The FRONTLINE Interviews

Frank Luntz

Conservative Pollster

Frank Luntz is a political pollster, consultant and pundit who has worked with GOP candidates and is a regular contributor to multiple television news outlets. He has also written several books on communication strategies for business and politics.

The following interview was conducted by FRONTLINE’s Jim Gilmore on Oct. 27, 2021. It has been edited for clarity and length.

This interview appears in:

Pelosi’s Power

TOP

Frank Luntz

Chapters

Text Interview:

Highlight text to share it

January 6

So, Frank, we're starting this film looking at Jan. 6 because it's such a pivotal moment, and the days after Jan. 6.Pelosi, the speaker of the House, saw it as an existential moment endangering democracy.The Democrats are absolutely furious.The root causes of this—I want to get your overview of it.Some people say that it's partly due to the reaction of the public towards the partisanship in Washington.And so the question is, what's Pelosi's role in that?

I was there.I saw it.I have a condo at Seventh and E Streets, so I'm about a minute walk to Pennsylvania Avenue, and I could see everyone going by.Actually, I went out, even though my office said: "Don't. It doesn't look friendly"; people were nervous about COVID. I went, and I looked around, and I walked from my condo up to the edge of the Capitol.

I've been to [former President Donald] Trump rallies since the election, and even though the voters were agitated and annoyed, they were still civil. They were still respectful.On Jan. 6, it was different.People who recognized me started swearing at me.People who knew who I was and knew what I had to say about the election wanted to get in my face and start an argument.And I could feel it immediately.

But what stood out to me is how they treated the cops.There were cops' cars trying—and I haven't seen this recorded.There were cop cars trying to get up to the Capitol because of what was happening, and they were trying to bridge—they had to get through this line of people walking up Pennsylvania Avenue.And for the first time, Trump people did not yield.They did not move aside.In fact, they blocked the cars from getting there.And then more cars and more cars.

By the time—this is midafternoon, early afternoon, I guess—there were as many as 20 cop cars trying to get through, trying to get up to address what was happening on the steps of the Capitol, and they couldn't get through.Trump people were yelling at them, screaming at them.And you had a few people say, "Wait a minute; these are our allies."But more people were saying: "Go back.Get out of here.These are our streets, not yours."

I filmed this.I watched this happen.I have a great photo of a woman with a sign saying, "Trump people don't riot."And I had no idea when I took that photograph how ironic that was.Yeah, they do.

And I'm getting closer and closer to the Capitol, and my office—because I can't see what's going on on TV—my office is texting me every five minutes: "Turn around.Go home.They're trying to break into the Capitol.They've broken into the Capitol.They're ransacking the Capitol."Just—it got more and more dramatic.

And as I got up to the corner of the Capitol Mall, I realized, as much as I wanted to see what was going on, this was a COVID hazard, and because I was susceptible, I'd better turn around and go back.

So this was a different crowd.These were not people that were motivated by securing democracy.These were not people motivated by making a statement.I couldn't figure out what they were motivated about or motivated for, but they scared me.And I'd never seen anything like this before.

What do you think caused it?What's the root causes of it?

So I didn't know at the time what the root cause was, but having watched the rallies, there's no question that the speeches gin these people up.There's no question.My job is public opinion, and my job is to be honest, to tell you the truth, regardless of where the chips fall.I know I've been affiliated and later on identified with the Republicans—and I'm not so sure how accurate that is—but I listened to that rally, and those people were ginned up by those speakers.Those people were told: "Don't back down.Don't walk away."They were not told—they were absolutely not told to break windows; they were not told to break into the Capitol; they were not told to commit acts of violence.But they were also not told to stand down.And they were definitely ginned up.

What were they angry at?Is partisanship part of what they were angry at, the fact that Washington doesn't work?

No, no, no, not those people.Those people were mad as hell at the election result, and they wanted it overturned.They were not there to make a statement that Trump won; they were there to prove that Trump won, and they were there to capture the election for Donald Trump, as they were told to do.

Look, I'm sorry for the Republicans who don't like—who don't want to hear this, but listen to the rally.Listen to what the speakers said, and you have no other conclusion.You've probably come from hundreds of miles away.You're probably really tired.You're probably really angry, and you're susceptible.That rally was not, "Hey, let's—let's let them hear us."That rally was "Don't back down."

