Speaker 1: With the upcoming election, how do you feel about the future of our country and the state of our country? How's that making you feel?

Speaker 2: So depressed.

Speaker 3: Honestly, I don't feel very hopeful.

Speaker 4: I feel like things are quite grim.

Speaker 5: I think I'm nervous for it more than anything else.

Speaker 6: It feels like there's nothing good that is going to come from it.

Speaker 5: I went and voted locally. I was the only person in the voting booth. It's so disheartening and makes me not want to vote anymore.

Speaker 7: I just wish that there were more people on the ballot. It's crazy that we have to choose between Trump and Biden.

Speaker 8: It's like lose, lose. Which is the lesser of two evils? Voting for Trump would be capitulating to a hard-right agenda, but the Democrats have done a miserable job of moving Joe along. I'm hoping for a convention surprise.

Speaker 9: I think there's a fire that needs to be put out, but I don't know where the firemen are.

Kai Wright: It's Notes from America. I'm Kai Wright. Welcome to the show. I think it was the moment at which President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump began to incoherently argue over their golf scores. I think that was the moment, late into the excruciating 90 minutes of their first debate, when my heart fully broke. This, I thought, is what our celebrated democracy has produced.

Generations of people have fought and died to protect a system that could reliably generate this, two men, both in the late years of their lives, both of whom have already spent decades as rich and powerful people, both of whom have already been president, and neither of whom can conceive of a future in which they aren't in charge. They would both like us to know something about their frigging golf handicap or whatever that is still quite frankly lost on me. I am sad, angry, and terrified about the future.

Just being honest, y'all, that's where I'm at. What about you? Today, we're going to hold the latest in our series of vibe checks with you on this election and your participation in our democratic process. In previous vibe checks, we've talked to new Trump voters, we've talked to conservatives who still say they can't get down with Trump. We talked with Democrats upset about the administration's support for Israel's war in Gaza. Today, the phones are open for any of you who planned, at least as of Thursday night, to vote for Joe Biden.

You could be anywhere on that spectrum of support. Maybe you've been super excited about President Biden and his record all along, or maybe you're just a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, and that's how you vote no matter who the candidate is. Or maybe you don't care about Biden himself, you want to beat Trump. Wherever you stand on that spectrum as a Biden supporter, I want to hear what you're thinking and feeling after the debate. You can call or text us with your thoughts, feelings, and questions about Joe Biden's reelection campaign.

I'm going to be joined by a couple of guests, starting with New York Times columnist, Lydia Polgreen, who is co-host also of the Matter of Opinion podcast at the Times. Lydia, welcome back to our show.

Lydia Polgreen: It's great to be here, Kai.

Kai Wright: Okay, so the debate itself.

Lydia Polgreen: Oh, brother.

Kai Wright: I want to be very clear about avoiding false equivalencies. Let's do start with Donald Trump. Actually, because it's not like his performance was stellar, and it is a TV program, so we are talking about political performances. Many have said Former President Trump, unabashedly let loose a torrent of demonstrable lies. It felt to me like he reached for new lows in finding ways to slur the human beings who migrate to our southern border. For you, what did you see in Trump on Thursday night?

Lydia Polgreen: I saw really a kind of deteriorated and diminished Trump. He was just omnidirectional lying, had a relentless stream, I think, of falsehoods and exaggerations, but also these moments and flashes of discipline. For example, he clearly had an answer ready for the January 6th question, which was, everything in America was doing great until January 6th. He had a way of countering it that basically didn't get at the substance of his role in undermining democracy.

The format of the debate really favored him in the sense that the moderators were not going to fact-check him. It was really on Joe Biden to come back strong with, "Sir, that is a lie," or, "Mifepristone was not approved by the Supreme Court. This is not what's happening." Joe Biden was just 100% unable to meet that challenge. It was just absolutely shocking and devastating to see.

Kai Wright: Meanwhile, what's happened in the opinion pages of The New York Times over the past few days, we have to say, it feels quite unprecedented. You wrote a column, and we're going to get to that in great detail. First, just the overall vibe. We are talking a long list of, honestly, this truly establishment liberals calling for President Biden to step aside. Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, Bret Stephens, Michelle Gold-- Of course, the editorial board of The Times itself. That's just some of your colleagues not even getting past the pages of The New York Times.

These are not Bernie Bros, these are not Biden haters, these are some of his most ardent supporters. How would you characterize the reaction you've seen in the past few days?

