Town Hall: "Fight" - Inside the 2024 Election with Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes

The auditorium at George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs is filled to capacity. Political junkies, journalists, students, and curious citizens have gathered for this special town hall with Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, authors of "Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House." The stage features a comfortable arrangement of the guests on a wide couch. Dr. Marcus Bennett, a respected political psychologist, sits in a chair to the side of them. The atmosphere buzzes with anticipation as the audience settles in for what promises to be an illuminating discussion about one of the most turbulent presidential elections in American history.

Dr. Bennett: "Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this special town hall event. I'm Dr. Marcus Bennett, and tonight we're diving deep into what has been called the wildest battle for the White House in modern American history. With us are the authors who chronicled it all in remarkable detail—Jonathan Allen, award-winning political reporter at NBC News, and Amie Parnes, senior political correspondent for The Hill. Their new book, 'Fight,' has already topped the bestseller lists and generated significant conversation across the political spectrum. Jonathan, Amie—thank you both for being here tonight."

Allen: "Thanks for having us, Marcus. Great to be here."

Parnes: "Yes, thank you. We're excited to share some insights from our reporting."

Dr. Bennett: "Let's start with the genesis of this book. You've previously collaborated on 'Shattered' about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and 'Lucky' about Biden's 2020 victory. When did you realize that the 2024 race was going to be your next project?"

Parnes and Allen exchange a glance, both smiling slightly as they recall the moment when everything changed.

Parnes: "Well, Jonathan and I were actually out of the campaign book writing business—until that night, June 27th. The debate between Biden and Trump changed everything. Our phones were just blowing up, and our publisher called us a couple days later saying, 'You guys have to do another book.' We knew it would be exciting based on what happened that night, but we had no idea about all the twists and turns that would follow."

Allen: "Right. That debate was such an inflection point. It was clear within minutes that something was wrong with President Biden, and the political earthquake it set off—ultimately leading to his withdrawal and Harris stepping in—created this unprecedented 107-day sprint to Election Day. We thought our previous books captured dramatic campaigns, but this one surpassed them all."

Dr. Bennett: "Your book opens on June 27th with Nancy Pelosi watching the debate alone in her Washington condo. Why begin there? What made that scene so significant?"

Allen: "That scene really encapsulated something important. Here's Nancy Pelosi, arguably the most powerful Democrat in Congress, choosing to watch alone because she had this gut feeling—almost a premonition—that something was going to go wrong. She had actually urged Biden not to debate Trump at all. The way she put it was that he shouldn't 'lower himself' to Trump's level, but reading between the lines, she was concerned about Biden's performance."

Parnes: "And what's fascinating is that she wasn't the only Democrat watching alone that night. We take readers around to various figures—Jim Clyburn with his Jack and Diet Pepsi, Al Sharpton, donor John Morgan in Florida—all of them having the same reaction within minutes. They're all texting and calling each other, and it becomes immediately clear to the Democratic establishment that Biden simply wasn't viable as a candidate anymore."

Dr. Bennett: "One of the most surprising revelations in your book concerns the extent of Biden's cognitive decline before the debate. You detail incidents going back to 2021 and 2022. What were some of the early warning signs that insiders saw but the public didn't?"

Allen: "There were quite a few incidents that, when put together, painted a concerning picture. In the summer of 2023, Biden reportedly didn't recognize Congressman Eric Swalwell at the Congressional picnic, despite Swalwell being a frequent TV guest and someone Biden knew. We documented how Biden's staff would place fluorescent tape on the carpet at events—literally creating a path for him to follow. One aide described them as 'colorful breadcrumbs' that showed the president where to walk."

Parnes: "And at fundraisers, he often needed teleprompters even for what were supposed to be 'unscripted' remarks. We report on a reception hosted by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy two days after the debate where Biden's speech was halting, and he didn't appear well. Multiple sources told us about these accommodations, but they were kept very quiet. Biden was essentially in a 'cocoon' with very limited access."

Allen: "It's quite stunning what we've revealed. Beyond the Swalwell incident, we found that Biden would sometimes wander aimlessly around the White House. There's a scene where he's giving an impromptu tour with Kevin McCarthy along for the ride, and McCarthy felt the need to almost chaperone him because he was wandering aimlessly despite Jill Biden telling him not to do this. He was showing people rooms and areas that no one really cared about seeing."

