Dan Turnthein (10:58)

Move law enforcement in there in the.

Mark Halperin (10:59)

Wrong way and turn what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation and altercation between officers and, and demonstrators. So a bunch of fun watching cars burn and putting the onus on federal officials, including the National Guard and ICE for defending themselves and for protecting themselves. Again, Democrats, who should be on the right side listen to that kind of media from left wing media and they just, they get it. They get a distorted impression, I guess, of what's going on, but the facts aren't unclear. Is this, is this thing, is this operation something that should be scrutinized? Yes. There are people in this country legally who are part of their community. They, they do day jobs, they take care of kids, they clean houses. It's a tough issue for the country to grapple with. And the human issue of people who want to come to these states, these are tough issues. But what's not a tough issue is if I says we are on a mission to deport this group of people and by the way, we say some of them are violent criminals and then there's violence against ice. There's no issue there about what's going on. What's going on there is the loss of order, the loss of civic order. That's, that's being carried out. And when the president, United States says, we don't believe that the local officials can or will do what's necessary to protect order, we're going to bring in the National Guard and maybe active duty military. The Democrats should say thank you, thank you, thank you for helping our local community deal with this. Continue to oppose the immigration policy if you oppose it. But how could a political party, how could a political party take the position that this is about being incited by the federal officials? That's the media side. The Democratic side is equally confusing. The vice President of the United States under Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, who lives in Southern California, hasn't weighed in very specifically or very often since she left office on any public policy issue. She weighed in on this. She referred to the people who the government is trying under the law and follow through on President Trump's campaign promise to deport. She referred to them as our immigrant neighbors. Our immigrant neighbors. Now, technically true, they are immigrants, they're illegal immigrants. They are her neighbors. They live near her. But that term, which reflects a big heart, no doubt, is of a piece with what's going on now where the Democrats want to say, this is Donald Trump's fault. That's basically what they want to say. The median of Democrats would say, this is Donald Trump's fault. It's really not his fault. He said he would do this as a candidate. He gave a big speech in Iowa during the campaign and said, this is what we're going to do, okay? And now, in the wake of those words, in the wake of no ambiguity, I think in anybody's mind who was paying attention about what Donald Trump planned to do, he's going into some blue places. There's no doubt and there's no doubt that maybe he's doing it to be provocative. Maybe, maybe he's even doing it in terms of timing. To change the subject, he sent ICE agents into Martha's Vineyard in Nantucket in Massachusetts. Two blue places, same thing. The local said, well, you know, that woman is, you know, takes care of my kids, or that guy sells me papaya in the park. Great, great. Really tragic to see these lives amended. But these are lives of people who, whether they brought their kids with them or had kids here, or whether they're here without kids, chose to come to the United States illegally. My heart breaks for them on a human level. But the tens of millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, in part to restore order, to make the system sane, not just for national security, not just for criminal justice reasons, but because we can't afford the reality of people taxing the health care system, taxing the education system. I don't understand how the Democrats think this is either the politically right thing to do, to turn this into an attack on law enforcement, a verbal attack on law enforcement, or the right thing to do in terms of policy. Because the right thing to do is to, if you don't agree with the president's immigration policy, fight him on it politically. But in this moment, when there's going to be more of this all over the country, when ICE officials are being attacked, how could anyone want law enforcement to be attacked? The indignant nature of Democratic officials in California pointing to all these things again, that I keep hearing about, Trump's evil. Trump doesn't care about immigrants. Trump wants to destroy communities. Trump's, you know, strong, armed law enforcement. They're shooting rubber bullets at, at reporters. They're, they're, they're tear gassing babies and strollers. This is all a byproduct of out of control attacks on law enforcement. They're not breaking the law by trying to enforce the law. You can say you don't agree with the policy, but what's happening now is one of the clearest cut examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I have seen, and I've seen a lot in 10 years. I've seen a lot in 10 years. This issue of immigration, maybe more than anything else, brings out the worst in those who ironically have dedicated their lives to stopping Donald Trump. The irony is they're helping him. They are making his position on this so politically advantageous, and they're making themselves the party of attacking law enforcement is fine. If you think law enforcement's out of line, that's not a winning position. It's not a popular position. It's not a position that can be defended. I keep looking for Democrats who are on the right side here, but this goes back to what we've seen throughout Donald Trump's 10 years in national stage. Democrats cannot seem to think straight when he does something they don't like. And they do not like his position on immigration. I have seen people say, well, he really wants to have the military out there. I actually don't think he does. I might be wrong. Maybe this is his, is his desired outcome. But the only reason that they moved here, in terms of the chronology to put the National Guard in place, is because the local officials, through some combination of not wanting to help them and not being able to help them, weren't defending them. Imagine being an ICE official trying to do your job, figuring out who the people are illegally, who've committed serious crimes, rounding up them and others who are here illegally, and then having cars set on fire, scooters thrown from overpasses at you, then besieging the, the, the federal building, the detention center. This is not the way we should treat our law enforcement officials. This is not the kind of support we should give them. So imagine you're in California and, and, and the, the LAPD is saying, well, there's no violence. The mayor is saying, well, Trump is, Trump is inflaming this. These are very emotional issues. Immigration. Part of the reason it's such a tough public policy issue is these are very tough issues, very difficult challenges because there's so many cross cuts, there's health care and law enforcement and, and the humanity of it. And my heart breaks for Folks. Now, truly, as a personal matter, if you're in this country illegally and the way you support your family is you go clean houses or you go to go down to the Home Depot and you hang around looking for odd, odd jobs, my heart breaks that they have to live in fear and they have to deal with the prospect of being separated from their kids or going back to