And the problem is, this is where America's headed.We're all being told, "Don't back down."The Democrats are being told, "Don't back down."In the run-up to the rally, you had AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and Bernie Sanders and people like them communicating: "We're not compromising.We won, they lost, and it's our government now.""Our government," not "all of us." Their government.

And so you've got both of these sides getting uglier and more explicit and more determined, less willing to compromise, less willing to listen and more eager to provoke a confrontation.They wanted to provoke a confrontation, and that's the problem.What they wanted to provoke, they got.And they got it in a way that embarrassed us.

I'll tell you something that I—that I would like to forget.I was interviewed on Canadian television, and the host that night—this was at the 6 p.m. show—and the host that night kept asking me, "As you watched your Capitol being invaded, as you watched windows being broken, doors being shattered, as you watched the violence that was happening in your Capitol"—because I worked there; I was an intern there.I've grown up there.I—the first time I went there I was 10 years old, and I've been going back every year; in some cases every month; in certain parts of my life, every week.And to see that Capitol violated and destroyed, to see the damage that they did—because I went in that night, and I saw the damage.I saw the defecation; I saw the broken glass.It was a s--- show, and to know that was my Capitol.

And they kept asking me, and for the first time, I actually—ugh, I actually cried for my democracy.There is no other reaction to it.This is not about an election.This is not about Donald Trump or Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden.This is about American democracy and whether or not we respect who wins and who loses, whether or not we respect the will of the voters.And that will was so determined.And yet you had people who tried to ignore it, who tried to say that it wasn't true, who tried to overthrow it.

And that's why I support the Jan. 6 commission.I know that it causes heartburn within Republican circles.I know that the Democrats want to turn this into a political football.Well, shame on both of you.To hell with both of you.

… The importance of the House and Senate coming back to finalize the count: They decided that, no matter what, they'd come back whenever they could, and they finally get back at 9 o'clock.Why was that important to them?

I'm there.I'm actually in the building at that point, and I have the opportunity because I was being guided around.I wanted to see the damage.And while I was walking around, there were members that I interact with from both political parties, and they were absolutely stunned.They were not speechless but shuddering at what had happened and wondering what was going to happen the next day.

The feeling at that point was that this was not the end; this was only the beginning of this disruption, of this—of the ugliness.And the Democrats felt like they knew it was coming; the Republicans felt like it was simply blowing off steam.And I saw no sense of understanding what at this point needed to happen, which was an address to the nation by both political parties that this was unacceptable.

We heard nothing from President Trump.Nothing!What we heard from Speaker Pelosi was all partisanship.Nobody was putting the country first.It was all partisanship, and it was all blaming the other people, blaming,it was—it was pathetic.And I would have thought that the speeches that night would have sought to convince people that our democracy was strong enough that it could withstand this.But instead, the level of accusations and acrimony politically were pretty bad, even after what had happened hours before.

Pelosi During the Bush Years

… We're going to go back in time to the [President George W.] Bush years:2001, Pelosi becomes whip after 9/11.How do people see Pelosi?… Define who she is and how the GOP views her early on, when she's a whip.It's a very different kind of leadership, and it's a woman, so it's extremely interesting.

I don't know how to say this.She was not that significant when she became whip.She was not even that significant when she became leader of the Democrats.It took the Republicans losing control in 2006 for the Republicans to start to focus on her.And in reality, she did not really grab public attention until the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, because at that moment, she mattered.And at that moment, rather than tacking to the center, rather than seeking to be the speaker of the entire House, I think early in her leadership career, she made a decision that she was a survivor, that she was a party loyalist, that she would not seek to make deals with the other side, that she would seek to keep her party together and do whatever it took to promote an agenda that was at the time mainstream Democrat.She did not go off the rails to Republicans until much later in her leadership career.

What was the reason for that?… If you looked at her and you saw, knew who she was, saw where she came from, would it be obvious the direction she would take?

