Trump’s Five Keys to Success With Ukraine, Why Dems Aren’t Ready for 2028, the GOP’s Balancing Act

Summary

Next Up with Mark Halperin

Episode: Trump’s Five Keys to Success With Ukraine, Why Dems Aren’t Ready for 2028, the GOP’s Balancing Act

Date: August 19, 2025
Host: Mark Halperin
Guests: Mark Short (GOP strategist, Advancing American Freedom), Patti Solis Doyle (Democratic strategist)

---

Episode Overview

Mark Halperin leads a thorough episode focused on three critical topics:

1. Donald Trump’s evolving strategy in Ukraine and Russia—detailing the former president’s five key tactics and the state of war negotiations.
2. Challenges facing Democrats as they gear up for 2028—exploring why the next generation of Democratic presidential hopefuls may be underestimating campaign difficulty.
3. The Republican Party’s current ideological tension—as explored in a candid interview with Mark Short, covering the GOP's move from conservative principles to populism, and perspectives on the Trump administration’s economic and foreign policies.

---

1. Mark Halperin’s Monologue: Trump’s Five Keys to Ukraine Strategy

(00:02–20:00)

Main Theme

Halperin lays out the core distinctions in Donald Trump’s approach to the Ukraine-Russia war compared to Joe Biden’s. He identifies five elements of Trump’s current strategy and evaluates their early impact.

Key Discussion Points

• Trump’s Approach is Distinct from Biden’s:

  • Biden employed traditional deterrence: military/financial support, sanctions, NATO solidarity, and post-war frameworks. Halperin argues this resulted in “a forever war…an unmitigated failure” ([00:04]).
  • Trump’s strategy is fundamentally different, shifting expectations and engagement models.

• Trump’s Five Keys to Ukraine:

  1. Shifting the Security Burden to Europe:
     • Trump insists Europe take the lead, both financially and in coordination ([00:05]).

     “The leader, but not the person writing the check.” – Mark Halperin ([00:06])

  2. Push for Peace Talks:
     • Direct engagement with Putin and Zelensky, launching talks the week of the episode.

     “It’s not possible to end it without something akin to an American president leading the way saying, we need peace talks.” – Halperin ([00:06])

  3. Accepting Territorial Compromise:
     • Trump openly acknowledges “there’s going to have to be territorial compromise,” breaking with past US rhetoric ([00:07]).
  4. Selective, Transactional Use of Sanctions:
     • Unlike blanket sanctions, Trump leverages both economic penalties and their specter as negotiation tools ([00:07]).
  5. High-Pressure, Transactional Diplomacy:
     • Less rhetoric about Putin’s character, more emphasis on deals and deadlines ([00:08]).

     “He just doesn’t think that calling Putin names is the way to get him to the table.” – Halperin

• Early Results & Shifting Tone:

  • Active talks with Putin, Zelensky, and European leaders suggest movement, if not a solution ([00:09]).
  • Halperin notes that some see Trump’s pursuit as personal, but emphasizes both moral and strategic motivations.

Notable Quotes

• On Distinction Between Trump and Biden:

  “Trump is not Biden on Ukraine.” – Halperin ([08:31])

• Zelensky’s Changed Demeanor:

  “He spent his day…at least saying thank you, literally saying thank you over and over again.” – Halperin ([09:41])

• Unity With Europe:

  “Never seen anything like it…the level of unity, the level of support for President Trump’s vision…” – Halperin ([13:10])

• Putin’s Next Moves:

  “Ball’s in Putin’s court though. Zelensky and Trump would show up tomorrow, anywhere, if Putin would agree…” ([14:06])

• Why It Matters:

  “This hasn’t happened because of Putin, hasn’t happened because of Zelensky. It’s happened because Donald Trump assumed the presidency with a very different strategy for ending the war than Joe Biden had.” – Halperin ([15:46])

---

2. GOP Ideological Crossroads & Trumpism: Interview with Mark Short

(20:35–45:50)

Main Theme

Halperin and Mark Short discuss the shifting terrain of Republican ideology, the balance between conservative orthodoxy and populism under Trump, policy consistency, and prospects for the party’s future.

