← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Legacy Media Meltdown Over Bari Weiss, Michael Knowles on MAGA’s Israel Divide, & Detoxing the Dems for 2028
01:10:58
Mark Halperin opens today’s show with his reported monologue dissecting the legacy media meltdown over Bari Weiss’s appointment as editor-in-chief of CBS News. He unpacks the internal uproar and the outrage from many of the same type of left-leaning journalists who once drove Weiss out of The New York Times — and explains why she may be CBS’s best hope to rebuild credibility and profitability. His message for staffers unwilling to embrace change: quit. Then, The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles joins to reflect on the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination — a personal loss for friends and a political one for the conservative movement. He and Mark explore the divisions on the right over Israel and how conservatives can maintain unity amid intense strain. Plus, former Clinton advisor Doug Sosnik breaks down the voter trends and demographic shifts that could shape the 2028 presidential race — and how Democrats can detox their brand before it’s too late — and why the REAL path to the...
Loading summary
Transcript134 lines
- [00:00]
Michael Knowles
Skipping cold and flu season is plan A, but if you do get sick, be prepared for plan B with Kleenex lotion tissues. Kleenex lotion tissues moisturize skin, helping prevent the added discomfort of red, irritated skin on top of your cold and flu symptoms. So this cold and flu season, grab Kleenex lotion tissues. Visit kleenex.com to learn more and buy now for whatever happens next, grab Kleenex.
- [00:26]
Mark Halperin
Hey there, Nexters. Welcome in. Nothing I like more than when I'm out and about and someone comes up to me and taps me on the shoulder and says, I'm a nexter. Sometimes they whisper it, sometimes they're loud and proud. But either way, glad to know. Members of the community, thank you for your service to America. Welcome. This is Tuesday, or what I call just another day and another episode of NextUp. I'm Mark Calperin, editor in chief of the live interactive video platform 2way, host of this program. I bring you my exclusive reporting and analysis of all the top stories that matter most right now and what is coming next. Up joining us today, two great guests, the return of Mr. Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles show from the Daily Wire. Michael and I are going to talk about Charlie Kirk and about Israel and a bunch of other stuff. So stay tuned for that. And then Doug Sosnik will be here. He is a brilliant Democratic strategist, was a longtime advisor to Bill Clinton and someone who understands the rhythms of American politics as well as anyone I know and is not afraid to call out Democrats when he thinks they've lost their way. That conversation coming as well. But first up, next up, my reported monologue on a very big media story that has implications, I think, for the whole country. It's about the media, but it's about more than that. It's a story in some ways about two people. I'll tell you who they are in a moment. I've been talking for the last several weeks based on the rumors that this was coming true, something that did come true. Bari Weiss taking over the editor in chief role of CBS News. I've talked to journalists, political people in both parties. Some of them get what's going on and they've helped inform my views today, some of whom definitely do not. And they've informed my views as well. David Allison, very wealthy purchaser, a new CEO of Paramount, Skydance, hired Barry Weiss, who I'm friendly with, to be the editor in chief of CBS News. And Barry has done this on the strength of the extraordinary success she's had at The Free Press. You've seen her on Megan's show, you've seen her own video, she's got her own podcast. But the Free Press is an extraordinary success. Just about three years in, and the hiring of Barry to take a senior editorial position at CBS News potentially, potentially solves a lot of problems that have existed at cbs. But it also speaks to some larger issues. I'll get to the larger issues in a minute, but first, let's talk about cbs. CBS News is no doubt one of the storied top 10 news organizations in the history of the modern United States. Back in the glory days, Sevride and Cronkite, et cetera, et cetera, they were a powerhouse and they dominated the national news landscape along with just a handful of other organizations. But during the course of my career, CBS News has been somewhere between irrelevant and a joke, primarily because of several factors that afflict lots of news organizations. But whereas ABC and NBC have thrived during the last, say, 40 years, CBS has not. They've been way too liberal and they've not been part of the conversation. I remember in 22,000 when I was on the ground in Florida covering the Bush Gore recount, abc, NBC, CNN had huge presence on the ground and CBS was virtually invisible. They've been uncreative in their programming. Their morning show and their evening news shows have been low rated. They have not been good on digital. For the most part, they have been a news organization in serious decline. The two entities that are described as the crown jewels of CBS News, where people say, well, the rest of CBS might have declined in terms of relevance and ratings and credibility. 60 Minutes on Sunday Morning, I take exception there. First of all, Sunday Morning is a really well produced show. But they're not holding powerful interests accountable to public interest. They're just telling stories about babbling brooks and authors who are friends with the host. So it's a good show, but it's not a journalistic powerhouse. And then 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes has done more to discredit the media as liberal than any other entity in the country because of their reach. And while again, it's a well produced show, it's, it's got, it's got good ratings. It is not a program that has brought credit to the reputation of CBS News as a fair place when it comes to political coverage or coverage of corporations or other areas. So CBS News is in bad shape. And it was purchased by someone in Ellison who wants to have a strong news division. He wants CBS News to thrive. And he's not an Idiot. He's got eyes and ears and he can see CBS News has been a disaster. So he's buying a tarnished property and he's trying to figure out how to fix it up, how to take what is the strength of CBS News, which is the extraordinary reach that it has. And something where if you put money behind it, you can grow it. And he's brought in Bari Weiss. Bari Weiss is an extraordinary person and an extraordinary force in journalism. She's an independent. She started the Free Press as an independent organization with investment from some very wealthy and very smart people who saw the potential of the idea. But she also understands legacy media. And I'm not going to compare myself to Barry because Barry is legend. But. But I understand where Barry's coming from in part because I now have gone to independent media. But I also understand legacy media. I was in legacy media longer than Barry. But Barry at the Wall Street Journal, at the New York Times is a student of media, really understands the weaknesses of legacy media that she'll confront at CBS News when she starts this job next week. But she also understands the strengths. Legacy media still has some strengths, which I'll talk about now. Why did Barry leave the legacy media? Why did she leave the New York Times? They treated her horribly. And not only did they treat her horribly with a woke mob criticizing her on internal slack channels and threatening her, but then they didn't cover the story. And they still aren't covering the story correctly. They're still whitewashing the circumstances under which Barry left the Times. She left the Times because a woke mob chased her out. And rather than leave journalism, rather than be traumatized by it to the point of inaction, she built the Free Press in three short years. She built an organization that is a real deal. And part of the deal with cbs, not only are they getting Barry to be the editor in chief, they're purchasing the Free Press. And now the Free Press will have access to all sorts of things as it as a partnership with cbs. How did Barry do it? First of all, she's brave. She demonstrated that by standing up to the bullies at the New York Times and writing a scathing departure letter. But she's also was brave to say, I'm going to start my own thing. She's tough. Not afraid to take things on. Tough enough to go pitch Silicon Valley millionaires and billionaires and get the funding to start this. She's creative. She thinks anew. What the Free Press has done is innovative, but also goes back to basics. Right? They're text first they write really provocative, interesting stories in text. Old fashioned, but it works. And she's done it in a creative way. And she's talent first. And that's been my philosophy throughout my career. Barry has hired great people. She's hired young people, old people, liberals, conservatives, people with a lot of traditional experience, people with no traditional experience. She has an eye for talent and boy, does CBS News need that. And she cares about facts. Barry is an old fashioned journalist. Finally, a business model. Think of that. If you're going into legacy, leaving legacy media where there is no clear business model and you're going to new media, some people make the mistake of saying, well, it's independent. Do I need a business model? Now you do. Barry found a business model at the Free Press. She gave the access away to people who couldn't afford it, but she's built up a huge network of paid subscribers who pay for her content in a way that has made it hugely profitable. Some people say it makes 20 million a year. Pretty good for a startup. Now the people on the left are howling, the guardians of the status quo at CBS and elsewhere, saying Barry is a threat to cbs. So Barry again, who's no dummy, wrote a note to her new colleagues and she laid out her 10 principles that Barry says are vital for a good news organization and vital to her and her sensibility. So I want to read to you Barry's very elegantly written, very brief rules. Number one, journalism that reports on the world as it actually is hard to disagree