← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Iran War and Midterms Strategy, Plus Ro Khanna on a Potential 2028 Presidential Run
01:08:35
Mark Halperin speaks with Congressman Ro Khanna of California about the real impact of the Iran war, weighing military gains against rising costs and making the case for diplomacy. Khanna also opens up about a potential 2028 presidential run and the personal and political factors, including family, shaping his decision. Then, the Economist’s James Bennet joins to examine President Trump’s motives in the conflict and the risks of how the war is being framed. Lastly, Vin Weber and Kevin Walling join together to break down why Donald Trump, not the economy, will define the midterms and how turnout dynamics could shape the outcome. They also dive into the role of money in politics, where billionaire donors should be spending, and why Democrats continue to excel at small-dollar donations. 120Life: Go to https://120Life.com and use code NEXTUP to save 20% ExpressVPN: Visit https://ExpressVPN.com/MARK to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Acre Gold: Start building physical...
Loading summary
Transcript173 lines
- [00:00]
Health Insurance Advertiser
When a trip to the hospital or pharmacy leads to a bill no one saw coming. We're here to help. Your health insurance provider is working every day with hospitals and drug companies so families can get the care they need at prices they can afford. That's why we're investing in new technologies that make care easier to access, more predictable and more affordable, and helping bring down high hospital and prescription drug prices. There's more to do and we'll continue fighting for you.
- [00:32]
Apple Pay Advertiser
Pay around the corner and around the globe. Apple Pay is accepted at millions of places worldwide. Wherever you see the contactless symbol in stores or the Apple Pay button online and in apps. Whether you're checking out on iPhone or Apple Watch, just double click pay and be on your way. Add your debit or credit card to wallet and you're good to go. Pay the Apple Way terms apply.
- [00:58]
James Bennett
Foreign.
- [01:03]
Mark Halpern
Welcome in everybody. I'm Mark Calper and this is another wartime episode of Next up. We have plenty to talk about, not just the Iran war, but other things that are going on currently here in America and around the world. I'm the editor in chief of the live interactive video platform 2way and your host here for a program that I love doing and love spending time with you. This is the Thursday episode and we're glad you're here to talk through with four great guests, guest guests and more guests today, packed episode. Stay around for the whole thing. First up, Congressman Rona, Democrat of California. He's been here before. He's a really smart and interesting guy and some of you love him and some of you less so. But he's always interesting. And I'm going to talk to him about the war and about how he feels about what's happened and what should happen next after that. James Bennett will be here. He is the Lexington columnist and at the Economist. And I've known him a long time, super smart guy. We're also going to talk about how he sees the Iran conflict. And then finally rounding out the hour, bring in a panel of two other smarty pants, Democratic strategist, former Biden Harris, surrogate Kevin Walling, a regular on the morning, meeting with me on two way, and Vin Weber, former congressman from Minnesota, partner at the public for a public affairs firm, Mercury, and both also super smart to help us try to figure out what's what and what's next up. So in a moment, after a quick break, we're going to talk to Congressman Ro Khanna of California. Ro Khanna is next up. Did you know that high blood pressure is the number one risk factor for mortality, one in two adults has it. That means there's a 5050 chance. You are a walking time bomb. But here's some good news. You can take control of your blood pressure naturally without relying on Big Pharma. 120 Life is a Blend of great testing super fruit juices that have been shown to lower blood pressure. It's backed by hundreds of doctors and trusted by thousands of people who've seen measurable results. And here is the best part. It's all completely risk free. Try 120Life for two weeks and if you don't see a difference in your numbers, you can get your money back. Go to 120Life.com again, that's 120Life.com and use the code NextUp to save 20% and get free shipping. Great deal. This is a serious business. This is your life we're talking about. 120 life can help. All right, next up and joining me now, the gentleman from California, Ro Khanna. Congressman who has been elevated over the last 12 months. People are interested in what he has to say about everything. And Congressman, it's a problem with my booking, booking guests on the show, almost everyone who's on and you'd not be an exception. I have about 100 things I want to ask you about and the segments not long enough. So I'm going to do my best to ask you about the most interesting things and we appreciate you making time to come back on Next up.
- [03:53]
Ro Khanna
Oh, it's great to be back. I hope I don't get you too much hot water with your friends. I saw an ex. Why are you having the guy back on? So I'm looking forward to the conversation.
- [04:02]
Mark Halpern
Don't, don't, don't read X. At least not for anything but entertainment. This show is called Next up not what happened before. So I know, I know about your opposition to and questions about the president's operation with Israel in Iran. But I want to just ask you this as an American, as a member of Congress, what's going well in the, in the conflict right now? What do you see on the battlefield in the diplomatic realm that you say, well, that's, that's good for the United States, that's good for America, that's good for Israel?
- [04:33]
Ro Khanna
Well, he's degraded Iran's military capability. He suggested the president should declare victory in and the war now. I opposed it. I don't think it was worth the loss of American lives. I don't think it was worth the $2 billion we're paying a day. We've replaced Khamenei senior with Khamenei junior. But there's no doubt we've degraded Iran's military capability. We've degraded their ballistic missiles. We still haven't gotten the enriched uranium, the 60% enriched uranium of 400 kg that's underneath, buried underneath. And that's why I believe ultimately there has to be a diplomatic solution. But what I'd like the President to do is declare victory, say he's degraded the Iranian capability and end this war, bring our troops back and start to focus on America.
- [05:19]
Mark Halpern
If that were the outcome, or something along the lines of what you said, and this isn't a far fetched thing, if he could say and demonstrate to your satisfaction. It was not bluster, but true. Their navy was basically eliminated. Their missile capacity was degraded to the point where it was, it wasn't the same threat it was to the region. Their terror capacity to control terror networks in the region was seriously undermined. And the results of the military conflict were such that there could be, on American and Israeli terms, a good negotiation over the nuclear material. If that all happened within the next few weeks, would your judgment have been that this was a good, just and smart mission or would you say no, it still shouldn't have been done.
- [06:03]
Ro Khanna
We still don't think it was worth the loss of over 13American service members. It was not worth the cost. And ultimately we're not getting at the main thing, which is we have to get at their enriched uranium. A lot of that is buried underground. I mean, it's why the strikes didn't get it eliminated in June. It's why we still haven't eliminated it. And it's unclear whether the regime is going to be more hard line, less hardline. Are they going to continue to kill protesters? But what I would say is if he stops the war now, at least it's not going to get us into a situation where we're sending ground troops or we're seeing American casualties build or we're continuing to see this reporting of $200 billion going to this war. I don't even understand that. I mean, I thought he ran on not getting us into Middle east wars in America first and creating jobs here and health care. Hair would love for the President to have an off ramp here because my interest is in the country, not in scoring political points. There are plenty of other things to argue with him. He ends the war, we can start to talk about healthcare and jobs and other things. What I don't want is for this
- [07:12]
Mark Halpern
war to continue, what's your sense of what the Iranian nuclear capacity was before President Obama struck a deal with them? And then at the end of that deal, when President Trump abrogated it, was the nuclear program set back by the deal? Did it proceed apace? What's your sense of that?
- [07:30]
Ro Khanna
Here's my understanding of the facts. You correct me if you have a different understanding that before Obama negotiated it, they had basically 20% enriched uranium. Obama negotiated it and it capped at 3.67% enriched uranium, which would have allowed them to develop nuclear capability within 12 months. But that's okay. Nuclear capability for Obama, not adding that nuclear capability to a ballistic missile, which would have been another 12 months. And Obama basically felt that that would have bought us 15 years because it was capped at 15 years of 3.67%. Trump comes up, he rips up the agreement, and then they are enriching uranium at 60% and that would have allowed them to get a nuclear capability within one to two weeks. Now we have to take action. If there's one to two weeks of doing something to prevent them from getting a bomb. Now it's still difficult to take that enriched uranium and put it on a ballistic missile. And as you know, and everyone acknowledges they don't have icbm, so they can't hit Silicon Valley. But it was a concern. I believe Oman was negotiating to get this thing back below 3.67% and to get the enriched uranium, the 60% enriched uranium underground. And then, you know, I don't. They gave up on that negotiation. But ultimately there has to be negotiation to make sure Iran's non nuclear.