Key Discussion Points

• Conservative Institutions in the MAGA Era:

  • Mark Short’s organization, Advancing American Freedom, seeks to maintain principled conservatism as the GOP increasingly courts populist impulses ([21:00]).

  “Many parts of the conservative movement…have embraced the momentary populism urge…they’ve abandoned some of their conservative principles…” – Mark Short ([21:02])

• Balancing Critique and Loyalty:

  • Short values traditional Republican economic policies but critiques Trump’s market interventions (Intel, Nvidia, “golden shares” in US Steel) as inconsistency ([23:25]).
  • Emphasizes supporting policies, not personal animosity.

• Mike Pence’s Stand:

  • Stories and anecdotes illustrating Pence’s principled approach, bipartisan friendships, and intellectual consistency—especially regarding January 6th ([27:37–32:27]).

• Ukraine Policy and Party Reception:

  • Short is skeptical about rewarding Russia with land (“appeasement”), but sees American voters as desperate for peace ([33:02]).
  • Critiques that while the GOP base may welcome an end to hostilities, it comes at the expense of principle.

  “You’re rewarding a despot by basically providing appeasement. … America is much safer when we deal with Vladimir Putin with strength as opposed to appeasement.” – Mark Short ([33:02])

• Trump’s Negotiation Tactics:

  • Trump leverages US-EU relations for maximum effect; Europe is motivated to stay aligned due to dependence, not just friendship ([34:51]).

• State of the Economy:

  • Short raises warnings about underlying economic softness despite strong top-line numbers, citing concerns about trade policy, small business bankruptcies, and the durability of current success ([35:39–40:50]).
  • Mixed view of Trump’s economic record: lauds tax policy/deregulation, but warns tariffs and protectionism are “as high as it’s been in 100 years” ([38:42–40:50]).

• GOP’s Path Forward Post-Trump:

  • The party’s future is uncertain; will depend on its 2028 nominee. Trump’s imprint is lasting, but the direction is not settled ([43:09]).

Notable Quotes

• On Trump’s policy shift:

  “The first Trump administration was very Reagan-esque… I feel like the second administration is far more Nixonian…” – Mark Short ([25:19])

• On inner-GOP debate:

  “I think it’s a misinterpretation by many in our party… his [Trump’s] appeal was unique because of the cultural issues, not class warfare.” – Mark Short ([38:42])

• On MAGA and Conservatism:

  “I worry that where we are today is actually walking away from a lot of the conservative principles he once held.” – Mark Short ([45:24])

---

3. Democratic Campaign Challenges: Interview with Patti Solis Doyle

(47:41–77:45)

Main Theme

Halperin and Solis Doyle break down why running for president as a Democrat is “harder than you think,” analyze potential 2028 contenders and tiers, and discuss the party’s current weaknesses in ideas and organization.

Key Discussion Points

• The Brutal Reality of Running for President:

  • Physical & Mental Toll:

    “It is hard on your body physically. It is hard on your mind mentally… while you’re doing the proactive stuff, you’re getting attacked constantly, daily…” – Patti Solis Doyle ([48:47])

  • Staffing Struggles:
    • Balancing loyalists and experts with broader experience creates internal friction ([49:47]).
  • Media & Scandal Intensity:
    • Modern campaigns overwhelmed by AI, rapid media cycles, and complete loss of candidate privacy.

    “There are no private things when you run for president.” – Solis Doyle ([57:59])

• Unique 2028 Obstacles:

  • Primary Calendar Uncertainty:
    • Candidates unsure which early states matter, making strategic planning difficult ([58:28]).
  • Fundraising Evolution:
    • Shift to small-dollar and super PAC fundraising; digital mechanics vital but not universally mastered ([61:01])

    “Figures spent in 2024 blew my mind. Doing a rally costs tens of thousands…” ([61:01])

• Analysis: Potential 2028 Democratic Field

  • Tier 1:

    • Gavin Newsom—“He’s now in the top tier by himself… an aircraft carrier.” – Halperin ([63:57])
    • Solis Doyle concurs, citing Newsom's effective confrontation with Trump and rising profile ([63:57]).

