Spencer Pratt’s National Implications + Democrats’ Contempt for America’s Innovators.

Summary

---

Next Up with Mark Halperin — Episode Summary

Episode Title: Spencer Pratt’s National Implications + Democrats’ Contempt for America’s Innovators
Date: June 4, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin

Overview

This episode of Next Up with Mark Halperin dives into two provocative topics: the national political significance of Spencer Pratt's shocking rise in the LA mayor's race and why so many Democrats—and some on the right—are skeptical, if not outright resentful, of billionaire innovators and tech titans. With insights from New York Post financial correspondent Lydia Moynihan and a California politics roundtable featuring Jessica Patterson (former CA GOP Chair) and Democratic strategist Karen Skelton, listeners get a unique, nuanced look at the intersection of culture, celebrity, economics, and political power on both the West Coast and nationwide.

---

Segment 1: Reported Monologue – The Spencer Pratt Shockwave

[01:02–19:16]

Key Points

• Unlikely Mayoral Matchup: The LA mayoral race appears headed for an unprecedented contest between Democratic incumbent Karen Bass and reality TV star Spencer Pratt, an outsider with deep Trump ties.
• Celebrity as Political Capital: Pratt leverages his fame and media savvy to create viral moments and access earned media no traditional candidate can match.
• Capitalizing on Discontent: LA’s long-standing issues—crime, homelessness, bureaucracy, and the emotional aftermath of citywide fires—make space for Pratt’s “change, not politics as usual” message.
• Populist Appeal: Voters—Democrats included—are frustrated with the status quo. “There’s a massive pool...who are unhappy with the status quo.” [08:27, Halperin]
• Earned Media Machine: “He understands all of this, as do his supporters, including the folks who've made these viral videos for him...they're masters of using AI generated content.” [06:44–07:00, Halperin]
• Authenticity vs. Insider Status: Pratt’s unfiltered persona is “authentically quirky,” contrasting to Bass’s inside-the-system profile.
• Spectacle vs. Governance: While Pratt is unlikely to win due to LA’s deep-blue electorate, his campaign tests how outsider authenticity, tech-powered attention, and influencer tactics could reshape urban politics nationwide.

Notable Quotes

• “He is an authentic outsider...What would be controversy for Bass, for him is quality content, and that's an advantage to him.” — Mark Halperin [10:00–10:52]
• “He says outrageous things. He says quirky things. He doesn't pay a price for that. Whereas somebody like the incumbent, like Karen Bass, she's...She's in office, and if she says things that are wacky or unorthodox, that unpredictability...hurts her public persona. For Pratt, that is his public persona.” — Halperin [10:25–10:48]
• On debates: “He’ll come into those...to produce what we call gladiatorial moments where he will confront Karen Bass playing the biggest trump card he has, which is change versus more of the same.” — Halperin [11:39–11:57]

National Implications

• Even if Pratt is unsuccessful, his unprecedented campaign—built on outsider appeal, meme virality, and resentment of special interests—may become the new template for future outsider candidates.

---

Segment 2: Lydia Moynihan on Billionaires, Public Image, and AI’s Social Contract

[20:44–42:32]

Key Points

• Why Are Billionaires So Vilified?
  • Moynihan, self-described as “pro-billionaire,” argues America should celebrate innovation rather than demonize wealth.
  • “Politicians have become masters at selling resentment, because it sells...It's very easy to say things are tough and blame it on a handful of people.” — Lydia Moynihan [21:24]
  • Distinctions exist based on media strategy and political alignment—media-savvy billionaires with deliberate PR (Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon) fare better than outspoken tech titans.
  • The left selectively celebrates entertainment (e.g., Beyoncé, Taylor Swift) but vilifies business visionaries.
• Tech Billionaires’ PR Problems
  • “All of these people...who just seem like nice friendly guys, that’s because they've spent hundreds of thousands, maybe millions basically creating that image.” — Moynihan [24:44]
  • Many tech leaders now bypass traditional press, opting for direct, long-form interviews or social media presence to shape their own narratives.
• Democrats’ Hostility to Tech and Innovation
  • The conversation critiques Democratic policies and rhetoric that target tech moguls as the root of inequality, rather than as economic engines.
  • The double standard: “You're never going to see a protest about how much money Beyoncé and Jay Z have...It's only the tech and the business titans who get all of the grief.” — Moynihan [28:14]
• AI’s Disruption and the Social Compact
  • Discussion around AI data centers causing local pushback; companies must provide community dividends—economic or otherwise—to earn public acceptance.
  • “If you are sacrificing some of the natural beauty of where you live, we're going to give you a dividend...That’s a fair compact.” — Moynihan [34:55]
  • Moynihan distinguishes between voluntary local negotiations and top-down government mandates: “Anytime the government gets involved, they typically make things a lot more complicated.” [37:31]
  • AI’s proliferation—already creating highly paid blue-collar jobs in construction and maintenance—demonstrates tech’s broader value.
  • Regulatory divergence: Differences already emerging state by state, with examples from NY aiming to ban AI health advice and Utah encouraging AI-driven prescription refills.
• China as the AI Rival: The urgency to accelerate US AI development due to aggressive Chinese state competition is highlighted.
• Lighter Moments
  • Lydia’s pick for best NYC restaurant: “The Crane Club. They have great gluten free stuff.” [41:59]
  • On the pace of tech: “If you deliver me stuff in an hour, within three weeks, I'll be asking why is it taking so long?” — Halperin [23:47]

---

Segment 3: 8 for 28 “Hate” — Listener Feedback on 2028 Democratic Field

[42:34–49:10]

Key Points

• Sen. Chris Murphy: Halperin is skeptical Murphy is a serious contender unless he proves he can fundraise and break through the field.
• Business Candidates: The idea that figures like Mark Cuban or Jamie Dimon would run is met with doubt; Halperin suggests the rigors and scrutiny of politics likely deter them.
• John Ossoff: Seen as more likely a VP pick than a top-of-ticket candidate, but “smart people who want someday to be president know if you miss your moment...it’s everything.” [45:41]
• Kamala Harris: Her grip on the black vote may be decisive in primaries, but Kingmaker Jim Clyburn could alter that dynamic instantly.
• Taylor Swift: Halperin playfully rejects the possibility Swift would run—“No, there's not a 10% chance she runs. And if she does run, I don't think she's guaranteed to win.” [48:18]

---

Segment 4: California Politics Roundtable—Trends, Turnout, and Systemic Challenges

Guests: Jessica Patterson and Karen Skelton
[49:10–66:32]

