You all are my rock and thank you so much for doing the podcast every week.

This is a great podcast - thoughtful analysis combined with deep reporting and decades of experience in DC. One suggestion - The enthusiastic hosts frequently talk over each other causing the listener to miss important information that comes at the end of a thought or sentence. Please keep up the terrific work but hosts should let their colleagues finish their excellent analysis uninterrupted.

Thank you for your work, your knowledge and your podcast.

excellent, factual reporting and I thank you for that! You are so needed!

Horrible “reporting” here. Immigration only stayed as in issue in the election because Mike Johnson, under direction from tRump, killed a bipartisan immigration bill that was agreed to in the Senate, and have addressed many of the issues republicans have been asking for. Not metioned once, and you’re considered qualified journalists.

Excellent podcast for curious people open to learning something

Very smart takes and easy to listen to

This podcast helps the listener understand the dangers to our democracy. More than ever Americans need to know the facts and this podcast gives you the facts. When you have facts, you have the truth.

Very mild in ideas, discourse and opinion, and the host and roundtable guests are pretty sleepy. I don’t need charisma but the show lacks deep thinking and passion. These times require more oomph. A mainstream magazine podcast doesn’t have to mean aloof.

If you want to know what real jersey people sound like listen to Joe! This dude is the real deal

I really appreciate this podcast, especially the roundtables with Evan Osnos, Jane Mayer and Susan B. Glasser, for helping make sense of American politics. One point of feedback: I don’t love when the New Yorker Radio Hour recycles their episodes and posts them under The Political Scene banner, and vice versa. This seems to happen frequently. I prefer to think of them as separate podcasts, and get a little deflated when I see a new episode is available, only to realize it’s a replay of the same episode on the other show. Otherwise love y’all keep up the good work!!!

Hey guys — Here’s what I would have appreciated in your conversation: — MUCH more emphasis on the role of our information systems. When American is swimming in a sewer of malignant disinformation, it was frustrating that you only referred to this critical phenomenon in passing. A compelling question to at least wonder about is what the election outcome might have been in a pre-social media, pre-podcast, pre-Fox News world? Chris, you’ve apparently written a book on the subject. Is it simply out of despair that we seem powerless to fix our broken information systems that you didn’t address this more directly? — A consideration of president as avatar. They express and embody qualities we want to want to see in ourselves. Qualities too that make us feel connected with our national leader, the most powerful person in the world (“Trump is just like me,” said the voter in NH. He loves McDonald’s — was that the clincher?) The avatar factor was no doubt part of twhy so many voted for Trump as president and voted for Dems down ballot. — A less chummy vibe, and Chris — a little less nervous laughter — would have made made it easier to understand what you were saying, especially when you got more diffuse, more abstract (your “explanation” of neoliberalism). — The one new thought, the one crystallized insight I’m taking away from the episode, was Andrew’s comment about AOC. I’m a conscientious objector to personal social media. That comment has inspired me to sign up for Instagram just to follow AOC’s inside-the-beltway commentary — and to track her evolution as a possible presidential candidate. A bright beacon of possibility during a dark time I look forward to future conversations — hopefully a bit more incisive. ~ Deborah Elizabeth Boldt, Santa Fe, NM

i catch most episodes, and i especially want to hear what jane mayer says. i hope she can save her voice because the political scene podcast would not be the same without her, at least imo. astute, clearly expressed observations... david remnick is also a pleasure to listen to.

Interesting primarily as a look into the highly biased mindset of our upper crust and utterly un-self aware Democratic “journalist” crowd. Never more than a mild half-criticism of the Biden administration but absolutely obsessed with all things Trump. They cannot fathom the election loss could have anything to do with a candidate and platform that millions of Americans stridently rejected.

I can barely form sentences this week and have been listening to the Calm ap’s dishwasher noise for three days. As I climb back out to listen or read anything about this election - it is these four journalists. Insightful. Ridiculously experienced. Concise observations. I’m petrified that journalism will be even more threatened now by Trump. Thank u for your work. Stay safe.