  • Tier 2:

    • Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Rahm Emanuel, MAYBE Pete Buttigieg, with JP Pritzker as a possible addition ([65:21–67:02]).
    • Detailed assessment of each: Shapiro’s appeal, Moore’s base, Rahm’s debate skills, skepticism about Buttigieg’s and Pritzker’s viability.

    “He’s moderate… Pennsylvania is a swing state… people just like him.” – Solis Doyle, on Shapiro ([69:56]) “Wes Moore… is smart, he’s beloved… people would kill for him.” ([70:23]) “I don’t think he’s fatter than Donald Trump.” – Solis Doyle, on Pritzker ([68:18])

  • Women in the Field:

    • Gretchen Whitmer (stalled for now), Gina Raimondo (underrated, strong on policy, could attract crossover support) ([71:22]).

• Policy—the Underrated Necessity:

  • Both agree Democrats lacked defining ideas in 2024; urge future hopefuls to develop resonant, clear policies ([72:40]).
  • However, Solis Doyle advises patience, suggesting candidates wait to see how Trump’s second-term policies play out before crystallizing platforms.

    “I think the best thing I could say about showing how important having ideas is is just look back at the 2024 race. Democrats did not have any real new ideas, and it’s a big reason why we lost.” – Solis Doyle ([72:40])

• Strategic Advice:

  • Candidates should invest in opposition research on themselves—assume every private detail will emerge ([57:17]).
  • Expect a draining, scandal-driven, expensive campaign regardless of personal experience or regional political success.

• Prospects for 2028 & Democratic Weaknesses:

  • Consensus: Democrats currently lack message AND leadership, but Newsom possibly emerging as a flagship ([65:00]).
  • Unclear that 2028 will be an easy ride: both parties expected to field large, expensive, competitive primaries ([76:30]).

Notable Quotes

• On Campaign Hardship:

  “No, you don’t know how hard it is [to run for president] … unless you’ve done it, unless you’ve lived it.” – Solis Doyle ([53:52])

• On Building a Campaign Team:

  “You need more people and you need them because they’ve got skills you don’t have… but the old people have been with you.” – Halperin ([50:36])

• On Scandal Risk:

  “There are no private things when you run for president.” – Solis Doyle ([57:59])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Trump’s Ukraine Five Keys Overview: 00:02–20:00
• Mark Short on MAGA vs. Conservatism: 21:02–29:00
• Mike Pence on January 6th, character: 29:01–32:27
• GOP/Trump on Ukraine’s peace prospects: 32:27–36:00
• Trump economic policy & tariffs debate: 36:00–41:56
• GOP post-Trump future speculation: 43:09–45:50
• Patti Solis Doyle on campaign hardship: 47:41–54:00
• Democratic field 2028—tiers & evaluations: 63:04–70:19
• Policy and party weaknesses analysis: 72:40–73:56

---

Memorable Moments

• Halperin’s analysis of Trump’s strategic difference:

  “The contrast between what Biden did that failed and what Trump did that may succeed is pretty stark.” ([00:07])

• Solis Doyle’s bluntness on candidate delusions:

  “No, you don’t. …And unless you’ve done it, unless you’ve lived it…[you] don’t know.” ([53:52])

• On campaign privacy:

  “There are no private things when you run for president.” – Solis Doyle ([57:59])

• Mark Short on the GOP’s trade policy shift:

  "What this is doing is across the board tariff policy that we've not seen since, honestly, Smoot Hawley." ([39:42])

---

Summary Takeaways

• Trump’s Ukraine strategy represents a significant, controversial break from US precedent—prioritizing Europe’s role, direct diplomacy, and willingness to accept compromise.
• The Republican Party remains locked in a tension between traditional conservatism and Trump-driven populism, affecting both domestic and foreign policy.
• Democrats face a daunting 2028 climb, with most candidates and strategists underestimating the complexity, costs, and scrutiny of a modern presidential race.
• Brand, policy clarity, and personal resilience are more vital than ever.

This episode is a primer on US political fault lines for the coming cycle, replete with candid insider analysis and unvarnished commentary, suitable for anyone seeking an in-depth, on-the-ground understanding of today’s campaign realities.