Key Points

• Primary Takeaways
  • Republican Turnout: “We're seeing a resurgence of Republican turnout...about 30%...Democrats about 25%.” – Patterson [50:54]
  • Strategic Voting: Voters approach the “jungle primary” like political strategists, sometimes supporting candidates tactically rather than just for preference. — Skelton [52:09]
• National Trends Stemming from California
  • Ballot Initiatives: Patterson highlights statewide voter ID on the November ballot as a potential trendsetter.
  • Hispanic Vote: Skelton is closely watching the Latino voting bloc, which is underrepresented at the polls relative to demographic size.
  • Wildfire-Driven Insurance Policy: The Insurance Commissioner race will affect how wildfire costs—and broader affordability—play out.
• Gavin Newsom’s Polarizing Legacy
  • Skelton: “His legacy is going to involve climate...making and ensuring that our state remains the fourth largest economy while it also supports a clean energy economy...created jobs...addressed equity, school lunches, health care for poor children.” [57:52]
  • Patterson: “When less than 50% of our children are reading at grade level, less than a third performing in math and science...he will be remembered as a very crafty politician who is unable to get any real tangible things done for Californians.” [59:53]
• California's Legislative Dysfunction
  • Both guests agree Sacramento’s legislature is “just completely screwed up.”—Halperin [61:24]
  • Skelton cites term limits as the core problem: everyone is too focused on their next office to deliver on current responsibilities. [63:14]
  • Patterson says the GOP must improve, as the supermajority abolishes any incentive for moderation. [64:07]
• Innovative Leadership Prospects
  • Next GOP Governor Picks: Patterson names Condoleezza Rice (“she’ll never run...but would be great”); Skelton picks Ashley Swearengen (ex-Fresno Mayor). [65:13]
• Spencer Pratt’s Lesson for Candidates
  • Both Skelton and Patterson agree: “Be authentic.” [65:56]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “What would be controversy for Bass, for him is quality content, and that's an advantage to him.” — Halperin [10:52]
• “We want America to lionize innovators and people who are creating and building.” — Moynihan [21:24]
• “All of these people...who just seem like nice friendly guys, right, that's because they've spent hundreds of thousands, maybe millions basically creating that image.” — Moynihan [24:44]
• “The left is outraged by people who have created…I don't know if it's—they dislike men, they dislike people in tech, whatever it is.” — Moynihan [28:31]
• “He is dealing with a Democratic city...person who will be painted over and over as the Trump candidate.” — Halperin [13:50]
• On California’s dysfunction: “It's not my party that has the 2/3 of the majority.” — Patterson [61:45]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:02–14:27] — Spencer Pratt, outsider politics, LA’s mayoral race and national implications
• [20:44–34:55] — Lydia Moynihan on the new contempt for innovators, billionaires, and AI’s economic role
• [34:55–41:01] — AI’s social contract, state-by-state tech divergence, and local vs. federal regulation
• [42:34–49:10] — Listener feedback and analysis on the 2028 Democratic field
• [49:10–66:32] — California roundtable: turnout trends, Newsom’s legacy, legislative gridlock, and lessons from outsider candidates like Pratt

---

Tone and Style

The episode balances Halperin’s wry, analytical commentary with the guests’ sharp insight and on-the-ground experience. The tone is smart and accessible, blending insider knowledge with plainspoken critiques, snarky observations, and a genuine curiosity about how America’s political and economic future will be shaped by innovators—and disruptors—on the margins.

---

This summary covers the episode’s substantive discussions and insights. Segments such as advertisements, general show intro/outro, and sponsorships have been excluded for clarity and focus.

Transcript

[Dish Network Announcer]

Tired of overpaying with DirecTV, Dish offers a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps all in one place. Switch to Dish today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV, starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888, add dish or visit dish.com today.

[1-800-Flowers Announcer]

When I need to impress someone with a gift, I go straight to 1-800-FLOWERS. There's a reason they've spent 50 years as the floral authority. Every stem is hand selected by a vetted florist and with same day delivery nationwide, 100% satisfaction guaranteed. That's why millions go to 1-800-flowers to celebrate life's most important moments. Order now for up to 40% off. Don't miss out on this limited time offer. Act now and save up to 40% at 1-800-flowers.com sxm. That's 1-800-flowers comm./sxm.

[Mark Halperin]

Welcome everybody. This is next up. I am Mark Calperin, editor in chief of live Interactive video platform 2way and your guide to everything. Next up here. Grateful to you for spending another episode with us as Nexters or New Nexters. Stick around. Great show. Three great guests. Just such smart people. Lydia Moynihan will be here, the financial correspondent for the New York Post. She's got just such always interesting ideas. And we're going to talk about why billionaires are getting such a bum rap and about the AI industry. Their impact on our society already is massive. And as we go forward and they start to expand, we're taking a huge risk as a society turning over so much power to them. And also as people invest, they're going to have to make so much money to make the investment back that they are going to be expanding rapidly. So Lydia and I will talk about what the implications of that are for our society. And then two great Californians will be here to talk about Tuesday's results and about the Golden State, fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world, one in every seven Americans or so lives in California. I know those of you who live in the other 49 states occasionally wonder why so much focus on California. But it's not just Hollywood and Silicon Valley. It's. It's just the sheer size of the place. It's just so important. And it's often the case what happens in California not only affects what happens in the rest of the country, but often foreshadows what happens so Karen Skelton will be here, longtime Democratic strategist who's a visiting scholar at Stanford University's Door School of Sustainability, very smart person who's been involved in national and California politics for a long time. And Jessica Patterson, experience political hand in the former chair of the California Republican Party. We'll also have one of my favorites. After every episode where we do 8 for 28 on which Democrats are most likely to be nominated for President, we do 8 for 28 hate, where you tell me what I got wrong. And we just got some great input there from emails and on social about what people think I got wrong. So we'll run through those for you and I will respond, as always. So lots to do and again, grateful to you for being here. But first, my reported monologue on the LA mayor's race. Super important, I think, to not just cover politics as sport and spectacle, but to try to learn bigger things about what's going on in the country and to as we focus on what's happening next up to think about the next few months, if it is as it's expected to be. Karen Bass, the Democratic incumbent, and Spencer Pratt, the former reality TV star in if the if the general election and they're the top two and the early returns suggest they are, it's going to be extremely important to follow what happens and to understand what happens, what the implications are. What are we dealing with here? We're dealing with a flawed mayor, a very flawed city and a flawed outsider who's now trying to take over his hometown. This is a group of imperfect people in an imperfect setting, to say the least. But it is going to become Hollywood's newest reality show. Los Angeles are going to pay close attention and so is the whole country. This will be a limited run through November. If Spencer Pratt does make it in here, the reality in talking to people in both parties is he's unlikely to win. The city so overwhelmingly Democratic that anyone who's got the support, as he does of Donald Trump is is unlikely to win. And Karen Bass, for all of her flaws, is popular with a lot of Democrats. Pratt is going to have to figure out what he can do to win. And I don't rule it out. Let's see how the race develops. I'll talk about that.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

But he can make this race interesting and he can make it interesting as spectacle. But there's some important things happening. He has solved a problem that we've talked about here before that Republicans have grappled with and failed with for decades. How do you put the spotlight on the failures of Democratic, Democratic governance in America's big cities. I've criticized the Republican Party, not in a partisan way, but, but for the sake of our children who live in cities. How can they not be competing in the marketplace of ideas and for votes against decades of failure by what has largely been Democratic governance, including in la. Dick Reardon was a Republican, was mayor, but largely they've had Democrats in there. Pratt has several things going for him that others have not. One is the city is legit, a mess. A lot of our cities are. But the crime in la, the homelessness, the bureaucracy and, and maybe most resonantly and specifically the aftermath of the fires that destroyed so many communities, all of that has created a very fertile ground, very high profile ground for the message that Spencer Pratt will run on change versus more of the same and not doing politics as usual with career politicians. The outsider versus insider message. And there's no doubt that Karen Bass is an insider. It's interesting. She tried to have some rhetoric in the closing days of the primary suggesting that maybe she was more of an outsider, but she's not.

[Mark Halperin]

And so Pratt has an opportunity on a big stage to say what Donald Trump said in 2016, more of the same is not going to work. We got to have change. So that's one thing he's got going for him. Another is he's a celebrity of sorts in a city where fame is the coin of the realm. And if he were just a guy whose house burned down, he wouldn't have the attention he has built in. And if he weren't a guy who'd been in media and been in the white hot world of reality tv, he wouldn't know how to do what he's maybe best at, which is attracting attention,

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

creating viral moments, generating coverage, going on

[Mark Halperin]

TV and having sound bites.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

He understands all of this, as do

[Mark Halperin]

his supporters, including the folks who've made these viral videos for him.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Some using AI, they understand influencer culture, they understand how to use social media,

[Mark Halperin]

they're masters of using AI generated content.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

And they understand the modern attention economy really better than a lot of political professionals do. That gives him a chance to, to drive his message.

[Mark Halperin]

The media is drawn to him. You know, there's no doubt he can. He can probably be between now and

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

November on almost any show he wants, on almost any channel he wants on

[Mark Halperin]

old media, and obviously has full access

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

on, on social media, on YouTube and elsewhere. That gives him a massive earned media advantage against Karen Bass. And really, even people say, we'll learn lessons From Spencer Pratt. Not everybody's going to have his ability

[Mark Halperin]

to get that earned media.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Okay. Now the other. Another big thing he has going for

[Mark Halperin]

him is he is a pure outsider.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

And right now, voters in all parties and voters who are, who are not really connected to politics, they're interested in outsiders.