with that or any of these. Journalism that is fair, fearless and factual. Journalism that respects our audience enough to tell the truth plainly wherever it leads. Journalism that makes sense of a noisy, confusing world. Journalism that explains things clearly without pretension or jargon. Journalism that holds both American political parties to equal scrutiny. Journalism that embraces a wide spectrum of views and, and voices so that the audience can contend with the best arguments on all sides of the debate. Journalism that rushes towards the most interesting and important stories regardless of their unpopularity. Journalism that uses all of the tools of the digital era. Journalism that understands that the best way to serve America is to endeavor to present the public with the facts first and foremost. Anyone who knows Barry Weiss's career and has looked at it seriously will not be surprised by those 10 rules or, or how sensible they are or how needed those exact rules are not just by CBS News, but by pretty much everybody in the legacy media. So rather than say, hey, we've got a decades long record of failure here at cbs, our new boss seems to have A direction to try to make the news division relevant and popular and successful rather than welcome that. How has Barry been received so far? This has been rumored for a while. So these sensibilities are not new. But in the wake of the formal announcement, here's what some people said. This is from the Independent. A quote from a CBS News staffer. It's CBS is not a good place right now. People are literally freaking out. People are using words like depressing and doomsday. It feels like some sort of doomsday. Okay, that's what they're saying to the people at the Independent. Doomsday. You know what doomsday is? Doomsday is what CBS News has been in the past. Barry Weiss coming in. Rather than freaking out, they should be celebrating. All right, here's another reaction. This is from a guy named Walker Bragaman. Not really sure he is some independent journalist. Everyone at CBS News should quit in protest. This is travesty. Bari Weiss is a misinformation peddling right wing operative. She's totally unqualified for this job. Again, totally unqualified for the job. The people have run CBS News into the ground for several decades. Everyone should quit in protest. I think Barry would probably welcome anyone who would quit over the arrival of Barry Weiss. Probably will save her the trouble of having to fire them. And the notion that Barry is a white. A misinformation peddling right wing operative. I don't agree with everything in the Free Press. If I did, it would be boring to read. Right wing operative. No, Barry's for common sense. Barry is not a right wing operative. And you can on any given day go to the Free Press website and read lots of things that people on the right will not like. That is Barry. Here is the very famous Nicole Hannah Jones of the New York Times. Here's what she says about Barry. It wasn't. In case it wasn't clear, the anti DEI crusade has never been about merit. Zero news experience. Never been a reporter elevated to editor in chief of CBS News, one of the most storied institutions in the nation. Well, I don't know what. I don't know how long the statute of limitations is on storied. But again, this comes at a time when CBS needs help. Barry, zero news experience. No, actually Barry has lots of news experience. And the proof is in the pudding. Barry has built in three years a very successful news organization that breaks the mold, changes the terms of the debate and changes the game. Finally, what would be a chronicle of the failure of the left to understand what time it is without the inclusion of the estimable Keith Olbermann. Here's his tweet. I'd like to congratulate CBS News on hiring his editor in chief, the dumbest person in America, Bari Weiss. Dumbest person in America. Again, if I were inclined to be critical of Barry, and I'm not, I'm quite fond of her, dumb would not be the word I would use. And Keith Olbermann, who's made out a career out of calling people the worst and the stupidest, Keith Olbermann is not as smart as Barry Weiss. I'll leave it at that. Finally, Keith Ohrman says to folks, you should sell all the stations, equipment and furniture. There is no recovery from this. Murrow, Cronkite, and even Katie Couric would now deny they ever worked there. There is no recovery from this. Again, the irony of all these criticisms is so rich. No recovery from what? No recovery from the august position that CBS News finds itself in. I have friends at CBS and I don't want to say there's no one there of value. I respect the legacy and as a commercial enterprise of 60 Minutes Sunday Morning super well produced show. I'm not saying all their other shows are worthless. What I'm saying is they have been liberal, they have been legacy media, and they have been losing. And the people at CBS who want to keep losing should say, horrible that we're bringing in someone new. Horrible that we're bringing in someone with a record of success.
- [13:49]
Doug Sosnik
Horrible.
- [13:50]
Mark Halperin
We're bringing someone whose 10 points of how journalism should work are a model for anybody, whether legacy or new media. This reaction is hilarious to me. And it's also dangerous. It's also dangerous because David Ellison, from what I've read about him, don't know the guy. He doesn't seem like he's going to be bothered by this, by this criticism. In fact, it probably makes him feel like he's doing something right because he doesn't want a liberal organization and he doesn't want a place that is legacy in all the negative ways. It's legacy liberal, but also no business model, no understanding of how digital works. So I can't swear that Barry's going to succeed. But this is important for CBS News. It's a moment for CBS News and anyone at CBS News who's grousing to the media about how horrible this is, that Barry's right wing or Barry's inexperienced, you should give it a try. Your boss, Mr. Ellison, has decided this is the direction he wants to take the news Division and based on the available evidence, based on this is awesome for cbs. If I worked at cbs, I would be thanking him and I'd be excited to see what Barry's going to do. But as I said, this isn't just about Barry Weiss and cbs. There's larger issues here that are massively important. And this is where my experience in legacy media and my appreciation for my business comes to bear. I love independent. I. I love the freedom. I love the ability to say and do what you want. I love the nimbleness of it. There's a lot to it, but there's also a lot to big places. And unfortunately, it's very hard to create a big place. I don't know that anyone will ever create from scratch a new organization that has the scale of the New York Times or CBS News. And what do I mean by scale? There are certain things that a serious news organization has to do if they want to hold powerful interests accountable to the public interest. Now again, they should hold all powerful interests accountable to the public interest, not just some not based on political party. What do I mean? Freedom of Information act requests the government. The law says if you want to ask the government for documents that are not public, they have to give them to you. But there are exceptions to it. Privacy, national security, etc. That law is. When I, when I started in this business, we used it all the time. It's very hard to do in the digital age because you're busy. You're constantly needing to produce content. You need to sit down and type up a letter and say, dear Department of Treasury, I want the records of all meetings between Scott Besson and Martians. And then you send it in and then they say, well, we're going to take seven years to respond to you. Or they say, we're denying your request. Then you have to call your legal department and you have to say, the Department of Treasury is withholding. Here's the letter they sent. They're not giving me the record of meetings between Scott Bessant and Martians. I want it. We should have it. I don't think they're right saying we can't have it or it's going to take seven years. And then the lawyers have to go to court and they might have to appeal. That's expensive. You think independent organizations have that capacity? Almost none do. That's one. Foreign bureaus, right? You think, you think nextup has a. Has a Cairo bureau or a Nairobi bureau? We don't wish we did. You need scale to do things. Somebody Bombs the federal building in Oklahoma City. Okay? An independent place could send three people. It's not enough for a story like that. You need to send two dozen people. Florida recount, same thing. These big stories that are compelling stories require a lot of people to tell them well, but to hold everybody accountable, what does this judge's ruling mean? How to explain it? What is this election official doing? Hold them accountable. Ask them questions. To have that footprint, to have that capacity, to have that breadth and scale is something that most independent places can't do. It's vitally important. So my hope is, as I said, no one's going to create a new one. What is David Ellison doing? He's reinvigorating an old one. He's bringing in Barry. And again, I'm just going to assume the best because I know Barry's sensibility. He's bringing in Barry to say, let's take this, this husk, this old declined, not declining, declined news organization with a storied legacy and lots of famous people who worked here with great records of accomplishment. Let's take what's good about it, our affiliates around the country, a legal department, incredible hardware and understanding in the abstract of digital. Let's take all that and let's reinvigorate it and let's make it great by adding in true journalistic sensibility and a business model that will work. That includes appealing to everybody, not just liberals, but who aren't bothered by Dan Rather trying to destroy George Bush with forged documents. Let's take everybody in the country and consider them a potential customer, and let's produce a new product on the shoulders of what used to be a great place. That's what David Ellison is trying to do. He also, by the way, is thinking about buying Discovery Warner. Discovery, whatever it's called, Discovery Warner, I don't know, the place that owns cnn. He's talking about buying them, too.