Transcript

[A]

If you're not here for NextUp, you're in the wrong place. But if in fact, you've come to see or hear NextUp, you've done it. Nexters, welcome in. I'm Mark Halperin, editor in chief of the live interactive video platform 2way, and your host to every guide to everything that is next up in politics, media and beyond. Busy August for news, particularly related to Ukraine and Russia. We'll talk about that today. My reported monologue in a bit about what's going on with Donald Trump and what he's already achieved and what's left to get done. Then Mark Short, he was the White House legislative affairs director and chief of staff to Vice President Pence during the first Trump administration, currently board chair at Advancing American Freedom. He'll be here in just a moment. And then Patty Solis Doyle, Democratic strategist, one of the best I've ever covered and widely respected within the party. She ran Hillary Clinton's campaign for president in 2008. And she and I are going to talk about how it's harder to run for president as a, as a Democrat then you probably think it is. So we'll break that down. What's going on? But first, again, my reported monologue about what's going on with Donald Trump and my five keys to understanding what's going on with President Trump, Ukraine and Russia. First, Donald Trump is not Joe Biden, okay? Joe Biden had a very particular attitude about how to get things done in Ukraine to repel Putin to restore peace and economic prosperity to the Ukrainians. And he failed. There's just no doubt that, you know, President Trump would say he failed. Biden failed by not being intimidating enough to encourage Putin to encroach into Ukraine. But then I don't know how long Joe Biden would have had to have been president for his plan to succeed. But the proof's in the pudding. It didn't. His plan basically was to support has sustained military and financial support for the Ukrainians to provide put sanctions on the Russians, not fully comprehensive, but pretty intense sanctions to strengthen NATO, to work closely with NATO as a form of deterrence, to target to allow Ukraine to strike against Russia, but with guardrails. It didn't want Russia to feel they might get some sort of World War three situation going on. And then finally talked a lot about a post war integration and security framework. But that combination of things, very traditional centrist notion supported by the establishment of both parties, produced a forever war with American Congress. American people being asked again and again to Provide billions and billions of dollars to support Ukraine. Not a particularly big burden on the Europeans, even though it's in their backyard. And again, just no, no arguing with it. The Biden policy was unmitigated failure didn't deter Putin, and it tested the willingness of both Congress and the American people to continue to fund an unpopular war that didn't seem to have an ending. Donald Trump ran on saying he'd have a very different strategy. And that very different strategy involved a different point of view. A different point of view. And we saw that from the time he took office. First of all, shifting the security burden to Europe, saying to the Europeans, both in terms of NATO in general and in terms of dealing with the crisis between Russia and Ukraine, it's going to be on the Europeans. The US Will be involved, the US Will help, but it's not going to be an American finance or American dominated strategy. Second, push for peace talks. Joe Biden didn't talk to Putin at the end of his presidency. Very few European leaders did. And Donald Trump's view is if there's going to be an end to a war, there's going to be peace talks. The alternative end to the war is Putin winning the war. And so if there's going to be an end to the war, there's going to be peace talks. And if there's going to be peace talks, you can't sit around and wait for Putin to and Zelensky to set up the peace talks. It's got to be set up by the