[Mark Halperin]

They're interested in what the people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

interested in, which is blow the thing up. Don't need somebody who's necessarily got experience. They don't need institutions. And that means anybody who feels that way. We know Bernie Sanders, people feel that way.

[Mark Halperin]

We know MAGA people feel that way.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

We know a lot of people who consider themselves independents. We know a lot of frustrated Democrats who don't, who are still gobsmacked at how their government let them down after the fires and before the fires. Younger voters feel that way, politically disengaged people. There's a massive pool of voters and potential voters out there who are unhappy

[Mark Halperin]

with the status quo. Now, a lot of them don't historically

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

vote either, ever or very much. But this guy has the opportunity potentially to take a mayor's race where he's seen as an entertainment figure and actually uses his capacity to get attention to build a coalition where he could get close again, unlikely to win. If the electorate in this election in

[Mark Halperin]

November is the normal electorate of overwhelmingly Democratic folks who voted for Karen Bass last time, who vote for traditional Democrats, he'll be blown away. He'll be blown out. He won't have a chance. But if he uses this time and these advantages I'm talking about to reach

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

a new group of people, there's also

[Mark Halperin]

no doubt that he can change the contours of the race in every state in the country. Whether people are unhappy as they are in Los Angeles or happy. We know people registering as independent or not registering at all is on the rise. Has been for a while. We know that the secret in every election now, and certainly in 2028 in the presidential, is who can unlock, lock

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

that financial support, online contributions, voting volunteers,

[Mark Halperin]

all the things that you need to win an election.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Who can unlock a coalition of not of left or right, not of white

[Mark Halperin]

or non white, not of working class or not working class, not of highly educated or less educated, but who can

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

unlock a coalition of those who don't

[Mark Halperin]

like the status quo, those who feel disconnected from politics as usual, and those

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

who feel that corporate interests, special interests, labor interests, big money interests are dominating

[Mark Halperin]

our politics at the expense of the.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Of the public interest.

[Mark Halperin]

Karen Bass can try to be that messenger, but it's going to be difficult for her.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Pratt has a chance to do it,

[Mark Halperin]

and he can do it with the.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

With the virtue he has of.

[Mark Halperin]

There's really no downside for him for being unconventional.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Right. He can say anything.

[Mark Halperin]

He says outrageous things. He says quirky things. He doesn't pay a price for that. Whereas somebody like the incumbent, like Karen Bass, she's. She's in office, and if she says

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

things that are wacky or unorthodox, that unpredictability, that strangeness that. That hurts her public Persona, for Pratt, that is his public Persona.

[Mark Halperin]

What would be controversy for Pratt, for

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Bass, for him is.

[Mark Halperin]

Is quality content, and that's an advantage to him.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

And most of all, for a lot of people, what they see here in him is authenticity. So what he is authentically is quirky. He is authentically willing to. To say things you wouldn't hear from the mouth of a politician. That's not something that every politician can do, whether they're an outsider or not. When voters look at Spencer Pratt, whether they agree with him or not, whether they're going to vote for him, for. Not vote for him or not, what many of them see is a guy saying exactly what he thinks, and it's unfiltered. You'd be hard pressed to watch him do an interview or a press conference or give a speech or appear in a video and think, yeah, he's making that up. It is. It is authentic to him. The guy's house burned down. The guy felt called to get into politics because of what was happening in the city. He lived in that contrast with Karen Bass. Right. Karen Bass attempts at times, as I said, to sound like a populist, to sound like an outsider. Everybody can hear it the way they want to a lot of years. That sounds forced. That's not. That's not who she is. She's not a fiery, outsider populace. She's just the opposite. She's a career politician who got to be mayor by coming up through the system, by serving in the state legislature, by serving in Congress. And he's different. He's an authentic outsider, and he speaks the way he does. All of that means that he can dominate in the debates he did in the. In the earlier debates. And I'd be curious to see how many debates Bass agrees to. I'd be curious to see how she approaches her messaging in those debates. But you can bet that he'll come into those baits to produce what we call gladiatorial moments where he will confront Karen Bass playing The biggest trump card he has, which is change versus more of the same. And in on a debate stage, his performative abilities, his spontaneity, his capacity to understand what a viral moment, a gladiatorial moment is, that's what debate audiences, both in the room, if there is an audience in the room and people watching, that's what debates reward. It's not who's got the most detailed plan or who's got the most experience governing. Super curious to see how much money he raises and how he raises it. She'll be supported by a lot of corporate interests and special interests and establishment Democrats who will give money. This guy could do telethons, he could sell merchants, he could rely on some of his celebrity connections. Let's see how much money he can raise, particularly small dollar contributions. Small dollar contributions are, as much as anything, a sign of building grassroots support. He's got options and all this stuff that traditional candidates won't have. And he's got a chance to make this election about what he wants to make it about. Less about governance, more about the culture and energy and relevance of what he's talking about, which is, can you move Los Angeles in the right direction? That's been the focus of these AI videos that have gotten so much attention, and that is his biggest advantage. And that has applicability around the country, whether you're an incumbent, whether you. You think of yourself as an outsider or not, whether you're running in an open seat. What people want right now more than anything is to stand up to special interests and. And fight for change as an outsider on behalf of the people. Some of that is totally legitimate. Some of that is right on the voters. The voters are not wrong to feel that that's a big part of the system, whether they're Sanders supporters or MAGA folks.

[Mark Halperin]

But some of it is demagogic, some of it is populism for the sake of winning. But we'll see if Pratt frames it that way. I think when he's been at his

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

best, he's really been specific and said,

[Mark Halperin]

do you want the parks to be better? Do you want the streets to be safer?

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Do you want the bureaucracy to be

[Mark Halperin]

less of a problem?

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Let's see if he can keep that focus right there. Bass wants this race, to some extent, to be about managerial competence who can run the city, and to mock him for being a reality star who can't judge the city. Pratt wants it to be about status quo. When people say Trump couldn't win and then he won, Pratt has a tougher battle because the electorate is so overwhelmingly Democratic. All the things I've just listed for you are things that I'll be curious to watch. I'll be curious to see how effective he can be. I'll be curious to see how much other candidates of both parties around the country cherry pick from what he's done, what he's doing to see if he can, see if they can copy it. Pratt is not going to be the favorite in this race and he may not come close. He is dealing with a Democratic city as the person who he will be painted over and over as the Trump candidate. His strongest argument, his strongest argument is to try to generate the attention to say I'm sorry, not his strongest argument. Her strongest argument is going to be getting attention, being good in social media, being booked on a lot of shows. That's not the same as running a city. Okay? Celebrity candidates often fail. Schwarzenegger, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California is an exception. But there are a lot of entertainers who've run who get a lot of publicity, but they can't convince voters that, yeah, they can actually do the hard work of governance. So really the question is not whether Pratt can dominate this conversation. I suspect he will. And Bass will try to try to do some stuff to get attention, but he almost certainly will dominate. The day to day flow of this race will be dominated by what he does. But the question is, can he get into enough voters, including some Democrats? He'll have to get a significant number of Democrats that the central issue is not his qualifications. The central issue is will Los Angeles be better off if City hall is, is fundamentally disrupted, that her experience is not what's important, that her experience is in fact the downside. And those issues of experience versus inexperience, of change versus more of the same, of insider versus outsider. And maybe most of all, in this age when there is so much distrust of corporate interests and special interests, of who will fight big money, who will stand up for the people against those lobbyists and campaign contributors and big moneyed interests of all types, who will stand up to them and not let them have their way. You'll watch that play out all over the country. You're already seeing it. But in Los Angeles, it's going to be an extraordinary experiment with a guy who by standard definitions has no business being the mayor of Los Angeles. And yet we're going to watch closely to see how closely he comes and what's effective in winning over those disaffected voters who you find across the political spectrum that's my reported monologue about Spencer Pratt from talking to folks both in LA and around the country who are running campaigns and running in campaigns about how they see that race and its wider applicability. Let me know what you think. Do you agree with my analysis disagreement? Don't be shy. Send me your feedback directly at nextup [e-mail] nextup halperinmail.com let me know what you think Spencer Pratt's chances are and why. If you've not subscribed to our YouTube channel, I'd ask you to do it. If you subscribe, you'll help us get to a hundred thousand subscribers, but you'll also ensure that you never miss out on being able to watch an episode on video, as well as the extra stuff we drop there. Go to YouTube.com nextup halperin if you prefer to listen to the program as a podcast, we welcome that as well. Just make sure you have your downloads turned on so you get every episode right when they post. That's the best way to do that. And we're pretty much everywhere and we'd like you to listen and watch and share the program with others. We have plenty of Nexters, but not nearly enough. All right, thank you for being here. Quick break. When we come back, Next up, the New York Post Great Lydia Moynihan. She's the financial correspondent at America's oldest and one of our best newspapers. Lydia Moynihan is next up.