No.There are consensus politicians, there are go-it-alone politicians, there are aggravated politicians, and there are unifying politicians.And clearly she was something different early in her career, but when she assumed the mantle of leader, and when that leadership actually put her in charge of Congress, she took a very hostile approach to the Republicans.

And I'll give you an example: When Republicans had the majority, they were encouraged to sit with Democrats.They were encouraged to sit on both sides of the aisle.There was this idea that they should talk to each other and engage each other, disagree with each, argue, absolutely.But there should be some sense of camaraderie because the institution was more important than the partisanship.

One of her earliest decisions is to tell Democrats: "Do not sit with the Republicans.Do not talk to Republicans.Do not invite them to join you in legislation.We're now in charge.They lost, and we have a lot to make up for."

And that was a very different approach than what Denny Hastert [R-Ill.] had done as Republican leader.That was a different approach to what Bill Frist [R-Tenn.] had done when he was the Senate leader.You had people before them—even Dick Gephardt [D-Mo.] and Tom Daschle [D-S.D.] were much more conciliatory.They were partisan, but you can still talk to them; you can still dine with them; you can still negotiate with them.

As far as she was concerned, that was done.That was the past, this is now; we're in charge, and the hell with everybody else.And that really sat badly with Republicans.

… She came out very strongly against Iraq early on.She bashed away at Bush before it became popular by other Democrats.… The opposition came also at a time when the base of the Democratic Party was starting to be very angry with the war and with the Democrats for being supportive of the war.Some people have told us that she wanted to make sure that she was keeping that part of the party in the fold and that it was a political decision.Is she operating—is she using Iraq in a political fashion, or is she doing it all because she just believed in it?

Again, I'm not the person to answer that.But she is a San Francisco Democrat through and through.In fact, she gave new meaning to the terminology.It was because of her and her leadership that Republicans started to refer to San Francisco Democrats, and I don't need to describe it.We all know what that means.We know what that means socially, culturally, economically, politically, everything.And she epitomized it, and she wore it as a badge of honor.

She was very early in her opposition to Iraq, very early in her refusal to cooperate with the president on other—President Bush—on other aspects of policy, at a time when Democrats and Republicans were making a great effort to get along.

I remember those days.I was up on the steps of the Capitol when they held that candlelight vigil, several days after 9/11, and how they sang together and sat together.And for one brief moment, and it only lasted a few months, there was genuine bipartisanship, genuine cooperation.She was never part of that.She chose not to be part of it.She chose to stay outside of that.And that set her up to gather and earn a tremendous amount of Democratic support when the camaraderie began to fray, when the differences in ideology began to become much more evident.

She was perfectly positioned as someone who never bought into the cooperation and compromise messaging or policy of the Democratic and Republican parties.And frankly, it actually made her stronger within the Democratic Party, as people began to turn more and more against the war, more and more against President Bush, more and more against the Republicans.And I think that sowed the seeds of what we have right now.

So it helped her climb the Democratic leadership ladder?

It was more than that.Her refusal to cooperate with President Bush did more than help her climb the Democratic ladder; it guaranteed that she would not be knocked off.They realized in her opposition, at a time when everyone was trying to work together, at a time when Bush had record approval ratings, she was not a part of that, and that gave her the credibility to stand up to him and gave her the credibility she needed in her caucus to be able to say for anyone who might challenge her, such as Rahm Emanuel, who did later on, "I was with you in the good times, but I was also with you in the bad times."

Do not underestimate the power of partisanship within your own caucus in keeping your position, keeping people happy and making it impossible for anyone to challenge your leadership.

Pelosi During the Obama Years

… So let's talk about when [President Barack] Obama comes in.Here we have—she sees now a Democratic leader—so she's very happy about that, because she thinks that she'll have more power and be able to do more stuff.She's the speaker.But they're very different in their points of view.Obama really did woo Republicans and did reach out, and she was very partisan.And she kept on saying, like with ACA later on, and probably stimulus, that: "Trust your caucuses.Trust us to get it done.But don't—you don't need to woo the Republicans; you've got to go big, and you've got to go fast."

It was stronger than that.So that's where it really came into play.She felt that the Democrats had won everything.They controlled every lever of government, and they controlled it by big margins, and so the Republicans were now not only irrelevant; they didn't exist.And she was very clear to her members: "Do not talk to them.Do not work with them.Do not engage them.They don't matter.We're now in charge, and we're going to use that."