their home country if they're deported without their kids. It's heartbreaking. But they're grown ups, they're adults, and in many cases, violent criminals who came to this country knowing full well they were breaking the law. And now the President's trying to send them back because that's what he said he'd do, and because there has to be some sense of balance in this country, that we control our borders. This is not a pro Trump position. This is a pro sanity position. And again, as a matter of politics, the smartest Democrats I know and the smartest journalists I know, even the ones who are super liberal, they know that what's happening now in real time is a rerun of almost every conflict that's occurred in a decade between Donald Trump and the Democrats. When immigration is the issue, Trump must be scrutinized. These policies must be done the right way. The press and the Democrats must be vigilant in saying, don't deport American citizens. Make sure people who are deported are deported under our law and customs, make sure that there's not excessive force used, make sure that the use of the military is done in a limited and judicious way as needed. All those things must be done. But you lose the credibility to be a voice, whether you're a Democrat or in the media, to raise these questions. If you start from the premise that the reason there are, there's rioting and property destruction and harm being inflicted on government officials, law enforcement officials. If you, if you attribute all that to Donald Trump rather than the rioters and rather than the local officials who have not sufficiently stepped up to stop them, you're making a mistake. You're making a moral mistake. Okay? And you're making, if you're a Democrat, a political mistake. I can't tell you how many Democrats I continue to hear from who want the topic to be Donald Trump's evil rather than basic fact. Law enforcement officials are doing their job and they're being physically threatened because of it. And the, and the, and the people in charge of protecting them are not stopping it. It's that simple. And it's so simple that I still believe there could be some sanity here, but I haven't seen it yet. I haven't seen it in the media coverage. I, I equate mostly peaceful with calling the guy from Maryland, from El Salvador, a Maryland man. These are Orwellian terms. Okay, we'll keep watching it. We'll see what's next up on this. But I will tell you for now, this is a textbook case of Trump derangement syndrome. Belongs in a time capsule. All right, next up, my view of why Democrats are frittering away time they are going to need to Prepare for the 2028 presidential election. Stay with us. That's next up. Okay, everyone, now I want to tell you a story. It's about a guy named Leo Grillo. He was on a road trip and he came across a Doberman. This dog was severely underweight and clearly in trouble. So Leo did the right thing. He rescued that Doberman and of course, he gave him a new name, Delta. Sadly, though, Delta is just one of many animals that need our help, which inspired Leo to start Delta Rescue. Delta Rescue is the largest no kill, care for life animal sanctuary in the entire world. They've already rescued thousands of dogs, cats and horses from the wilderness. And they always do the right thing. They provide their animals with shelter, love, safety, and a good home. This dedication and this everlasting love for animals, that's Leo's mission and Leo's legacy. And Delta Rescue needs you because they rely solely on contributions from people like all of us. So if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak right now to your estate planner because there are, in addition to doing the right thing, tax saving, estate planning benefits as well. You can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. So right now, check out the estate planning tab on the website to learn more. And you can also speak with an advisor we call dogs man's best friend for a good reason. You can help those who need it most right now. Please visit Deltarescue.org to learn more today. Again, that's Deltarescue.org foreign Next up, the Democrats in 2028 spend a lot of time talking to Democrats about what they need in a presidential candidate for the next election. Some say, well, they're going to be the favorite to win in 2028 because they think Donald Trump will be a failed president. And without Trump on the ballot, they don't think anyone, including J.D. vance, can really be a strong candidate. And they might be right there. There may be some Trump magic before Donald Trump or Republicans had a hard time winning presidential elections, winning the popular vote, which Trump of course did one of three times. But there's a lot of Republican advantages and smart Democrats I talk to are concerned that there's a gap. Not only do Republicans have what appears to be, as we've talked about here before, very strong front runner in JD Vance, but they've got some institutional advantages. And there's something special about this Trump second term as compared to most second terms. Most second term presidents term limited lame ducks. They don't think much about politics, they don't think much about fundraising, they don't think much about building a political machine. That's just not true of the Trump Vance operation. They're very focused on the midterms and they're very focused on using the leverage of the Oval Office to do the kinds of things that are institutional that can help one side or the other one of the two parties win a close presidential election. After every presidential cycle, I will typically do a survey to say who's got technological superiority in the digital age. Registering voters, turning out voters. That is a mechanical thing that involves a lot of understanding of social media, digital technology, communications. And I usually after the end of cycle, I can tell you people, here's the side that has the advantage and here's how big the advantage is. We don't know, we don't know that this time. Why don't we know that? Well, the Democrats aren't talking much because of their, I believe, belief that they're not that strong. And second, they're not talking much because there's no one to talk. You went from a, a Biden campaign that was behind the eight ball because of the weakness of their candidate to a 100 day sprint from the Harris campaign. Why don't we know how strong the Republicans are? Because the people who helped build what they built, James Blair, who was the political director, now works in the White House. People like Charlie Kirk, outside groups that worked under the law with the Trump advance operation to build the kind of data driven operation needed in this age. They're not bragging. Typically, you see the winners get credit for winning through superior technology. This started in basically in 2008 with the Obama campaign. And they're much vaunted digital operation for registering voters, turning out voters, communicating with voters. This group of Republicans isn't talking. They're barely taking credit for what they did. And they're not doing these long interviews where they explain the advantages that they had because they figured out the technology. I think the Republicans have an advantage here based on everything I know, but there's not a lot of meat on that bone to explain it. The challenge for the Democrats is the Trump Vance political operation is up and running. They're fundraising, they're building on their technological experiences, they're registering voters. You see that in some of the states where data is available. The advantage of spending four years focused on the general election through the rnc, through the White House