Susan, Evan, and Jane are tops at their knowledge of the political world and the people and forces with in it. It is always enlightening, sometimes entertaining, and sometimes reassuring to hear them banter and expound on complex ongoing issues of the day. Thank you to The New Yorker for sharing these three great minds with us.

Thank you thank you for your intelligent discussions. Such a relief from the regular media din.

Unlike any other discussion! Desperately needed!

Why am I giving only a four-star review to this outstanding — superb—Washington Roundtable panel featuring three brilliant journalists ? The excessive “likes” must go. Someday I will have AI headphones that can edit out irritating tics on the fly, but until then please make an effort not to torment your admiring and devoted listeners by interjecting empty“likes” into every sentence.

This episode was especially piercing of the veil of denial and confusion of the right-wing’s now brazen defense and spread of lies. As the examples were reported, one of the hosts mentioned that if legitimate journalists (like these three brilliant ones) were to spread lies, they would be sued, lose their careers, etc. They expressed a kind of shock that, through Fox and X and other online media, we have reached a point where lies are baldly promulgated for reasons of power with no consequences to the liars! I felt they expressed the tragic consequences for us and our democracy and I also heard the tragic resonance for the profession they’ve devoted their lives to. Our culture won’t be the same. I thank the hosts/writers for delivering the gravity of the situation.

I love this podcast! Very intelligent and deep political discussion.

It’s a pleasure to listen to intelligent, in-depth discussions among the three hosts, each of the whom have their own area of expertise.

I’d pick Evan, Jane and Susan’s weekly show over any other political roundtable podcast or TV show. However, the airtime should be shared equally. Clearly, that’s not possible in the raw audio. Please invest in more editing magic so each voice can ring each week. If I had the cash, I’d underwrite it myself because all three hosts are superstars.

Excellent questions & disgusting answers

Really. Way to both sides it.

This is my all time favorite podcast and the one I most look forward to all week. The three hosts are more knowledgeable and more articulate than any other journalists in my listening world. One wish is that they would have fewer guests. I’d rather listen to just them. (The exception being the state chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. ) Thanks for adding to my days.

I agree with earlier listener—good content overall but PLEASE stop the amateurish”likes” every four or five words. So very distracting and time-consuming.

Fantastic political content if you can stomach the hosts saying the word “like” anywhere from every other sentence to three to four times in one sentence.

Certain female podcasters need to listen to a replay of the podcasts and actually count how many times they said the word “like.” I am not super sensitive to this issue, but it is painful. They are obviously bright, informed women; and I truly want to hear what they are saying but cannot stand to listen to them. It is killing this podcast for me.

If Clare & Vinson can’t control how many times they say “like”, especially, Clare, PLEASE get some new commentators. I’m going to stop listening because it is SO ANNOYING!!!

I look forward to every one of the episodes hosted by Susan, Evan and Jane. Along with David Remnick they are the smartest, most thoughtful and interesting voices in podcasting today.

3 brilliant minds ! While reading the negative comments my thought was ,I did not think Trump people will read the New Yorker, obviously they do Not. Those are fake comments. 5 stars are not sufficient for you guys! You are brilliant . Thanks so much!

I actually love this podcast, but the show notes asked me to answer a survey on my reactions. All set to be positive, I answered the q’s about my listening habits across media, and then it said thanks very much, that’s all we need. I felt misled..by the New Yorker, no less. So, reward? A low rating.