I understand the desire.I understand the opportunity.The fact is, we're not a parliamentary-style system.When Republicans were in charge, they should have invited more Democratic cooperation.When the Democrats are in charge, they should have offered more involvement by the Republicans, because it led directly to what happened in 2010, which is, she lost her leadership.Every time that Pelosi has moved to the left and cut out Republicans, it's only been a matter of months before the nation moves in the other direction and actually cuts her out.We've seen it again and again.

The fact is, Obama was only able to keep that majority in the House and Senate for two years out of an eight-year presidency, and Pelosi is legitimately held responsible for being so partisan and so extreme in her approach that the people in the center of the country, in the center of politics said: "I've had it.No way.I may not have liked what the Republicans were doing, but I definitely don't like this, and I definitely don't like her."

She became the poster child for Republican fundraising in 2009-2010 for that very reason, for the fact that she was so explicit.And you could see the resentment.This is the first time I ever met her, was before—just before the 2010 election.And she says to me: "I know who you are.I have nothing to say to you."And that was it.She was walking from her office to the Capitol.I was so excited to introduce myself to her.I put out my hand, and she didn't shake it.She didn't pull away, but she said in a matter-of-fact way, "I know who you are, and we have nothing to talk about," and she continued on.

And that's how the American people felt, that she actually didn't care about them and she was more interested in partisan politics than she was in doing what the country expected of her.

She was telling Obama that the GOP is playing you.She said—there's a conversation she had with Rahm at one point saying, "Doesn't he understand what's going on here, that the GOP is not going to help you in any way whatsoever; that you have to depend on us to get this thing done, and you will get, therefore, more of what we want because we can do it on our own."

I saw some of this.I went to some of these meetings.Early on, in the opening days of the administration, there were six Republican senators that had indicated in a leadership count that they would consider an effort from, or an outreach from, the Obama administration.There were two dozen House Republicans that were similarly willing to at least listen to this.It wasn't Obama's approach that turned them off; it was actually Nancy Pelosi's approach.Every time that he would suggest that he'd give on some issue, she immediately spoke up."We're not doing that; that's not coming out of the House."Every time that he would say, "I'm reaching out to Republicans," she would publicly say, "No, we aren't." …

She had so poisoned the well that by the time it came to the vote itself, first on the stimulus package and then on the healthcare, there was no Republican votes. …She knew what she was doing.I don't believe this happened by accident.I think she wanted to be able to present a united front among Democrats.I think she wanted to be able to claim that these solutions were Democrat-only.And so every time that Obama tried to reach across the aisle, Pelosi cut it off.It's like she had a meat cleaver, and every time Obama would extend his arm, she'd cut it off.And she did so using language that she knew Republicans would be offended by.

She could not have done this by accident.It had to be deliberate.It had to be a strategy, because her language was so abusive that there's no way that Republicans would have agreed to reach across the aisle to her or to her Democratic colleagues.

But she's not president.Obama was president.

Yes, but the president proposes and the Congress disposes.We've known this since the beginning of time.The president has a bully pulpit and introduces the initial legislation, but then it's up to Congress.And in the end, the deals aren't made by the president.The president can put the pressure.The president can have the influence.The president can use public opinion and all sorts of levers at his disposal, but in the end, the vote actually happens in the chamber.

And by 2010, honestly, the Republicans hated her.None of them had dined with her.None of them had traveled with her.She also began to use the CODEL [Congressional Delegation], which is the process by which members travel to foreign countries, she started to use it in a partisan way.She started to use her powers to deny Republicans office space when they'd had it for two decades.She used everything to say to the Republicans, "You are not relevant."

And so, by 2010, they didn't want to cooperate with her, no matter what Obama said.

Before we get to 2010 and the election, one other thing.The reason she was able to do that—let's talk about her talents.The reason she was able to do that is because of her ability to hold together the Democratic Caucus.Why was she able to do that so effectively?What are her talents?What are her tools?