political operation through these outside groups is massive. Because what's happening on the Democratic side, there's about 30 people mentioned as candidates. None of them are very active. Some of them will do podcasts and tv, but no one's out there fundraising into a super PAC or building a massive operation. This is the stuff that in a close election, makes a difference. And in our system, as you know, in recent history, we've had a lot of close elections. We haven't had landslides. We've had folks win narrowly in the popular vote narrowly in the Electoral College. So what's happening now three years before the next presidential could be decisive? One side stronger in the last election, building, building, building, taking advantage of what they had and continuing to quietly build on it. That's the Republican side. What's happening on the Democratic side is a bunch of two dozen or so potential candidates who are thinking about it, and they're thinking about building things up, but they're thinking about building things up for themselves in terms of technology and donors and hiring the best technological wizards against other Democrats. Because winning that nomination in 2024 and 2028 is going to be tough. It's going to be competitive. There is no front runner, and I doubt there will be for a long time because we don't have an incumbent. Even if Kamala Harris runs, we don't. No one sees her as clearing the field or becoming this titanic front runner if she does run. So historically, I've been looking at the question talking to Democrats. What could be done? How could Democrats try to cut the technology gap, the voter registration gap, the fundraising gap now, before they have a candidate? Because chances are there won't be a clear nominee at the earliest until 2028. In the winter, in January, February, depending on when their primaries and caucuses are. That's a long time to wait. That's a long time to not have a front runner who can start building a general election operation. We know even if the Republicans don't nominate J.D. vance, there's going to be an operation on the Republican side. So look at history and say, well, where could this come from? Could come from outside groups, but it's hard for outside groups to leave. Most of the outside groups the Democrats have started to build now with millions or tens of millions from donors, are focusing on messaging. They're doing focus groups, they're doing studies, they're writing papers. How do we speak, particularly to working class voters, Hispanic voters, young voters, black voters. That's not the process, the technical process of trying to close the technology gap in a way that can actually deliver votes. When did this happen? When have Democrats out of power figured this out? You have to go back to 1991. Now, the comparable year in. In this cycle would be 25. So they've got. Or 27, rather. So they have. They have time if they want to replicate the model, but they've got a problem. The Democratic chairman of the national committee in the 80, in the cycle that ended in 89, went through Bill Clinton's election in 92, was a guy named Ron Brown. Okay, Ron Brown was a titan. Ron Brown figured out how to build a national party apparatus so that whoever the nominee was could win. Because Ron Brown saw that in terms of fundraising and voter registration and focusing on the battleground states, the Democrats were way behind the Republicans at that point. They'd lost to Reagan twice, to Bush 41 once. They didn't seem to have a way to win. There was what was called a Electoral college lock back then. You younger people won't know. Republicans won New Jersey, California, all the Midwestern battleground states. Democrats didn't see a way to win. So what? Ron Brown and a guy named Paul Tully, who worked for him at the Democratic National Committee. Today's your history lesson. What they did was they said, what can we build that whoever our nominee is for president in coming up, in a year can inherit, can just turnkey operation so we can raise the money, target the battleground states. How did Ron Brown and Paul Tully do this? I wrote about this in my book that I wrote called how to Beat Trump based on interviews with a lot of Democratic strategists. This was back in 2019, where they said Democrats said to me, we got to figure out how to beat Trump because we lost to him in 2016, we got to figure out a way to do it. So I interviewed a lot of Democrats, and many of them pointed to this extraordinary event that occurred in Virginia in June of 1991. There was a woman named Pamela Harriman. She had an incredible life. She was married, amongst others, to Winston Churchill. She was the big donor of the Democratic Party. She was like the Elon Musk of her time. And Pamela Herriman had a big estate in Virginia. And Ron Brown and Paul Tully said, we need to build something. And so what they built was a meeting where they invited all the people who might run for president, all the top fundraisers, and they had them to a meeting and they said, here's the deal. If we do nothing and everybody fights on their own to build what they're going to build, we'll never beat Bush, we'll never beat the incumbent Republican, because nobody will have time to build a sufficiently large thing. So what we need is for all of you to work with us together, help us build it. Get your donors to give to the dnc, you support the dnc, knowing that if, unless you win the lottery and you're the nominee, you're not going to benefit from this, but knowing that if you don't contribute and you're the nominee, you'll. We'll never have a chance. So they had a big meeting over a couple days. They laid out the case of how they could use the money and the political support to build the kind of infrastructure that could win a presidential campaign. And then the press was quite interested in this because he had all the leading candidates there, including Bill Clinton. Ron Brown came out and he spoke to the media after the meeting and he explained to some extent what they were doing. Please roll B2. We have had an extraordinary meeting, a historic meeting for the Democratic Party where there was absolute consensus that we're on the right track and getting ready for the 1992 general election campaign. Campaign. Early on, it is clear to us that George Bush is very vulnerable in 1992 because this administration has absolutely no domestic agenda. It is not speaking to the needs and aspirations and goals of average, everyday working men and women and working families in our nation. We've developed a strategy, a preliminary strategy for the 1992 general election campaign. The essence of, of it is to have our party leaders and our prospective candidates and our national party working together as a team. That guy, I think, is the greatest chairman, at least in the history of the Democratic Party. He had experience across the party, relationships across the party, and you heard him there say, well before the general election, we've got a plan and we're going to build this plan with the help of everybody, and we'll be ready and, and we'll hand this off to the nominee. So as I said, amongst the people who were there were Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton and his folks. At that point, Bill Clinton was not an announced candidate. Wasn't sure necessarily he would even run. But he came to the meeting and his folks got the joke that if they supported this effort and he won the nomination, he would inherit an unprecedented good operation that would help register voters and turn out voters. Here's Bill Clinton again. This is from June of 91 at the same event after the meeting. This is B3, please. I will say this.