Parnes: "We also learned about the optics team's concerns. When Biden traveled, meeting with a makeup artist was his first order of business every day—not for TV appearances, but for Zoom calls with his staff. The White House was very concerned about how he appeared, not just to the broader public but even to people internally in the administration."

Dr. Bennett: "Your reporting suggests that Biden's family, particularly Jill and Hunter Biden, played significant roles in his decision to stay in the race as long as he did. Could you elaborate on their influence?"

Allen: "The family dynamics were fascinating. Jill Biden has always been incredibly protective of her husband, but in this case, that protectiveness may have prevented him from seeing political reality clearly. We report that Hunter Biden was actually one of the loudest voices encouraging his father to stay in the race. He was described by one source as 'a major behind-the-scenes force.'"

Parnes: "Right, and one Biden adviser is quoted saying 'Nobody walks away from this'—meaning the presidency, Air Force One, all the trappings of power. That was doubly true for the First Lady. It took Biden catching COVID and seeing truly disastrous polling to finally change course."

Dr. Bennett: "Let's talk about the efforts to push Biden out. Your book details how Pelosi and Obama worked, sometimes behind the scenes, to encourage Biden's exit. How did that unfold?"

Parnes: "Pelosi played a masterful political game here. She was very concerned about down-ballot effects—House races, Senate races. When she appeared on Morning Joe and said 'He has a decision to make,' it was a coded message. The Biden campaign was furious, because they thought they'd finally gotten back on track after the debate, and her comment pulled them right back into crisis mode."

Allen: "The deterioration of Biden's relationship with Pelosi is one of the most significant political fractures in recent Democratic history. We have a scene in the book where Biden is on Air Force One with close allies including Jim Clyburn, Chris Coons, and Al Sharpton about a week after dropping out. He thanks them for sticking with him, telling Sharpton, 'You stuck with me... I'll never forget it.' Then he adds, 'And here's who I will never forgive: Nancy Pelosi.' That relationship is completely shattered."

Parnes: "The Obama-Biden relationship was already strained before this. Obama hadn't supported Biden in 2016 or initially in 2020. When Obama called Biden after the debate and asked 'What's your path?', Biden's internal thought was 'What's your fucking plan?' He immediately sensed Obama was trying to push him out, and it reinforced years of tension between them."

Dr. Bennett: "Let's shift to Kamala Harris. You describe how she was kept out of key discussions and even misled about her own polling numbers. What was happening in her world during this turbulent period?"

Parnes: "Kamala Harris herself was being misled. She was in a very precarious position—having to maintain total loyalty to Biden while also preparing for the possibility he might step aside. We reveal that hours before Biden actually called to tell her he was dropping out, her closest advisers were meeting in her pool house at the Naval Observatory, gaming out what a transition would look like."

Allen: "And once Biden did decide to leave the race, there was this fascinating back-and-forth about his endorsement. Initially, he told her, 'You have my support, kid,' but she knew that wasn't an explicit endorsement. She had to push him for it, because every minute without his formal backing was dangerous—other candidates might jump in. Eventually he agreed, but even then, he extracted a promise of 'no daylight' between them on policy, which later became problematic for her campaign."

Allen: "What's truly shocking is that we found evidence that Biden's team was actively undermining Harris even before he stepped down. They were sending emails to donors essentially saying, 'If you kick him out of the race, you're going to be left with her.' Biden was essentially drowning Harris to keep his own head above water when it was clear to everyone else that he couldn't make it."

Parnes: "This wasn't just passive neglect. For years, the Biden White House kept Harris on lockdown, gave her impossible assignments like border czar, and provided little support. Then when they needed her to take over, they'd already damaged her standing. It created an almost impossible situation for her campaign from the start."

Dr. Bennett: "One of the more surprising revelations is that Obama initially floated the idea of a 'mini-primary' rather than immediately backing Harris. Was that ever a serious possibility?"

Allen: "Obama absolutely wanted an open process. In fact, on the very day Biden dropped out, Obama called Congressman Jim Clyburn at 5:30 PM to discuss it. But Clyburn, anticipating this call, had already publicly endorsed Harris. Their conversation lasted less than a minute once Clyburn made that clear. Obama had concerns about Harris's electability, but the party machinery was moving too quickly toward consolidation behind her."