- [19:17]
Doug Sosnik
And.
- [19:17]
Mark Halperin
And I can tell you my gut would be if he bought that, Barry would be in charge of that as well. This is an incredible moment and a role model for places like NBC and ABC and CNN and the New York Times, the Washington Post, to say we can have a functioning business if we think anew and we bring in people like Barry Weiss, creative, tough, brave, and understanding of the modern moment for media. Independent sensibility harnessed to a big place. Fantastic. There are signs the Washington Post is actually trying to do that. There's signs that the Washington Post is. They've had a house cleaning. Lots of people have left. There's signs they want to change the way the Washington Post works, to make it the way Bari Weiss will try to make CBS News of interest to everybody and a fidelity to those 10 great principles. Put Tweet those out later so you can read them again. Barry Weiss has an opportunity to not just fix CBS News, which needs fixing, but to set an example for all of the legacy media, all the people who own those places and run those places, to say, don't listen to the people who say this person's too inexperienced or too right wing or too unqualified. Find great people, bring them in and empower them. Fix these great places, once great places, and put them in service of profit and potential and the capacity to appeal to the whole country. America needs great big news organizations as well as independents. Bari Weiss now can continue to run the free press and try to salvage what a once great place was and again, set an example for the rest of the Tell me what you think of today's report. You can send me an email. It's nextup halperinmail.com always can find us on X, on Instagram and TikTok our handles there. Our handle there is at NextUp. Halperin NextUp. Sorry, it's at NextUp Halperin there. Got it right. And don't forget, of course the program's on YouTube. Go to YouTube.com NextUp Halperin like subscribe, share, etc. Etc. All right, next up here, the Michael Knowles of the Michael Knowles Show. That's next up. Hey, Everybody. If you're 64 years of age or older, this is an important announcement. The Department of Justice recently sued three major Medicare brokers for claiming they were unbiased while allegedly pushing people into plans that got them the brokers, the biggest kickbacks. It's true, so many insurance agents, they just can't be trusted. But you also can't necessarily rely on government information either. That's why I want you to know about something called chapter. Chapter was started by people who went through this exact thing personally after their own parents were pushed into the wrong Medicare plan by an agent who's more focused on commissions than on good care. Chapter's mission is very simple. Give every American the honest, straightforward Medicare advice that they deserve. And here's what makes them different. They're the only Medicare advisor that compares every plan all across the country, not just a few. That saves their clients an average of, get this $1,100 a year. There's really no reason not to call. The process is quick and easy. They can review your options in under 20 minutes. And if you're already in the right plan, they'll let you know that. But if there is a better plan available, they'll help you make the switch. This could well be the most important call you make this year. So right now dial 250 and say Chapter Medicare to get peace of mind. Again dial 250 and say Chapter Medicare.
- [23:00]
LifeLock Advertiser
It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice. Lifelock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteeing or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected. With a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com special offer terms apply.
- [23:32]
Mark Halperin
Next up and joining me now, the Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles show on the Daily Wire. Got to get both the does in there. Michael, welcome back. Thank you for making time.
- [23:43]
Michael Knowles
Good to be with you. Thank you for having me.
- [23:46]
Mark Halperin
How are things going over at the Daily Wire?
- [23:48]
Michael Knowles
Oh, you know, trucking along. We're selling our cigars, we're doing our shows, we're producing our movies. It's been good though. Obviously a pretty crazy start to the fall. Not just with the elections, obviously, you know, the murder of Charlie threw everybody for a loop and I don't know, to me it feels really like the entire political universe has shifted in a, in a pretty fundamental way.
- [24:15]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. I want to talk to you first about Charlie. How, how would you describe the, the arc of your emotions and thoughts from the day he was assassinated until today?
- [24:25]
Michael Knowles
Yeah, it's, it's ongoing. I mean, not, you know, men never want to talk about their emotions or anything like that, but when I first got the news, I, I didn't think it was possible. I actually, when, when my producer came in and said Charlie has been shot at a campus, my first thought was, I hope his recovery is not too bad. I hope, you know, I just hope it's, you know, that's tough, that's a tough setback. But, you know, okay, hope it's okay. It didn't occur to me that it was possible that he could have been killed. And then when that set in, happily, I didn't see the close up video. I only saw the faraway video. I'm one of the only people, it seems, who didn't see the close up video and obviously don't intend to. And then it was a real downer you know, for a few weeks. Those are the words McCartney used when Lennon was killed. It really, really messed me up. And at first I thought that it was only because. Mostly because we were pals for a long time. I don't think it was that, because I saw grown men who'd never met Charlie crying. You know, I mean, last night I was seeing some friends, some of whom knew Charlie, some did not personally know him, and we were talking about Charlie probably most of the night. I think that the personal friendship is a part of it for sure. I think it represented a fundamental national political trauma. And that is because of what happened. The fact that Charlie didn't hold public office, he wasn't passing bills, he was a debater. He just wanted to talk it out. And he was killed for that. I think that was shocking to a lot of people. And then of course, the reaction, because the reaction ranged on the left from indifference to celebration. And that was true at all levels. It was true in the media, it was true in elected office. It was true of your normie cousin and classmate from the 10th grade on Facebook. And I think that really shocked a lot of people. And that was compounded by the surveys that came out later, especially by YouGov, that showed that the left is overwhelmingly more likely than the right to support and justify political violence. That was a shock to a lot of people. Maybe it wasn't a total surprise, but it was a shock. And so we're processing those sequential national traumas and we're not going to get over it anytime soon.
- [26:34]
Mark Halperin
How are you processing not the people who celebrated his assassination, but how are you processing the lack of awareness on the part of so many otherwise well informed Democrats who had either never heard of him or only faintly understood what his role was?
- [26:50]
Michael Knowles
You know, it shows you how segmented the media have become and the political culture have become has become that they might, if they heard of him at all, it was because they saw some Media Matters clip where they took some line of his out of context. And many Democrats who were not very familiar with Charlie came, would come out and say, even if they weren't celebrating his murder, they would say, well, you know, but he was a hater. And his legacy, I mean, you had an elected Democrat who said, you know, Ilhan Omar said, his legacy, he was a hater, he spread hate. Ta Nehisi Coates said this the other day in the New York Times, oh, he spread hate. That's his legacy. And the irony of that is that's so beside the point. If that were true. Also, it wasn't true. Charlie was as gracious, as generous in debate, as moderate really as they come. And so I think that that also was a trauma. Maybe that was the third trauma that came out of this is a lot of people looking around and saying, wait, if they would excuse, not maybe not even celebrate, though some did celebrate. But if they would excuse, if they would justify, if they would shirk and shrug off Charlie Crook's murder, what would they do to me? What would they do if they knew what I think, I think that's what a lot of people thought about their co workers and their classmates.