Lydia Polgreen: Don't forget my colleague and fellow podcaster, Ezra Klein, who took a tremendous amount of flack some months ago. He was really early on this train, I think based on reporting that he had done from people around Biden saying, "Look, it's not that he's not prepared to be president or not capable of being president and conducting the job of president, but is he capable of mounting a campaign to run for the presidency?"

Ezra made the call that there should be some kind of open convention or things like that. He's been on that train for months. The debate, I think, really exposed just how correct he was about that. I think that in some ways, the response that you're seeing from my fellow columnists and from the editorial board, was a sign of just how absolutely shocking Biden's performance was.

Look, I don't know if you've seen it, but there's a video circulating on social media that-- it may have been made by people close to Trump or just people who don't like Biden, but it's just, without any commentary, a side-by-side comparison of Biden on the debate stage in 2019 and Biden on the debate stage last week, and it is shocking. It's just absolutely shocking. The man could not finish his sentences. It's hard to watch something like that and not think, not only should this guy be running for president again, but should he even be president now, is I think a fair question.

Kai Wright: It really forced, and I've seen several people say this, questions about the credibility of people around him who have been making the case for months that this is not what's happening. It really did raise questions just about credibility. For a White House, that's all about the whole thing, is that we are the adults, we're credible.

Lydia Polgreen: Yes. There was some reporting that came out from Axios that basically said from 10:00 AM to 4:00 AM, he's just great. The presidency is not a 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM job. It just isn't. It's a 24/7 job. I think that's right. I think that some of the reporting that we're seeing today about what's happening with the Biden family, they're right now gathered at Camp David. On the one hand, you could see a family coming together and having serious discussions about what to do in the wake of something like this, but what are they actually doing? They're being photographed by Annie Leibovitz.

Kai Wright: To be fair, was it planned in advance?

Lydia Polgreen: It was planned in advance, but hey, you can cancel something that's planned in advance. Again, the optics of canceling it might have made it seem like they were really seriously considering dropping out, et cetera, et cetera. A lot of what we're seeing is people saying, "Well, he wasn't properly prepared by the staff, or he was over prepared by the staff. Give me a break." Joe Biden has been in public life a long time. He has done many, many, many debates. He did two vice presidential debates.

He did debates during the primary last year. This is not someone who can blame anybody for lack of preparation. This guy's been in public life too long for that.

Kai Wright: It really is difficult to take. Let's start hearing your counter case for Kamala Harris.

Lydia Polgreen: [chuckles] A lot of my colleagues did write saying that Joe Biden should step aside. As the saying goes, didn't want to just curse the darkness. I tried to light a candle. I think that I was inspired to write this in part by seeing quite impressive performance of Kamala Harris, who was interviewed by Anderson Cooper, and I think also later by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. She just was exactly what you would've wanted to see on that debate stage. She was sharp. She was charismatic. She had clear answers on the issues that matter most.

First and foremost, abortion, a subject on which she's been a very, very passionate advocate. It occurred to me that the easiest and cleanest way to move forward here is to actually just follow the path of succession and hand over the campaign to Kamala Harris, who is obviously the vice president. People say, "Well, she's not that popular." Actually, that's not true. If you look at the polling, and there was some polling that the Data for Progress put out the day after the debate, I think was meant to show that Biden remained the most popular of all of the alternatives because people have been talking about.

Well, what if we could get Gretchen Whitmer or what if we could get Josh Shapiro, and all of these sort of-

Kai Wright: Gavin Newsom, Jared Polis.

Lydia Polgreen: -exciting governors and people who we've never-- all of whom happen to be either white or male. We can discuss that later how that might play into it. This chart showed that Biden performed best against Trump, but his performance was matched by Kamala Harris, right? I would argue that there's actually more upside for Kamala Harris just because she is able, in a way that Biden has not been able to, to really take the fight to Donald Trump. Look, people will say she got nowhere in the primary race.

She dropped out before her home state's vote. I think she dropped out in 2019, in fact, because she didn't want to be humiliated by losing the vote in her home state, but I think people are being really unrealistic. Winning a primary is very different than what we're facing right now.

Kai Wright: Well, put a pin in that. I'm talking with New York Times columnist, Lydia Polgreen, who is one of many, many liberal and left commentators who have urged President Biden to step aside. She's making the case for Vice President Kamala Harris. Our phones are open for people who were supporting Joe Biden, at least through Thursday. What are you thinking and feeling now that the debate is over? Coming up, we'll take your calls and more with Lydia. Stay with us.