[Mark Halperin]

If you're 64 or older, here's something worth knowing. Medicare has thousands of plans, but most people pick just one without ever seeing the full picture. Plenty of people will call telling you they've got something better. The question is whether you can trust them. That's why I tell my audience about Chapter. They're the only Medicare advisors that compare every plan nationwide. Their advisors aren't paid to push one plan over another. They look at your doctors, your prescriptions, your priorities, and they show you what actually fits. There's no cost and no obligation. Chapter will review your options in under 20 minutes. If you're already on the right plan, they'll let you know that, but if not, they'll help you switch to something better. Chapter has already saved my audience thousands of dollars by helping them find new plans. Call Chapter Now. It's the advice I give to my friends in need of advice about Medicare. Talk with the chapter advisor today. Call them at 262-454-0503. That's 262-454-0503 all right, next up and joining me now, the green Lydia Moynihan, financial correspondent for the New York Post and a woman who, you see her on TV sometimes. The expression she gave as good as she got is made for Lydia Moynihan because she never, she never lets something go unanswered that should be answered. Thank you for being here.

[Lydia Moynihan]

Thank you for having me. Very high praise. I don't know that I can live up to that today.

[Mark Halperin]

But I love, I love watching on cable with people who aren't as smart as you because you keep your condescension just enough in check that not everybody can see it, but the informed viewer can. I wanna talk to you about what the people Bernie Sanders calls billionaires. Billionaires have always gotten a tough ride, like the Monopoly man, et cetera. But it seems to me, and you've written about this, billionaires are having a tougher time maybe than ever before. The Sanders people don't like billionaires, and Steve Bannon at least pretends to not like billionaires. What should billionaires be doing to get a better reputation?

[Lydia Moynihan]

Of course, they changed the phrases from the millionaires and the billionaires because now there are too many millionaires, including Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders. So it's just the billionaires. Now, look, I don't have any great sympathy. I don't think the billionaires are a poor, oppressed class at all. But I actually am very pro billionaire in the sense that I think we want an America to lionize innovators and people who are creating and building. And there's a phrase I remember hearing growing up that Republicans aren't the party of the rich. And this was back when it really was sort of more of a country club Republican Party. The Republicans aren't the party of the rich. They're the party of the people who want to get rich. And I think what we're seeing is so much politics of envy, so much resentment, because it sells, right? It's very easy to, to say things are tough and blame it on a handful of people. And that's just not the reality. And so I think, especially for somebody like an Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, where they really are innovating, they are making the pie bigger for everyone. They're creating services, they're creating goods.

[Jessica Patterson]

They.

[Lydia Moynihan]

I mean, Jeff Bezos just introduced a service where you can get Amazon in an hour. I mean, these are people who are making everyone's lives better. And yes, we can debate about whether they should pay more in tax, but they're already paying billions in taxes. And in fact, Bezos made an interesting comment. He said, I don't think that anyone, I forget the number he had making below a certain amount of panning taxes moving forward. And I think it kind of was a subversive way of driving home the point that most of the poor in this country are really not paying anything. They're getting a lot more from the government. So I am alarmed by this trend where we're basically just seeing a handful of rich people villainized because I think we want everyone to come to America and have this dream of building and creating. And it's also a testament to immigrants as well. You look at basically Elon Musk and Jensen Huang and a handful of immigrants are essentially holding up the US Economy right now. And those are the success stories that we want to highlight and point to as something that anybody can achieve rather than trying to blame all of society's ills on a handful of these people. Because just it's, it's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, well said. First of all, note to Jeff Bezos. If you deliver me stuff in an hour, within three weeks, I'll be asking why is it taking so long? It's got, it should be 30 minutes. It shouldn't take longer than a Domino's pizza, whatever it is. So you've got.

[Lydia Moynihan]

That's the truth. We've gotten very spoiled.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, exactly. You've got billionaires who are in the blue tribe or the red tribe. Right. So you've got George Soros. He's going to be, he's always going to get bad press from the red media and he gets pretty good press from the blue media. You got Elon now, who's considered the Red Tribe. He's always going to get bad press from the blue media and that includes the so called dominant media. Then you got like Warren Buffett, who's a liberal mostly, but doesn't really do that much politics. He gets pretty good press. Jamie Dimon gets pretty good press. Right. So why do some billionaires get good press? Is it the ones who stay out of politics that can get better press or. That's not it.

[Lydia Moynihan]

You know, people like Warren Buffett, I think as a layperson before I was really in news, I kind of just had this perception of him as this sort of avuncular nice guy. And as you work in media, you see that that's a very crafted and a honed image that somebody spends a lot of money making. In fact, there was a story in the Journal recently about Bill Gates, highly funded, highly paid PR machine and how the wheels kind of came off when all of the Epstein allegations came. So all of these people we see who just seem like nice friendly guys, right, that's, that's because they've spent hundreds of thousands, maybe millions basically creating that image. And a lot of them are very press savvy. Jamie Dimon will meet with pretty much any reporter. I mean, when I, I had started at the Post, I was in my early 20s, he spent an hour with me and I was nobody. And so he's very intentional and has a whole operation institution that knows how to deal with the press. So all of those people are very intentional and they, because anyone who's in media knows it's about having relationships. And so if you have a relationship with somebody, you're less inclined to try and screw them over or write something negative, especially if they're helpful to you. So that's what a lot of these really savvy people get. Like a, like a Jamie Dimon or Warren Buffett. They do strategic interviews, they build strategic relationships. And the joke of course is Warren Buffett paints himself as someone who's just driving a station wagon to pick up his McDonald's every day. Not pictured is the private jet he will then get into to fly to the Allen and Company conference, right? And then he has his station wagon driven so he can emerge on the other side and make it look like he was just driving there the whole time. That's not the case at all. But I think it's interesting what you're talking about. I think there's an older class of these folks and then there's a younger class of billionaires who are very comfortable talking to people directly. And we see this particularly in tech. A lot of VCs, Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, a lot of people who now who realize they don't want to deal with media, they've gotten burned once or twice and they will only do either long form interviews on a Joe Rogan where they're going to three hours to talk about what they believe and really spread that message, or they only have interviews with people who they feel are going to be friendly to them, or again they post something on X or on social media to communicate. And so I think there's a whole class of tech titans in particular who really just don't interact with the press the way they may be did. And they have that luxury in this day and age of being able to do that because there are so many methods that you can use, obviously, to communicate with people today.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. I'm not saying those guys. And they're mostly guys, unfortunately. I'm not saying they're saints. But we have this class of tech innovators who've created all these jobs, who've created all these extraordinary products that are used by people around the world, and they're mostly just trashed. And as you said, mostly they don't talk to the press anymore because the press coverage of them is so hostile now. They're all aggressive about campaign contributions, about lobbying the White House. A lot of them have switched to Trump, and that's turned off some people in the media. But, I mean, it's crazy. They get almost no positive coverage. They're not celebrated as really. I mean, I'm not saying they're the Founding fathers, but with the possible exception of a few industrialists in American history, this is one of the most extraordinary group of individuals in the history of humanity.