- [28:02]
Mark Halperin
I want to drill down on Israel. It's such a confusing topic for me. I'm a student of maga. I'm a student of the constellation of MAGA talkers, you and Tucker and many others. Of course, Charlie was in that group. And the connection between Israel and Internet and talk conspiracies about Charlie are just mind boggling to me. But let's just start more basically not on Charlie. How would you describe the camps within MAGA culture? And again, talking about Candace, Tucker, you, Ben, et cetera, et cetera, the top 30 of you, what's the, what are the divisions over Israel, would you say? How would you describe whatever camps you think exist there?
- [28:50]
Michael Knowles
There are three camps on Israel among. Not just even among the talkers or the politicians, but among MAGA broadly. One camp says that the state of Israel can do no wrong. It's our greatest ally ever. You know, it's the most moral nation in the history of the world. The. The other camp says, hold on, hold on.
- [29:08]
Mark Halperin
Who embodies the first one?
- [29:09]
Michael Knowles
I think that is kind of the GOP establishment view, at least for the past 20 years. You saw a lot of this rhetoric coming out of the Bush era. I think that there are. I think that's the more normie con.
- [29:24]
Mark Halperin
Maybe Senator Cotton, would he be a spokesman for that point of view?
- [29:27]
Michael Knowles
Yeah, sure. I don't want to put words in Senator Cotton's mouth, but I think that there are even on the cable news networks there are a lot of Republicans who are just reflexively pro Israel. They maybe not even out of ideology, maybe just because until recently you'd look on the right, 80% of Republicans were in support of Israel. So you'd say, well, it's an 8020 issue. I'm gonna be on the side of that. Even if they didn't hold, I don't know, a religious Zionist view or okay.
- [29:53]
Mark Halperin
So that's Camp 1, Camp 1, Camp.
- [29:56]
Michael Knowles
2 is that Israel is the cause of all evil in the world and you stub your toe in the morning and it's Israel's fault and it's this dastardly place. And I think that's typified again, I mean, it's not. There are plenty of Israel critics who are prominent, but I think that's really typified by Twitter. I would put Twitter and X in the year of our Lord. 2025 is very much in that camp, that anything that occurs has to be caused by the state of Israel and that America, and therefore that America should decouple from Israel and foreign aid, at least Israel, or maybe to all of the countries. And there are all sorts of attendant ideologies that go along with that, that be they nationalism, paleolibertarianism, or just a kind of cranky disdain for Israel. And then there's the third camp, which is the camp that I find myself in, which is the least popular view of all. And it says that one can be broadly supportive of Israel. Recognize the reasons that the US has an alliance with Israel, namely that Israel comes out of this gift from the British Empire in the early 20th century and America is the heir to the British Empire. And, and we have been fighting with political Islam for roughly 1400 years. So, you know, we're probably not going to become allies with everyone else there in the region. But Israel's interests diverge from those of the United States sometimes and we need to keep them in check when those, when those interests occur. That is the least popular view, the one that views geopolitics with any degree of nuance. And I don't know exactly why it is. Maybe it's just. Look, the Jews are a peculiar people for all of human history. They're a people kind of called out and occupied, especially in the nation state system, the post Westphalian system. They are this especially a unique people because they didn't have a state for so long and then their state is born just 80 years ago and through a UN declaration and a gift from the British Empire and through a war. And we just have a difficulty processing that.
- [31:57]
Mark Halperin
I rarely have even the temerity to think about challenging Michael Knowles, like in front of the mirror at home. But I'm going to challenge you here because the way you've codified this, I say respectfully, everybody's in. Almost everybody we know is in the middle camp. But there are divisions within the middle camp.
- [32:13]
Michael Knowles
I don't, I don't think so.
- [32:14]
Mark Halperin
Well, I mean, Ben, you.
- [32:16]
Michael Knowles
I'm being slightly hyperbolic.
- [32:18]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, I mean there's, there's some divisions. There's got to be some divisions in that. No, I don't know.
- [32:23]
Michael Knowles
I'm being slightly hyperbolic in my positions, obviously, but I would say no. Tucker and Candace are quite clearly anti Israel. I think that's fair to say. I don't think they would dispute that. And I think my colleague Ben or Mark Levin would probably be pro Israel. And then some people are a little more in the middle. Like for instance, I personally criticized the Israeli government on when the Holy Family compound was hit or when St. Porfirius was hit because I have a personal interest in the protection of the Christian holy sites. I'm not saying that the state of Israel did it on purpose. They claim it was an accident, but they can't be making these kinds of accidents, especially when the United States is funding the war and especially when the continuation of the war imperils the global order. So again, that's not to say that I'm, you know, siding against Israel or anything like that, but it's to recognize that we have to circumscribe some of those actions.
- [33:15]
Mark Halperin
Right.
- [33:15]
Michael Knowles
I think that's firmly in the middle.
- [33:17]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, I agree, I agree. And you're a fact based person and can understand nuance and you're right, that's maybe dangerous place to be. But I guess, let me try, let me try to get at it this way. I try to like everybody. I try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt. So people are sending me as they are sending you, I'm sure, maybe not as much. All these quotes of Charlie's, some of which are totally out of context and I see from a minute because I'm familiar with them. No, that's out of context. Some of them lack nuance. Some of them maybe were one off. And I say, you know, he was on a live show and he said something and maybe, you know, he didn't mean to say it. And in some cases related to Israel, I think the evidence pretty clear that he didn't mean to say it. But, but there's this, there's this more broadly than Charlie. There's, there's all of this attempts to say Tucker's an anti Semite or say, or say Candace is even more of an anti Semite or to look at things that I've said or you've said, almost anybody, but particularly people like Tucker and Candace. And I'm just trying to understand what, what drives that and are they, I'm not asking you to speak for them, but do they seem immune to that criticism. Like, well, obviously it's a weird, it's weird to, to, to, to. For you to say about people, you know, they're anti Israel, that's a pretty strong thing. But on the available evidence, it's not, it's not an unreasonable position to take.
- [34:37]
Michael Knowles
But yeah, I also don't, I don't think that being opposed to the state of Israel or something is necessarily, you know, beyond the pale or immoral or anything like that. To, to be an anti Semite, I mean, to, to like truly have a deep seated hatred of Jews.
- [34:52]
Mark Halperin
But, you know, you know, you know, we're having a conversation. I'm not interrupting. I always like to say I'm just having a conversation, you know. You know that we know many people who equate a sensibility which seems anti Israel with anti Semitism, that there's no difference between those two things. Not because they think they're actually equal, but they say anyone who says the things that Tucker and Candace say about Israel must be anti Semitic or even.
- [35:14]
Michael Knowles
I mean, someone hurled this at me the other day because maybe it was when we were talking about the holy compound attack. I said, you know, we really got to cut this out. They need to wrap up the war. And, oh no, maybe I forget it was that or it was some. I think it might have been because I defended Pius XII and some crazy people were calling. Anyway, sometimes that word is bandied about. And I thought, listen, guys, if I'm your enemy, you don't have any friends, okay? This is not, I promise you, I'm not your enemy. Now to your question on are people immune to this kind of accusation, I would say, look, Tucker and Candace, obviously their ratings are through the roof, so, you know, they have lasting power. I don't think those attacks have damaged them all that much. But why are these things bandied about? I don't know. Because it's politics and people try to cudgel their ideological opponents over the head. So I'm not really surprised by that at all. The more interesting question is why has Israel become a wedge issue on the right? It had not been for my entire life, basically.
- [36:13]
Mark Halperin
Yeah.