American president. So, look, I'll just be clear. This isn't over. Trump hasn't succeeded, but it's not possible to end it without something akin to an American president leading the way saying, we need peace talks. And he said during the campaign he would do it in the first day. And that wasn't real, right? That wasn't real. But what he also said was he would get it done and that it required talking. And now we're having talks. So that's a big thing. You need talks, you need peace talks. And we saw on Friday he kicked off talking directly to Putin. Then we saw this week, on Monday, kicked off talks, talking to Zelensky and the Europeans. And people can say, well, it's already August. Well, it's still pretty rapid under the circumstances. And his envoy, Mr. Witkoff, has been pushing for that. Third, is saying the quiet part out loud. Putin's not going to end the war without some sort of territorial compromise. You can call it land swaps, you can call it a nightmare for the status of free nations. But there's going to have to be territorial compromise. And the President's been relatively open about that, saying that has to happen. Fourth element of his plan is the selective use of sanctions to try to get leverage. He's threatened sanctions, he's put on some contrary to the image of the president and contrary to his sometimes very friendly rhetoric towards Putin. And he's not been opposed to it, but he's used sanctions as much as a threat as he has as a tool. And then finally, very transactional, very high pressure diplomacy, saying to Putin, this has to happen. Saying to Zelensky, it's happened. Saying to the Europeans, this has to happen. And not giving a lot of speeches about what a murderous dictator Putin is. Donald Trump's under no illusions about what kind of person Putin is, but he just doesn't think that calling Putin names is the way to get him to the table. So, again, the contrast between what Biden did that failed and what Trump did that may succeed is pretty stark. And no one who studied their careers and their, their past statements about foreign policy and national security should be surprised that Donald Trump has taken a different route. Now, again, it's too soon to say, as I sit here and talk to you today, that this is going to work. But to some extent, it's already worked. To some extent, it's already worked because now Putin and Zelensky and the Europeans and the world are talking about the prospects of a deal that would end the war. And I hear liberal commentators say Donald Trump's doing this because he wants to win a Nobel Prize. And there's no doubt he'd like to win the Peace Prize. But anyone who knows Donald Trump will tell you he hates watching children be killed. His wife is very upset about what's happened to children during this war. And he knows that America is singular. And it's the great paradox of Donald Trump's view of foreign policy. He doesn't want forever wars. He doesn't want America's treasure to go towards military budgets that are wasteful. But he does recognize that American strength, American influence, American prestige, all through the office of the American president, is singular. And so this, this series of tactics and the strategy he's using could lead to the end of the war. Might not, but it could. So the first thing to understand, again, is this is different. This is a different way of operating. So what is the Trump strategy? Again, it's to, first of all, shift the burden to Europe. Right? He doesn't, he doesn't think that The United States should be dominating the process and paying for the process. So the leader, but not the person writing the check. So how does that work in practice? Donald Trump, this extraordinary meeting in Washington at the White House where the President led the Europeans and said this has to happen. And vitally important, vitally important to, to the change. Here's the President talking. This is S1. As part of the day long meetings on Monday at the White House, people.

