in the morning. And in two straight elections, that's where the election's been decided when that comes out. So I suspect Wisconsin will be called...

somewhere in that window, and that could be decisive for the presidential election. So I'm planning to be up overnight election night and for it to be pretty dramatic. And the drama unfolding keeps me awake. It's more when we get into four or five days, that's when I start to feel it. Do you sleep like 10 hours on November 4th? I...

I left in 2020. We called the election 1138 a.m. And I was on a little bit of a high after because it's just what a week it's been, all this stuff. But I got home and I closed my eyes about 630 that night and I woke up at 1130 the next morning. Oh, my gosh. Wow. Like college again. It's the longest I've ever slept, I think, in my life. Did executives from NBC come and try to arouse you?

I know. I gave them strict orders not to call me. Okay. Do not rouse. Steve Kornacki, it's been a real delight to have you. We'll be watching your coverage. Thanks so much and see you soon. Really enjoyed it. Thank you. For more analysis of legal and political issues making the headlines, become a member of the Cafe Insider. Members get access to exclusive content, including the weekly podcast I host with former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.

Head to cafe.com slash insider to sign up for a trial. That's cafe.com slash insider.

Or you can send an email to letters at cafe.com.

Stay tuned as presented by Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tadishore. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noah Azoulay and Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernandez. And the Cafe team is Matthew Billy, Nat Wiener, and Leanna Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost.

I'm your host, Preet Bharara. As always, stay tuned. Creativity is one of the core traits that makes us human. It allows us to tell stories, to create, and to solve problems in new and exciting ways. So why does it feel so threatened? With new technological advances that can create art in milliseconds, where does that leave us? In this special three-part series, we wanted to ask...

How can we save and celebrate creativity? Tune into Saving Creativity, a special series from The Gray Area sponsored by Canva. You can find it on The Gray Area feed wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back with Canva Presents Secret Sounds, Work Edition. Caller, guess this sound.

click. So close. That's actually publishing a website with Canva docs. Next caller. Definitely a mouse click. Nice try. It was sorting a hundred sticky notes with a Canva whiteboard. We also would have accepted resizing a Canva video into 10 different sizes. What? No way. Yes way. One click can go a long way. Love your work at Canva.com.