- [08:59]
Mark Halpern
That Oman account of the, the status of the negotiations at the time military action was initiated is not one that's shared by the Americans, those familiar with the negotiations. Are you more inclined to believe the American negotiators or more inclined to believe the Omanis?
- [09:17]
Ro Khanna
Well, I believe the Americans, though I have doubts about this administration. But what I don't understand is why they gave up on the negotiation. I mean, maybe it's just that Obama negotiator.
- [09:27]
Mark Halpern
Well, they, they, they think maybe it's
- [09:30]
Ro Khanna
just Obama's greater capability of striking a deal and statesmanship and Trump's inept at it or they weren't trying it hard enough.
- [09:38]
Mark Halpern
Well, they said they gave up because they thought what the Iranians were asking for was unrealistic and they didn't trust them. They said to be credible and trustworthy negotiators. Do you credit that more than the Omanis saying that the negotiations were on track or do you credit the American side saying the negotiations weren't going to be fruitful?
- [09:59]
Ro Khanna
Well, look, anytime you're negotiating with an adversary, you're going to have issues of trust. Reagan had that with Gorbachev. We have that. I mean, that's the nature of diplomacy. I mean, Obama didn't trust Iran, but he managed to get it done, to bring it under 5%, 3.67%. Now, there were legitimate criticisms saying that Obama didn't get enough done. 3.67% was for civilian nuclear. But you could argue that Iran really doesn't have that civilian need. And that was a we should have gotten it down to zero. And you could argue that they needed to give up their ballistic missiles. And that's what Trump should have done. And if he had cut a deal which was better than the jcpoa, I would have been the first one cheerleading. But instead of doing the painstaking work of hard diplomacy and bringing on other countries to do that, China, Russia, others, he basically said, okay, it's not working, I'm going to bomb them. But what comes next, Mark? I mean, are, are we going to bomb every. Every couple years?
- [10:55]
Mark Halpern
Well, maybe, maybe. But I just want to stay in the negotiations for at least one more beat. And the reason I'm persisting on this is I've heard you and other Democrats several times say the Omani say there was a deal to be had and the Americans walked away because either they were incompetent or cause they wanted to go to war, whatever the various explanations are. And then again, I've talked to the American side and they say the Iranians weren't telling the truth. They were bad faith actors. And sure, Reagan negotiated with the Russians, Soviets, but he saw trust but verify. He felt he could verify. The Americans didn't feel that way. So again, I'll just ask one more time and we'll move on. That's the American negotiation position. It wasn't that they gave up when there was a deal to be had. They thought they were being lied to. So do you credit that or you think that's not true?
- [11:46]
Ro Khanna
Well, I'm not going to believe the Omanis over the Americas. And if there are diplomats and others who are saying that Iran wasn't keeping it straight, I take them at some face value. But what I would say is you still have to then work towards diplomacy, get other countries engaged, get Iran, get India engaged, get China engaged. Like India's ships are passing through the Strait of Hormuz without being shot. And China, as you and I both know are 20% of their oil comes from Iran. Obama built a multilateral coalition to put pressure on Iran to make sure that he got that deal. And if Trump can get a better deal, he said he's the art of the dealmaker. I'm sure he's done deals with people he didn't trust. The question is, why is he not getting a deal and verifying it, and why is he instead costing Americans our lives and our money? His whole point was he's a better dealmaker. He says he would have prevented the war in Ukraine, Ukraine from starting. He claims he could have cut a deal with Putin. Well, Putin's not to be trustworthy. And you, you, you, this great deal maker can't cut a deal with a country that has 0.44% of GDP. I. It just seems to be a failure.
- [12:58]
Mark Halpern
So there's a range of issues that connect up to Israel, to American supporters of Israel, like APAC here in the United States, an organization that spends a lot of money trying to influence our politics and our elections in favor of Israel, about anti Semitism. All these connected issues are very hot, emotional in the United States and within the Republican Party, within your party. And as you know, I hear all the time from people who are extremely supportive of Israel in both the United States and Israel, who have looked at your public statements and they're very unhappy with you. And I know that you're not a divisive person, and I know that you're a supporter of Israel's right to exist. And yet persistently you do things that people bring to my attention. And I wish we had time to go through all of them, because at some point I want to clear the air on them. But. But just in general, how would you characterize your view of the American Israeli relationship as different from contrasted with President Trump's? What are the differences as you see how we should be interacting with Israel versus how you think Donald Trump does?
- [14:05]
Ro Khanna
Well, there's significant differences. Let me start out with what I think the end state should be, which is probably where Clinton was, where Bush was, where Obama was, Biden was. I don't know where President Trump is on it, but that is that there should be Israel as a Jewish democratic state that is secure, and there should be a Palestinian state in the west bank in Gaza, which is non Hamas, and that it does not, is demilitarized around the 1967 framework. That, to me, is where we need to head to. The Gaza war was devastating, in my view. It really changed a lot of my attitudes towards The Israeli government, not towards the Israeli people. I've been there three times and of course there's a deep cultural connection there, there's a economic connection to my district, there is a long time relationship, but towards the Israeli government. And what I would say is I would work towards recognizing a Palestinian state, national aspirations, non Hamas work with the Arab League to do that. I would make it very clear that we're not going to provide offensive military weapons to this government, Israel, until they work towards a two state solution and until they acknowledge the, the need to, to, to end the occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. But ultimately we need to have two states. So I imagine both of those places are departures from where Donald Trump is. It's not a departure from the mainstream of the Democratic Party as I mean the majority of Democratic senators voted for what I'm saying and many House Democrats share that view.
- [15:52]
Mark Halpern
There are lots of organizations in the United States to try to influence public opinion, try to influence elections. What is your view of the role of this group aipac? That's been a very powerful organization for a long time. Are you critical of their tactics, their strategy, their issue positions? What differences do you have with the group apac?
- [16:11]
Ro Khanna
Well, they don't like me very much these days. They're always, they're spent a little bit against me because they believe that what the Israeli government did in Gaza and what the UN found was a genocide wasn't a genocide. That's their right. Their American citizens were advocating for their policy position, but they, they have a significant disagreement with me and they often go after me on social media and had spent something in my district saying I was a liar. My view is, look, if they're going to take a shot at me, I'm going to push back. I rather talk about the economy, I'd rather talk about jobs than. But I'm not going to be Michael Dukakis. I'm not going to sit there being attacked with spears. I'm going to push back, but I don't start the fight. But do I question their right to advocate other American citizens who are advocating for a view that the United States should not ever contradict the policies publicly of the Israeli government? That's a wrong view in my view. I don't believe that is in the American interest, but that is their right as American citizens to, with that view to advocate for it. Now I terribly dislike Super PAC's funding, but that is broader than just AIPAC. There is a ton of Super PAC funding and we should ban all of it. But I never singled out saying, okay, you can have super PAC funding from Elon Musk, but you can't have super PAC funding from aipac. But I will take them on, on places where, where I disagree.
- [17:44]
Mark Halpern
You represent a big part of Silicon Valley and another big player in American politics now is the AI industry. And they are very supportive of candidates who they think will champion their agenda as it relates to government's connection to AI which is one of the biggest stories in the country right now. Why isn't the AI industry championing you as a leader? What is it? The congressman from Silicon Valley with a very forward looking high tech view of America's future economy. What is it that keeps them from saying Rokhan is our guy?