[Lydia Moynihan]

Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's interesting to me, too, to see that on the left, they do embrace some billionaires. Right? Like, they're totally fine with Beyonce or Taylor Swift or. I don't know if George Clooney is a billionaire.

[Mark Halperin]

I think he did, probably because the tequila probably is.

[Lydia Moynihan]

Yeah. And so. And there. And those billionaires are totally politically correct, totally acceptable for them to be sort of wealthy and successful. And yet it's. It's really only the tech and the business titans who get all of the grief. Right. You're never going to see a protest about how much money Beyonce and Jay Z have, even though there is a lot more conspicuous consumption. We see the photos of them on the yachts off Santa pay. So it's a very selective outrage. And I think that that's what's interesting to me is the left is outraged by people who have created. And I don't know if it's. They dislike men, they dislike people in tech, whatever it is. I mean, there is sort of this strain, as you pointed out earlier, of essentially Luddites. You have Steve Bannon and some of these people on both the right and the left who are sort of opposed to technology right now, I would acknowledge. I mean, there's so much fear around AI and that it's going to replace everyone. So maybe there is sort of a subcurrent fear there. But that's what's fascinating to me is it's only somebody who are bad. As you noted too, earlier with George Soros, obviously, he's a darling of the left and Mamdani's happy to post photos with Alex Soros and his Penthouse. So there isn't really any rhyme or reason for who the left accepts and who they don't accept. It's very ideologically inconsistent. Whereas I think on the right, people are. People are comfortable with billionaires. People are comfortable with the idea that people have created incredible products and services and. And made the lives of everyone better than it's ever been. I mean, I think. I just think this needs to be messaged better. But right now, obviously, I guess I would say wealth inequality is a problem, but the fact of the matter is, 50 years ago, most people didn't have air conditioning. They didn't have phones. Now you look at the life of every single person is demonstrably so much more pleasant.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, I mean, I'll take issue with two related things that you said. One is, you said there's no rhyme or reason to the left likes. Well, they like the people who are liberal. Yeah. That's who they like. And in terms of the right, look, George Soros, I understand the right's critique of his politics and how he spent his money on politics. I get that. But they won't celebrate his business success. And the guy's an extraordinary business success. So I'd like to see a little consistency, not from you, but from the critics to say, you know, you can say I hate George Shoris politics, but you should also say, my goodness, he's really one of the most successful investors of all time. And you can quibble with how he did it, whatever, but he took a lot of big risks and succeeded. I want to tell you about one more billionaire, which is Ken Griffin. And you mentioned the mayor of Gotham City, our Mayor Mondame. I know people have covered what he did. He made a video in front of the guy's property, and he called him out and basically said, this guy is, you know, this guy's going to be taxed at a higher rate. It's also crazy that Ken Griffin creates jobs in New York. He has a big piece of real estate, but it's not like he's. It's like he's using city services to some extraordinary degree to have an empty apartment. It's not like somebody else is going to live in that apartment if he doesn't live there. But most outrageous to me is for a mayor to call out a private citizen like that to forget the security implications. It's just. It's unseemly to call out a constituent like that. And I'm just wondering Whether you think Mondami has paid any price for doing

[Lydia Moynihan]

it, there was some reporting, and I've spoken with some of the folks who he met with. He made sort of a concerted pilgrimage afterwards to meet with Jamie Dimon, Brian Moynihan, some of these bank CEOs. But I think it's. If you actually logically think about it, it's. It's crazy because obviously Ken Griffin has already paid a multimillion dollar mansion tax. He's paying excessive multimillion dollar property taxes. You're right. He's not really using any of the services. He's certainly not using any of the subsidized housing or any of the things that our tax dollars go to. He's probably not using the subway. Anything else that subsidizes New York City, he's contributing. And yet for Mamdani, it's such an easy way to sort of take somebody down a peg and to villainize somebody who's successful. And, and he understands that his constituency, maybe they're not happy. And his policies are not fixing that. Right. I know he's claiming he balanced the budgets because he got a bailout from New York State. His policies are not gonna fix that. Right. He wants now for the government to take over private property. That's something that he's floated now in the last week. So it's very easy then to just have a common enemy and point to one person who is super successful and say, oh, it's his fault, it's his fault. That's why we're all poor. It's a really. I mean, it's the kind of tactic that I think you would see in a communist country to just take somebody down a notch. And logically it doesn't make sense. And I think there will be a price in the sense that Ken Griffith is now saying that he might. All of these jobs, all of the expansion he was going to be embracing in New York, he's probably going to take that to Florida now.

[Mark Halperin]

So it's so unfortunate.

[Lydia Moynihan]

We saw Mamdani say, oh, Jamie Dimon, and all these people here, I don't want to lose you too. I can't.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, it's so unfortunate. And of course, Jamie Dimon can't live now because he just built the Taj Mahal for Chase, JP Morgan Chase, so they can't leave. You wrote such a great column about artificial intelligence and how people view it. And I love the reporting in it, but I loved your framing of things because I think about this every day now. I'm Just obsessed with, we're dealing with the biggest story probably of our lifetimes. And, and it's barely covered and it's barely discussed by real people. And there's so many angles to it. And the one you wrote about was in part the objection people have to these data centers, even though, I mean, they use up energy, they use up water, they're big, they take up a lot of real estate, they're loud. I get why people, it's more serious than have somebody building a paddleball court in your, in your, in your neighborhood. Also loud. But here's what you wrote in your comment. You said artificial intelligence companies are promising to fundamentally transform and improve lives, but it's their responsibility to get Americans on board. And you talk about part of that is maybe sharing the wealth more than they do, which runs a little bit counter to the Moynihan ethos, to your general free market philosophy. So I'm just wondering, why do you think they need to share the wealth more? Is it just out of self interest or do you think there's social justice involved here? Like, why, why should they pay more?

[Lydia Moynihan]

I think it's the former. And to be, and to be clear, it's funny, that wasn't my idea. That's actually an idea that is being floated in these circles. And it doesn't, it doesn't call for any government intervention. I wouldn't want to see the government pushing that. But it's more, they need to make a compact with the community. Because to your point, look, I get it. I wouldn't want to live right next to a data center. I wouldn't want my backyard, my dog running around next to this huge kind of ugly utilitarian building. So it is incumbent on them to win people over and to win a community over. And one way of doing that, of course, is giving people skin in the game. And so if you are kind of on the fence, maybe you don't want this, but you're, you're being told, okay, well, no, you know what, we appreciate you basically sacrificing some of the natural beauty of where you live. We're going to give you a dividend that's a fair compact that I would be willing to make. So that's, I think, what AI companies need to do. And right now there's so much messaging and doomerism right now that, you know, it's either AI is going to take your job, and if it doesn't do that, then it's going to kill you, Arnold Schwarzenegger style. And so I do think for these companies they need to message and explain how things are going to be better as a result of this technology because no one else is doing it. And one way of course is to give people an economic incentive where they actually feel appreciative and feel like their lives are improved economically. And I think if you look at how much money that would cost for the, for these companies that are, I mean you're going to, you're going to see trillionaires. It's very minimal, I think, and it gives people, it puts them on the same page and it incentivizes them. I don't want to see the government do that, but I think that's something that these companies are considering and I think it makes a lot of sense.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. Now again, you've twice drawn that bright line between mandating by the government versus the companies doing it. Bernie Sanders this week in New York Times op ed proposed a sovereign wealth fund, basically saying half the stock of these companies should go to the public. I know conceptually it's the same idea, share the wealth. I know again the bright line matters a lot to you. And intellectually not government mandated. But if the companies, it seems, and I'm not advocating for what Sanders is saying, but these companies are not going to give any more than they have to for pr. They're not interested in it, in social justice. Right.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

So are you open to the notion

[Mark Halperin]

of this being something government gets involved in? Or you think if you're just gonna have to rely on the kindness of these, I'll call them high tech robber barons to share money.