[B]

Are being killed and we want to stop that. When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help. It's going to be good. They are first line of defense because they're there. They're Europe.

[A]

Again, not Joe Biden. Would Joe Biden have flown to meet Putin now? Would he have had the kind of meeting that occurred in Washington with Zelensky and the Europeans? I think he would have liked to, but the point is he didn't. The point is he didn't. So that's number one, which is Trump is not Biden on Ukraine. Second point is Zelensky now learned his lesson. Everybody saw what happened the last time he came to the White House, right? Zelensky comes, he says things and does things he shouldn't have done. If you know anything about Donald Trump, he appeared ungrateful, he appeared argumentative, he didn't wear nice clothes and he seemed to think that he could beat Donald Trump by out talking him and talking him confrontationally in a photo op. So here is some of the way Zelenskyy behaved in take two.

[B]

Honor to have the president of Ukraine with us.

[A]

I was very thankful to your wife again, Mr. President, for the letter about our abducted children.

[C]

We had very good conversation with President Trump.

[B]

Very good.

[A]

And it really was the best one.

[B]

Or sorry, maybe the best one will.

[A]

Be in the future. I have to laugh a little bit about that last sound bite where he says this is our best conversation ever. But, but we may still have a better one. And again, that was reflective of the mindset that Zelensky brought to this meeting, which is you gotta say thank you a lot. That was the key thing he failed to do the last time he was in the Oval Office and he spent his day in the public part of the conversations at least saying thank you, literally saying thank you over and over again. We played a couple of them, but there were plenty more. Thanking the President's wife for sending a letter through the president, President Trump to Putin about the missing children in Ukraine. And you know, Zelenskyy was a comedian and an actor before he was A politician. And he clearly learned his lines correctly yesterday. Very important performance, very important role playing. The guy who gets that he's the junior partner here, the guy who's grateful for America's role, the guy who is determined to say and do the right things. And of course, the clothes. He didn't wear a tie and a jacket, but he did wear a nice jacket with a nice shirt. And the president joked with him about it. You don't have to be a body language expert. You know, sometimes a news organization will hire a body language expert. You know, you don't need to be an expert. The body language between those two guys yesterday was very warm. From the time the president greeted him and kind of gave him a little hug and teased him about his clothes as they sat together. Zelensky was so careful not to interrupt the president, to agree with the president. And you could say, well, why does he have to do that? What does that have to do with war and peace? Well, that's what Donald Trump expects. America, as Donald Trump talks about it all the time, has spent so much time and money on trying to help Ukraine, and he wants Zelensky to reflect that reality. Number three, the European leaders have stepped up. It's incredible, incredible what's happened. And again, you think about the short history of the Trump administration, conflicts with Europe over trade, although they got a deal with the EU on tariffs. Donald Trump brings to this his legacy from the first term of saying NATO needs to be redone, criticizing Europe on a pretty regular basis. And then the vice president, Vice President Vance, goes to Europe and gives a very tough speech saying to the Europeans, in effect, your culture needs to be upgraded, your economics need to be upgraded, your military needs to be upgraded, your role in the world needs to be upgraded. I was in Europe around that time, and I heard from a lot of European leaders and business leaders and political folks saying, ah, Vance is worse than Trump. They hate us. They hate Europe. No, they don't hate Europe. And the display at the White House on Monday, never seen anything like it. And a lot of folks who've covered White Houses will tell you the same thing. The level of unity, the level of support for President Trump's vision, and the general lack of division reflected even in private quotes, is surprising given the history of tension between Donald Trump and the Europeans. But Donald Trump does not hate Europe. In fact, he loves Europe. Donald Trump doesn't want Europe to disappear. He doesn't want the US European relationship to be destroyed. He wants it to be strengthened. And you saw in this meeting throughout the day and interviews that a lot of the European leaders did afterwards, you saw praise of President Trump, some of it gratuitous and meant to flatter him. But you also saw a real agreement about what they're trying to do here. They're trying to get a Putin, Zelensky meeting, maybe one with Trump as well. They're trying to give up as little land from Ukraine as possible and they're trying to provide a security guarantee for the Ukrainians that is a partnership with Europeans like the British and the French, putting troops on the ground in Ukraine and the United States, helping with air power, with intelligence, with other things and providing American made weapons, best in the world to the Europeans and the Ukrainians that they would pay for, not the United States. Here's a little bit of the President talking about the Europeans and how they, they come to the table as allies and friends. This is S3, please.

[B]

We'll let you know that maybe later today we're meeting with seven great leaders of great countries also and we'll be talking about that. They'll all be involved. They are first line of defense because they're there. They're Europe.

[A]