- [18:21]
Ro Khanna
Well, some technology leaders do believe in my agenda. I'm having a fireside chat with Jensen Huang at Stanford on April 9th. It was the CEO of Nvidia. I've had good relationships with Dario and many of these tech leaders, but I'll tell you where I stand. The administration and some of these folks are AI accelerationists. What does that mean? They believe we're in a competition with China. They we need to win, get the regulations out of the way. The only way we're going to win is if we are on the accelerator and we can't be left behind. China, that's their view. That's a legitimate view. Then there are the AI doomers. We've got to slow this whole thing down. AI is going to destroy the planet. I am an AI democratist. What does that mean? I want AI to be America to lead excellent AI. We should set the standards. We where our AI is not going to have surveillance, our AI is not going to have agentic AI do crazy things. We are going to have the world's best, safest AI that we will export to Europe and around the world. And if China wants to have a race to the bottom, they can do that. But I don't think other countries are going to want to buy, to buy an AI that's going to spy on them or have agentic AI. We should, we can have smart regulations and develop AI and we should make sure every decision is helping the working class, the middle class. We can't have AI just displacing jobs and say oh that's just the consequence. So what? 4 million truck drivers out of work? Oh well no, we've got to make sure that human beings are in the loop, that AI is actually helping workers and that in a capital biased world, workers are getting some ownership, some benefit to it. So that's been my view. And probably the reason some of these folks are not supporting me is I'm not an AI accelerationist.
- [20:04]
Mark Halpern
Sounds like a pretty sensible position you have. Maybe they'll just listen more closely to how you expressed it here. Should the Democratic Party nominee for President in 2028 support single payer health care?
- [20:16]
Ro Khanna
Yes, the national health insurance. Now let me be clear about what my plan or Bernie Sanders plan or other plans are. Medicare for all. Expand it from 65 to 60 to 55, 50, you can still have supplemental private insurance. It's not a call to ban private insurance. It's a call to have the expansion of Medicare. And then Medicare should also have dental, vision and hearing.
- [20:45]
Mark Halpern
Who would pay more in terms of an individual or industry? Who would pay more if that plan were instituted?
- [20:53]
Ro Khanna
Well, I believe it actually would be a savings, but I have not been cute about it. I'm not saying. Okay, just the only people who pay are the billionaires. I think that's intellectually dishonest. What I've said is right now, when you're on Medicare, everyone pays a fee, right? You have a Medicare fee that you pay and Americans would have to pay something. You're not going to just get health care for free. But what they would pay in that Medicare fee would be much lower than the health insurance premiums that they're currently paying and the deductibles. And same with the employers, they would have to pay something. The corporations about what they would be paying as a tax would be lower than the health care premiums that they currently are paying. And why does this make intuitive sense? It makes intuitive sense that everyone has to pay something. It's not for free, but that we would be paying less because you don't have the extraordinary profits of the private insurance companies. And you can have Medicare negotiate. And so you're cutting down the drug companies profits and you're cutting down hospital facility fees. So there's going to be savings. So you're not paying as much as the insurance premiums. But my view has never been that people could just get this for free. That I've always been honest, as was Bernie Sanders, that there is going to be some fee that people have to pay.
- [22:08]
Mark Halpern
Well, but you're saying that everyone, not just some people, while they'd have to pay a fee, their net health care expenses in terms of premiums, not, not for particular procedures or pharmaceuticals, but what they pay for what they're now paying for insurance, everyone would pay less than they pay now. Is that what you're saying?
- [22:26]
Ro Khanna
Yeah, that is what I'm saying. That's what the Mercatus Institute and others have done studies. And intuitively it makes sense because you're cutting out the middlemen, you're cutting out the PBMs, you're cutting out the private insurance.
- [22:37]
Mark Halpern
Would health care be better under your plan than it is now?
- [22:40]
Ro Khanna
I believe it would be, because right now there's too many people who are not getting the care they need, even if they're insured, because they're underinsured, because they fear the deductible, because they're getting procedures denied. So it's not just that it's covering people who aren't covered, but it's covering people who desperately need it and who have too much coverage cost, I guess. Here's the other thing with AI Mark. Does it really make sense to have health care linked to jobs in this world where we're going to, I mean, where there's going to be so much job transition, where young people may have a hard time getting employment? I mean, I was talking to a senior person at the New York Times and not a bad job. And his daughter is concerned that at 26, she's going to be off the insurance and she doesn't have a job lined up yet. So I just think as a society, we've got to move towards where health care is, is not linked anywhere to employment and where it is a right. And to me, it seems the easiest way to do that is to expand an existing program, which is Medicare.
- [23:41]
Mark Halpern
There's no question that the historical accident that has led so many Americans to have their health insurance coverage tied to employment is bonkers. And anyone who's serious about trying to figure out how to make the system better, more affordable, more fair, needs to grapple with how we transition away from that. And you're at least offering a plan that has the possibility of doing that. Last question for you. Where are you in your deliberations about maybe running for president?
- [24:09]
Ro Khanna
I've, you know, I'm still looking at it. Seriously. Here's the pro point of the of doing it. I feel that I understand the modern economy, by virtue of my life experience, better than most. And I have a real understanding of it. I also grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. I saw Fairlawn Works shut down the steel plant in Bristol. I understand the hollowing out and deindustrialization of this country. I can offer a vision of a modern economic success and independence for every family and community in this country. And I believe that kind of Mobilization that asks us to be bigger for economic renewal and having economic success in the 21st century could bring us together. That's the argument for doing it, for not doing it. It's an ugly time. I have family considerations. They, Epstein thing I know we've disagreed with, but one of the, the, the, the, the downsides have been some of the nastiness towards that. It's been an openness to how difficult it is in a modern time to, to put your family through something like that. And I know, you know, there are other people, I know some people make fun of you for saying other candidates, are they going to run or not? And I'll tell you, it's a huge decision for anyone. And I don't, I don't think anyone, even people who are out there have really deeply made that decision. It's usually a family decision.
- [25:31]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. I love the conversation. I love the segment. My aspiration was to make it through without the word Epstein being honored. You ruined that. But we'll talk more about that when you come back. Congressman Ro Khan of California. Congressman, very grateful to you for making time. Love checking in with you on all this stuff and appreciate how forthright you are about explaining your positions as compared to some other people in public. You're always very fair.
- [25:51]
Ro Khanna
I appreciate it, Mark.
- [25:52]
Mark Halpern
All right, that's Congressman Khanna of California. We'd love to know what you think about what he said about, about Israel, about Iran, about health care. Send us your thoughts. Send me an email@nextup halpernmail.com if you've subscribed to the program on YouTube. Great. Thanks for doing that. But you can also listen to us as a podcast. So go to Apple or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts and listen to us. Watch us wherever you'd like. We have exclusive content that shows up, which you'll only see if you do subscribe. So go to YouTube.com NextUpPalperin. Subscribe now or on the podcast platforms. Make sure you've checked the automatic download so you get each and every program as soon as it runs, as well as our bonus content. All right, that can take a quick break. And when we come back, we're going to be joined by James Bennett, the Lexington columnist at the Economist. James Bennett is next up. Going online without ExpressVPN is like printing your Social Security number right on your business card. You're just putting way too much personal information out there for bad actors to exploit using a vpn. It's essential when connecting to unencrypted networks in cafes, hotels, airports, or anywhere where your online data can be exposed to hackers who target passwords, bank logins, credit card details and more. ExpressVPN creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the Internet with reliable coverage across all your devices. That includes phones, laptops, tablets and more. U.S. plans also include their Identity Defender. It's a new suite of tools to get your data removed from data brokers, alert you when your data appears on the dark web, and ensures you against data theft for up to $1 million. Offered now at their lowest price ever planned, start at just $3.49 a month. So secure your online data today by visiting ExpressVPN.com NextUp again, that's E-X P R E-S-S V dash.com NextUp to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Again, ExpressVPN.com NextUp
- [28:02]
Apple Pay Advertiser
pay around the corner and around the globe Apple Pay is accepted at millions of places worldwide. Wherever you see the contactless symbol in stores or the Apple Pay button online and in apps, whether you're checking out on iPhone or Apple Watch, just double click pay and be on your way. Add your debit or credit card to wallet and you're good to go. Pay the Apple way. Terms apply.