- [36:14]
Michael Knowles
I think the answer is simple enough. One, because the 2016 election did represent a shifting of the political order. And in that shifting of the political order, there is always going to be new ideas that crop up. It's not to say that Trump is anti Israel in any way. Trump has a town named after him in Israel. It's just to say that the kind of Bush era consensus which grew out of the Clinton era consensus, which was really just kind of like all an extension of Reaganism that really did get upended on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy. And so it's no surprise that new ideas cropped up. Why?
- [36:51]
Mark Halperin
But just all the things you just listed, the new ideas are Trump's positions, and yet on his. Well, that's right. So I take your theory that things are kind of scrambled, and there's no doubt that that's a big part of it, as well as events on the ground. But why is so much of the party not just grassroots, but some of the talkers, why are they not disciples of Trump on Israel?
- [37:15]
Michael Knowles
Well, the other issue where I think it's not quite in line with Trump is immigration, because Trump moved the position from, you know, just open borders, essentially even the libertarians defending that, to legal, good, illegal, bad. But we're gonna have more legal immigration than ever. You know, Trump has campaigned on that. I think a lot of the base actually says, no, no, no, we need to drastically reduce all immigration.
- [37:34]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, good point.
- [37:35]
Michael Knowles
So on that issue, they've gone a little further. On Israel, though, I think the obvious answer, and we're Speaking on the second anniversary of, of the October 7th attack, it's because of the war. It's because the war is in the news and people get war fatigue. This war has gone on for a long time. Some of the aims of the war are a little unclear. Is the war about getting the hostages back? Is it about disarming Hamas and removing them from power? Is it about regime change in Iran? You know, there seems to be a kind of floating target here that has exacerbated war fatigue. So I think that's really the issue. And I strongly suspect that once this war ends, if it ever ends, I suspect the Israel issue is going to diminish again in importance for a lot of conservatives. And a lot of those divisions are going to. Are going to be, if not go away entirely. They're going to substantially heal the shift.
- [38:21]
Mark Halperin
On public opinion, not just on the right, but on the left over Israel is staggering how much sensibility there is that's anti Israel. Is it tempting, and again, I won't ask you to name specific people, but is it tempting, do you think, to people to make their living off of catering to that change in public opinion? Is that a temptation?
- [38:41]
Michael Knowles
Of course, on both sides of the aisle. Of course that is the case. I mean, I've thought about it myself. I'm sure my. I'm happy with my ratings as they are, but I'm sure my ratings would be much higher if I followed these fads, these ideological trends that crop up. I don't think it's the right thing to do. So I'm not really all that tempted by it. And I'm with Dean Inge and Fulton Sheen. If you wed the spirit of the age, you'll find yourself a widow in the next. I think a lot of it's driven by social media. A lot of it's driven by TikTok. Part of why I could never really get on board with going that hard on Israel. I can criticize Israel, I can disagree with even foundational ideological concepts like religious or historical Zionism. But I can't really go anti Israel because I just can't be on the same side as Greta Thunberg. I can't be on the same side as Islamists, because October 7, we will recall, is also the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, our lady of Victory, an improbable victory of the Holy League over the Muslim Turks. We've had divisions between the east and the west for a long time, too. So I think that, yes, people can try to court that audience. But then the problem, of course, is there is audience capture. And so at a certain point, you know, if you've cultivated an audience that just wants you to evermore side with Greta Thunberg, you're going to find yourself in a very awkward position, especially if you're on the right.
- [39:59]
Mark Halperin
People in what I call the dominant media like to stoke divisions within maga, right? That's part of their craft. But their divisions on this seem both real to me substantively, but also very personal. And again, I base that in part on just the stuff that shows up in my inbox of invective against people who I've known to be allies. What do you think Charlie would say about what's happened regarding Israel and impressions about him and Israel since he was assassinated?
- [40:33]
Michael Knowles
Well, I'm certainly reticent when it comes to speaking for Charlie, obviously. You know, I think a lot of people are trying to put their ideas in Charlie's head. But I'll go so far as to point out the biggest political loss with Charlie, not the personal loss, but the biggest political loss with the death of Charlie, is not the debates. It's not the speeches, it's the coalition. Charlie uniquely was able to totally, totally agree. He, frankly, did it better than President Trump. And Trump's good at it, too. So this is also why there will be people on both sides of any issue. Israel, because we're talking about it. But other issues, too, where they'll say, charlie was on my side. No, Charlie was on my side. And, you know, having been friends with the guy for a long time, I'd say he was probably trying to keep this team together, and he was doing his best to make sure that everyone plays nicely and not to alienate one faction or the other. But there is no doubt that Charlie was displeased by the names being bandied about. And, I mean, he said as much publicly, and it's unfortunate.
- [41:40]
Mark Halperin
Your point about Charlie, I'll say it slightly differently, but only to emphasize it, because it's so important for people to understand. He understood what the traffic would bear on three different related realms. He understood what the traffic would bear on issues. You know, where's public opinion? What does President Trump think? Where's Congress? What will the traffic bear for a consensus position? Then? What will the traffic bear in the media? He understood a very sophisticated way, like, what can we get through, not just the conservative media, but we have to get through the New York Times on some level. He understood what the traffic would bear. And then finally, and I think this was a gift of his, he. He understood what the traffic would bear in terms of personality and humans. He understood how far you could push Donald Trump, how far you could push Tucker. He just. He understood people so well and that high human intelligence and bringing those three things together, as you said, that's how you keep a coalition together, because there are people who have two of those three understandings, and it's not as powerful, but if you have all three, it's a gift. And it really, as you said, superior to President Trump. I think in two of those three, superior to President Trump. I think on public opinion and on the media, I think superior to President.
- [42:56]
Michael Knowles
Trump, yes, without question. And it's important to remember that politics is a team sport. So some people will say, ah, this coalition building, these compromises, this is somehow disreputable, and I have my pure principles and that and no, politics is a team sport. And to quote cocaine Mitch McConnell, the winners go to Washington and the losers go home. So I don't have much quarter for the dime store philosophers who have their ideological purity on Twitter but can't actually do anything in politics. And the fact is, Charlie was able to build and maintain a large coalition that was extremely effective. That moved the youth vote 10 points from 2020 to 2024. And on certain issues, even recognizing that an issue like the state of Israel or an issue like tariffs, say, or an issue like, I don't know, even industrial policy, that these issues don't need to, like, make or break a coalition. There can be some conciliatory middle ground to make sure that we. We don't lose the whole team.
- [43:54]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. And just to be clear, when I said better than President Trump, that was high praise because President Trump is extraordinary at those things. I wasn't denigrating him. I was. I was elevating Charlie. All right, Rapid round on the Democrats in 28. I'll name a Democrat who might run for president. And you just say yes or no. Can, in your estimation, can they be the nominee? Not will they. But are they. Are they plausible to be the nominee?
- [44:17]
Michael Knowles
Yes.
- [44:17]
Mark Halperin
Okay, here we go. Gavin Newsom.
- [44:19]
Michael Knowles
Yes.
- [44:21]
Mark Halperin
Kamala Harris.
- [44:22]
Michael Knowles
No.
- [44:23]
Mark Halperin
J.D. pritzker.
- [44:25]
Michael Knowles
No.
- [44:26]
Mark Halperin
Governor Shapiro.
- [44:28]
Michael Knowles
No.
- [44:30]
Mark Halperin
Governor Bashir.
- [44:31]
Michael Knowles
Yes.
- [44:33]
Mark Halperin
Ro Khanna.
- [44:35]
Michael Knowles
Yes.
- [44:37]
Mark Halperin
All right, so Ro Khanna is yes and Governor Shapiro is no.