Parnes: "And Harris was making rapid phone calls to lock up support. She had a list ready to go and started calling governors and key Democrats immediately. We describe a scene where she's talking to some governors who are asking about the process, and she thinks to herself, 'I'm lapping them. They're asking when the race starts.' She was very skilled at intra-party politics."

Dr. Bennett: "Let's talk about the Trump campaign. You present a contrast between the chaos on the Democratic side and a relatively disciplined operation under Trump. How did that dynamic play out?"

Allen leans forward, eager to dispel one of the misconceptions about the Trump campaign.

Allen: "This is one of the surprising things about 2024. Trump's campaign chiefs, Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, managed to minimize the chaos that had characterized his previous runs. There's this remarkable scene on Trump Force One where former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski tries to undermine them by claiming they're mismanaging campaign funds. Trump actually backs Wiles and LaCivita, telling Lewandowski, 'They're in charge' and essentially sending him off to New Hampshire."

Parnes: "Trump also showed surprising discipline on messaging. His team convinced him to moderate his position on abortion, for instance, showing him data about swing state voters. He was receptive to that kind of strategic advice in a way we hadn't seen before. Meanwhile, the Harris campaign was struggling to find its footing, particularly on whether to create distance from Biden."

Dr. Bennett: "You write about Harris's appearance on The View where she said she wouldn't change anything about the Biden administration. How significant was that moment?"

Parnes: "That was a pivotal moment. Her aides had actually prepped her for that exact question! She was supposed to acknowledge Biden's accomplishments but then pivot to the future and how things would be different. Instead, she said she wouldn't change a thing, which played right into the Trump campaign's hands. They immediately created an ad portraying her as promising more of the same when voters clearly wanted change."

Allen: "It highlighted her challenge—Biden had told her 'no daylight, kid' as a condition of his support. But in a change election, with right track/wrong track numbers heavily favoring the opposition, that tied her to an unpopular status quo. She was in an impossible position."

Dr. Bennett: "One of the most discussed advertising moments of the campaign was the Trump campaign's 'they/them' transgender ad targeting Harris. Your book reveals some surprising details about the Harris campaign's response—or lack thereof. What happened there?"

Allen: "This was perhaps the clearest example of how data-driven decision-making can go wrong. The Trump campaign spent over $30 million on this ad that featured Harris's comments about transgender issues, contrasting 'they/them' with 'Trump's for you.' It was running everywhere—during football games, World Series, primetime TV."

Allen: "The ad was incredibly effective in its simplicity. Trump saw a private screening of it on Trump Force One with Chris LaCivita, and he thought it was almost perfect. The tagline 'Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you' resonated powerfully, especially with male voters. It may have been the most potent political ad in recent cycles."

Parnes: "What made the situation worse was the stark contrast in approaches. While Democrats relied heavily on analytics, the Trump team used data but balanced it with political instinct. Trump's team saw immediate results from this ad and doubled down on it, while the Harris campaign was telling Bill Clinton 'your eyes and ears are misleading you' despite his decades of political experience."

Parnes: "Former President Bill Clinton actually called campaign manager Jen O'Malley Dillon because he was seeing it constantly and hearing about it on rope lines. He was concerned about the impact. But O'Malley Dillon told him, 'Your eyes and ears are misleading you.' Their data supposedly showed the ad wasn't effective, and focus groups didn't like any of their potential responses, so they chose not to respond at all."

Allen: "Meanwhile, the Trump campaign's internal metrics showed it was one of their most effective ads ever. This speaks to a larger point we make in the book about an over-reliance on analytics versus political instinct. When Bill Clinton, one of the most intuitive politicians of his generation, is telling you something's working and you dismiss it because of data points—that's a problem."

Dr. Bennett: "Let's open this up to questions from the audience. Please wait for the microphone so everyone can hear you."

A woman in her thirties raises her hand and is passed a microphone.

Audience Member 1: "Your sourcing for this book is remarkable—you appear to know what was happening in multiple rooms simultaneously and even what people were thinking. Can you talk about your methodology and how you verify these accounts?"

Allen: "That's a great question. We conducted more than 150 interviews with people across all three camps—Biden, Harris, and Trump. Some sources spoke to us multiple times as events unfolded. We always try to get multiple confirmations for key scenes and quotes. If someone tells us what another person was thinking, we try to talk to that person directly or get confirmation from someone else who spoke to them at the time."