Dan Turnthein (34:14)

I believe that the research confirmed what any workaday politician would find who went out and just talked to real people, that they have real problems, real concerns. They don't think they're being addressed at the national level. And if we can come up with a message that brings people together around these concerns, concerns, then the Democrats have a chance to win in 92.

Mark Halperin (34:35)

All right, that guy, a political stud. He might have won without the help from the dnc. But if you ask people who worked in the Clinton campaign, how much did you benefit beating George Bush and Ross Perot because of the groundwork laid by the Democratic Party, they will tell you quite a bit. Otherwise they would have had to win the nomination, which, as you know, Bill Clinton struggled to do because of his personal problems on the draft and Jennifer Flowers and other issues. Big benefit. Okay? So I look now every day I look and talk to my sources, look in the press. What are the Democrats doing to build something like that? Because there's no doubt in my mind that they're at a disadvantage today because of what the Trump Vance operation built in in 2024 and what they continue to aggressively build. They are registering voters today in the battleground states. So one place to look would be the dnc, the current Democratic Party. Ken Martin is the chair of the Democratic Party now. He is not Ron Brown. I say that with respect to Mr. Martin. He, Ron Brown had national experience with labor unions, with business. He became. After Bill Clinton won, he became Commerce Secretary, tragically killed in a plane accident. Ken Martin was the chair of the Minnesota party. Nice guy, but not building anything. And in fact, over the weekend, it was reported by Politico that instead of focusing on building the party and being confident that he can create something to hand off to his presidential nominee, there was a meeting of Democratic officials and Ken Martin talked about this guy, David Hogg. David Hogg is the vice chair of the dnc, and he has created a massive controversy by saying that he's going to raise money from an outside super PAC to try to beat Democratic incumbents. It's kind of like the opposite of what you're supposed to do if you're the vice chair of your party. But he's doing that and it's caused, obviously, a bunch of controversy. There are people who say, no, you cannot be DNC Vice Chair if you're going to try to beat Democratic incumbent candidates. There are some who say, great, the party needs something that shakes things up. In any event, here is Ken Martin in a secretly recorded zoom session with David Hogg and others lamenting what's happened to his chairmanship of the DNC because he's dealing with this David Hogg controversy. This is B1, please. I'm just quite frustrated to be in this position because what you've done, whether you like it or not or know it or not, David, is. I'm trying to. No one knows who the hell I am. Right. I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to, to put ourselves in a position to win. And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to so nobody knows who the hell I am. You've destroyed my chairmanship. I mean, you'd never hear Ron Fran saying stuff like that. But that's the state of the current Democratic Party. The apparatus is distracted. Ken Martin, who by his own acknowledgment there, not very well known, not an influential figure even in political circles, let alone with the wider country, is dealing with the kind of controversy that a strong chair like Ron Brown would have never allowed to happen. And so now what you see is the specter of, you know, who are the people most active people like J.B. pritzker, governor of Illinois, Pete Buttigieg, if you think he's going to run, maybe the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom. But mostly what those folks are doing is building up their own name id. Again, they're going on media. Are they. Are they gathering names for. For their social media from their social media to raise money? Are they meeting with big donors? They're doing some of that, but nothing at the scale I believe, and my sources believe is required to really take on the Trump Vance machine. Now, again, if Donald Trump has a failed presidency, if Vance is part of an administration that's not popular and he. And he does become the nominee, of course it will be easier for Democrats to win, and perhaps they won't need to close the technology gap, the voter registration gap, the turnout gap. But chances are, unless Trump's administration is a disaster or somebody runs against Vance and beats him. Who's. Who's too weak to win. Chances are Republicans are going to continue to build on the advantage they have now. And as I said, in a close election, these things are an edge. I don't believe Donald Trump would have won the six battleground states he won without the extraordinary efforts, still somewhat opaque, of Charlie Kirk and Elon Musk and others who figured out early on that the way to spend money is not on TV ads or digital ads. The way to spend money is to build a digital first operation that reaches voters where they are and registers them and turns them out to vote. The Democratic Party right now talked about this before. They don't have a great leader. It's not Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries. They're decent at the inside game, but they're not outside. They obviously don't control the White House. And the folks who are thinking of running for president have good moments and bad, but no one has a daily megaphone. And none of them, and I've said this before, none of them, is politician of a generation, a political talent like Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. And. And when people say, well, did you know about Barack Obama three years before the 2008 election when he won? Yeah, we did, because he spoke at the 2004 convention and gave the keynote address. And for decades before that, he was touted as one of the great political talents on the Democratic side. Same with Bill Clinton. People say, well, did you know about him in 1992? Yes, because for 20 years, he was touted going back to Georgetown, but when he first became a elected official in Arkansas, he was touted as a great generational talent. Now, can one of these 24 or so Democrats win, even if they're not part of being touted as a great Democratic talent for generations? Sure, they could. But their chances of doing that without an effort like Ron Brown's, either by the DNC or by or by an outside group, I think are much lower. Because if you look at where they are right now, they're gonna have to fight for the nomination in the winter of 2027 into 2028. And winning the nomination is different than winning the general election in terms of infrastructure. You're talking about different states, you're talking about a different electorate, you're talking about a different set of databases. Is there going to be some Democrat who runs for president with the financial backing and discipline and foresight to say, I am going to simultaneously figure out how to reach, you know, South Carolina Democrats to win the primary and Michigan independents to win the general. It's not the way politics typically work. You'd have to, you'd have to have a big head start to do that. And, and if somebody's smart now, my Democratic sources say they should be thinking about those general election voters now and trying to figure out can they get the ability to deal with that challenge? It's hard and it's expensive. Part of what Trump Organization's doing now with Vance is they're raising a lot of money and they're putting that money where their mouth is. They're saying, we're going to continue to consolidate the advantage. Data begets more data. Money begets more money. The people and the systems that help Trump win the six battleground states on the ground in 2024 are just going to grow. They're not letting their, they're putting their, taking their foot off of the pedal. What's happening on the Democratic side? You've got a chairman who's, who's on a Zoom with 20 people. I, I'm sure he didn't suspect it would leak, but on a Zoom with 20 people, he's basically saying his chairmanship is being held hostage to the vice chair, who's a young guy who's got a lot of ambition. This is a, this is not a recipe for having the DNC help them figure this out. Could the outside groups do it? I suppose they could, but as I said, most the outside groups seem focused on things like messaging and research as opposed to the very challenging task of building things up. Now, there have been in Silicon Valley a big switch. As you know, Silicon Valley for most of the, of its existence has tilted left, has tilted to the Democrats. George W. Bush made some inroads there. But now Silicon Valley is tilting Trump. They like Trump better on issues like AI. They like Trump better on issues like crypto. They like Trump better on regulation. And so you have this weird challenge for the Democrats, not just who is going to be the organizer of closing the technology gap, but where are they going to get the propeller heads, the geniuses, the tech gurus? Where are they going to get them from? Sure, they could still get them from Silicon Valley, but that's less likely. And then within the Democratic Party, they have a generational problem. You look at the people who worked on the Biden and Harris campaign at the top levels. They're people who've been around a while. Some back to Clinton, both Clintons, some back to Barack Obama. But that next generation of folks who are dedicated to the Democratic Party, who have the technology knowledge, who have the political knowledge. Right. It's one thing to build technology, to sell widgets or to build a social media platform. It's another to do that in service of politics, to understand how to win elections. And I look again and I say it's not the dnc. It doesn't seem to be the current outside groups. It doesn't seem it's going to be Congress. It doesn't seem like it's going to be any of these two dozen Democratic candidates. But someone in the party is going to have to figure out in the next year or so, the sooner the better, because the Trump people are going full throttle. How do they close the technology gap? I will tell you when we get to the summer of 28 and you all are listening to me talk about the issue of, of who's got the edge in the campaign, on the trajectory we're on, the answer will be whether it's J.D. vance or someone else that the Democrats have a technology gap. It's like any gap in, you know, between competitors. You gotta, the sooner you start trying to close it, the more likely you will be to be able to close it. And I will tell you, if you're a Democrat and you care about winning the 2028 election, and you better get to figuring out who's closing the gap, where's the money come coming from? Who are the geniuses, and how do you do it in a way that all the presidential candidates buy into it, the way Ron Brown got everybody to buy into it in 1991. It's a tall ch. It's a big order. It's a tall. It's a tall challenge. But it's one that if Democrats don't meet, I can tell you their chances of winning in 2028 go down maybe substantially. And the problem right now is I don't see the person or people or organization who are going to get together and make this happen. All right, we'll see. We'll follow it closely. Next up, our conversation with my friends Batya and dan about the 2028 election and who they see as hot and not. That's next up. So tax day may have already passed, but for millions of Americans, well, the real trouble is just beginning. If you miss that April 15 deadline or you still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement. Every day passes, it only makes things worse. So with over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures and bank levies and wage garnishments out there, the IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen before in many years. Look, increased administrative scrutiny means something serious. Collections are moving fast. But here's some good news. There's still time for Tax Network USA to give you a hand if you're self employed or you own a business. And even if your books are just a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track quickly. Even after the deadline, you can still regain control. Your consultation with them is completely free. And acting right now could stop penalties, threatening letters and surprise levies before they accelerate. So call 1-800-958-1000 or you can visit tnusa.com NextUp. You may have missed that April 15 deadline, but you've not run out of options. You can let Tax Network USA help you before the IRS makes its next move. Again, call right now 1-800-958-1000 or visit them on the Internet. That's tnusa.com NextUp. All right, next up, we're going to talk more about the state of the Democratic Party and their challenge to grapple with what's happening now and what's happening next for them. Joining me now, two of my favorite people. If you were building an oceans, four of the top minds in American political thought, these two would make the list. Bacha Angar Sargon and Dan Turnthein are both my colleagues on the two way platform. They are two fifths of the host committee at a program called the Group chat that's on two way Thursdays at 4 o' clock. Bacha and Dan, welcome. So glad to have you back here.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (47:50)