It's Notes from America. I'm Kai Wright, and we're talking about the reaction among democratic voters and Biden supporters in general to last week's debate in which even the president acknowledges it was not a good look for him. I'm joined by New York Times columnist, Lydia Polgreen, who's made a case for the president to end his campaign and for the party to throw its weight behind Vice President Kamala Harris.

We are taking calls from listeners who have been Biden supporters. What are you thinking? Let's get a couple of calls in. Let's go to Natalie in Cleveland. Natalie, welcome to the show.

Natalie: Thank you so much for having me. Appreciate it.

Kai Wright: What are you thinking, Natalie?

Natalie: It was a really hard debate to watch. I have to be honest for myself and a lot of friends of mine here in Ohio, who are very keen on a Democratic president in the past and moving in the future, and have been very happy with a lot of what President Biden has done. It was hard to watch. It was almost-- you couldn't watch it at all.

Kai Wright: What does it mean for you, Natalie? How does it change your vote or your participation, or how does it impact you?

Natalie: Now, my first thought that I want to share, that I've heard echoed from a lot of other people with my mindset is that, is this the best we can do for both parties? I think electing somebody who is at this starting age for either side should be a non-starter. They should have been working for the party and trying to bring other people up through and giving Kamala Harris more visibility and more opportunities to tell people who she is and show them who she is through giving her more of an active role through his presidency.

I really haven't seen her take the front stage very often, which has been disappointing because I do really think that she's a very bright, smart, eloquent woman, and I would love to see her take on that role. Is this too late in the process, though, for where we are for coming into November? I don't know that if we change candidates at this point that we're going to be able to elect them.

Kai Wright: I'm going to leave it there for you, Natalie, because not surprisingly, we have a lot of calls, so thank you for that. Let's go to Minoleta in Los Angeles. Minoleta, welcome to the show.

Minoleta: Hi, thanks so much for taking my call. I actually think that people are being a little bit hard on Biden, and I'm surprised that I'm saying this. I was originally a Bernie bro, and I always will be, but the thing is, we knew he was old. We knew he was old. We knew that he had a stutter. These are not surprises. These are the choices that we have right now. Alternatives would've been great, but the party should have been fighting a little bit harder for that.

Now, I think it's really just-- it's terrible the way that people have come out and just really trash Biden so hard. I don't think that he did that bad considering that-- we know that he is old.

Kai Wright: It didn't surprise you. Okay. Thank you for that. Similar text message. "These are the cards we've been dealt this election. It is not ideal, but if we want to stand for democracy, we need to rally around our democratic nominee and fight for this country in the rule of law." A Bernie supporter who says, "You're being too hard on Biden." Biden supporter says, "You're being too hard on Biden," and a Biden supporter who says, "I'm concerned." You want to react to any of that, Lydia?

Lydia Polgreen: Yes. I think I can understand all of those responses. There is stages of grief aspect to all of this, right? That makes a lot of sense. I guess the thing that concerns me-- just to take those one by one, we have a ticket, right? There is a ticket and the ticket includes a president and a vice president. The whole purpose of the vice presidency, other than breaking ties in the Senate, is to stand in when the President cannot serve.

There actually is a perfectly legitimate constitutionally created path to hand over to the vice president, and if Joe Biden were to say, "You know what? I'm actually not going to stand for another term." He could very honorably say, "I served, I stopped Donald Trump. I chose an excellent vice president. I have all the faith in the world in her ability to lead us through this next chapter. She would inherit the tens of millions of dollars in the Biden War chest."

This idea that we've chosen our horse and we've got to ride the race with it. I actually don't believe that because this is an alternative that is very real and very clear.

Kai Wright: It's his path out without shame. That was the most compelling thing I thought in your column, is that he's able to say, "This is my chosen successor. I'm going to step aside."

Lydia Polgreen: Absolutely. I think that, in some ways, the most disastrous thing would be for him to say, "I'm going to step aside, and I'm not sure the person that I chose as my vice president is the right person to serve." What does that say about him and his judgment, and what does that do to his legacy? Look, I understand people wanting to feel for Joe Biden. He's an extraordinary public servant. He's someone who has devoted his life to trying to make the country better. I like Joe Biden. I voted for Joe Biden.