- [44:41]
Michael Knowles
Yes.
- [44:42]
Mark Halperin
Explain that, please.
- [44:43]
Michael Knowles
The Democrats don't like the Jews anymore. If you want me to put it bluntly. That's. That's why he wasn't picked to be the running mate by Kamala in. In 2020.
- [44:52]
Mark Halperin
I don't think that I respectfully dissent from that based on my reporting, but. Okay.
- [44:56]
Michael Knowles
Do. Really? Yeah. Oh, you're saying that's not why.
- [44:58]
Mark Halperin
That's not why.
- [44:59]
Michael Knowles
That's not why she overlooked him. Yes.
- [45:00]
Mark Halperin
She actually.
- [45:01]
Michael Knowles
You would agree with me.
- [45:02]
Mark Halperin
Her much. I agree with you that being a Jew is probably not a. Not a plus at this point. But. But I think. I think, you know, everybody. They're no perfect candidates. Kamala Harris's book is much derided, but her explanation of why she didn't pick Governor Shapiro is actually, I believe, true. Matches my reporting. But leaving that aside, why. Yes. On Ro Khanna.
- [45:22]
Michael Knowles
Ro Khanna, I think he ideologically matches. You know, he's got a decent look to him. I think the Democrats are probably done with women for the moment. Hasn't worked out past couple times they've tried it.
- [45:32]
Mark Halperin
Yeah.
- [45:32]
Michael Knowles
I think, you know, look, Newsom thinks of himself as the front runner. He keeps getting squeezed, though. I don't know. He's got a good look to him, but he keeps getting squeezed. He tries to moderate. He's gonna be friends with Charlie Kirk, he's gonna be friends with Steve Bannon, but also he's going to, you know, tweet death threats at President Trump or something. It doesn't. Ro Khanna seems to have a little more stature to him or something, a little more dignity in his comportment, a little more Ideological clarity. The other guys. Pritzker? Not a chance.
- [46:02]
Mark Halperin
Doesn't Wesmore?
- [46:07]
Michael Knowles
I don't know. Yes.
- [46:10]
Mark Halperin
Okay. AOC yes. Yes. Did I leave anybody out? Did I leave anyone? You're bullish on.
- [46:20]
Michael Knowles
No. Some people are bullish on Whitmer. I don't see it. Some people are bullish on Mayor Pete. Not a chance. But AOC has a real chance. AOC you know, to quote Cardinal Manning, there is a day to come that will reverse the confident judgments of men. And the people who underestimate AOC I think, will be. Will be embarrassed.
- [46:39]
Mark Halperin
Do you think she could win a.
- [46:40]
Michael Knowles
General election under certain conditions that are not implausible? I think that the next three years are going to go pretty well, and I think, therefore, JD Will be the Republican heir apparent, and I think he'll be very popular. If the economy were to tank, let's say, if the federal government were not to manage social unrest very well, like in the cities, then you could. I mean, look, we're in a position right now where Jay Jones, the Democrat AG candidate in Virginia, can fantasize about murdering a Republican and his kids, and he won't lose a single endorsement. So we are at a point where the politics are spiraling into a kind of radicalism that would make AOC look positively moderate.
- [47:21]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. Which member of the Bush of the Trump cabinet would be best equipped to play himself or herself in a movie?
- [47:31]
Michael Knowles
Pete Hegseth. Of course. That's not even. Not even a question.
- [47:34]
Mark Halperin
How about Secretary Noemi?
- [47:39]
Michael Knowles
Listen, Gnome has a great. A great movie star. Look to her.
- [47:41]
Mark Halperin
But neither of those is the correct answer. Neither of those is the correct answer.
- [47:45]
Michael Knowles
What's the answer?
- [47:45]
Mark Halperin
Correct answer is Sean Duffy. Correct answer is Sean Duffy. Come on. He would make a great Sean Duffy in the movie.
- [47:52]
Michael Knowles
He would make a great Sean Duffy. And I guess you're right. He's a little less exaggerated in. You know, there's some nuance. That's true. You're right. It's more method acting. He's more.
- [48:01]
Doug Sosnik
A little.
- [48:01]
Mark Halperin
A little like a Rob Lowe. Brando. Rob Lowe. Whatever. Love having you on. I'm trying to figure out how to make you a regular.
- [48:09]
Michael Knowles
I'm in. Sign me up. I'm here. This is pretty easy, you know, and it's wonderful to be on Mark, as always, thank you for having me.
- [48:16]
Mark Halperin
And I nod as if I understand your religious illusions, your historical references, and not knowingly. Yes, Yes. I was just going to say that.
- [48:24]
Michael Knowles
Oh, yes, of course. The Battle of Lepanto. Yes, yes.
- [48:27]
Mark Halperin
Michael Knowles of the Michael Knowles show. But it's like the Ohio State, we call them the Michael Knowles. Very grateful to you for coming back.
- [48:35]
Michael Knowles
Well, thanks for having me.
- [48:36]
Mark Halperin
Good to see you.
- [48:36]
Michael Knowles
See you next time.
- [48:37]
Mark Halperin
Okay. Next up, Democratic strategist, former advisor to Bill Clinton, Doug Sosnik. Stay with us. That's next up. I want to tell you all about the Vapor Technology Association. It's an organization started nearly a decade ago to protect the rights of Americans who choose alternatives to smoking and the small businesses who have made a living using this technology. They support science based policies and the rights of adults to make healthier choices. Did you know that many family owned vape shops and manufacturers across the country are now under attack thanks to what are outdated Biden era regulations that threaten to wipe out an entire industry? The Vapor Technology association, also known as vta, says businesses are being destroyed and people are losing their jobs. But the VTA says President Trump has a clear opportunity now to change this and to protect Americans, right, to make their own choices and to defend small businesses and restore a fair and free marketplace. Head over right now to vapor technology.org to learn more about that organization and why they are leading the charge to support American innovation. And if their mission appeals to you, consider becoming a member. When you get to the site again, that's VaporTechnology.org and when you get there, tell them you heard about all this on NEXT up. Next up, more politics. I've known of my career a lot of the smartest people in both parties and there is no one smarter than Doug Sosnik, longtime political adviser to President Clinton. That tells you what you need to know because Bill Clinton's pretty good, too, and he took advice from Doug and he joins us now. Doug, thank you for making time.
- [50:20]
Doug Sosnik
Great to be here, Mark. Thanks for having me. I would say be more accurate that President Clinton occasionally took advice from me.
- [50:28]
Mark Halperin
But anyway, even once, if anyone he asks, even once means they're pretty good. So thank you. How did you become an expert in American politics, would you say?
- [50:38]
Doug Sosnik
Well, I think what I did, I have a feeling it's probably similar to what you did, which is basically I decided in life to do what I was interested in and figured that if I was interested in something, I was more likely to be good at it. And politics, which is really a young person's sport, gives you a lot more opportunities when you're young. So I started working on campaigns in college and when I got out of college, I ran a campaign for Congress. And that pretty much was some breaks, which I think actually probably Helped me by getting away from politics for a while. I've been pretty much doing it for over 40 years now.
- [51:13]
Mark Halperin
One of the things that you're, I wouldn't say uniquely good at, but you're, again, as good as anyone is. You understand, change that the image of the parties changes, the technology changes. But there are some things that are. There are immutable about politics in general, American politics. What's not different from when you started out in politics in terms of how to run and win elections, particularly presidentials?