Thanks, Mark.

Dan Turnthein (47:52)

Mark, thank you.

Mark Halperin (47:53)

Dan, start with you. What's the current Democratic position, would you say? Not that. Not what it should be. Well, what's the current Democratic Party position on the deportation of people in this country illegally?

Dan Turnthein (48:06)

They don't want to answer it. They don't have one right now. I think the party is still reeling from what happened last year where they struggled to come up with any sort of an answer. They had that kind of brief legislation that ended up not passing. And I think there's a mix between we know we have to change. We know we have to evolve, that it's an 8020 issue. And yet there is fear that if they challenge the base and they accept some form of deportation, whether it's the bad hombres or moving into the public more broadly, that they will pay a price. And I think that paralysis still remains.

Mark Halperin (48:51)

Bacha, same question. Feel free to jump In.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (48:55)

Well, I want to ask you something, Dan, because this is something I'm really struggling to understand, which is in 2015, it was the progressive Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders position that an open border hurts the working class because it drives down their wages, which is just factually correct. But also that was considered the far left position, as it had been for 100 years. That was only 10 years ago. And I understand that when you're running against Donald Trump, who's really good on immigration, meaning strong on immigration, meaning pro worker, they develop this knee jerk. We have to be on the other side of Trump on everything. But that was only 10 years ago. I mean, how hard would it be to just go, that wasn't 50 years ago. That wasn't 100 years ago. What is your analysis of why, like all the data is saying to them, you want the working class back, you want men back, you want black and Hispanic support like you used to have it, Immigration is the way to go. Just go back to where you were. Become hots on immigration. You'll get right back there. Why can they not hear that? I mean, how did the activist class and the donor class become so much more popular in just 10 years? That's my question.

Mark Halperin (50:13)

It's a good one.

Dan Turnthein (50:14)

Yeah. Look, I think part of it is that there was a theory in the Democratic Party that the more lenient they were on immigration, the more likely that they would attract Latino votes. And as you had this kind of Obama coalition of the ascendant, they called it, of blacks and Latinos and young voters, that was the path, a sustained path to victory. And then I think, Batya, you said it. Donald Trump is for one thing, and the party knee jerks in the other direction. And some of the more aggressive tactics that Trump took in his first term, such as separation at the border, parts of the party just lost their mind and just said, we're going to go in the opposite direction, that this is inhumane. We have to treat all immigrants with great respect, that there are problems in their home countries and we should be welcome, welcoming them here. And it got out of control. And I think you're right. Every piece of data points to if we were tougher on the border, voters would hear us. We may not win them, but they would at least kind of hear us more. And particularly Latino voters. I mean, Trump won Latino voters for many reasons, but one of which was he was tough on immigration.