Okay. Fourth thing to know about where things stand between US and Russia and, and Ukraine and Europe is there are two balls in Putin's court. Now, as I sit here and talk to you today, the President has expressed great confidence Monday and Tuesday that Putin is willing to meet with Zelensky. The Russians haven't been as clear about that, but this is the big development. It's not just the logistical thing. You're not going to get a settlement in this war unless Putin and Zelensky sit down. The President has suggested, well, they're getting along well enough that they should meet and suggesting that after they meet, maybe the three of them should meet. Will that meeting happen? Don't know. But it's essential. This is the President's point of view and I think he's right. They're eventually going to have to sit down. Now, Putin maybe wants that meeting in Russia. I don't think the President's going to let that happen and I don't think Zelensky would go for it. But they need to pick a place that everybody's comfortable with and press the issue. Ball's in Putin's court though. Zelensky and Trump would show up tomorrow, anywhere if Putin would agree, except I think Russia. Putin agreed to meet. Second ball that's in Putin's court is whether in fact he will accept a US Managed process where there are British And French boots on the ground. We'll see. I don't think, given that the President talked to Putin and Witkoff has talked to Putin, I don't think the President would be pushing this and be supporting this if he thought, thought it was going to be rejected out of hand by Putin. But Moscow has, through various spokespeople, been lukewarm at best to the concept. You know, they're deathly afraid of Ukraine's integration into NATO. This would not be that. And the president, a very elegant solution he and his team have come up with. This is not a NATO force that would keep the peace. This is a NATO, like NATO style peacekeeping force made up of NATO members, but not NATO itself. And that elegance, that little twist, that little tweak they appear to be hoping is enough to get Putin to sign off on it. But again, that's what we're watching for now. Will Putin agree to a meeting, not a staff level meeting, but a meeting directly with Zelensky and then with Trump? And will Putin consider an agreement where he gets land, but there's also the security force, Will he actually accept that? So we'll have to wait and see. Finally, if he doesn't accept those things, Putin doesn't step up. Trump's gonna have to. This is, I think, where the President finds himself now. He has to make a decision. If Putin, he presses super hard for Putin to agree to a meeting, Putin to agree to this deal again, the main terms of which are land in return for security guarantee. If he doesn't, what does he do? Sanctions, green lighting. What Joe Biden would never green light, which is for the Europeans to use advanced American technology, weapons technology, to strike Moscow, to strike deep inside Russia, rather than just fighting largely on the terrain of Ukraine. We'll see. I'm sure the President hopes he doesn't have to make those decisions and maybe he has to threaten them. Maybe he has to say to Putin again, which he may or may not have said in Anchorage, if you don't agree to a deal soon, time's up. And he set a deadline before and he dropped it. But maybe he'd set another deadline. Maybe he'd say to Trump, would say to Putin, if you don't agree to a meeting soon, if you don't agree to this kind of security guarantee for Ukraine, sanctions are coming on big time. Military might is coming at you big time. And of course, he could turn it on or threaten it and turn it back off. But the big mystery here that no one can solve in the American government is why is Putin even at the table? Is it purely a stalling tactic? Does he have some reason, economic, military, some other reason to want to conclude this war? There's enough of a reason that Donald Trump has got this to happen. But make no mistake, again, this hasn't happened because of Putin, hasn't happened because of Zelensky. It's happened because Donald Trump assumed the presidency with a very different strategy for ending the war than Joe Biden had. I don't know that it'll succeed and it hasn't been done perfectly. But if the war needs to end and everyone in Europe thinks it needs to end, everyone in Ukraine thinks it needs to end, Donald Trump's strategy that I've outlined here is going to be the reason that it's possible. All right. Tell me what you think of today's report. You can email me@nextup halperinmail.com the show is available on X, it's on Instagram, it's on TikTok the handle. And all those places is at NextUp. Halpern. And of course, you can watch the program on YouTube if you'd like. Want to see me, not just hear me? YouTube.com NextUp Halpern grateful to you for being an extra and thank you for being part of the program. Next up, Republican strategist and foreign policy expert Mark Short. That's next up. All right, here's a good question for you. Is a continued divide between Donald Trump and the Fed putting us behind the curve again? Can the Federal Reserve take the right action at the right time, or are all of us going to be looking at a potential economic slowdown? And what does all this mean for your savings? Consider diversifying now with gold through Birch Gold Group. For decades now, gold has been viewed as a safe haven in times of economic stagnation, when there's global uncertainty, and when we're dealing with high inflation. Birch Gold makes it incredibly easy for you to diversify some of your savings into gold. If you've got an IRA or an old 401k, you can convert that into a tax sheltered IRA in physical gold or you can just buy some gold to keep in your safe. But first, either way, you want to get educated. Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold. Just text the word next to this number, 989-898. Again, text next to 989-898. Consider now diversifying a portion of your savings into gold. That way, if the Fed doesn't stay ahead of the curve for the country, you stay ahead of the curve for yourself.

[B]

Sometimes an identity threat is a ring of professional hackers. And sometimes it's an overworked accountant who forgot to encrypt their connection while sending bank details.

[A]

I need a coffee.

[B]

And you need Lifelock because your info is in endless places. It only takes one mistake to expose you to identity theft. LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second.

[A]

If your identity is stolen, we'll fix.

[B]

It, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first [e-mail] specialoffer terms apply.