Nancy Pelosi is probably the best Democratic fundraiser who was never president in modern American history.She knew where the bones were buried.She knew how to get people to write checks.… Oh, you did not want to end up on the wrong side of her because she—when she was pissed, you heard about it.I would argue that I never heard the ground shake, never saw it shake, never felt it shake, except when Nancy Pelosi was angry.

But it's more than that.We've had plenty of speakers who had tempers.Lyndon Johnson was known for bellowing across the Capitol when he was—did not get his way.Sam Rayburn was a pretty tough dude when votes didn't go his way.But the difference with Pelosi is that she had a fundraising arm second to none, so not only could she punish you if she didn't like what you were saying or doing, but she could seriously reward you if you were one of her allies.And Nancy Pelosi put so much money into Democratic campaign coffers that they not only loved her, they needed her.

There's a reason why she has survived so long.There isn't a Democratic fundraiser anywhere near her capabilities.She could go to New York and raise millions—Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Hollywood, Chicago.Pelosi had a fundraising network second to none, and she knew how to use it, and she knew how to deliver the money at key moments in the congressional calendar to make a difference.

And frankly, even though people like Rahm Emanuel are arguably better politicians and have greater skills at reaching across the aisle, he was crushed.He knew he had to get out. ...

Nancy Pelosi really doesn't care whether you insult her or not.She's got a tough skin.But hell hath no fury like a mama bear separated from her cubs.You try to get between Nancy Pelosi and her caucus, and she will kill you.She will tear you limb from limb.You will—you will regret it.You will never see the light again in D.C. You will never get another dime.You will never pass another piece of legislation.You will never get another plum office or a committee assignment.

She plays politics tougher than the guys do, and she's respected for that.She is feared for that.That has helped her keep her position, but it has also undercut her credibility.Sometimes you can just play it too tough.Sometimes you can just hold grudges too long, and you wear out your welcome.

Republicans Campaign Against Pelosi

… So for the 2010 elections, you talked about the fact that she became enemy No. 1 for the GOP.It is phenomenal, the decision to go in that direction.The talk is, the reporting is that $70 million was paid for ads that just attacked Nancy Pelosi.The bus was running around with the picture of Nancy Pelosi on the side all over the country, saying dump her.Why was that a smart political decision?

… What’s amazing about this is that it unified all the Republicans.They could disagree on whether they were populists, on whether they were social conservatives or economic conservatives.But this bus, to them, represented what they were all about.

And here's the problem for the GOP: This bus and Pelosi came to symbolize what they were all about rather than their own ideas, than their own philosophy.

Back in 1994, the Republicans won because of the Contract [with America].They won because of the 10 things that they were going to do.By 2010 and in the years that followed, Republicans far more defined themselves by what they were against than what they were for, and that has had a tragic consequence in our political system since then.

It helped the GOP get elected back then, but it has done severe damage to our democracy since then.

… Talk a little bit about the irony that you can't ignore here.… The irony here is that she energized both parties in very significant ways.It's a very unusual thing for any politician.How was that possible?

She was the most polarizing politician in America starting in late 2009, and she held that distinction all the way up to the presidential election of 2016, when Donald Trump dethroned her.And it's fascinating to me that the two of them genuinely hated each other, did not want to be in the same room with each other, were incredibly dismissive of each other verbally, physically.Just take a look at the meetings.But they both had the same characters.

They both drove intense loyalty for them and intense opposition to them at the same time.And you had to be really careful where you sent them.If Nancy Pelosi appeared in a Republican state, it would actually engender greater support for the Republicans.She didn't realize that in 2010; they figured it out after the election, because no one thought that they were going to lose by that amount.Everyone knew that there was going to be a reaction to Obama and to Pelosi, but nobody thought the reaction would be that overwhelming, that it would be a genuine landslide, that there would be record-setting votes for Republicans in certain areas of the country, and it was right before redistricting.I can't emphasize enough how much damage Pelosi did, because it wasn't just that Obama lost his majorities in the House and the Senate.He lost majorities in the state legislatures.