I believe that he is a good man who's trying his best, but I've seen people age and decline, and it can be very, very hard to have these hard conversations with them about what they can and can't do. It's one thing when it's your grandmother, and you're saying, "Look, I'm sorry, grandma, you can't drive anymore." This is the presidency.

Kai Wright: Yes. Another text message from a listener says, "I'm sad, mad, scared, and depressed about our choice. I'll never, ever vote for Trump, and for the next decade, most likely never a Republican. Biden needs to pass the torch." On that emotional note, let's bring in another thinker into this conversation. Christopher Ojeda is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California Merced, where he's focused on how citizens think about and engage with politics.

His forthcoming book, The Sad Citizen, examines how contemporary democratic politics makes citizens feel depressed. It's going to be released next spring. Christopher, welcome to Notes from America.

Christopher Ojeda: Thank you for having me, Kai.

Kai Wright: Okay, you've been listening. You watched the debate. Just given your research, your top-line reactions to what has unfolded in the days since this debate happened. What does it bring to mind for you?

Christopher Ojeda: Well, I'm seeing a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum, feeling a wide variety of emotions, and especially among Biden supporters. I think there's a sense of disappointment and how he performed in the debate. Disappointment is a response to dashed expectations. We had hoped he would do better. He didn't perform to our expectations. Now, we're feeling a little unsure of what we should do. There are other feelings as well. People are feeling anxious about the possibility that Trump will win. Some people are feeling angry that maybe Biden hasn't dropped out of the race.

I think people are just trying to think about how do I manage these variety of emotions that I'm feeling that some of your callers were talking about as we move into this election season.

Kai Wright: One of the things that stands out in your research is, I gather there is a functional difference for people between experiencing depression and experiencing anxiety in a political moment like this. What is the distinction and how does it impact the ways that people are likely to engage or not engage with the election?

Christopher Ojeda: Yes, that's a great question. Anxiety is really about the future and the possibility of some kind of threat. There's some threat. We think something bad is going to happen in the future, and we feel anxious about it. When we feel anxious, we become more mobilized. We want to act, diffuse the threat. Maybe we search for information to learn more about the situation. Maybe we try to enlist some help to neutralize the threat. Anxiety is a very mobilizing emotion. It's very forward-oriented.

Depression is the opposite. It's about loss. We've lost something in the past and we don't feel like we can get it back. We have this sense of hopelessness. It leads us to become demobilized. We withdraw from the situation. The thing's been lost, we can't get it back. What's the point in trying to act? It's interesting in elections that as I wrote about in my book, we often feel anxiety during election seasons. We're anxious that our candidate is not going to win. After the election, if our candidate loses, we often feel depressed.

That's that loss that occurred in the past. What's really interesting about this election season is that I'm sensing there's a lot of depression before the election has even occurred because people already feel like with these two candidates, it doesn't matter who wins or loses, everyone's losing already. There's not a good choice available to us. They were feeling that sense of loss before we even got to the election.

Kai Wright: I stumble for a minute because it is difficult to say that there isn't materially policy-wise, a difference between these two candidates. To the contrary, you just couldn't have two more stark visions for the future of the country and to people who have served as president. We have ample evidence of what they would do regardless of what they say now. Yet I acknowledge being amongst those who feel depressed, who feel what you're describing, Christopher, that it feels like there's no difference between the two.

Lydia, I don't know, what do you think about that fact that this idea that Christopher is saying, people feel depressed, feel like there's no difference, but materially, I'm looking at it, there's a stark difference. What do you make about that?

Lydia Polgreen: Yes, I think there's a huge difference obviously. Just look at the way in which Donald Trump's one-term presidency has really shaped our lives. I think that it actually speaks to a sense of powerlessness and impotence that runs quite a bit deeper. Recently, I was having a conversation on my podcast with my co-hosts about the Supreme Court. I have been voting as a citizen of the United States since 1996. That was the first election that I voted in. I'm 48 years old. From 1996 until now, there has been one Republican president who has won the popular vote.

That was George W. Bush in his second term. Yet, I will probably face the rest of my lifetime under a Supreme Court that is completely dominated by conservative Republicans who are completely out of step with where most Americans are. I bring that out as a data point because I think that for me explains some of the feeling of apathy and powerlessness and that it doesn't make a difference one way or the other to people. This sense of gridlock in Washington that nothing can actually happen. We know that policy gets made at the moment.