[Lydia Moynihan]

I don't think it's kindness. Look, I mean what they're asking for needs typically approval by a town council or by some sort of local community body. So I think, I don't think that they like, I think they're going to have to sort of make a compromise with, with them locally to achieve their agenda. I think these people are going to want to see some sort of benefit from letting these AI companies have access to their property. And that's obviously on top of the blue collar jobs where some people are making 200k from, from building out these data centers and monitoring them. So I actually do think that's a really significant new sort of opportunity for a lot of these working class folks. Yeah, I would be very skeptical. Anytime the government gets involved, they typically make things. The federal government gets involved, they typically make things a lot more complicated. And when you have a top down sort of body like that, I think it's rare that average everyday people actually benefit. I think it's much better to do that at a local level then just grab the means of production. And the other thing here too as well that I would note that we haven't really touched on that is sort of an exogenous factor, is as we are trying to figure out our approach to AI, China is doing whatever they can to accelerate this. If that means intellectual property theft, which we've seen, if that means putting people to work or disappearing, they will do truly whatever it takes. And so that's, that's what we're up against. And so I think focusing on distributing the wealth when we're not there yet. Right. Like we're very much in a race where we need to encourage people to build as quickly as possible. I think that's losing the forest for the trees. And I think again getting buy in at a local level, encouraging people to get on board with this, giving them those incentives at the same time that were not putting tech companies on their back foot. And that's of course why you've seen so much opposition from a lot of people in the tech sector to have local and state AI regulation. And that's such an interesting debate right now too where we could see state by state people have very different lives as a result of that policy. So in New York there's been legislation that's floated. I'm skeptical it will pass. But basically saying people can't ask ChatGPT health questions in New York City, that's something that is being floated. And then you juxtapose that with a state like Utah and this is very early stages but they have given the green light, the state there has given the green light to two different companies to right now the scope is very limited. But to re prescribe medications that people are already on. And so it wouldn't be an opioid, but it'd be a very sertraline or something that's very difficult to abuse. It lets AI actually re prescribe that. And Utah is facing a huge shortage of doctors. So this is one way where people who maybe would have had to wait months, would have had to drive hours and hours to get their prescription re upped. This is one way that they're already benefiting. And so I think that's going to be interesting to see play out. Somebody in New York might not even be able to ask AI a question at the same time that somebody in Utah is seeing their life improve, their saving time, they're saving money on it and co pays and medical bills as a result of that. So we're already seeing that happen. And I think that's going to get more and more pronounced in the coming years.

[Mark Halperin]

There's just so much, there's just so many angles.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Listen.

[Mark Halperin]

And just the business side of it is just so massive. Three quick questions then. You got to go first. Are you caught up in Nick's mania? No, no. You don't care about the next.

[Lydia Moynihan]

Oh, I was like, wait, who's Nick?

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, no, no, don't care about the Knicks.

[Lydia Moynihan]

All right, two.

[Mark Halperin]

You, you and I hung out at the White House correspondents dinner after everybody else left. We, we hung around and I think that entitles us both to go. Are you going back to the rescheduled White House correspondence?

[Lydia Moynihan]

I hope so. I, I hope I get the. The re. Invite and I, I will also proudly steal another bottle of wine from our table. It's not stealing. It was already on our table.

[Mark Halperin]

It was already paid for. Lastly, what's the best place to eat in New York today?

[Lydia Moynihan]

To go for dinner?

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, okay.

[Lydia Moynihan]

I am obsessed with. I'm very gluten free, friendly. I have celiac. I love the Crane Club, that restaurant. I think it's great. I would go there.

[Mark Halperin]

What's it called?

[Lydia Moynihan]

The Crane Club.

[Mark Halperin]

Crane Club. They have good gluten free stuff.

[Lydia Moynihan]

They have great gluten free stuff.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. That's interesting. My son has Celac. And we're going, we'll go tonight. Lydia, thank you. Grateful to you for that. You can read Lydia's great work all the time. Best columnists in the world, ladies and gentlemen, are ones who do reporting rather than just right off the top of their head or out of the another body part. And Lydia, does that go to New

[Lydia Moynihan]

York, Another body part. Shots fired. That's. That's.

[Mark Halperin]

I'm saying you don't do that. I'm saying you don't do that. You write.

[Lydia Moynihan]

It's a very clever way of putting

[Mark Halperin]

it right with reporting. Go to New York Post website and you can read all her work. Lydia, thank you for coming. Look forward to having you back.

[Lydia Moynihan]

Mark, such a pleasure. Thank you for having me.

[Mark Halperin]

All right, now it's time to do something we love to do after my monthly 8 for 28 rankings. The Democrats for 2028 in the presidential campaign is to listen to your comments, your concerns, your suggestions, your ideas about what I reported out. So here are some great ones from folks. Mail them in again. We'd love to hear from you. Always send me an email after the 8 for 28 and let me know what you think. We'll start with Kyle M. Who says this. Mark, love your shows and insight. Thank you, Kyle. I think Chris Murphy, Democratic senator, is gearing up for a run. He's been catering to the far left for two years. They have to have a favorable view of him. Now he's out with this new book that seems to make him look a bit more moderate. Every senator secretly wants to be president. Do you see him making the necessary behind the scenes moves? And then Kyle says, I still think someone like Mark Cuban or Jamie Dimon will jump in to try it to win with a business style of focus as did Trump. It depends on whether they see Vance Rubio as vulnerable. All great points, Kyle. Let him take the two first. I know Chris Murphy, like a lot of senators, not all of them, but a lot of them wants to be president and I certainly think he's taking a look at it. He's not on my list and he won't be for a while until I see how real this is not only in terms of his desire, but can he raise money, can he break through? And also who else runs if some of the people on the list don't run? As I frequently remind people and warn people, I could see Murphy getting in and being a factor, but I'm skeptical

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

of where his base is.

[Mark Halperin]

I'm skeptical that someone from the Northeast is going to do particularly well. So I'm watching him, but he's not on my list quite yet. As for being more moderate, I don't see that. I see someone like most people in the party now who hears the siren song, the pull of the far left and I think that's where he thinks his lane is going to be and

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

it may be maybe he is the progressive candidate if Bernie Sanders AOC don't run and Ro Khanna doesn't catch on

[Mark Halperin]

in terms of a business leader again,

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

I know people say, well, Trump did

[Mark Halperin]

it, why couldn't someone else? It's hard for the Democrats to nominate

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

a business person because they're going to have corporatist stuff in their background. And Jamie Dimon and, and Mark Cuban.

[Mark Halperin]

I just don't think they want the scrutiny. I don't think they want to.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

They know enough about politics to know how rough and tumble it is.

[Mark Halperin]

So we'll see. Maybe there'll be someone like that.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

But I remain skeptical. All right, thank you for that. Let's go now to a letter email from Noah who says this in my humble opinion. It's my humble opinion that John Ossoff won't run. I do however agree with all your points. He can clearly fundraise and is very good with grads. His rallies are great. The whole Epstein class speech was great. But I don't simply don't see him running. He doesn't seem very interested to me. However, I do see him being a good running mate. He'd be good with both the establishment and the progressives like you said and he could add some regional bounce.

[Mark Halperin]

He's also good with black voters which

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

will be instrumental in flipping the ever growing state blue. I could be wrong, but it's just a thought. Look, I think if you ask me statistically is also more likely to run for president or be picked as someone running mate. I think you're right, probably a better chance for that. But he's a young ambitious guy and let's see what happens after he wins is expected, wins his reelection and let's

[Mark Halperin]

see again who else runs and let's see if he decides it's his moment. Smart people who want someday to be president know if you miss your moment like Chris Christie did, if you take your moment like Barack Obama did, it's everything. And so you're right, he may not run. And I know people who tell me

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

he is, he is, you know, not

[Mark Halperin]

inclined to do it.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

And he said as much. But I'm still thinking we need to wait till after his real life to see where that goes. Thank you for the note. All right, let's go to Efron Lopez usa. Here's the email.