- [28:33]
Ro Khanna
Hi, I'm Michael from the Warren Treaty. You know the jingle. Discover the facts about Ozempic, a GLP1. Only Novo Nordisk makes FDA approved Ozempic. Learn about the real thing.
- [28:44]
Health Insurance Advertiser
Talk to your healthcare professional today. Call 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit ozempic.com to view the medication guide and to learn more about ozempic.
- [28:51]
Mark Halpern
Semaglutide injection 0.5 milligrams, 1 milligram and 2 milligrams. All right, welcome back. Next up and joining me now, James Bennett. He's the Lexington columnist at the Economist magazine. And like with Roana, I only book on the show people who I want to ask a hundred questions. Soon we won't get to all 100, but we'll do our best. James, welcome in.
- [29:19]
James Bennett
Thanks for having me.
- [29:20]
Mark Halpern
Mark, what does it mean to be the Lexington columnist?
- [29:25]
James Bennett
My, my, my joke is it's like a little like being the Dread Pirate Roberts. You know, we don't have bylines here at the Economist and we give these sorts of names to our columns. And there's a new Lexington columnist every few years. I write a column usually once a week, mostly about American politics, but American culture and society. It's our only column about the US
- [29:50]
Mark Halpern
and if somebody said the Lexington column under James Bennett, is it liberal, conservative, moderate, iconoclastic, how would you characterize your point of view?
- [30:00]
James Bennett
I, well, I'd have to leave it to others to characterize my point of view, Mark. I, I, I think one of the strengths of the. I'm the first American to do this column, which they kind of made a big deal of when it happened. I actually didn't think that was necessarily a good thing, because I think one of the strengths of the column historically is it's been written by a Brit, somebody who had some detachment from the mosh pit of American politics. And I've tried to honor that. I try to write a reported column. I try to get out into the country and get some sense of what's going on. I'm not in Washington all that much in my own politics. Do I lean left? Yeah, I would say so, and I think probably that would be how people would characterize the column. The, the Economist is a, you know, it's. Its politics are classically liberal, and they align with my own. They believe in pluralism, free speech, civil rights, capitalism. Those are the values, I think, that have traditionally informed the Lexington column, and I share them.
- [31:12]
Mark Halpern
You've written lately about a lot about the war and about Donald Trump and Iran, and I want to ask you a few broad questions and then talk about some specifics about the conflict. And one of the many topics on which you're so thoughtful is about the media. And you've covered the White House, you've covered Washington. You understand the complexities involved. A lot of stuff I read from the media, New York Times, Washington Post is the premise seems to be every motive of Donald Trump's is venal. Everything he does is about ego or his place in history or about settling scores. And all politicians do stuff like that. But the premise, as I read most of the coverage, is nothing Trump does is from a motive to help the United States or to help our allies. First question is, is that how you view Trump? Do you view anything Trump has done vis a vis Iran, for instance, as with pure motives, or do you view everything he does as from a just an evil, horrible place?
- [32:19]
James Bennett
Look, Mark, I believe all human beings are complicated, and they tend to have mixed motives. And certainly true of Donald Trump. No, I don't think he's operating from an evil.
- [32:31]
Mark Halpern
Okay, so, so on Iran, for instance, leave aside any motives you see, because again, I read your column about why he's, why he's initiated this, and there was some, some I thought, imputing of Motives that were less than admirable. What would you say? Again, not theoretically, but as you have observed him, what motives does he have to have initiated this enterprise with the Israelis that you would consider to be altruistic in the interest of the United States, at least as he perceives it, as opposed to something darker?
- [33:02]
James Bennett
You mean, in terms of beginning this operation?
- [33:05]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. The motive. The motive of doing it in the first place.
- [33:07]
James Bennett
Yeah. Look, I mean, it's a hard job to be President, United States, Mark. And these decisions are agonizing, and I don't imagine that he makes them likely and, excuse me, he makes them lightly. And I. I think, you know, we all try to some extent to read Donald Trump's mind. We don't have access to the same intelligence that he's considering. I can understand, presented with the opportunity that he had to go in and take out this regime and perhaps end once and for all the nuclear threat of Iran, I can certainly understand why he would see that to be in the American interest. And do you think that's what you're asking me?
- [33:58]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. And I think that was certainly part of what motivated him. Sure.
- [34:01]
James Bennett
Yeah. It's got to be right. Like, what a horrible thing to think. I mean, maybe in the fullness of history, we'll discover that that's not the case. But. But otherwise. Yeah. I mean, it. Surely that was. That was. I would imagine that was part of what he was thinking.
- [34:22]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [34:23]
James Bennett
Now, was he also thinking, this was, as he said at the time, this is something no other president has done, and I'm going to do it, and I will go down, you know, in history as the president who was able to do this. Wouldn't surprise me. Is that an ignoble thought? Not necessarily. I mean.
- [34:41]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [34:42]
James Bennett
You know, you don't run for president, United States, if you don't have an ego.
- [34:47]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. And when people say he's doing it for legacy, I think, well, okay, that's fine. He certainly wants his legacy to have. To have done things that were popular and good. And if this works out, I think he would think, with some justification, was popular and good. Another thing, again, I see embedded in a lot of the coverage is Trump's incompetent. The people around him are incompetent. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have no idea how to negotiate. Pete Hegseth is a joke. As Secretary of Defense, Trump himself has made numerous mistakes in the run up to this conflict and in overseeing it. Do you see competence? Not the military's competence, because everyone sort of accepts that but do you see any competence in the decisions that Trump has made in initiating and conducting this conflict?
- [35:32]
James Bennett
Look, Mark, I think, I think you've covered more White Houses than I have.
- [35:38]
Mark Halpern
About a tie.
- [35:39]
James Bennett
Maybe it's about a tie, but I think back to the Clinton days, and, you know, back in those days, those guys would always say, you're never as bad as they say you are, and you're never as good as they say you are. And I think that's true of every White House and the press coverage that it gets. So do I think there's serious questions about the. Do I do it? Do I think these guys are completely incompetent? No. You know,
- [36:06]
Ro Khanna
do I think they're doing
- [36:07]
James Bennett
a problem, perfect job? No. I don't know quite how to. I, I'm sorry, I'm giving you a, like a wishy washy answer here. I have, I do have grave concerns about the gigantic portfolio that Witkoff and Kushner have had.
- [36:24]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [36:24]
James Bennett
You know, trying to negotiate all these crises at once, there's potentially an advantage there because they are interlinked, but it's just too much. And I worry that there has been probably not a sufficient reliance on the, on the diplomats who are deeply versed in this stuff, and particularly when it comes to Middle east policy making. There is a danger of listening too much to the experts who've been stuck on these issues forever. But there's a real, equally a danger of not paying attention to the lessons of history and not drawing on the expertise that really understands the factionalism, the complex domestic politics that exist inside each of these conflicts. And I, I don't know that they've been attentive enough to those sorts of nuances in these.
- [37:18]
Mark Halpern
I want to come back to that, but I just want to press you one more time on this question of. Can you give me an example of something it seems the President did, or we know that he did in the conduct of this conflict with Iran, that you'd say, well, that's competent. That's a skilled commander in chief, a skilled president. Is there anything he's done that you would put in that basket that you could name?
- [37:37]
James Bennett
Well, I mean, I, I mean, I don't know why you took it off the table. It, it seems to me profoundly relevant. Like the incredible operational success?