If you're even paying attention, you know that the only way a big bill gets passed is through "reconciliation" that Congress is essentially broken that all of these things. If you're a person who isn't paying close attention to politics and aren't particularly plugged in, you probably look at the situation and just think, "My God, no one seems to be able to fundamentally shift things." That feels like really a recipe for depression, withdrawal, and just not wanting to participate.

I was shocked how many people I know who are, even journalists, maybe not political journalists, but people who would think of as being quite engaged with what's happening in the world, who just said, "You know what? I'm not going to watch the debate. I just can't--"

Kai Wright: Listen, if it had not been my job, I cannot imagine I would've watched that debate. I wouldn't have subjected myself to that. I'm being honest.

Lydia Polgreen: Yes. No, I think a lot of people feel that way.

Kai Wright: Let's go to Sharon in California. Sharon, welcome to the show.

Sharon: Hi. Thanks.

Kai Wright: What's your reaction, Sharon?

Sharon: I never thought I would feel this way. I am a total supporter of President Biden. I think he's been a terrific president, and his record is stellar. His debate demeanor and inability to counter Trump's outrageous lies terrified me. President Biden must withdraw and allow another Democrat to protect the world from Donald Trump. I think the very fate of the world rests on a Democrat defeating Trump. Biden's debate performance showed us heartbreakingly that he is not up to protecting us from the terrible harm Trump represents.

Kai Wright: Thank you for that, Sharon. Another listener texts the opposites. "Democracy is not a debate competition. I believe we should focus on records, character, and integrity, not how an older man performs when he has a cold. It is a referendum on how we treat age." Christopher, I wonder, in thinking about what Sharon just said about just the level of threat it feels like is at stake in this election. Honestly, regardless of where you sit ideologically because while I don't think you can substantiate it. In the MAGA universe, they do believe that democracy is, in fact, a threat

Are the nation as they understand it should exist, is that threat? Many, many Biden supporters feel like Sharon, that this is an existential question about whether democracy will continue to exist at all. I just wonder about the scale of the emotional stakes for people in this election versus others, and how that then shows up.

Christopher Ojeda: Yes, absolutely. I think especially in today's polarized politics, the stake seems so high. The possibility of losing, it makes us feel more anxious than if we felt like the other side was not our preferred candidate, but they would be a fine president, they would be respectable. In this particular case, both sides feel like if the other side wins, it's going to be the end of the world. It's hard not to feel really emotional about the prospects of losing or winning in November.

I do think the way both sides talk about what's at stake really raises the kinds of emotions we feel. I think both sides do that because they actually want to mobilize voters. If we believe that the stakes are really high, we're more motivated to get out, advocate, and to volunteer for our side. The parties have an incentive to make those stakes seem really, really high. The consequence is that it can sometimes leave us feeling really worse off.

Kai Wright: That's what I was going to ask you, irony being that if what you're saying is you're seeing these depressive attitudes that are in fact demobilizing in this election in advance, whether or not they've actually done the opposite, the idea of the high stakes is actually what is somehow demobilizing people.

Christopher Ojeda: Yes, I think for the left, that's a real issue right now. Anything for Biden, after his debate performance and his supporters feeling like he's already lost, that the outcome in November's already been decided and they're feeling depressed and withdrawing, it's really up to him to tamp down those feelings of depression among his supporters. He needs to make a case for how he can win and convince his supporters that he can do that in order to rally them. I think that's what he's trying to figure out right now.

It seems clear that he doesn't want to drop out of the race. He's trying to figure out what's the message to get my supporters to rally and not withdraw.

Kai Wright: I'm talking with Christopher Ojeda, a political scientist at University of California Merced, about the emotional state of Biden supporters and the Democratic Party voters in the wake of President Biden's startling debate performance. I'm also joined by New York Times columnist, Lydia Polgreen, and we're taking calls from people who have been planning to support Biden in this election. At least before last week's debate performance, it sounds like a lot of people still are, but with a lot of concerns. We can take your thoughts, feelings, questions, call us, or text us more just ahead on Notes from America.

Regina: Hi, I'm Regina, a producer here at Notes from America with Kai Wright. I know, I know you're loving this episode. I promise I won't hold you long, but I have to ask, have you seen what we're up to on Instagram? That's where we post questions to you that help shape the conversations that we have on this podcast. Plus, it's a great way to keep up with the show, follow Notes with Kai on Instagram that's @noteswithkai, and we'll talk to you there. Thanks for listening.