Mark Halperin (51:27)

All right, let me ask you this. Which of the people who might run for president as a Democrat in 28 are best positioned in terms of biography and rhetoric to deal with immigration. And let me just set it up a little more. We have no idea if Trump will advance will be seen as successful by the time of the next presidential. They might, they might not, but they'll I think it's a pretty good bet that they'll be seen as successful on immigration. Right. That their record on immigration will be seen as better than Joe Biden and Kamal Harris's. So Baja, if you which Democrat seems to understand how to talk about this and has any record where they could credibly say, I will be tough on the border, I will be tough on illegal immigration, I think Ruben Gallego would.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (52:07)

Be a really smart way to go. I know he's very new and he's not the most motivational speaker at this point, but in terms of reading the tea leaves and pivoting on immigration, that is something he has done in the short time that he has been in public office. And I truly admire that, especially understanding where his state was at. Now this I'm going to get flayed for. They always do when I say nice things about this person. But I am very impressed that the only thing Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has said in support of the riots in LA so far has been one measly retweet of a Bernie Sanders tweet from two days ago. And that suggests to me that she is not only smart the way I've always said she is, and attuned to the needs of the people in her district, but is really understanding that this is not the moment to go scorched earth, go stand by the border and weep and break down for the cameras. Her silence on this moment now that could change at any moment. But thus far, for 72 hours, she has not come out fulsomely in support of the lawlessness and the rioting and the illegal immigrants, notably who are being rounded up. So I think that suggests, you know, a really, really smart possible positioning here.

Mark Halperin (53:22)

Let's see if she holds that. Dan, who who would you pick, besides the two Bacha mentioned who both happen to be Hispanic? Who would you say has the biography and the chops to make the case that they're strong on immigration?

Dan Turnthein (53:35)

So I think what I'll say is the Midwestern governors, Shapiro and Whitmer and even Brashear down in Kentucky can point to and talk about in an authentic way why people in their state have so many concerns what illegal immigration has caused, whether it's on the jobs front or the feeling on crime and safety in neighborhoods front. What you need is you need to speak in a human way about the trade offs of having an open border. I agree with her that I think Gallego, being from Arizona can say these are all the ways that it has harmed our state. Yes, we benefited from some ways, but here are all the problems. But I think that those two governors who have high approval ratings so Democrats will hear them a little bit more, can probably speak best to it. I think the rest of the candidates are going to struggle quite a bit.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (54:29)

I want to make one more quick point and it's there was an article that came out about how Martha's Vineyard is reeling from having their homes raided of domestics and landscapers and so forth because the entire economy rests on the labor of illegals. First of all, the irony, right, because when 48 illegal migrants were shipped there by Ron DeSantis a couple years ago, oh, they had to call in the National Guard, get these people out of here. We cannot possibly feed them. Although it turns out some of them did make a home there as indentured servants. To me, this is another real problem. So the Democrats have a lot of pressure to become smarter on immigration because of the electorate. But on the other side, I guess answering the question I asked Dan earlier, they have the donor class in the form of Soros and others like him who have effectively endorsed an open borders policy. They have the activist class, they have the elites, the intellectual and cultural elites who are all for open borders. And then they have the 65% of Americans who make over $500,000 a year now, who are effectively the Democrats new base. And those people have a very real economic interest in having this open border because it supplies them with cheap labor. They don't have to pay an American American wages to do their landscaping or watch their children or clean their homes. They can pay an illegal much less and don't have to give them the same protections. And so that is a lot of pressure for them to find their way back to where the average American is at.

Mark Halperin (56:02)

Dan, one of my three favorite things about Bacha, she asked the right questions and then if you don't answer them, she does. Thank you for that. All right, here's my next question. It goes back to the question of 2028 and immigration. We talk all the time about how the base of the party is so powerful now and everybody's afraid of crossing the base. And when people like Barack Obama or Gavin Newsom take tentative steps, say the tiniest little thing, the base goes crazy and they back Off. What if someone who wanted to run for President 2028 tweeted this? Thank you, President Trump, for sending the National Guard into Southern California to restore our order and. And protect our brave ICE officials carrying out the law. Governor Newsom, you should thank the President too. What if someone like Amy Klobuchar tweeted that? Would it end her chances of being the nominee? Dan?

Dan Turnthein (56:52)

No, it wouldn't. I mean, the irony is that in our party, the base is not as powerful as it is in the Republican Party, which is to say the people who have crossed the base in Senate and gubernatorial primaries and other things have won often. Right. The most extreme elements in our base have not produced winning candidates in a lot of statewide and certainly not in national races. I think the way most 2028ers would look at it is, why do I need to stick my head up and take that risk and have a headache? I agree with you, Mark. I think this is an opportunity for somebody to stand up and use common sense and say exactly what you did. Be on the side of law and order and find a way to kind of show that you're empathetic to immigrants in another way. But to me, that would be the smart move if I were an Amy Klobuchar or even, you know, if I were someone like Cory Booker. No one doubts you're progressive. Go, go, go show your. That you're not just a one way street here on stuff.

Mark Halperin (57:51)

Yeah, maybe you could add to the tweet. I feel compassion for those families who are feeling, you know, whatever. Bacha, is that tweet a suicide mission or. Or a brilliant tactical maneuver?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (58:02)

I think it's brilliant. I totally agree with both of you. I think that the. What Gavin Newsom did was the exact opposite. He acted like he was standing up to power and to the bad guys. Right. When actually what he was doing was basically on his knees in front of the activists and the far left of his party being completely subservient to those pressures, which are the exact wrong ones. To be listening to the real power move, the real courageous move would be to say our police need this support. As Mark, you pointed out in the morning meeting this week, you know, there is a moral imperative to support and protect the lives of people who are in law enforcement. They have families too. Like, hello. It's so obvious. So I think the. Thank you, President Trump. You know, we don't agree on everything, but, you know, we needed to do this. We have to do this. We have to moderate as a party, I think is a Brilliant idea.

Mark Halperin (58:53)

I talked earlier in the program about ron Brown, the DNC chair in the early 90s, and a guy named Paul Tully, who was an incredible tactician and strategist for the Democratic Party, who's, who's leave Bill Clinton and Barack Obama out of it. Who are the brilliant strategists in the Democratic Party today? If you were running for president and it was like a draft for talent, who would you want on your team to help strategize about how to win a nomination and a general?