- [37:45]
Mark Halpern
Well, because that's not really. Because that's not attributable to him unless you want to credit him with building the military. But. Well, I mean, if you, if you say he showed competence by, in his first term and in the first part of his second term, doing what was necessary to build the military. I, I accept that. Although I think that, you know, other Joe Biden contributed to that and the military culture itself. So the reason I took it off the table is I'm looking to see if there's anything you would credit him with as opposed to his government with.
- [38:16]
James Bennett
Well, I'm just trying to disaggregate. What are the specific, like, what would you point to? I'm sorry, I'm, I'm, I, I mean
- [38:23]
Mark Halpern
has he, has he managed the relationship with the Israelis? Well, has he communicated?
- [38:28]
James Bennett
I do, I, I, I was surprised last night, I think. Yes. By and large, yes. And you know, the Israeli, by the way, the American tactical success is obviously incredibly impressive. The Israeli intelligence success is astonishing. You know, we've seen that since October 7th across the middle East. Yes. There was this disruption last night though, where we saw the Turkey president post on Truth Social. He's clearly upset about this Israeli strike on a gas field. There's now reporting that he did know about it in advance. If he didn't know about that in advance, that's a real problem. If he did know about it in advance and told them to go ahead anyway, that's a problem.
- [39:21]
Mark Halpern
I go with door number two on that one, by the way. But you do? Yeah, I don't think the Israelis would be foolish enough to take that step given how close the alliance is and how close they are operationally. And besides the fact that both the Wall Street Journal and Axios have reported that he knew in advance and approved it.
- [39:37]
James Bennett
I, I agree with you, Mark. I mean we do have the previous example from the 12 Day War where the Israelis tried to conduct that last strike that the president clearly didn't want them to do and he ordered them to turn the jets around in the air. So we do have some evidence in the past with the Israelis acting apparently without pre clearing it with the President. But you're right, I'd be surprised if that was true in this case.
- [40:04]
Mark Halpern
What's the worst case scenario to you? Within the realm of the realistic and unfortunately possible. How could this end where you would say, boy, that was just a historic blunder to initiate this conflict.
- [40:20]
James Bennett
There are numerous, I mean, you know, you can go to the truly catastrophic where other great powers get involved and this turns into a complete like global catastrophe. Obviously there could be long term disruption to the oil market that could tank the global economy. Disaster. There's the possibility that we leave the regime intact and angry and still with the ability to Create a nuclear device catastrophe. There's a possibility the regime gets pulled down and we wind up with a metastasizing civil conflict and a refugee crisis and the entire Middle east destabilized. That's also a potentially, There are a number of, I don't know how to, you know, I can, the first one I would rank is the utterly catastrophic, but the others are also catastrophic. So then the number of ways it could go south, I mean, I'm still hoping it works out.
- [41:17]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. What's the best, what's the, from where we are now, what's the best case outcome that you see likely that's plausible.
- [41:27]
James Bennett
I mean, the absolute best case is that this regime does suddenly fall and is replaced by a more amicable regime and, and Iran stabilizes and no longer pursues a nuclear weapon and the strait opens up again. There's still disruption, you know, to the, to the global economy, to oil markets that take some time to work its way through the system. But it's not, you know, a catastrophe. And then it's clearly in my mind, worth the price. That's, you know, one can still hope for that. I, I worry that hope, you know, of course, isn't a strategy and it does seem to be the strategy, you know, to achieve, you know, we saw the, Anyway, sorry, that that's, you asked for the best case scenario. That, that's the best case scenario. Is it still plausible? I, I, I, Every day that goes by, it becomes less plausible.
- [42:20]
Mark Halpern
Unfortunately, running parallel to this is this extraordinary story that's risen up over the last few years that I know you think about and, and, and watch, which is Israel's. The image of Israel in the world and at the United States, antisemitism, the divisions within both parties over how the United States should interact with Israel, the use of anti Semitic tropes by both the left and the right. And there's been surprising to me, not that much commentary about those things as they relate to the outcome of this war. You have Israel assassinating Arab leaders, something that, you know, you think might think could raise this issue of not just a generation of young Arabs and Muslims around the world reacting negatively to that, but in the United States, where so many young people, including some young American Jews, have a hostility towards Israel and in some cases hostility towards Jews. How do you think about how this conflict might maybe for good, but unfortunately probably negative. How could this conflict impact all those swirling things about antisemitism and anti Israeli feelings in the United States and around the world?
- [43:32]
James Bennett
Mark. Sorry, you were saying you're not seeing much of that so far.
- [43:35]
Mark Halpern
I haven't seen much comment about. I've seen. I've seen people talk about Israel, but I haven't seen, with the exception of Joe Kent and a few others, I haven't seen mass conversation or demonstrations on the streets of people saying this is the fault of Jews or this is the fault of Israel. There's been some, but I haven't seen. It's not that I haven't seen people who are anti Israel express that. I haven't seen the kind of conversation I'm asking you to have here, which is how do we think about that? Of those who would like to see less anti Semitism in the world, how do you think about how this conflict might affect it and what's being done to limit the possibility that this could cause a massive, even greater upsweep of upswing of antisemitism? An anti Israel feeling. Yeah.
- [44:29]
James Bennett
First of all, we're not seeing a lot of demonstrations against the war, period, which is interesting, but. Yeah, but park that. Look, I am really worried that we are hearing a lot of commentary on the right and on the left now that Israel dragged America into this war, that this is, as Tucker Carlson has said, Israel's war. And that's what Joe Kent said yesterday.
- [44:55]
Ro Khanna
I.
- [44:55]
James Bennett
And I'm worried about that, what that means. We've seen deteriorating support for Israel in this country dramatically deteriorating in the Democratic Party over the last few years and now in the Republican Party as well. I don't think it is Israel's war. Joe Kent, you know, in his, in his, in his resignation letter, and due respect to Joe Kent, he's a veteran. He lost his wife in Syria. He has access to intelligence in a suicide bombing and access to intelligence, intelligence that I've never seen. But, but he said Israel is dragging us into this war as they did in 2003. I wrote about this last week, actually, and he's just wrong about that. But it's become a kind of accepted frame framing, I think, for the U. S. Israel relationship. It's almost become conventional wisdom that that's the case. I was based in Jerusalem at that time. I was covering it and it's true, there were Israel, Israeli voices, some loud ones. Bibi Netanyahu was one of them. I referred to in my column last week who was saying, I guarantee. He testified it to the Senate, saying, I guarantee that if you go into Iraq, there's going to be profoundly positive reverberations throughout the region. He was obviously wrong about that, but that was not the position of the Israeli government at that time. Netanyahu was not in power. Ariel Sharon was. Ariel Sharon was very worried about that war. They didn't oppose it. They said, if you're going to do it, do it, but do it fast and get out quickly. I, I quoted Dan Kurtzer, who was the U. S. Ambassador then in Tel Aviv, and this was the, the. What he was communicating to Colin Powell about what the Israelis were saying. And privately, Sharon was telling people this was the wrong war. And the reason, it was classic shrone. Mark, I'm sorry, I'm going down a rabbit hole here, but one of the reasons, one of the. He was a leader who did think, I think, two or three steps ahead. And he was very worried that down the road, if the Americans went into Iraq, they would need to make good with the Arab states by putting pressure on Israel to do something for the Palestinians, which actually is what happened. It didn't work out well for the Palestinians, as it never does or up till now. But, but, but, but he was right about that. And so it's just not true that that was the case then. And I think it is incumbent on the people that are making the argument that this is Israel's war now to bring some serious proof to the table because of what you referred to, which is the sorrowful history of tropes about nefarious Jewish influence over the American government and in world affairs generally. And I've seen, yes, Marco Rubio stepped on it when he said that.
- [47:43]
Mark Halpern
More stepped in it than on it stepped in it.