- [51:36]
Doug Sosnik
Well, I think, look, that let me just forget about when I started in politics, just when I was in the White House a quarter of a century ago. That was a completely different era in American politics in so many ways, as you well know, having. Having covered it. So in many ways, the world is completely different. It's one of the challenges that people have when they're covering campaigns is to figure out how much of history in a period like this, how much of history can you go back and look at and have it apply to the present and how, which parts of history now are no longer relevant? But I think that some aspects of winning elections is timeless. And it starts regardless of the media or any other kinds of changes in our society. It starts with the quality of the candidate and running for president in particular. I don't think you can run for president without having a vision of where you want to lead the country, a positive vision, first of all. And secondly, I think that you need to be able to articulate that vision in a way that people can understand. Thirdly, I think people have to believe that what you are saying is something you actually believe and you're not just posturing. And lastly, I think they have to have confidence that you can actually implement what you are running on. And so I think those four factors are timeless.
- [52:48]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. In that list, people talk about Donald Trump's winning two out of three. And they often point to the fact that he ran against Hillary Clinton, who was a flawed candidate, and Kamala Harris, also a flawed candidate. Everybody's flawed. As Bill Clinton liked to say, if you want a perfect candidate, vote for someone else. My in my circle, we talk about what would have happened had Donald Trump run against Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or George Bush. Is it possible in terms of understanding the dynamics of campaigns to say, or is it too hypothetical and impossible to say whether those three guys could have beaten Donald Trump?
- [53:30]
Doug Sosnik
Let me just say for the record, I hate Donald Trump. I think he's an abomination. But put that aside. He's A spectacular political specimen. And in his election in 2016, an underreported thing was. One of the biggest problems Clinton had in 16 was that our country doesn't want one party to have the White House three terms in a row. It only happened once since World War II, and that's when Bush won essentially for a Reagan third term. But in 2016, I don't think anyone ever got elected president owing fewer people than Donald Trump. He didn't own bundlers. He didn't have a campaign apparatus. He did the entire thing on his own. And that's a spectacular achievement. But I think at the heart of your question, to be elected president of the United States, you have to be the right person at the right place at the right time. If you take our country's history of over 200 years, I think the only time Jimmy Carter, for instance, could have ever been elected president was when he ran in 1976. I think timing is everything in answering your question. I think it would depend on when the year was and where the mood of the country was. And just one last thing I'll say. You know, I think Trump is a symptom of what's going on in America, not a cause. And a lot of what led to his victory in 2016 were things that had been forming in our country long before he ever thought about running. And so he tapped into that, in a sense, accelerated these trends. They first surfaced in Campanino. Well, you covered in 1992, where I think that was the first time. Remember, politics is a lagging indicator, not an elite indicator of the state of America, but the grassroots working class revolt that Trump led. First time it showed up in American politics was in the 92 campaign, Buchanan's primary against Bush, the incumbent, and then Ross perot getting almost 20 million votes. So I think Trump's timing was spot on in 2016. But in terms of the hypotheticals, I think you have to start with where the country is, the mood is, and what the country's looking for. By the way, one word to describe Trump's campaign in 2016, I would say it was strength. And I think he used that as an antidote to what he perceived, and many people perceived as weakness of the Obama years. And so many times, you'll see in American history, we tend to react to whatever our current president is. Every action creates a reaction, and often the country wants to rebalance itself as something opposite of the predecessor.
- [56:22]
Mark Halperin
All right, I'll ask it this way. Slightly different. Here's how I rank the last five presidents in terms of just political skills, all the things it takes to be a good, not just presidential candidate, but an effective president to get your agenda through. Here's how I rank them. Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, Biden. Agree or disagree?
- [56:43]
Doug Sosnik
I guess I mostly agree, but I think that, I mean, I think you have to look at your definition of, you know, success as a president. And so for whatever reason, you know, Trump lost his reelection in 2020. And, you know, if you want to measure success of a president, the power of the office and exerting your will, then Trump is probably the most effective president in the history of the United States. If you want to measure a president by whether they're leading a country and whether a country believes and supports their president, then Trump is at the bottom of the list or right next to Biden. So I think it really depends on what your definition is of a strong president.
- [57:25]
Mark Halperin
Well said. I was thinking more of just in terms of the kind of political skills that help you get elected and help you in the office. But I take your point.
- [57:33]
Doug Sosnik
He's a spectacular political athlete.
- [57:36]
Mark Halperin
Yeah.
- [57:36]
Doug Sosnik
I don't know how else to describe it. He has the touch, you know, he's a 78, 79 year old guy that understands modern media or post modern media. He doesn't believe in the traditional tools of campaigns. He gives a speech and whatever lines work is what he uses.
- [57:55]
Mark Halperin
Right.
- [57:55]
Doug Sosnik
So every day is a focus group.
- [57:58]
Mark Halperin
I think of the Democratic Party now in sort of four time periods. Present midterms, presidential, and then post presidential, post Trump. And, you know, there's some similar challenges across all four. I want to ask you about two of them. One is these voter registration numbers where you see in lots of states, more Republicans registering, more people registering as Republicans, fewer Democrats. Obviously independents continue to grow as well. Is your sense that that's a problem that's happening organically, or is that something that Republicans are just organized to do?
- [58:34]
Doug Sosnik
It's probably both. But you have to understand there are leading indicators of politics and they're lagging indicators. I think voter registration is a lagging indicator of the mood of the country. And I remember starting out in politics when young people came on to sing, and yet Jimmy Carter defining what it meant to be a Democrat and Ronald Reagan defining what it meant to be a Republican. He had a whole generation of people who entered politics becoming Republicans because all they knew was Reagan and Carter. And so part of what's going on now is I think, an era of all people know about politics. A lot of these people who are starting politics is Trump and Biden or Trump and Harris. So I think that this is a lagging indicator, but it reflects the disarray of the party right now. The other trend, which I think is probably even more significant, although I don't want to diminish the trends you're alluding to, particularly in the 39 states, the Department of Registration, but you look at the swing states of Nevada and Arizona and Pennsylvania and North Carolina, and those are significant advantages that the Republicans are enjoying now. And it's both, it's people both signing up to be Republican, but also combination of people unsigning being a Democrat. But the other trend which I think is probably most important are people moving to independence away from both the political parties. And you particularly as you go west of the Mississippi and you look at places like Arizona or the overwhelming, you know, majority of people now in Arizona are not affiliated with either party. But both of those trends I think are significant. And you can't, there's no way I can as a Democrat tell you that's a good sign.
- [60:17]
Mark Halperin
Yeah. The other challenge so many people associated with President Clinton talk about is neither party has a monopoly on the extreme wing, you know, being influential or taking unpopular positions because of the extreme wing. But a lot of people associated with President Clinton say the party's too far left now. It's got too many unpopular positions that are too far left and, and, and, and too many of our elected officials, Democrats say, are afraid to stand up to that. I tell people all the time, particularly younger people who don't recognize the resonance of this. Bill Clinton in 92 was pro death penalty, pro right to work, pro welfare reform, pro free trade, all positions that were way to the, away from the base of the party. And yet he figured out a way to make those positions sellable to win the nomination and then of course helped him in the general. Is that a formula that could work and is that a necessary thing for the party's nominee in 28 to do?