And so the redistricting that occurred the next year was based on Republican governors, Republican legislatures, Republican judges, and that ushered in a period of Republicanism that even Donald Trump couldn't outdo, that even the fact that Trump lost votes that had been Republican for decades, that 2010 election was even more overwhelming than 1994, because 2010 elected Republicans up and down the country, every region, every locality.And that was not a reaction to Barack Obama; that was a reaction to Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi and Trump

You started talking about Trump.Let's switch over to Trump.You talked about how they felt about each other.It's often said that Trump, they perhaps had a high regard for the abilities of the other, and Trump seemed to be, as much as he didn't trust her and such—I mean, there's that famous story of the first meeting where she, to his face, she said, "You're incorrect," about several things that he was talking about, the popular vote, I think, and right to his face on the first meeting.And it sort of started defining a relationship that would be—yetshe didn't get a nickname.He seemed to think of her as a killer and in some ways regarded her as an adversary that was worthy.

I saw him a few times in campaign stops.I saw him once in the Oval Office, once on Air Force One, and I never heard him utter a single positive word about her.In fact, I think he underestimated her.I think he thought that he would blame her for runaway spending.He thought that he would blame her for the ills of the country, and that when the government was shut down, he was so convinced that he was going to dominate that.

And his own miscues, his own statements, she was smart and quick enough to turn it against him.She won that confrontation.Donald Trump, every time he ran up against her, he lost.And the reason why is, I don't think he respected her.I don't think he appreciated the broad base of support that she had within the Democratic Party.I think he thought that he could intimidate her as a woman.Nobody intimidates Nancy Pelosi.Nobody gets the better of Nancy Pelosi.If she's going to make a mistake—and she makes a lot of them—she does it herself through something that she says or a position that she takes, but she does not lose confrontations.When you go up against her, you should assume that you're going to lose unless she makes a fundamental error.

That famous meeting is maybe an example of what you're talking about, the December 2018 meeting, where she goes in and she's wearing the red coat.And so they walk in, [then Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer [D-N.Y.] and her, and he keeps the cameras rolling and at some point says something like, "I understand Nancy's in a difficult position right now, so she doesn't want to be seen on TV," or whatever.And she goes back at him immediately with finger pointed, sort of saying, "Do not underestimate the power I bring to bear for my caucus after winning such a great election." …What did that say about that relationship?What did that say about Nancy Pelosi?

Pelosi had his number.Donald Trump to this day does not realize how embarrassed he was by her, how the public looked at this, and even if they didn't like her, they still thought: "Way to go, sister.Way to speak up to the man.Way to put him in his place.He's rude to you, he's abusive to you, he's dismissive to you, and you just swatted him away with a single statement.You owned him."

I would love to know what—if Donald Trump understands just how much the public feels she owned him in that encounter and the damage that he did to the Republican efforts for the next two years by what he said there. …

… The 2018 midterms.Her strategy is: Ignore Trump, doing the thing that you're saying the Republicans were not doing a lot, which was selling the program, a program that will sell.How smart was that, to keep Trump out of that election?

I don't believe she kept Trump out of it.You can't keep Donald Trump out of it just because you don't mention him as often.She was fighting with him all through the process.And she was, in many areas of the country, more popular than he was.… She's still controversial in 2018.She turns a lot of people off, but boy, was that fundraising successful.

… For the first time ever, in an off-year election, the Democrats significantly outraised the Republicans, and that's because of Nancy Pelosi.It was less so on the Senate side, overwhelming on the House side.And that money came in because she said: "This is the only way we're going to challenge him.This is the only way we're going to put a check on him.Vote for our policies, but also vote against two more years of this Trump chaos."

And it was very successful.So much money came in that, in the last three weeks, they didn't even know what to do with it.They were allocating money to races that they really didn't need to be spending on, to guarantee that they had the positive result.I've never seen anything like it.And it's because of Nancy Pelosi.

… Pelosi was one of the strongest advocates in her time in Congress for campaign finance reform.And yet she blew apart the system.She knew exactly what needed to be done.She sucked in more campaign cash from corporations and special interests and rich donors than any Democrat had ever done in the House races.That's—I think it's ironic.Some people think it's hypocritical.But she made a difference because of that capability.And notice that you don't see her saying anything about campaign finance reform today.

And the other irony is that she, at the end of that election and the success of that election, with a lot of responsibility due to her, all of a sudden she's got moderates going after her skin who are trying to bring her down.There seems to be a split in the party that could cost her her job.