- [47:46]
James Bennett
But even what he, even when he walked back, Mark, he, he, what he tried to walk back was the inference, people, that Israel dragged America into the war. What he actually said, which I don't think he quite walked back, is that it was the timing of an Israeli strike that prompted the Americans to also go in at that moment, not to make the decision to go in. I still don't understand, Mark, from a strategic perspective, though, back to Donald Trump's decision making here. And again, it's Monday morning quarterbacking on my part why the American government just didn't let the Israelis do this. You know, the Bibi Netanyahu made the offer, we can go in. We want to go in and take out their ballistic missiles. Concerned about the, the speed with which Iran was reconstituting its ballistic forces. That was an option that Trump could easily have taken, I think, and it would have been consistent with his approach to Ukraine, you know, and his, and his emphasis on burden sharing. And I think I Do think that that may turn out to have been a poor choice? Yeah.
- [48:54]
Mark Halpern
I'll tell you, I think the four reasons that, that he didn't just have the Israelis do it, number one, I think the backlash, you know, of it just being Israel, potentially pretty strong against Israel and against Jews around the world. Two, I think operationally Israel's as formidable as their military and intelligence are needed the United States to do the mission. Number three, I think the president had on his checklist to get done is to, is to decimate Iran's capabilities and perhaps bring about regime change. And wanted to be part of that. Didn't want, didn't want the Israelis to do it by themselves. And, and then lastly, although he's built no sort of coalition and there's much criticism and discussion about that, I think eventually there needs to be some sort of coalition to deal with the aftermath of this, at a minimum. And I don't think the Israelis are in a position to build that by themselves. So those would be my explanations based on conversations I've had, but hard to be sure. And however this ends, history is going to have a lot to say about the decision making, what went into it, and then how it was all executed.
- [49:55]
James Bennett
I do think, though, I mean this, again, what I wrote about, not to go on about it, but that Israel is, as a result, in a precarious position politically in the US Now.
- [50:04]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. Yes, I guess. And that's, I'm fascinated to see how that, how that goes forward after the conflict ends, however it ends. Tell people how they can read your work.
- [50:15]
James Bennett
They can subscribe to the Economist, which I encourage everybody to do. I think I understand your concerns about the coverage of this war. I think ours has been complex, nuanced and, and deep. I. So you can read it online@the economist.com and on our app. And you can also, we do a podcast called Checks and Balance every week about politics in the US Which I'm also on if I'm entitled to make another plug.
- [50:46]
Mark Halpern
Is that, is that available only to subscribers or anybody?
- [50:49]
James Bennett
No, it's available only to subscribers.
- [50:51]
Mark Halpern
All right, so go on to the economist.com and subscribe to hear the podcast and the comm. Both batted a weekly cadence, right?
- [50:58]
Ro Khanna
Yes.
- [50:59]
Mark Halpern
Okay. Mr. Bennett, thank you for joining. Very grateful to you and I recommend his work. Folks. You won't find someone who thinks more deeply, writes more elegantly, and lays things out pretty clearly than Mr. Bennett.
- [51:11]
James Bennett
Thank you so much, Mark.
- [51:13]
Mark Halpern
James. Thank you. All right, that's James Bennett. Next up, two more interesting people who I'VE got a million questions for Kevin Walling, Democratic strategist who worked with the Biden Heiress campaign, and Vincent Weber, a partner at Mercury Public affairs and former congressman for Minnesota. Kevin Walling and Vin Weber are next up. Let me ask you a question. Do you own physical gold? Most people do not. And given the current state of the world, this is worth thinking about. Acre Gold makes it simple. You pick a plan that fits your budget. You then make monthly payments and when you've accumulated enough in your account, they ship you a beautifully designed 24 karat Swiss gold bar. Gold is up 70% year over year and central banks, they're still buying it at record levels. Smart money has been moving into hard assets like gold for a reason. They've had subscribers there stacking consistently for six years because once you hold it in your hand, you understand the difference between owning something real versus just a number flickering on a screen. Right now, they're giving away over 18 grams of gold in their Acre declassified sweepstakes. Enter for free and subscribe to Gold@getacregold.com Mark again, it's getacregold.com More taxes was feeling unwelcome.
- [52:38]
TurboTax Advertiser
Now taxes is an open door, literally, to new TurboTax stores. Meet our experts in person.
- [52:44]
Health Insurance Advertiser
Hi.
- [52:44]
Mark Halpern
Welcome in.
- [52:45]
TurboTax Advertiser
They're powered by SmartTek and ready to do your taxes for you. Get real time updates while you go about your day, confident your taxes are done right now. This is Intuit TurboTax. TurboTax store is opening soon. Real time updates only in iOS mobile app. Bob Evans. Creamy Mac and cheese and buttery mashed potatoes are made for those Easter moments you just can't plan for. Like realizing that Easter egg hunting really builds up an appetite. Or that time when the neighbors burnt their entire holiday meal and you invited them over. So this Easter, when there is no plan, say hello to plan B O B from Bob Evans. Because when you bring out the Bob, you'll always have something delicious on the table, no matter what the Easter bunny brings. When you need quick and easy comfort, bring out the Bob, available now in your refrigerated section.
- [53:34]
Mark Halpern
All right, next up and joining me now, our panel. We only have smart people on the show. And then usually we only have nice people on the show, too. Sometimes we screw that up. It turns out they're not that nice. Or we make an exception because we want them for their smarts and we overlook that they're not that nice. In this case, they're both smart and nice. In both cases, Democratic strategist and former 2020 Biden Harris campaign surrogate Kevin Walling is here, a regular guest appearer on two way, and Vin Weber, former congressman from Minnesota, now at Mercury Public Affairs. Gentlemen, thank you for both being here.
- [54:08]
Ro Khanna
Great to be here.
- [54:09]
Kevin Walling
Thanks for having us.
- [54:10]
Mark Halpern
Mark, I know the easiest thing to say is in terms of the impact Iran might have on the midterms, it's too soon. And I usually reject the too soon thing because if we couldn't talk about things before it was the right time, I'd be out of business. But it is too soon. So let's talk about the midterms without Iran. Congressman Weber, what are the contours of the midterms now? What are the biggest impacts or factors that will determine if Republicans have a better year than the Democrats?
- [54:39]
Vin Weber
Well, I think what I'm going to say is not going to surprise you, Mark. It may surprise some other people. I talked to a lot of Republican strategists, well placed, smart people, some with resources to devote to it. And they'll go through this list of we have to get our message across. Always at the top of that list is the economy and affordability and then several other things. And I listen and that all makes some sense to me. They need to do all those things. But I do think that the bigger picture, which I think you understand and I think Kevin understands, there's one thing that overrides all of that in this election, and that's Donald Trump, and he overrides almost all of our politics and has for years and may for years to come. So that's how does that fit into this election? Well, the people that I talk to that are motivated to be against Trump are motivated by the war. The people that are motivated to before Trump are motivated by the war. Both sides have latched onto it, which if I can wax patriotic for a minute, that's not a good thing. I mean, America's fighting battles, people are dying. We should be talking about the war as an American project, not with blind obedience, but with good feelings about our country. Anyway, that's where I think we kind of are. And neither side, in my view, really knows where this all ends up. Democrats, I think, are quite happy, I should say happy. They're satisfied with where we are right now, which is we're not sure where it's going to end up. And they can beat the drum against Donald Trump every day. And their people get more and more motivated to turn out, as they have turned out in almost every special election up until now, with a possible exception of this legislative race in Virginia this week, but everywhere else until last year, the anti Trump vote turned out in large numbers. The Republicans are equally confident that the war will ultimately rally people to the President's side and that by well before the fall, the Democratic turnout will begin to dampen because the war will be taken away as a motivating issue and Republican turnout will begin to be enhanced. But I come back to my first one. It's not about affordability. I know that's almost heresy these days. That's important. It's always important in every election. Inflation and the economy is important. That's not what this election's about.