- [61:12]
Doug Sosnik
Well, I mean, there are a couple of ways you can look at this that are simple. One is which of the two parties wings are more extreme, which everyone's acting more extreme is probably the party's going to lose. The other though is, and I think this helped Clinton in 91 or 92 is how, how much what's more important to a party, the activists, is it more important to be right in their mind or is it more important to win an election? And I think by 91 the party was so tired of losing that it was a better environment for Clinton to take on some orthodoxy and not be a slave to the constituency groups. If I could just take your four buckets for a moment. Just quickly, Bucket one is the present. This is what happens when you lose elections. You have no leader. Bucket two are the midterms. I think that the midterms will have very little to say with what happens in 2028. If you look at the two biggest midterm elections since World War II, in 94, when the Republicans took the House back and over 50 House seats, I think seven Senate races in 2020, 2010, when the Republicans won over 60 House seats, seven Senate races, 10 governorships. The Republicans lost the White House two years later in 96, in 2020. So I don't think you should look at 2026 as any sort of tell about the future. And so your bucket three is the entire candidacy and outcome is going to be determined by who is nominated by which of these parties. And then bucket four is if Democrats take the White House back, then the person who was the nominee and elected president will define what it means to be a Democrat. If the Democrats lose in 2028, then Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will probably be defining what it means to be a Democrat the next four years, because that's what the Republicans will do. Jimmy Carter was President United States for four years, but he was President of the Democratic Party from 76 until Clinton won in 92. And the reason was Republicans made sure that Carter defined what it meant to be a Democrat.
- [63:29]
Mark Halperin
Do you fancy any of the prospective 2028 candidates to the point where you think they should be the nominee or likely to be the nominee? Or is it more unsettled in your mind than that?
- [63:38]
Doug Sosnik
This is completely unsettled. It's the silly season. It's all tactic. It's all posturing. None of this matters. I mean, my experience, Mark, is that there are two sort of things you need to do to be elected President. One is you have to be able to articulate having your own mind and articulate why you're running and what you're going to do if you're going to get elected. And then the second is, can you demonstrate the temperament to take the pressures of a campaign? Because if you can't do that, how can you take the pressures of the office? And so when you're in the middle of a primary, going to five states in a day, you can't be formulating why you're running. So the most important thing anyone can do right now is figure out why they're going to run and be able to articulate that. Now, just remind you as someone who was there, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. When Clinton announced in 91 and Obama announced in 07, those guys were not very good candidates. But the process of running and their ability to articulate where they wanted to lead the country happened in that first phase. And for Clinton, and you were probably there, you know, a series of speeches he gave in Cleveland and Georgetown in the fall of 91 is where he really captured in his mind his ability to articulate why he was running. And the same, I think the moment for Obama was in the 07 JJ dinner in Iowa. So what I'm looking for now is not people who can get under Trump's skin and can build Twitter followings. I'm looking at who is trying to, to figure out if they're gonna run, why are they running, and are they coming up with a way to articulate where they wanna lead the country. That's the most important thing right now.
- [65:24]
Mark Halperin
Yeah, it is. And of course, the daily coverage and a lot of reporters focus on the exact opposite. And it's not just who would be the strongest nominee or not just who would be the strongest nominee or most likely nominee. It's also who'd be the best president, which, of course, the voters respond to. And, and, and it's hard in the current environment to do what you're saying, but not impossible. People could, could give thoughtful speeches, they could spend less time asking people what they should run on and figuring it out themselves. Just to. You think about it as just one thing.
- [65:55]
Doug Sosnik
So, you know, when you talk about the Democrats, we have no leader of the party right now. This is what happens when you lose elections. If you remember in 2009, with, after Obama won, the Democrats took Congress, I mean, Republicans were walking around in a daze.
- [66:08]
Mark Halperin
Yeah.
- [66:09]
Doug Sosnik
So we as a party, the only thing we as a party can do, whether it's the congressional wing or anything, all we can do between now and the beginning of the presidential race is try to lessen the burden of a candidate running with a Democratic label. All we can do is try to make that less of a burden for the nominee. That's all we can do. We can't, as an opposition party, define who we are, where we're going. So our whole job is to make us less toxic. And one of the most important things for 2026 for Democrats is just to have same with the governor's races this year is to have proof of concept that we're not so toxic that we can't win elections, but that's really the only value that we can provide for the nominee.
- [66:58]
Mark Halperin
It isn't part of the challenge. Maybe this is wrong or too obvious to say. Part of the challenge of Trump is he knows full well what issues Democrats are more unpopular on, like crime. And he, he knows how to put those things front and center and force the party to either be divided or, or cling to what are unpopular positions.
- [67:18]
Doug Sosnik
Well, yes, but. So, yes, that's true, but so I believe we've been living in the age of Trump since 2015, when he wrote down that escalator and announced candidacy. So for 11 years, he's completely dominated American politics. We as Democrats for 11 years have not articulated a single positive agenda of where we want to take the country. It's all been about stopping Trump. And what Trump so far has demonstrated at least, is that he is a singular force in American politics. When he is not on the ballot, his appeal has not been transferable. And we are going to be moving out of the age of Trump with the 2028 election. It's going to be an open seat, and a lot of that race is going to be defined not by does Trump dominate the news cycle, but what is the state of America and what is the state of American economy. And that is going to be the setup. And Trump is winning most every news cycle. But ultimately his presidency and ultimately the outcome of the 2026 midterms, I think will largely be determined by, by the state of the country, the state of the economy and how people feel, not whether or not he can win news cycles.
- [68:30]
Mark Halperin
Is it too soon to size up JD Vance as a potential presidential candidate?
- [68:35]
Doug Sosnik
I think it's, I guess in one way it's too soon. Another hand. I thought he was a colossal mistake when they nominated him, and I think it seemed like they had Vier's remorse. But I thought he proved to be a pretty effective candidate and I think he's been a effective wingman as vice president. And in some ways he can. I mean, I think that the Trumpism is mostly just an appeal to Trump. It's not really a philosophy. But to the extent that someone can articulate what is Trump as a mean, I think Vance probably does a better job of that than, than Trump. But I think it's far from clear if he has the kind of personal skills and ability to relate to people in the wings of the party. That's going to be the test of the campaign, is the temperament. But I think he certainly right now is best position of anyone in the Republican Party.
- [69:40]
Mark Halperin
If you were an advisor to the Democratic version of Vance, vice president who seems to have the full support of the president, chair of the RNC Finance Committee, would that be approach from which you could consolidate a lot of advantages for 2028?
- [69:55]
Doug Sosnik
It will be, but I'll give you one prediction, it will be. And I think doing all the thankless tasks that Trump doesn't want to do, going to any meeting anywhere and meeting anybody, the funders going out there and saying all the things that Trump wants is, is what Trump is what Vance needs to do. And, and in a sense he's going to have to be a duck, which is to say above service. He's very calm, he's vice presidential. That's his only agenda. But beneath the surface, that duck is paddling as fast as he can. And the real challenge is going to be that Donald Trump only is focused and cares about Donald Trump. Anything that detracts from that is something that Trump will take offense to. Any time someone starts overtly running for president. Above the surface, not below the surface. Take 2027. Trump is going to view that as a hostile act because it's going to make him implicitly a lame duck. So I think you're going to find, you know, when I was in the Clinton White House, you know, Gore started running in, you know, 1999, I mean, it was just a normal thing. You just let it go. I think that Trump will be very punitive for as long as possible to not let anyone overtly run for president because it will diminish him in office.
- [71:20]
Mark Halperin
Doug Sosnik, entering I think about your fourth decade as one of the top political strategists in the country and in your party. Grateful to you for making time.
- [71:27]
Doug Sosnik
Nice to see you. Thank you, Mark.
- [71:29]
Mark Halperin
All right, again, Doug Sosnik, just an extraordinary, extraordinarily smart guy and I'm grateful to him for making time. That's it for today's show. We'll be back on Thursday, a brand new episode. Make sure you subscribe and download nextup. Wherever you get your podcast, Watch us on YouTube if you want to be here. If you want to know what's coming. Nextup.
- [71:53]
LifeLock Advertiser
It'S Cybersecurity awareness month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity, use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report port phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, LifeLock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected. With a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com specialoffer terms apply.