Dan Turnthein (59:18)

Dan well, that's a great, great question. I mean, I think one of the people I want is somebody who's thinking of running, which is Rahm Emanuel. Look, the place that I would look, there are two places. One is I would look at the DCCC and the dscc, the Democratic Congressional Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They've had some pretty stable staff at both of the committees the last few cycles. People who have, who understand that the districts and the areas that you have to win, who have actually been, you know, on the ground, who understand the culture of these areas, the issues that are at the forefront, those are the people that can speak best to it. The people who sit in Washington like the armchair generals now. People who haven't run races. I mean, I haven't run a race now in 15 years. It's hard to speak to that stuff. Like, you just lose a little bit of touch of what is actually happening. But, you know, go to 1992. James Carville and Paul Begala had just run in both Georgia and Pennsylvania, very, very strong races. They understood what was happening in two distinct states, but they had a client in Bill Clinton who was paying very close attention. But they had their polls. David Acheron, David Plouffe. They did the Democratic Congressional campaign committee in 2006. They had just been involved in races. Hillary Clinton's team, some of them had, were doing Mandy Grunwald, some polling for outside groups, but a lot of them had not run real races in years.

Mark Halperin (60:51)

Bocce is there anybody in the party you see who you think is a brilliant strategist who understands how to win a presidential they're not in the party.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (60:58)

But if I was advising a Democrat, I would tell them, get shot o' Brien on the phone and do everything he tells you to do.

Mark Halperin (61:05)

Tell, tell people who that is and.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (61:07)

Why he's the head of the Teamsters Union. And he made a brilliant decision. In 2024. He asked to speak at the RNC. He also asked to speak at the DNC. He was not allowed to speak at the DNC because he went to the RNC. The reason he wanted to go to both was because his membership was split. 60% of them were planning to vote for Donald Trump. And he did, did not feel right about endorsing Kamala Harris when he knew that the people he was elected to serve would not be served by an endorsement that was against where they saw their interests were. He has his finger on the pulse of the working class in a way that is comes from himself. He was a teamster, I think three generations back. He understands what working class life is like, what it looks like in America, what the actual needs and desires of working people are. I think a lot of Democrats think that working class people want more welfare and they don't. They're actually insulted by that. They work really hard and what they want is wages that are commensurate to that. They want the American dream in exchange for their very hard work. He really, really, really gets that. And he is a great person. Dog doing. He's super funny. Super funny. So I would, I would put him on every campaign.

Mark Halperin (62:16)

Yeah, the reaction. I was on the floor of the Republican convention when he spoke, and there's a little bit of a stunned reaction from some, but you're right, the symbolism can't be mistaken. All right, I'm going to ask about something that's 50% Spidey sense and 50% reporting, which is, I believe the Trump administration may well come out for illegal marijuana by the end of the year. And as you all know, young people are very in favor of that and some older people too. Dan, how big a political move would that be and how could the Democrats counter it? If Donald Trump makes that step, boy.

Dan Turnthein (62:50)

That would be huge. That would be just another one of those classic Trump moves where it's like a little bit like Nixon goes to China. I mean, Democrats have been largely for it. They've been hesitant to really lean in. The issue is banking, the access to cross border banking. A lot of the marijuana industry is in cash, which creates all sorts of challenges for the industry. It would be big. And I think that is the type of bold move that Democrats have to ask themselves. To your point, what is our counter? What is it? Where is it on education? Is it on health care? Where we can challenge the status quo, where the public is more willing to be receptive to our message because we have historically been the ones that have been objected to reforming the teachers union. So I think it would be a huge move. It would further probably make inroads with young voters. I think in the libertarian areas like Colorado and in the Rocky Mountain region, Nevada, maybe New Mexico, it would be a big. He'd be making further inroads.

Mark Halperin (63:59)

Budget. My friend who lives in Colorado, his cable TV went down. He tried to get the cable company to send a repair person, and they said, the next appointments in three months. And he said, why? He said, because all of our employees are high and we have to fire them for drug use. So Dan might be right about Colorado. What do you say about how, how potentially transformative this issue could be for Republicans locking in some of the gains they've made with younger voters, in particular libertarians?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (64:26)

If I was going to advise them, I would not pick this as the hill to die on. I would pick, you know, raising taxes on the rich. I will say what's interesting about this, if it's true, is that there are a lot of people in the Republican Party, including in the younger sort of influencer side of things, who are very much against this.

Mark Halperin (64:49)

Yeah.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (64:50)

So this would then be Trump trusting his own instincts. You know, a lot of Trump people went to prison because of. You could argue whether it was weaponized justice system or not, but what happens when you go to prison is you meet a lot of people who are there for very stupid reasons. And, you know, you see these people, they've come out and Bannon made this great speech when he came out about, like, you know, how unfair the justice system is to black men. And, you know, honestly, I think there's just been a real shuffling of, because of things like that, where people are exposed to things they wouldn't otherwise have been. But, you know, the lesson to me here is really that Trump is willing to take these kinds of risks. He's not sitting there worried that, like a lot of influencers on Twitter who are conservatives and Republicans would be very much against this. If he thinks it's the right thing to do, he'll do it. And the Democrats need to learn how to do that or they're toast.

Dan Turnthein (65:38)

Mark? I would just add, though, I worked for Jared Polis, now the governor of Colorado, when this issue was on the ballot out there. And I was stunned to learn how much bipartisan support there is from pockets that I would have never thought that support for marijuana would be there. I mean, you go to a dispensary in Colorado and you look in the parking lot, there are cars from Texas, Kansas, Montana. People come in. Now that it's legalized in some more places, it might not be quite as prominent, but the people from the most red areas, the most blue areas, the most. You know, even down in Colorado Springs, which is largely religious conservatives, it's immensely popular, this issue. And I think this is actually one of those. It may not be 80 20, but it's close to 70 30, and it would be political genius for Donald Trump.