Parnes: "We've been covering Washington politics for decades between us, which helps with access. People know we'll be fair but thorough. This is our third campaign book together, which builds trust with sources. They know we'll tell the full story, not just the public-facing version. We also work hard to protect sources who need anonymity while ensuring the information is accurate."

A middle-aged man in a blazer is next to receive the microphone.

Audience Member 2: "You've painted a fairly devastating portrait of Biden's decline and the campaign's efforts to hide it. Do you think there was a collective failure of the media to report on this more aggressively before the debate made it undeniable?"

Parnes: "I think there's some validity to that criticism. As reporters, we were trying to get at this story, but it was extremely difficult. The White House was aggressive—even threatening—when questions about Biden's capacity were raised. They controlled access tightly and created this narrative that anyone questioning his fitness was spreading Republican talking points."

Allen: "I'd add that without being medical professionals, journalists were put in a difficult position. We couldn't diagnose Biden, and those closest to him—who could actually observe his condition regularly—had every incentive to downplay concerns. The press was caught between accusations of ageism if they pushed too hard and accusations of being asleep at the switch when the debate finally exposed the reality."

A young woman who identifies herself as a political science student is next.

Audience Member 3: "Your previous books 'Shattered' and 'Lucky' were about losing and winning campaigns respectively. What was different about writing 'Fight,' which covers both sides of the race in depth?"

Allen: "That's an insightful question. 'Fight' is unique because it doesn't just chronicle one campaign but rather this extraordinary moment of transition between campaigns. We're covering Biden's collapse, Harris's emergence, and Trump's comeback simultaneously. That required a different structure and approach."

Parnes: "It also meant we needed even more sources across a wider spectrum. And the timeline was intense—we were reporting in real-time as these historic events unfolded. There was no waiting until after the election to start gathering information. We were calling sources the night of the debate, the day Biden dropped out, throughout Harris's abbreviated campaign."

An older gentleman who identifies himself as a former campaign strategist takes the microphone next.

Audience Member 4: "In the book, you describe how Harris made a trip to Texas late in the campaign primarily to be close to Joe Rogan's studio in Austin, hoping for a podcast appearance that never materialized. How significant was that missed opportunity?"

Allen: "That's one of those revealing episodes that shows campaign desperation. The Harris team saw Trump connecting with male voters through podcasts like Rogan's, which reaches millions. They actually moved an entire rally to Texas—not a swing state—on a Friday night during football season, primarily to be near Rogan's studio."

Parnes: "There was extensive back-and-forth with Rogan's team, and at one point they were told Rogan was taking a 'personal day.' It later emerged that Trump was there for his three-hour interview on that 'personal day.' Instead of Rogan, Harris got Beyoncé at her rally, but Beyoncé only gave a speech rather than performing as some had expected. It was symbolic of the campaign's struggles to expand beyond the base."

Dr. Bennett: "You write that Harris went into election night confident of victory, only to be shocked by the results. What led to that misplaced confidence? Was it more polling errors or internal campaign dynamics?"

Allen: "Both, really. The final internal projection actually showed Harris losing, but remarkably, that information wasn't shared with her. We report that she felt 'gaslit' by her own campaign. There was that famous Des Moines Register Iowa poll showing her ahead that created false hope, but more fundamentally, there was this bubble that formed where challenging assumptions became difficult."

Allen: "The level of shock on election night speaks to a fundamental disconnect within the campaign. The senior advisers, including David Plouffe, had told Harris she was going to win all seven battleground states. But their final internal projections actually showed her losing—information that wasn't shared with her. She entered election night with completely unrealistic expectations."

Parnes: "Harris later concluded, as we write in our epilogue, that she could have won if only the election was later in the calendar, if Biden had withdrawn earlier, or if he hadn't run at all. There wasn't enough time for her to establish herself with just 107 days, but the campaign's overconfidence prevented them from making the strategic adjustments that might have helped."

Parnes: "Vice presidential nominee Tim Walz was equally confident. We take readers inside his hotel room at the Mayflower in Washington when the results start coming in. He's so shocked that his wife has to speak for him because he can't find the words. The disconnect between their expectations and reality was profound."

A woman near the back of the auditorium asks about the book's reception.