There were enough votes on the House floor for a few days that it would have prevented her from getting the majority, but she was never in danger.She has an ironlike grip on the Democratic Party and has since the day that she took over.She's not John Boehner.She's not Paul Ryan.She's not Kevin McCarthy.This woman is the Sam Rayburn.This woman is the Lyndon Johnson.You don't mess with her.And as long as she wants to stay, she'll be able to. …

Division in the Democratic Party

2019, let's talk about the events lading up to the impeachment and also a division within the party.Here you have San Francisco Nancy Pelosi, a progressive all her life, who's now having to deal with these younger progressive kids, she might say, coming in, like AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], and there's a different understanding of power and understanding of influence that's fascinating.She believes in a very different kind of power, hard power, while AOC comes in with the influence and the soft power of influencing a lot of people out there, having 5 million people on her Twitter feed.

Talk about the differences between these two groups, because there seems to be a divide within the party, and this is like a new generation coming through that led to a bit of a feud within the Democratic Party.

Nancy Pelosi hasn't changed in the last 10 years.Her appearance hasn't changed; her politics haven't changed; her policies haven't changed; her behavior, her ironlike will, her fundraising prowess: It's the same, if not stronger.But what happened was, with Donald Trump, it caused a reaction, a very strong reaction to the left, that it wasn't enough to disagree with him; you had to oppose him.Then it wasn't enough to oppose him; you had to impeach him.Then it wasn't enough to impeach you; you had to remove him.Then it wasn't enough to remove him; you had to remove every element of anything that involved Trump or the Republicans.

… AOC came to Washington at the perfect time.The Democrats were so angry with Trump, and they wanted nothing to do with him, and they wanted to eliminate him, and AOC spoke their language.And this is key.She spoke their language, and she represented their tonality.She represented their youthfulness.You can't find a Trump voter under age 30; they just don't exist.And Nancy Pelosi at this point is now 80.So Pelosi's actually coming from the Trump generation.AOC's coming from the "screw you" generation, and they are feeling their oats.And they found someone who spoke like them, who acted like them, who was irreverent like them, who danced down the hallways like them.

To me, the single greatest indicator of the difference was Pelosi dismissing AOC's video where she literally danced down the hall, danced into her office.I don't think Nancy understood that there was a change, not just in leadership, but there was a change in attitude among Democrats.And she no longer represented how a mainstream Democrat felt about Washington, D.C., and felt about politics.

AOC is a happy warrior.She does everything with a smile.And if she doesn't, then it cuts like a knife.Pelosi's language is the language of a 1970s politician.AOC uses social media and the words and the presentations of someone who is firmly 21st century.And so it set them up on a collision course that, even as of this taping, we don't know how it will work itself out.

One of the other interesting things is also Nancy Pelosi puts herself in the position of being against impeachment; that she is, as progressive as she is, as much lack of interest and hatred basically of Trump that there is, she's more interested in defrocking him in an election and not going to a useless impeachment that will never succeed.And she's trying to save moderate seats and gain moderate campaigns in the future, to defeat Republican Trump candidates in areas that used to be Democratic.So she's acting very practically.But that causes her a huge problem, a divide within her own caucus.

It's fascinating to see the change in the Democratic Caucus from 2010 to 2020, how the moderates all retired or were defeated; how someone who was a progressive back 10 years ago is now considered mainstream today; how you've got 25 or 30 members of the Democratic Caucus that clearly organize to the left of Pelosi, and they think she is way too conservative for them.

She hasn't changed.She's the same person now that she was 10 years ago, 15, even 20 years ago.It's that the party has changed.The leadership has changed.The rank and file has changed.And it makes her seem old-fashioned and representative of a different era.Maybe it's true.But I think she's been true to herself, true to her beliefs, true to her philosophy and true to her leadership. …

So take me to the State of the Union.He comes in emboldened.There's a rage that you can see in her sitting behind him when he gives the Medal of Freedom to [Rush] Limbaugh, and he basically takes ownership of that room.And then she, at the end, makes this amazing visual statement.When you see that footage, what's going on?What do you think is important?