Error about PA in-person voting starting in September. The only in-person voting in PA is on election day. Three ways to vote: in person on election day; mail-in ballot; absentee ballot — if disability, illness or absence from commonwealth prevents you from voting in person (similar to mail-in). The latter two must be received by 8pm election day so they can be counted by end of election day, alternatively they can be placed in designated drop-boxes. You can complete a mail-in ballot “in person” at certain locations beginning in September (up to a week before election day), but the ballot is still processed like a mail-in ballot. Your mail-in or absentee ballot is processed on election day and only counted if it meets all the requirements — eg, using & sealing both envelopes, signing declaration — regardless of how it arrives at the county election office. By contrast, with true in-person voting, your ballot is counted when you successfully put it through the ballot machine. You are notified immediately if there is a problem with your ballot; you also can get a new ballot if you spoil the one you’re first given. Counting is different from certification. Real in-person voting also allows for provisional voting if there’s a question about your eligibility to vote or you believe your mail-in ballot may be rejected. NOTE: You cannot register to vote online if you don’t have a valid PA driver’s license or PA-issued ID — that’s how your signature is verified. This has been an issue for out-of-state college students.

In discussing the debate tactics with George Conway, I believe you all subtly devalued Harris’s prosecutorial skills. She was not arbitrarily triggering or insulting Trump; every poke was based on a fact. He is a nepotism baby. He is a disgrace and laughed at. He is a loser/was fired. People are shown on tape yawning at his rallies and leaving early. The approach worked because it was based on evidence, not just because she was using psychological warfare. And your concern that this approach will be used in the future misses the point that it only works with a highly vulnerable and defensively brittle person. Sleepy Joe can shake that off. Same with Communist Kamala.

I very much enjoy the content of this pod, but like, could these reporters, like, listen to how many times y’all say “like” when you speak?! It’s so, like, distracting. Reminds me of my first year college students. Please work on getting rid of this irritating filler word!

.. is like unlistenable like.

Like the content of the discussion might be like informative and valuable but like sadly the show is like unlistenable due to the like extreme and inappropriate overuse of the word ‘like’. Sorry.

This podcast clearly demonstrates everything wrong with political journalism in one podcast! None of the reporters do their reputations any favors with their snark on full display. Narrative over facts is on full cynical display. This should be the nail in the coffin of three punditry careers. It is like listening to a major car crash in IMAX! Curious about how bad political journalism has gotten? Take a listen and despair.

My first ever podcast and now a “must listen.” Three journalists who necessarily can’t avoid being media personalities in the modern sense but who seem to retain a keen sense of the role the press was designed to perform in our democracy. Very cordial yet incisive.

I wait each week for the Friday round table between these three brilliant writers/thinkers. As chaotic and terrifying as this moment in history is, I always feel buoyed and better able to soldier on knowing that these three are doing the hard work making sense of the tough issues for the rest of us. Thanks Evan, Jane and Susan. If you’re ever in Laguna Beach CA I’d love to have you over for a glass of wine and a chinwag! And THANK YOU.

Just discovered this podcast. It’s excellent - thoughtful insight from three super talented journalists.

Best, most sane out there.

Gentle minds, strong insights.

This team really flushes out the key topics with insight, scholarly approaches, and much appreciated humour and plan speaking. This is always a go-to podcast for me, and especially indispensable in this harried election season!

Unfortunately this podcast is not meeting my expectations in terms of depth or relevance. Some content appeals to certain demographics but at the same time might feel shallow or unengaging if it doesn't resonate with your interests or perspective. It's good to recognize when something doesn't align with what you're looking for, so you can spend your time on content that truly engages and challenges (which lately this has not)

Wow. It seems that anti genocide bothers you guys.

Glasser, Osnos and Mayer are the best political reporting threesome I’ve ever heard. I wait with bated breath for their episodes to drop on Friday evenings. Thank you, New Yorker, for teaming up these super smart, insightful people!

I listen primarily for Osnos, Mayer and Glass. When Foggatt has guests ( the recent ones) the vocal fry and odd way of speaking makes me turn it off. Does Sorkin have a cotton ball in her mouth? Are these affectations deliberate? Because it’s not pleasant to listen to. So I skip it.

The three members of the panel are smart, at times funny, and know their politics. They seem to genuinely like one another. Sometimes Susan interrupts one of the others - but I suspect it’s just who she is and not uncivil.