[Mark Halperin]

Great analysis, but no straight talk about the black vote.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

If Harris runs, who can take this from her?

[Mark Halperin]

That's why she's leaning hard on civil

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

rights in Southern states. By my reading, the only person on this list who stands any chance is

[Mark Halperin]

Ossoff and that's if he overperforms and she gaffes.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

So prepare for Kamala drama. Basically agree with your premise that we

[Mark Halperin]

don't see with the exception I think of Gavin Newsom, we don't see anybody

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

on this list with a huge inroads potentially into the black vote. And again, I think that's why Kamala Harris is going to closely look at this because having a strong grip on

[Mark Halperin]

the black vote is key.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Jim Clyburn though could change this whole thing.

[Mark Halperin]

The congressman from South Carolina whose district

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

is looks like it's going to be preserved.

[Mark Halperin]

So he'll still be in the House.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

He's the kingmaker.

[Mark Halperin]

And that South Carolina primary is almost

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

certainly going to be early in the calendar. And if he just endorses someone in that race, not Kamala Harris, whether she votes or not, that person's going to automatically have a huge inroads into the

[Mark Halperin]

black vote in that state.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

And you springboard with black vote support in that South Carolina primary to other states with large black populations down the

[Mark Halperin]

road in the calendar.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

So you're right that today she's got a pretty strong hold again. Newsom's done well there, too. But let's look and see what happens with Clyburn. Let's see what happens with other candidates who all know how important the black vote is. They'll be going on specialty podcasts. They'll be campaigning in these Southern states in front of black audiences, you know, you know, being kind to Al Sharpton and other leaders of the civil rights movement. So let's see what happens. But I would not, I would not say this is a static situation. Lastly, this is one of my favorite ones. This is from Swiftio. And here's what they say. I am once again asking you to include Taylor Swift. There's only a 10 chance she runs, but if she runs, she's guaranteed to win. And that gives you better odds in some of these. You yourself acknowledge that it could be someone unexpected. I'm a huge Swifty and, and I think she, she'd be an intriguing candidate. But no, there's not a 10% chance she runs.

[Mark Halperin]

And if there, if she does run,

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

I don't think she's guaranteed to win.

[Mark Halperin]

It'd be interesting. I'd love to see her on the debate stage. But no. And when I say someone unexpected, I

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

still think if it's an unexpected person,

[Mark Halperin]

it's going to be someone in politics.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Not unexpected from business or unexpected from our finest pop star. But I like the thought and I appreciate the input.

[Mark Halperin]

All right, fun.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Love the comments.

[Mark Halperin]

We call it 8 for 28.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Hate most of those were relatively friendly. So thank you for that. But every month we'll, we'll listen to what you have to say about my list. And we love having the conversation. Appreciate, appreciate hearing where you think I'm off base or where you think I'm right. All right, a quick break. And then next up, Jessica Patterson and Karen Skelton, two geniuses of California on the Golden State. Jessica Patterson and Karen Skelton are next up.

[Mark Halperin]

Time for some life talk. Life insurance talk, that is. You probably have it. But do you know how much you're paying for it? The truth? You likely pay too much to get too little. Plus, if your coverage is tied to your job, and then you're laid off, you're left with zero protection. It's scary but simple to fix with Selectquote Unlike one size fits all companies, select Quote's licensed agents work for you in 15 minutes. They compare top rated providers to find the perfect fit for your health and budget. Best of all, their service is free. Don't worry about medical exams. They've got partners offering same day coverage up to $2 million without a doctor's visit. Even with pre existing conditions like diabetes, Select Quote finds the protection you deserve. Life insurance is never cheaper than today. Select Quote they shop, you save, get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% at selectquote.com, save more than 50%. That's right. On term life insurance at selectquote.com mark today to get started, go to selectquote.com SL mark. All right, next up and joining me now to talk more about California, where as you know, one in every like six Americans lives Karen Skelton, a longtime Democratic strategist, visiting scholar at Stanford University's highly prestigious Door School of Sustainability, and Jessica Patterson, she was the chair of the California Republican Party's party. Ladies, welcome. Thank you for being here.

[Jessica Patterson]

Hey, great to be with you.

[Mark Halperin]

Jessica, what's your big takeaway from the results from Tuesday that you think is under, under discussed?

[Jessica Patterson]

Well, I think there's a lot of interesting little tidbits in there right now. As you know, in California, we take forever to counter votes. But as of right now, with the 5.2 or 5.3 million that's already been counted, we're seeing a resurgence of Republican turnout. They were at about 30% turnout while Democrats were about 25% turnout. Obviously, the number of Democrats far outweighs the raw number of Republicans. But to have that type of enthusiasm, that's good news. Last night, decision desk changed their prediction for what turnout will be. We were thinking probably 8 to 8.5 million. We're now looking at it could be possibly as high as 9.5 million, which would put turnout at about 41% when just a few weeks ago we thought 31, 32, 33 would be wherever they topped out. So an enthusiasm gap that we thought was there amongst many voters, not just Democrats, but Republicans, too, has been squashed quite a bit. So those are some of the interesting things that I saw come out of Tuesday's numbers.

[Mark Halperin]

Karen, how about you? What did you see that caught your eye?

[Karen Skelton]

You know, I see a lot of coverage of this race as if it's something so different than Anything that's ever been seen before. And to me, it looks like a very similar set of outcomes. I mean, there are some firsts. Steyer spent $220 million of his own money. That's a record. The first Hispanic might be elected. That. That ought to be a big thing. And there was some ballot clutching, holding on, late voting. But in other regards, they're not firsts. In this primary, there was all men. Again, California continues to be a challenging place for women to become governor. There was a rejection of trying to buy a seat, a long history in California of rejecting billionaires coming in to buy another one in a string of experience over flash and cash. We got kind of a boring set of people, which is normal for California. And we have people promising that the California dream won't die. This is a longstanding theme in California governor politics because it changes so much here and people. It's hard to let go. I would say one of the things, though, that I find very interesting is the strategic voting that went on in this race. So instead of people, you know, saying, I'm going to vote for Katie Porter because I just really like Katie Porter, they became, you know, kind of lone political strategists and would do things like, I'm going to vote for Hilton because if I do, it'll help Javier get and hurt Steyer, or I'm going to vote for Katie Porter because it'll hurt Javier or it'll help somebody else. So it was a very interesting kind of crazy the way this jungle primary made people think of themselves, this person, political strategists instead of just citizens voting for the candidate they thought would be best.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

Yeah.

[Mark Halperin]

Brilliant list by both of you. The. The history has been California produces political innovations or themes or issues that then move across the country. Do either of you see anything like that? Jessica, you first. Is there anything that's going on either in the elections on Tuesday or just in general in California, do you think? Well, this is about to be a big national trend.

[Jessica Patterson]

Well, I think that as far as issues go, you know, we'll see more of that with statewide ballot initiatives in November. We didn't see any. We don't see any ballot initiatives on our primary ballot, which I enjoy very much, because then more people get to vote on them. We do have voter id, which is surprisingly not that much of a partisan issue. So I think that voter ID in November, that will be a fun one to watch. And I'm hopeful that in other places, this is something that gets some enthusiasm and some excitement, not because I think that voter fraud is going on, but because it increases confidence in people's elections when they are secure and you have to produce an id. So that is one issue that I'm looking forward to on the November ballot.

[Mark Halperin]

Karen, you going to vote for that one?

[Karen Skelton]

Yeah. No, I'm not.

[Mark Halperin]

You're not. Okay. What trends do you see in the state or even one trend that you think might come to the rest of America?