- [56:58]
Mark Halpern
Kevin, in terms of the election, all the things the Congressman said I'm virtually certain you'd agree with. So what are the wild cards, either in terms of issues or in terms of mechanics? What are the wild cards in this election where you don't know how it's going to turn out, but you think it'll be highly influential in determining how the Democrats do and how the Republicans do?
- [57:19]
Kevin Walling
Yeah, Mark, it's a great question. I agree completely with the congressman. I think the Republicans need to figure out again how to motivate their base without the President at the top of the ticket. He is a driving force, obviously, for my side of the aisle in terms of turnout and on the Republican side. And the key motivating factor, I think that they've got a huge advantage over us right now heading into the midterms is money. President sitting on billions of dollars that have come in across his different financing operations that can fund to get out, to the Congressman's point, that message, whether it's countering issues on the economy, on health care, on border security and on the war.
- [57:52]
Mark Halpern
I just, I'm sorry to stop you. Did you say billions or millions?
- [57:56]
Kevin Walling
I think across all of his different components, I think it's more than a billion dollars at this point.
- [58:02]
Vin Weber
And he's going to have over some. It's surely billions.
- [58:04]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, yeah.
- [58:05]
Kevin Walling
And he's going to have even more obviously, heading into this election season, keeping these. Yeah. Obviously, you know, he's not running again. So he's got a motivating factor in terms of keeping the House and the Senate. I think the wild card element, Mark, that you point out is not issue based, it's candidate based.
- [58:22]
James Bennett
Right.
- [58:22]
Kevin Walling
So we're already in the heat of the midterm primary election season. We obviously had that big election in. In Texas heading towards a runoff. We had elections in Illinois. So we're in the heat of this. And I Think my issue on our side is making sure that we have Democrats up there, they can win general elections that aren't motivated by the left. Right. And we're seeing this play out in some races like in Maine, other places where you have really left candidates out there running. And I'm a center to left guy. I want centrists that can appeal to both sides and drive up turnout. I think that's the wild card factor is how do these primaries shake out and are these Democrats that are getting the Democratic nod electable come November?
- [59:03]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, there are three things that if I were running a campaign, I would want and, and, and I think the Democrats have one of them. It's not a comprehensive list, but there are three I want to talk about. And the Republicans have two of them. The Republicans have James Blair. He's the White House deputy deputy chief of staff. He knows how to win. The congressman's right, the Republicans have lost special elections. But in 2024, when James Blair was in control of the money and coordinating with the outside groups, Trump won all the battleground states in the presidencies. So they've got that. Who's on the Democratic side like that? It's not Ken Martin, the chair of the dnc, according to people there. So who's, who's the strategist or strategist in the Democratic camp who you look at and you say, yeah, that guy or that gal knows how to win elections, knows how to organize martial resources, et cetera. Kevin, is there anybody in the party involved at the party committee, the dscc, outside groups? Is there anybody like that?
- [60:01]
Kevin Walling
Not, not on that, on that, not on that level. Because obviously we're not in control of the White House. And the party's almost become an afterthought in terms of the, a lot of the operations. I will say Jim Messina, I spent some time with him a few weeks ago in Charleston talking to the third way, which is that center left group. I think he's still actively involved in shaping the conversations where money's heading, advising our different committees. I think he's still one of those key players behind the scenes in terms of actually directing where resources go, candidate quality, that kind of thing.
- [60:29]
Mark Halpern
All right, so he, he controls, he, he's a, he ran the Obama campaign in the real. Like, does he control any of these groups? Does he control anybody? Or he just advises and kibbutzes, as we say in Minnesota?
- [60:39]
Kevin Walling
I think the latter in terms of advising. And obviously, you know, people take their call, take his calls and take his direction because he Knows how to win.
- [60:46]
Mark Halpern
Congressman, if I were a Democrat, I'd say James Blair is formidable. Like, I don't want to go up against James Blair. Is there anybody, any strategist you know of or seeing the Democratic Party who's involved in the midterms? Who you say, well, that. That person's formidable?
- [61:00]
Vin Weber
Not really. If I were gonna rack my brain about it, I'd probably put Jim Messina up there at the top. I know him quite well. He has been out of the top level game for. For a bit.
- [61:12]
Ro Khanna
Not.
- [61:12]
Vin Weber
That's. That's not fair. He's. He's not been doing this at this level for quite a while. Yeah, I think he's. I think he's excellent. I think that he. I put him way up.
- [61:21]
Kevin Walling
He's having too much fun making money now.
- [61:23]
Ro Khanna
Yeah.
- [61:24]
Kevin Walling
In terms of advising all these folks.
- [61:25]
Mark Halpern
Yeah, that's exactly right.
- [61:27]
Kevin Walling
Doing a good job of it.
- [61:29]
Mark Halpern
The other thing Republicans have that, again, an asymmetrical advantage that I see that if I were running, I'd want to have is their billionaires are ready to write big checks. Their billionaires are ready to write 10 million, 20 million, $50 million checks potentially. And the Democratic billionaires still seem to be a little concerned about how their money's going to be used, about being involved, going up against the president if he comes after them. So am I right about that, Vin, that that's an asymmetrical advantage for the Republicans?
- [61:57]
Vin Weber
Yeah, I think you're right. Because Blair has been successful, Trump has been successful. The Democrats are having a harder time pointing to places where they've been successful. One of the things about the broader race, I'd say that Republicans believe, and I've heard it from a number of the top strategists who probably heard it from Blair, is at the moment, the Democrats have the environment, but the Republicans have the territory, meaning the macro issues right now sort of tilt toward the Democrats. You know, tariffs and ice and president's approval rating, things like that. But if you go race by race across the country, it looks a lot closer for Republicans because there are fewer competitive districts. And the question, in my mind, Kevin, said, we're already in the race by race phase of this campaign. I tweak that a little bit in the primaries. Yeah, but who the question is going to become who has the best strategists as we get into the summer and fall in on the ground, Republican versus Democrat races for Congress, the Senate and the governorships? I still think we have an advantage on that, but we'll see Kevin, one
- [63:04]
Mark Halpern
of the best jobs in America is to be one of those high priced consultants to a billionaire and field all these, all these requests from different super PACs and donor advisors.
- [63:13]
Kevin Walling
Donor advisors have the best job in the world.
- [63:15]
Mark Halpern
Donor advisors too, because they get, they get to go out to lunch and dinner whenever they want. They either charge the billionaire and they
- [63:20]
Kevin Walling
get to go on all these junkets too. Yeah, not just lunch and dinner. They're going to Amelia island, they're going to Santa Barbara, all these places and
- [63:26]
Mark Halpern
all the operatives who want their bosses, their, their, the, the operatives, the consultants, clients to write them checks, they're going to suck up to them and say, tell your billionaire that my super PAC is the best super pack. So if you were one of those people and you were advising, you know, Doug McScrooge or, or Montgomery Burns and they, and, and what, what would you, where would you tell them to put their money? Should it be some of these super PACs, should it be the DNC? Where should a Democratic billionaire who wants to impact the midterms, where should they put their money?