Mark Halperin (66:27)

Yeah, we'll see if my sources are right, but they keep telling me to watch this space closely. Let me ask you about Vance and 2028. I talked earlier in the program again about Ron Brown and Paul Tully building up the DNC's political apparatus in advance of the determination of their presidential nominee in 92 opposition research. That's something that the parties can do. You know, right now, if you're Amy Klobuchar, you're not devoting bandwidth and money to doing opposition research on J.D. vance. If you are the DNC research director, Bacha, what are some things you do on J.D. vance now? What are some areas you would look at to say we need to see how vulnerable this guy is as a general election candidate on his own?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (67:12)

I really admire the vice president. I think he's an amazing communicator. I do not believe he can win a general election because of abortion. Trump neutralized this issue. Like people think that he won despite being a Republican. He won a lot of Democrats because people are not voting on abortion anymore. But I think abortion is a lot like Israel. Like, they want there to be a sort of baseline that's being met. And the baseline for abortion is kind of where most of the nation is, which is they're pretty pro life but pretty anti ban. The status quo right now on abortion was really good for Trump and he worked really hard to neutralize the project 2025 and other people who are very pro life and want a national abortion ban. J.D. vance is a Catholic, and the only thing we've ever heard him say about his own views on abortion is that he would love to have a national abortion ban. So I don't even know that you need to go digging very far. That is a massive vulnerability. And I think a lot of the people who gave Trump his victory in 2024, like, this is going to be just a something they can't get past. That's just my personal view of things.

Mark Halperin (68:22)

Super, super interesting. So you'd want to go to YouTube and find him saying defense of overturning Roe, etc. You don't think he could finesse his position the way Trump did and George W. Bush did to some extent to say, I'm pro life. But I respect the view of others. You don't think he's got that wiggle room?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (68:39)

I think if he had a longer political life before, he could. But right now all he has is that he was in the Senate for what, two years? Is it? At which point he made a lot of these statements. He is a Catholic. He does believe in this. The way that he comes off, I think, to a lot of people who are, you know, not in that very far right place or space when it comes to family, is a little bit like this. This could be a deal breaker for someone who gave Trump their first Republican vote.

Mark Halperin (69:14)

Dan, if you were the DNC executive director and you had your oppo team in the room, besides abortion, what issues would you assign them to look at for general election vulnerabilities in 28?

Dan Turnthein (69:25)

I think I would move beyond policy and I would start looking at how he made his money and who he surrounds himself with. Donald Trump was perceived as not being able to be bought because he was a billionaire. We can debate whether that's true or not. But the public perception, you hear it over and over again, is like, you can't buy Trump. JD Vance is not of that ilk. Right. He's newer to the scene. He's made his money recently. And for all the talk about him being this boy from Appalachia, he really has surrounded himself with Silicon Valley types, Wall street types, like very, very wealthy people. And he can traverse between the two communities of the working class in the boardroom very easily. But I think there is an opening to potentially try to paint JD Vance a little bit like Mitt Romney, that if you look behind the curtain, you look at how he made his money, you look at who he associates himself. And the Trump Cabinet may help with this a little bit. It is a lot of very, very wealthy people. He's very pro crypto. So, I mean, I think there's obviously stuff on legislation and, you know, his brief time in the Senate and what the Trump administration's done, but I would look more at his background and look at who he's associated with.

Mark Halperin (70:34)

All right, last question on Vance, and then we're done. Right now. If you were putting down 100 grand either on Vance or the field, to be the next president. Vance or the field, where would you put the money? That includes all other Republicans, all Democrats. Boccia, 100,000 on Vance or the field?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (70:51)

It's very hard to say because I think that my instincts. He could not win over those voters that Trump won over. I don't think that The GOP wants to hear that. Right now he's unbelievably popular. But I think Trump has a sense of it, which is why he keeps pitting him and Rubio against each other. Because Trump, I think, again, is going out of his way to make it clear that he has not made up his mind yet. So the question of who's the nominee is a question of, in a way, like, does the GOP want to hear this? So I'm sure I could answer. I guess my money would be on the field.

Mark Halperin (71:22)

Okay, Dan, a hundred thousand on Vance.

Dan Turnthein (71:23)

Or the field, I'd shove it all on JD Vance. And the reason right now is less JD Vance and more Donald Trump. I don't see anyone with the political dexterity and nimbleness to take on Trump. And I think this is going to be basically as much as it is about J.D. vance. There's going to be Donald Trump against the nominee. I think we have not seen somebody lean in as heavily to get his successor elected, maybe since kind of the Reagan 88 people tried a little bit, but the Bush people pushed him away. I think there's going to be Trump against Democrats, and nothing our party has done has shown me yet that they even remotely comprehend how to take him on.

Mark Halperin (71:58)

All right, Bacha, tell folks where they can see the group chat on two way.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (72:02)

Everybody should watch the group chat on two way. You've got me and Dan and Nina Turner and Emma Jo Morris and Robbie Suave. We have a great time and of course, we take your questions 4pm 2a app YouTube at 2a. Please join us.

Mark Halperin (72:17)

As far as I know, it's the only panel show with a broad spectrum of panel participants where you, the viewer, can be part of the conversation. So tune in for that. Thanks to you both. Grateful to have you on here and I look forward to your next episode this week. Thank you.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (72:30)

Thanks, Mark.

Dan Turnthein (72:31)

Thank you.

Mark Halperin (72:32)

All right, next up, you're able to help name you. Right? We want, as I said at the top of the show, we want to name for the folks who are part of the community who watch NextUp. So tweet @ me. Tweet at Mark Halperin and tell me what you think the name should be again. Nexters Next Uppers. I've had some extraordinary input, and we're looking to come up with a decision. So go on Twitter, tell me what you think the name of the community that enjoys this program should be. That's it for today. Still a new program. Right. So we'd love for you to like the show, whether you're on social media or on on Twitter, X like like the account, subscribe, but also on on YouTube. If you're watching the program there or as a podcast, please, like, subscribe, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. To be part of this. Breaking news can come anywhere and at any time. So we may have some special episodes along the way. And if you don't subscribe, you won't learn about those. So please do that. Next up is a regular episode this week, the last pre Father's Day episode. We'll have some Father's Day surprises for you, and we look forward to you joining for that. Appreciate you being part of the Next UP community. I'm Mark Halperin. We'll see you next time for what's Next up.