Kai Wright: It's Notes from America. I'm Kai Wright, and we are talking about the reaction among democratic voters and Biden supporters in general to last week's debate. I'm joined by New York Times columnist, Lydia Polgreen, who has made the case for the president to end his campaign and for the party to throw its weight behind Vice President Kamala Harris. I'm also joined by political scientist, Christopher Ojeda, whose research focuses on how our politics affect our emotional and mental health. His forthcoming book is titled Sad Citizen, and we are taking your calls from people who have been Biden supporters. Let's go straight to Antonio in New Jersey. Antonio, welcome to the show.

Antonio: Hello. I just wanted to say I think the papers are being a little dramatic for a long time. They were saying this debate was so early. First, I want to say I enjoy being surrounded by so many intelligent people right now. Thank you.

Kai Wright: We enjoy having you as well.

Antonio: Oh God, thank you. I just felt that it was such an early debate. We got to see two, three more by the election. I was entertained. I feel like people are mostly watching these things to be entertained. Everyone's already chosen who they want to vote for and stuff. I think the idea of telling Biden to leave, get a replacement, it's not only too late, but I think it would just harm the Democratic party some more.

The idea that we don't have confidence in the person who's been trying to run this whole time, all of a sudden, going to replace him and then have almost less than four months to try to convince the country that the person we want to replace him with is going to do a better job. I don't know. I don't think it'll work out.

Kai Wright: Thank you for that, Antonio. Let's go to Rachel in Portland. Rachel, welcome to the show.

Rachel: Thanks a lot. I was a Biden supporter and I continue to be a Biden supporter. I think that we know who both candidates were going in. I would never vote for Trump. I ask my friends, would you use this person as a role model for your child? It's a good litmus test. The fact is that we knew who both candidates were going in. Everybody can have a bad day. We need to stop being dramatic and stick with our candidate. He is capable, he has achieved quite a bit quietly behind the scenes.

He's not very good at talking about what he does, but quite frankly, Americans are so anxious to be heard and whine and complain and try to reinvent things at the last minute. When we have a system that's in place that if we did need someone to step in, there's a system there. We have a Vice President Kamala, who is capable of doing that. Biden is just as good a candidate as he ever was in my personal opinion.

Kai Wright: Thank you for that, Rachel.

Rachel: Yes, I think that America needs to stop whining.

Kai Wright: Thank you for that, Rachel. All right, so a couple of things I want to put to you Lydia. One, the idea that this was an early debate. Everybody knew what was going to happen. There's nothing really different that comes from this. We're making too much of it. That is also an argument that the Biden White House has made. First, that idea, how do you respond to that idea?

Lydia Polgreen: Look, you can whiff a debate. It happened to Obama. It has happened to many candidates, right? The problem is when your debate performance feeds into what is already a very powerful narrative about your biggest shortcoming. They've agreed to do two debates. There'll presumably maybe be another one. We'll see.

Kai Wright: It's scheduled for September.

Lydia Polgreen: Yes. It's scheduled. Let's see what happens. I just think that these are moments that are really do or die. In a set of three debates that are run by the Presidential Debates Commission, which is the way that things used to work, I might feel a little bit more comfortable with having blown it on one debate, but just given how existential this question of age and mental acuity and all of that is, I just don't think you can wave it away.

There was this CBS polling that came out, I think it was today and it showed that only 27% of voters overall think that Biden has the cognitive health to serve as president. How do you overcome that? 45% of Democrats think he should step aside. Just to level set, that number was 35% of voters overall didn't think he had the cognitive health to serve prior to the debate. It's a pretty big dip. Yes, I think this is a big deal. I don't think we can just wave it away as one debate.

Kai Wright: Christopher, you have said that there's a difference between the emotional responses of elites and the emotional responses of everybody else in these moments. I hear a little bit of that in what some of the callers are saying. Can you talk a little bit about what your research shows about the difference between being an elite and being an everybody and your emotional response to politics?

Christopher Ojeda: Yes, absolutely. What emotion we feel depends on how we think about a situation. Like I was saying earlier, anxiety is about responding to a threat. Depression is about responding to an irrevocable loss. Anger is a response to a loss that we think we can get back. How we think about a situation depends on our goals and our position in the political system. Ordinary citizens who have fewer resources to enact change are more likely to feel depressed. They have less control over what's going on, and so they feel like, "Oh, we've lost this thing. I can't get it back. There's nothing I can do."