Audience Member 5: "Your book has been called both 'scathing' and 'revelatory.' Have you received pushback from the Biden or Harris camps about your portrayal of events? Are there aspects they dispute?"

Parnes: "We've certainly heard some grumbling, which is natural. No one likes to see their missteps or internal disagreements chronicled. But remarkably, very little of our reporting has been challenged on factual grounds. That speaks to the strength of our sourcing and the reality that these events were witnessed by many people."

Allen: "I think some in Biden world feel the book is too harsh about his physical and mental decline, but our job wasn't to protect anyone's reputation—it was to accurately report what happened. Similarly, some in Harris world feel we didn't emphasize enough how difficult her position was, taking over a struggling campaign with just over three months to go. But we tried to be fair in presenting those challenges."

Dr. Bennett: "In your epilogue, you discuss the concept of 'gaslighting'—that Democratic voters and even campaign insiders were told everything was fine when internal data showed otherwise. Do you see this as a particular problem for Democrats, or is it endemic to modern politics?"

Allen: "That's a thought-provoking question. I don't think gaslighting is unique to either party, but in this specific case, there was a collective effort to deny Biden's obvious decline. The party establishment, campaign officials, and even many in the media participated in what became a case study in gaslighting."

Parnes: "I'd add that the rapid pivot to Harris created a second wave of this phenomenon. Having claimed Biden was perfectly fine for months, suddenly the party had to explain why he wasn't. Then Harris was portrayed as the candidate who could absolutely win, despite obvious challenges. Trust was broken at multiple levels, which contributed to the election outcome."

Audience Member 6: "What lessons do you think Democrats should take from this defeat? And what should Republicans learn from Trump's victory?"

Parnes: "For Democrats, there needs to be some accountability. Someone, whether President Biden or people close to him, needs to address what actually happened. The party can't move forward without that reckoning. Democrats also need to rebuild trust with voters who felt misled, and figure out how to communicate more effectively on kitchen-table issues."

Allen: "For Republicans, I think the lesson is that discipline and message consistency work. Trump stayed focused on a few key issues—inflation, immigration, and to some extent, Israel—where he had advantages. The campaign resisted chasing every shiny object or responding to every controversy. That strategic patience paid off."

The conversation turns more serious as Dr. Bennett asks about the deeper structural issues within the Democratic Party revealed by the events of 2024. Both authors lean forward, their expressions reflecting the gravity of what their reporting uncovered.

Dr. Bennett: "Beyond the personalities and tactical decisions, your book seems to reveal something more troubling about the Democratic Party's structure itself—a kind of institutional vulnerability. Could you speak to the deeper systemic issues you uncovered?"

Allen: "What we found most alarming was the complete absence of functional guardrails within the party. Despite clear evidence of Biden's decline—which staffers were documenting internally—there was no mechanism to address it. The DNC had already restructured the primary calendar to benefit Biden, effectively preventing any challenge. Power was concentrated in such a small circle around the president that the entire party became hostage to the decisions of literally three or four people—including family members with no political expertise."

Parnes: "And that created this perfect storm where loyalty trumped reality. Everyone knew there was a problem, but the incentive structure rewarded those who pretended everything was fine. We found instances where data was literally being manipulated to hide bad news from the president or cherry-picked to support predetermined conclusions. In one interview, a senior campaign official told us, 'If the building was on fire, we'd be the ones saying the heat was just part of the strategy.'"

Dr. Bennett: "What does this reveal about our democratic institutions more broadly? Is this a Democratic Party problem specifically, or something more systemic in American politics?"

Allen: "I think what 2024 exposed is the vulnerability of our two-party system to capture by small groups. In our reporting, we heard this phrase repeatedly—'the party is not a party anymore.' What they meant was that the traditional Democratic Party with broad coalitions, local organizations, and multiple power centers has been replaced by a top-down operation where a handful of consultants, family members, and mega-donors have extraordinary influence."

Parnes: "And while we focused on Democrats in this book, there are similar dynamics in Republican politics. The difference in 2024 was that Trump, for all his flaws, was cognitively present and fighting to win. The Democratic establishment was fighting to maintain the illusion that everything was normal, even as their leader was clearly struggling. That created this bizarre situation where they were simultaneously claiming Biden was fine while preparing for Harris to take over if he died in office."

Dr. Bennett: "The implications for democracy itself seem profound. What's at stake if these issues aren't addressed?"