[Karen Skelton]

You know, I am looking at this. I'm looking at two things. One is the Hispanic vote, which I don't know how that's going to really turn out. I mean, it's 40% of the population of California, but a very smaller percent of the voting bloc. And, you know, you have the possibility of the first Latino. I don't know. I'd be interested in what Jessica thinks about how Latinos are going to end up voting in this race. I'm watching that carefully. There's a quirky little race that's going to be interesting in the insurance commissioner. And one of the things that makes that so contested right now, two Democrats at the top. So it's going to be a huge fight in California about who bears the liability over the wildfire costs. And that goes directly to the affordability issue on electricity rates, which is a huge national issue. So I'm. I'm watching how that insurance commissioner race reflects affordability and how that might span out.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, it's a huge one. Gavin Newsome is just such a polarizing figure. I had dinner last night with a young Californian, relatively politically aware, and he was just scathingly negative about Gavin Newsom. He's a liberal. He's a progressive. Obviously, conservatives don't like him either. And all my California friends think I have kind of like a naive, unsophisticated attitude about the guy. He's just a guy. He's been in public service for a long time. He was lieutenant governor. He was governor. But people treat him just as such emotional intensity. So I'm asking you both to whatever emotional intensity you have about Gavin Newsom, to wipe it away. What's his legacy after two terms as governor of California? What's he accomplished or not accomplished that will set the table for the future of the state? Karen,

[Karen Skelton]

you know, Californians are so quirky in the way that they respond to their elected officials out here, and there's this perverse sense of personal relationship in a state that you wouldn't expect that's so big. Gavin is a very, you know, extroverted person. He loves what he's doing. He's really happy as the governor for the most part. And I think, you know, his legacy is going to be his in in some ways, you know, as a native San Franciscan growing up in a political environment, he has sort of mastered the way that he relates to different places in the state. And I think that that is a quirk of this governor that I haven't seen in Gray Davis or Arnold Schwarzenegger or maybe a little bit Jerry Brown, but not Duke Mazian or others. His legacy is going to involve climate and create and making and ensuring that our state remains the fourth largest economy in the world, while it also supports a clean energy economy. So growing markets for manufacturing and uses of in homes and other places, transportation of electrification and clean energy. He's created jobs in a lot of areas, areas that there were skeptics around. The labor movement is strong in California and he's addressed equity, school lunches, health care for poor children and other issues. So I mean, I start there.

[Mark Halperin]

Okay, what do you think his legacy is, Jessica? What will be for the next governor, for the future of the state? What's his legacy?

[Jessica Patterson]

Yeah, so I'll start off with agreeing with Karen in the way that he clearly connects with people. Now, many conservatives may not like him, progressives as well, but to be elected in a state like this, to beat a recall, he clearly is able to connect with people. So I think probably the nicest thing I'll say about him is that he's a very creative and crafty politician as far as legacy goes when it comes to policy. It's frustrating to talk about the fourth largest economy in the world when only 10% of the people can afford a median house. And so I think those are the types of things that he'll be remembered for. Having very, very lofty goals when it came to housing and then not only not meeting them, but moving the goalposts and shrinking the numbers, plus pushing it to pass when he would be governor, similar to what he did with the homeless crisis in San Francisco when he had a 10 year plan to shut that down. When it comes to equity, I feel like education has been something that has severely been harmed under his administration. When less than 50% of our children are reading at grade level, when less than a third are performing at grade level, when it comes to math and science, I think that he will be remembered as a very crafty politician who is unable to get any real tangible things done for Californians.

[Mark Halperin]

I don't want to throw a stone from 3,000 miles away in my Glass house here because New York has the most dysfunctional legislature in the country or one of the most. But do you both agree? Just a short affirmation or not, and then I'll drill down. Do you both agree that Sacramento is just completely screwed up the way the legislator operates? Do you both agree with that?

[Jessica Patterson]

I would say so, yes.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. Karen, do you agree with that?

[Jessica Patterson]

It's not my party that has the 2/3 of the majority.

[Mark Halperin]

I understand. Karen, even though your party's in charge and has been overwhelmingly. Do you agree that the legislature doesn't work in responsive way to the will of the people?

[Karen Skelton]

I think, I think that term limits has, has really undercut the seriousness of. Of Sacramento's work.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I know that's a perspective many people have. The term limits have taken away the ability of their people to develop expertise and to have.

[Jessica Patterson]

I mean, they've got 12 years in either house.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. Whether that's the reason or not, I know you both agree and almost everybody I know agrees and the governor obviously agrees with that. He speaks about it publicly. It seems to me, whether Becerra is the governor or not or whoever the future governors are, that needs to be addressed and other states like mine have that issue. Is there anything that can be done to reinvigorate re. Empower and make the legislature more responsive to the will of the people? Because I'd love to interview every legislator in California and say, look at, look at the housing situation, look at the

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

education situation, look at the transportation situation where you raised wasted so much money on building something that's, that's never going

[Mark Halperin]

to try to build something that never

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

going to be built. They should all be so embarrassed. They're in charge here.

[Mark Halperin]

They're.

[Political Analyst/Commentator]

They're a big branch of government. So again, Karen, if you could propose a reform besides getting rid of term limits, I don't know if that'd be your answer, but besides that, what could, what could make the legislature of.

[Mark Halperin]

Of the fourth largest economy in the world more responsive to the will of the people?

[Karen Skelton]

I mean, I really do have to go back to the term limits Mark, because I work in this area. I'm working with these people a lot. And I see that everyone's running for the next office. They're running statewide or they're running. If they're in the assembly, they're running for the Senate. And you only get a year of their focus on these issues and then they, they change their, their tune and, and it's really frustrating. You don't have the John Burtons and the Willie Browns and the Jesse Unrus. And that is a big result of a term.

[Mark Halperin]

Term limits passed by ballot measure. Right. That's why there are term limits the

[Jessica Patterson]

way that they're set up right now. Yes.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, I, I don't think you'd ever get the voters to vote to overturn them. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Jessica, what's. What would be one proposal. You'd have to get the legislature to respond.

[Jessica Patterson]

Yes. So it would honestly be taking some responsibility within my own party. And we need to win more legislative races. There is no incentive for the super majority to moderate itself at all, to do anything but extreme and largely regressive policies up in Sacramento because there's not enough Republicans that they have to work with in order to get anything passed. So I would say from a political standpoint, the Republicans need to do better at winning races and getting more legislators elected.

[Mark Halperin]

All right, last question for both of you, and one of my favorite questions to ask people in California politics, not counting anybody who's on the ballot this year, who's the next? Name a Republican who you think will someday be governor of California. Have to be soon. Name a Republican who you. Who you put money on to say, yeah, that person will someday be governor. And it can't be anybody's on the bat this year. And it can't be Jessica, because I know that Jessica. Name someone who's a Republican who someday you think will be governor of California.

[Jessica Patterson]

I don't know if I think she would be, but I think she would be great. Is Condoleezza Rice.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah, she'll never be governor. She'll never run for anything. But. But she would be great. Karen, name someone who a Republican you think someday will be governor.

[Karen Skelton]

Ashley Swearengen, who is the former Fresno mayor, comes from the Central Valley. Moderate Republican.

[Mark Halperin]

All right, lastly on L. A, Spencer Pratt. I think his chances of winning are de minimis. But if you were lecturing at a campaign school and said to candidates or campaign majors, here's the lesson you should take away. From the extent Spencer Pratt has had success, here's the lesson you should take away. Karen, what would it be?

[Karen Skelton]

Be authentic.

[Jessica Patterson]

Yeah, Jessica, I think that's absolutely right. I think he ran a very authentic campaign. I don't think that he leaned into the MAGA world per se. I think he was talking to people about real issues that were affecting them in la.

[Mark Halperin]

Yeah. All right, ladies, thank you. Love having you on and look forward to having you back to talk about California. But also to talk about national stuff because as even though our nation state of California is important, love to hear you on that as well as the midterms get closer in November. Thanks you both, Karen Skelton and Jessica Patterson for being here.

[Karen Skelton]

Thanks, Mark.

[Mark Halperin]

All right, that's it for today's show. Back on Tuesday with a brand new episode. We look forward to seeing you then. Have a great weekend and come back on Tuesday to make sure you always know what's coming next up.