That feels really depressing. People who have more power, elites, the donor class, activists, journalists, they feel like they have more tools and more resources to respond to the situation. We're seeing more anxiety, more panic among elites. Let's try to do something about Biden's poor performance. Maybe that's calling for him to step down or calling his staff and calling the White House and asking them to step down. We're seeing a different response between ordinary citizens who're withdrawing and demobilizing after the debate and elites who are becoming more activated.

I think that really has to do with their positions in the political system and the kind of resources and tools they have available.

Kai Wright: You started your research on just emotions in politics after Donald Trump's 2016 election. One of your friends went through a particularly rough depression as a result of that election and that was your provocation, right? Can you tell me about that?

Christopher Ojeda: Yes, absolutely. I actually started writing about depression originally because I was writing about something called the Income-Participation Gaps, which is the fact that people who are rich participate in politics more than people who are poor in the United States. I grew up in a poor home, and I saw the impact of economic insecurity and poverty firsthand. I also saw how poverty is one of the top risk factors for feelings of depression. I thought maybe depression could help explain this income participation gap.

People who are poor, they're more likely to feel depressed. That depression is demobilizing and maybe that's why they participate less. That's why I originally started to write about depression. Then in 2016, and this is what you were talking about, Donald Trump was elected. I had a very close friend of mine who was a Clinton supporter, and I saw her fall into a really long and severe bout of depression following Donald Trump's election in 2016. I began to wonder whether politics could itself leave us feeling depressed. Could it make us depressed?

The idea was first planted in my head, but I didn't really start to take it seriously until the pandemic. Then as I'm sure you remember, although I think we all try to forget when the pandemic occurred, mental health really took a toll around the world. That's when I really began to take seriously this idea that politics could be depressing.

Kai Wright: Let's go to Barbara in Connecticut. Barbara, welcome to the show.

Barbara: Yes. Hi. I am a retired math teacher and I've been all around the world. I follow politics rather carefully. I thank Joe Biden for being such a good president because he's only running again because there's no one else stepping up to take on the MAGA Movement, which is scary. We used to have a strong two-party system in the United States, so people are civilized, not screaming, yelling, attacking the buildings. This movement is a cult. It's feeding a man with an ego.

I met Donald Trump years ago in the [unintelligible 00:41:02] Center, and he should have probably stayed on television where he had an adoring audience. He can't believe that he could have lost a presidential election. Having been a teacher, I saw kids like him roughing up the kids on the playground for their lunch money, or being from a private school saying, "My father can destroy your father." Nothing has changed. The whole world is nervous about putting that man back in the White House with nuclear codes, dumping NATO, getting out of Ukraine.

I have to tell you, I have an idea. I have a very good idea because Kamala is too much of a lightweight to even consider in the Oval Office. She's done her job, but coming from Connecticut, we have three fabulous men that I would trust completely with this task at hand. Senator Richard Blumenthal, who's well known in Washington. The younger man is Chris Murphy, I call them the Dynamic duo.

Kai Wright: All right.

Barbara: I think they have what it takes. They are trustworthy, they're honest, they are hardworking.

Kai Wright: I'm going to stop you there for time, Barbara, but Chris Murphy and Senator Blumenthal-- Lydia, what about this idea? There's a few things in there I want to pack, but let's start with the idea that Kamala can't win. Well, in Barbara's phrasing that she's lightweight, but I'm going to change that to the idea that she can't win. That's what most people who have been speculating about replacements have been saying about her.

Lydia Polgreen: Yes. I guess I just don't buy it. She has some obvious and clear gifts, right? She's someone who has been elected to statewide office in the biggest in the country, California. She was a very successful senator. She ran for the presidency. Her primary campaign did not go well. It's a very different thing to run in a primary where you have to distinguish yourself by smaller degrees from fellow Democrats, rather than painting a very stark contrast between yourself and a Republican nominee.

Also, I should say, there are plenty of people who have won primaries, who have lost general elections. People forget that. Just broadly speaking, I think that it's been a little surprising to me how dismissive people have been of Kamala Harris and her talents. Go back and watch those videos when she was on the Senate Judiciary Committee and her grilling of members of the Trump administration. She just had a real talent for asking really pointed and tough questions and for creating these viral moments that didn't also come off as being showboat.

It speaks to me of a very deft politician and someone who's done some very hard things. Just broadly, honestly, it really makes me mad that people look past her to all of these other politicians who are either White or are men. I think it's worth examining why that's the case. Why would we call a woman who is the vice president of the United States, who's had a long track record as a public servant, lightweight? It just doesn't wash for me. I think she deserves to be taken very, very seriously as a candidate for the presidency.