- [63:58]
Kevin Walling
Yeah, it's a good question. Obviously the party committees have an outsized role, you know, and obviously the congressman formally in leadership directed a lot of that on the Republican side in terms of candidate recruitment priorities there. I think Democrats often fall in this trap and you see it all the time, right? Is Texas gonna finally turn blue? Right. You know, generation after generation, election after election. That's our white whale. And we spin, Democrats love to spin up groups like Battleground Texas, raising hundreds of millions of dollars around for four, four years, two election cycles and goes by the wayside. So I think the more that billionaires and the wealthy and corporations can invest in actual party infrastructure, it's one of the reasons why I supported Ken Martin from the congressman's home state of Minnesota because he's actually an organizer on the ground. Because again, all these different operations fall by the wayside. You have new groups, majority Democrats, other things that have started, started up this cycle in particular. We'll see if they have lasting power. But again, I think Democrats fall in this trap all the time. We attach ourselves to the new shiny thing, whether it be this, a new third party group, without actually investing in things for the long haul and playing the long game that Republicans effectively do. Republicans were investing in secretary of state races and down ballot races. We lost over 900 state legislative seats in the eight years of Barack Obama's term in office because we don't invest on the local level. So that's what I would do in terms of advising these folks is invest in the bench, play the long game, go to the committees, but also go to the state legislative races, too.
- [65:32]
Mark Halpern
Congressman, I hate to ever say anything negative about anybody from Minnesota, but I know you hear what I hear, which is Ken Martin has not established himself with the big donors, the billionaire class and others, that the DNC is a good place to put money. You want to put your money. If you're writing a ten million dollar check, they're going to make good ads. They have a theory of the case about how to turn out the vote. They've got some technology that's going to revolutionize winning elections. Where should Democrats with billionaire money, where should they put their money? This.
- [66:04]
Kevin Walling
We're all ears, Congressman. Tell us what to do. You've won elections. Tell us how to do it.
- [66:09]
Vin Weber
First of all, I know Ken Martin. He's a very close friend of my brothers. They had kids together in sports in high school and things like that. And he was a fantastic chairman for the Minnesota Democrat Labor Party, which is today a juggernaut compared to a withered down Republican Party in Minnesota. By the way. Just if Minnesota, if we had an equality of the of conditions between the two party structures, Minnesota would be a highly competitive.
- [66:36]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [66:37]
Vin Weber
It's not Massachusetts, it's not Hawaii. It's not some solidly Democrat state.
- [66:41]
Kevin Walling
I mean, we only won it by just three, four points. Right. The last time, Congressman.
- [66:45]
TurboTax Advertiser
Right.
- [66:45]
Kevin Walling
That's right.
- [66:46]
Vin Weber
That's right. But and a lot of that is due to Ken. So I don't know what exactly his problem has been at the national level, but he clearly has a problem at the national level. I still would bet on him as opposed to anybody else I see spending money on the Democratic side and on the Republican side, I have to say we have the super PACs that are attached to the Republican organizations are the best. I'm biased. I'm on the board of the Congressional Leadership Fund, which is the super PAC attached to the House Republican leadership. I think that they do a good job, they spend the money well. And I think the Republicans are going to continue to have an advantage because. Because the divisions on our side are overridden by the fact that Trump is the president of the United States. And whatever the big donors don't like about sort of the fringes of our party, they say, yeah, but Trump can take care of them. Donors on the Democrat side. And Kevin would know this better than I do. I think if they're reluctant because of divisions in the Democratic Party, look at the fringe of the Democratic Party and they say they may just displace our best candidates and there's nobody to keep them in line right now.
- [67:48]
Kevin Walling
And Mark, let's also not forget that the hangover that we have from raising a billion and a half dollars in 100, you know, just over 100 days with Kamala Harris, mainly by those major donors. And there's a, there's a hangover from that and a frustration with that, too.
- [68:00]
Mark Halpern
Yep. Here's the advantage Democrats have and it's also involving money, small dollars. Some of it's the enthusiasm that occurs if you're the out party. Some of it is Democrats. It's just this ineffable thing. The Democrats just have been better at raising the small dollar donors. We've seen Senate candidates raise tens of millions of dollars in long shot races and early indications are that's going to continue. So then you first, how big an advantage of that is Democrats? And why hasn't James Blair or some other Republican figured out how to raise small dollar donations the way the Democrats do?
- [68:31]
Vin Weber
Well, you're right, they didn't always have that advantage. Republicans back in the direct mail days, if you want to turn the clock way back, Republicans were much better at motivating small donors at the time. I think one of the reasons that the Republicans may have slid on that and I don't write them off for the long term, there's still time to rebuild it. I mean, technology allows you to rebuild those bases a lot faster than they did in the past. But you know, the fact that we have access to billionaires and things, that that has its pluses, more people to write big checks quickly. It also gives you a sense that you don't need to go after those small donors as intently as you did in the past. But I also come back to my basic point. You need a real strong motivating issue to get small donors off the bench. And it's sort of like the whole thing that affects midterms in my view. The people that won the last election, Republicans feel pretty good. Trump's in the White House. Republicans marginally control the Congress. You know, those of us that are active on a day to day, ongoing basis to the point that it distracts us, we understand that can all change. So we want to write out checks into the marginal donors down there, think everything's pretty good, our people are in charge. Whereas on the Democratic side, their horror story has come true and they have to get up every morning and figure out how to do something about it. And that's Trump in the White House.
- [69:48]
James Bennett
Yep.
- [69:48]
Mark Halpern
Kevin, can you name of the nine or so competitive or potentially competitive Senate races, can you name any in which you think the Republican nominee, whoever it ends up being, will raise more money online than a Democratic nominee?
- [70:02]
Kevin Walling
It's a good question. You know, I think Susan Collins will have more money. I don't know if it will be.
- [70:09]
Ro Khanna
Yeah.
- [70:09]
Kevin Walling
I'm trying to think in terms of who's an actual motivating factor on the, on the, on the right. I think Ken Paxton probably raises a good amount of money from the MAGA grassroots.
- [70:17]
Mark Halpern
Yeah.
- [70:17]
Kevin Walling
If he's down there, just that effort
- [70:20]
Mark Halpern
as much as he will, though, you got to assume Talarico is going to raise more, Right?
- [70:24]
Kevin Walling
Exactly right. But again, I think that's North Carolina.
- [70:27]
Mark Halpern
Roy Cooper shouldn't raise more than Watley, but he will.
- [70:30]
Kevin Walling
Yeah. And Sherrod Brown. Sherrod Brown, obviously. John Ossif. Yeah, I think that's. But, but Mark, to your point. Yeah, Mark, to your point, I think the party is struggling right now in terms of raising those small dollar donations, both the Republican and the Democratic Party. But we're seeing it massively directed specifically to candidates, and that's the difference that we're seeing on the left. And that might make the difference in some of these key Senate races.
- [70:55]
Mark Halpern
Yeah. Gentlemen, great conversation. And again, we try to have conversations here. You're not going to hear other places. And you guys just pulled that off, so I'm grateful to you. That's Vin Weber and Kevin Walling. Gentlemen, thank you both for being here. Look forward to having you back.
- [71:08]
Vin Weber
Thank you.
- [71:09]
Mark Halpern
Thanks, Mark.
- [71:09]
Kevin Walling
Thanks, Congressman.
- [71:10]
Mark Halpern
All right, that's it. That's it for today's program. That's it for today's program. Thank you for being here. We'll be back next week with another new episode. Don't forget to share this episode, whether it's on YouTube or as a podcast with everybody you know, so we can keep growing the ranks of the Nexters and subscribe on YouTube. Subscribe where you get your podcast. Be part of our growing community so you always know what's coming. Next up,
- [71:37]
Ro Khanna
Hanaday presents in the red
- [71:39]
Mark Halpern
corner, the undisputed, undefeated weed whacker guy, champion of hurling grass and pollen everywhere.
- [71:48]
Ro Khanna
And in the blue corner, the challenger,
- [71:51]
Kevin Walling
extra strength
- [71:53]
Mark Halpern
eye drops that work all
- [71:55]
Ro Khanna
day to prevent the release of histamines
- [71:56]
Mark Halpern
that cause itchy allergy eyes. And the winner by knockout is Pataday. Pataday. Bring it on. Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster. I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires. I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end.
- [72:16]
TurboTax Advertiser
This is very strange, Angie. The one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.