I was watching that speech, as I watch every State of the Union, and normally I do focus groups.In this case I was in the room, and I was stunned, just stunned.And people looked up at her, wondering if they had actually seen what they thought they saw.It's never happened before.No one sitting behind a president has ever said, "Screw you," as she's tearing it apart.And I wanted to rush home and see it because I couldn't believe it.I thought I just missaw it.I thought that—but boy, did she make a statement, and that statement wasn't missed on anyone.

I'll tell you this.As a pollster, as a communication consultant, words are powerful, but visuals are forever, and that was her statement and her conclusion about the last four years of the Trump presidency.I got it.Everyone got it.And to some, that was the most abhorrent act of a speaker in American history, and to others, she had done the greatest, most courageous statement that she ever could have made.

Pelosi and Biden

… Everything that she's done, everything that we've talked about and that's she's learned from her past and everything else, how does she bring that to bear when Biden comes to power?How do they end up pursuing the most aggressive legislation in a generation?… How did she get to that point, and what does it say?

Nancy Pelosi's a good politician, and she learns from the past.She knows that the odds of them keeping control of the House are less than 50/50, so she's going to do a history lesson to her members, reminding them that if they don't get anything done, then they lose like they did in 1994.And if they get done what they want to get done, they may lose like they did in 2010.Either way, it's not a good outcome for Democrats, so why not get a lot done and change the country?

Second is that she had Donald Trump.She had the blessing of Donald Trump not shutting up.I don't know how to emphasize that Trump being involved in this process, continuing to be involved in it, is such a blessing for the Democrats because, once again, he's a unifier.So she doesn't have to say to her party members, "Hey, do it for me."She gets a chance to say to them: "Do it against him.He's opposed to it.This is your chance to give him one last kick.You didn't impeach him.You didn't throw him out of office.Now here's your chance to give him the boot once and for all by getting these policies done."So she's actually had a really easy task at it, because Trump has made it easy for her.

But as we do this interview, Democrats are dropping in the polls.Biden has fallen into the mid-40s in job approval.It looks more and more likely like the Republicans will win the majority in a year's time.Obviously we won't know until then, but just maybe they are making the same mistakes that they made before.

And I'll tell you another thing, which is separate.Joe Biden was not elected to be Bernie Sanders.He was not elected to be Nancy Pelosi.He was elected to be a unifier.He was elected to cooperate and compromise.He was elected to pursue a Democratic agenda, not a progressive agenda, and that's not what he's been doing.Nancy Pelosi must be the happiest person in Washington, D.C., right now, because she's getting the agenda that she wanted from the day she was elected.

… In so many ways, Pelosi has won battle after battle, and yet she's lost the war.But if you look at where we are, at the end of 2021, she may just have won the biggest war of all.The Biden legislation is not something that he talked about when he was running, but it is something that she has talked about for the last 10 years.And as of this moment, she is so likely to achieve it that just maybe she's the big winner of the last 10 years after all.

… My last question is, over this time period, you've seen the Republican Party have trouble, the establishment, the leadership have trouble to control their caucus.For Pelosi, how much credit do you give her personally, or how much of it is the politics of the caucus, that there hasn't been a similar all-out revolt inside the Democratic Caucus?Is that her, or is the landscape different?

As I think about the answer, I give Nancy Pelosi a lot of credit for being able to withstand opposition within her caucus, for being able to lead for so long, for more than a decade, for being truly in control, where it is rare that she can't bring a vote to the floor.It is rare that she can't get a majority of her people.She runs that place with an iron first.

But at the same time, I hold her responsible and accountable for so much of the divisions and the anger in this country.She understands Democrats really well, but she doesn't understand the American people.She can deliver Democrats better than any Democrat in my lifetime.She is going to go down as a great speaker, in terms of her ability to get what she wants done.But as a unifier, as a small-d democrat, she's a failure.

I know what she cares about.So when she finally decides to hang it up, she'll look back on it as being a wonderful ride and a very successful one.But as a pollster who values democracy, again with a small-d, I think so much damage has been done, and I wonder if it can be repaired.

Latest Interviews

Get our Newsletter

Stay Connected

Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation

Koo and Patricia Yuen

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.