Also, you have to work with the tools that you have at hand. She is the vice president. It just makes sense. She would have a huge running start. Yes, I rate her pretty highly.

Kai Wright: Christopher, another thing that Barbara said there though was frustration with the two-party system as it has developed. I wonder as part of your research on what leads to these feelings of depression, have you looked at systems that aren't ours? Well, one, are there things about our systems specifically beyond the candidates that generate this sense of depression? Two, are there systems you've looked at that don't generate those feelings of depression?

Christopher: Yes, that's a great question. In the book, one of the questions I ask is what do we do, when, what's good for democracy is in conflict with what's good for our well-being? Sometimes democracies make us feel depressed, and is there a way we can redesign democratic institutions so that they don't do that? Really, at the end of the day, democracies should empower citizens and not leave them feeling depressed. I was thinking specifically about electoral institutions.

In the United States, we have a two-party system, a winner-take-all all system. I was wondering whether different electoral systems, multi-party systems, portional representation systems could have a different impact on how people feel in the wake of an election. I did analyze some data from the Netherlands. They have a very different system than the United States. They have lots of parties, they distribute votes proportionally. The percentage of seats the party gets, and the legislature depends on the percentage of votes that they get.

Whereas here, it's win or take all. If you win, only 48% of the votes, but that's more than the next best candidate, you win the seat. I wanted to know, is there a difference in how people respond to electoral loss? I found that there is. In the United States, people become very depressed following elections when they lose. In the Netherlands, I found that wasn't the case. In fact, winning reduced depression, but losing did it increase it. I do think potentially, there's a way we can make democracy into our well-being less in conflict with one another.

Kai Wright: Lydia, before we go, we've got about a minute. You have looked at democracy in elections in many countries. What about you? Do you think there's something about our system that generates this that's different than what you've seen elsewhere?

Lydia Polgreen: I do, yes. I think that a lot of the points that you just made are actually very, very germane to what I'm seeing around the world. We're living in a moment where I think people are really, really frustrated with fundamental forces that are actually, in many ways, beyond the control of any government. We're dealing with the movement of people around the globe and the conflicts around migration that have to do with forces that nobody can really control. Climate change, global conflict.

We're dealing with all of these problems that feel really beyond the grasp. That feeling of powerlessness and impotence and that even when you do vote, that your vote doesn't necessarily translate into profound change. I think is also a source of despair for a lot of people. The other big C that we should talk about is capitalism. Global capitalism determines so much, it's huge, huge supernatural force and no government can control that either.

Kai Wright: We will have to leave it at the supernatural force of capitalism. Lydia Polgreen is a columnist for the New York Times and co-host of The Times podcast, Matter of Opinion. Christopher Ojeda is a political scientist at University of California Merced, his forthcoming book is The Sad Citizen. Thanks to both of you. Before we go, a note about an upcoming show. We've been asking you for stories about summer. I have this theory that summertime makes people more open to new things. New experiences, new ideas, big new choices about life.

The days are long. Some of us manage to get away for vacations, or camps, or retreats. There's just literally more time. I wonder if as a result of this, we are more open to being challenged in good ways. Ways that are essential for life in a plural society in which we're constantly encountering new ways of living and thinking that challenges, yes, but also enrich us. If you agree with that, and if you have a summer moment in which you open yourself up to something or someone totally new, it led to you or your community doing something meaningfully different, I want to hear about it.

You can record a voice note and email it to us at notes@wnyc.org. That's notes@wnyc.org or you can leave a voicemail at 844-745-8255. Here's the hugely important part. You got to tell us how to get back in touch with you because we're going to go through your messages and we're going to find some stories that we can tell in more detail in the show. Hit us up with your stories of opening yourself up to challenging new things in the summertime. That's at notes@wnyc.org or leave a voicemail with both your story and your contact info at 844-745-8255.

Thanks in advance. Notes from America is a production of WNYC Studios. Follow us wherever you get your podcast, and on Instagram @noteswithkai. This episode was produced by Suzanne Gaber. Team music and sound is designed by Jared Paul. Matthew Marando is at the boards for our live show. Our team also includes Katerina Barton, Regina de Heer, Karen Frillman, Varshita Korrapati, Siona Peterous, and Lindsay Foster Thomas. I'm Kai Wright. Thanks for spending time with us.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.