Allen: "In an interview after our book was published, I said something that generated controversy but I stand by it: 'I don't know if it's scarier if other people were making decisions or if Joe Biden was making the decisions.' That gets to the heart of the democratic crisis we uncovered. Either the elected president wasn't actually governing, which is a constitutional crisis, or he was governing while severely impaired, which is equally troubling."

Parnes: "The foundation of representative democracy is informed consent of the governed. What we documented was a systematic effort to deny Americans accurate information about the president's condition. One senior Democrat told us, 'We lied to the American people for years.' That's not just a campaign failure—it's a breach of the social contract between leaders and citizens in a democracy."

Allen: "And the aftermath is equally concerning. There's been no real accountability. The same decision-makers who created this disaster have largely moved on to new positions. The lessons haven't been learned. We're already seeing a replay of the same analytics-over-instinct approach that led to ignoring Bill Clinton's warnings about that transgender ad. There's a fundamental disconnect between Democratic leadership and the lived experience of voters that remains unaddressed."

Parnes: "The long-term danger is that voters lose faith not just in a party but in the system itself. When institutions systematically mislead the public about something as fundamental as whether the president is capable of doing the job, it erodes trust in everything else. And that trust is the foundation of a functioning democracy."

Dr. Bennett: "What would real accountability look like in your view? What needs to change?"

Allen: "First, there needs to be a genuine reckoning with what happened. Not spin, not excuse-making, but a true accounting. Second, the party needs structural reform that distributes power more broadly and creates actual mechanisms for addressing leadership problems when they arise. And third, there needs to be a reconnection with voters' actual concerns rather than telling them what they should care about."

Parnes: "I'd add that the media also needs to examine its role in this. Many outlets were too deferential, too willing to accept White House framing about Biden's condition. The narrative that questioning his fitness was 'ageist' or 'playing into Republican talking points' effectively shut down legitimate inquiry. That failure had real consequences for voters' ability to make informed decisions."

Audience Member: "Given everything you've described, do you think American democracy is more fragile now than before this election cycle?"

Allen: "Unquestionably. What we documented isn't just campaign tactics gone wrong—it's institutional failure on a profound level. When basic truth about the president's condition becomes a casualty of political expediency, the entire system of representative government is compromised. Democracy requires informed citizens making choices based on reality, not carefully constructed illusions."

Parnes: "And restoring that foundation requires more than just changing personnel or strategy. It requires rebuilding trust through transparency and accountability. Our reporting suggests that hasn't begun in earnest yet. The same dynamics that led to this crisis—insularity, denial, prioritizing loyalty over competence—remain largely in place."

Dr. Bennett: "Both of you have made it clear that this wasn't just a conventional campaign loss but potentially a deeper institutional failure. If the Democrats want to be competitive in 2028, what fundamental changes do they need to make?"

Allen: "The Democrats have lost their identity. They don't know who they are anymore and have too many disparate ideas without a coherent vision. They need a forward-looking vision of modern America that speaks to kitchen-table issues instead of abstract concepts. In the book, we note how Harris talked about 'democracy' as an issue, which as one aide put it, 'is more abstract than self-actualization at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.' Meanwhile, Trump was focused on inflation, immigration, and tangible concerns."

Parnes: "They also need to come to terms with what happened, which they haven't done yet. As one senior Democrat told us in a striking admission, 'We lied to the American people for years.' Without that reckoning, without admitting they have a problem—like an alcoholic, as one of our sources put it—they can't move forward. The same decision-makers who created this situation are still in positions of influence, and that's a fundamental challenge for the party's future."

Dr. Bennett: "Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, thank you for sharing these insights from your remarkable reporting. 'Fight' offers readers an unprecedented look behind the scenes of this historic election, and we appreciate you joining us tonight to discuss it."

Allen: "Thank you, Marcus, and thanks to this engaged audience. These elections matter, and understanding what happened helps us prepare for the next one."

Parnes: "Yes, thank you all for coming. We wrote this book not just to chronicle history but to provide lessons for the future. These campaigns affect all our lives, and transparency about their inner workings serves our democracy."

As the formal program concludes, audience members line up to have their books signed. Bennett, Allen, and Parnes continue responding to individual questions as attendees approach the stage, the conversation extending well beyond the scheduled end time as people remain eager to discuss the extraordinary election that reshaped American politics.