[A]

All right, joining me now, a man of vast experience. Don't hold that against him. He's walked the corridors of power. Mark Short was the White House Legislative Affairs Director, Chief of Staff to the Vice President. That's Vice President pence during Trump 1.0, currently chairs the board at Advancing America Freedom. And Mark Short is next up. Mark, advancing America freedom. ChatGPT could have written that name. What do you do over there to advance America's freedom?

[B]

Well, Mark, I think that when we were originally formed, there was a lot of successful policies in the first administration, the Trump administration, that we were anxious to defend. But I, I confess to you, in the last couple years, what we've seen is that many parts of the conservative movement, I think, have embraced the momentary populism urge that seems to be appealing to a lot. But I think they've abandoned some of their conservative principles in doing so. And I think Advancing American Freedom is focused on those time honored conservative principles that I think are consistent with America's founding and have led to much prosperity in the United States. And so I think that in a sad way, there's a lot of vacuum that's being created by traditional conservative groups fleeing what they once held dear and held onto as their motivating principles. And so we're filling that space and providing policy papers for members on the Hill as well as, I think, consistent conservative conversations for the American people.

[A]

Do people in the Trump administration patronize.

[B]

Your work in some cases, Mark? I mean, I think it's still a little bit sensitive, as you can imagine, so I doubt there's much willingness to accept that. But privately, there's often things that we put out that are consistent with what the Trump administration is doing. I don't think that we're looking at this as any way to be antagonistic. We're looking at it to be consistently conservative. And there's many policies that Trump administration is pursuing that we applaud and are very excited about. But there's also others I think, particularly in the economic lane, that we think are more populist and I think not consistent with free enterprise policies that I think have made America great.

[A]

Yeah. One of the things, I've been so impressed by you, and you're not the only one maybe who's done this, but you've done it as well as anybody else, which is you are a traditional Republican conservative in 2016 and you were a proud part of Trump 1.0. And then your relationship with the Vice President Pence and just your general view of maga. You've got principled opposition on some policy positions where you feel they're not conservative, but you haven't made it personal. And you've avoided for most of maga, making you a personal about you. You've really navigated this quite well. And I'm just wondering how you, how you approach that. In other words, agreeing with the administration when you agree, but disagreeing when you disagree, but not making this personal. How have you, how have you pulled that off?

[B]

Well, Mark, I really, really appreciate you saying that. It's certainly where I strive to be. I don't know that I'm always consistent in being there, but I really appreciate you saying that. The four years I served in the Trump administration were four of the greatest years professionally I've had. And, you know, President Trump was great, not just to me, but he was great to my family, he was great to my wife, he was great to my kids. We, he was had over in the White House many times. And I think that the policies we pursued, from foreign policy to economic policy to what we accomplished for life, what we accomplished on the courts, was very consistently conservative. And so I'm always going to be proud of the administration and the record we had. I do have concerns. I feel like the second iteration of Trump administration has embraced far more populist policies and I think in some ways veered away from what we accomplished. I think it's great that they were successful in extending tax relief. But you know, Mark, on the one hand, we as conservatives condemn the notion of the mayoral candidate in New York saying he's going to take over grocery stores. Yet at the same time, the Trump administration says they want a 10% interest in Intel. They say they want 15% of the profits of Nvidia sales to China. They say that we're going to take golden shares of the acquisition of Nippon Steel, acquiring U.S. steel. And so on the one hand, we condemn the government intervention in the private sector, yet on the other hand, it seems that many MAGA followers are Very comfortable with the Trump administration pursuing the same intervention in the private sector. And so we try to be consistent and applauding things that he's done, such as securing the border, but where we feel that there's been veering off course, we want to be able to hold people accountable and say this is not what our conservative amendment was based on and this is not what's been successful in the past for the American economy.

[A]

I laugh when I think what the conservative press and what conservatives would have said had Barack Obama tried to do any of the things, or Joe Biden, any of the things you just listed of intervention in the private sector with these private companies who, if Barack Obama had said that to them as Donald Trump has directly, you know, negotiated, I think they would have walked right out and called the Wall Street Journal news section and editorial board and said, or gone on Hannity and said, you've got to be kidding me. The President United States wants 20% of my profit. The President United States wants golden shares in my company.

[B]

For what exactly, Mark? I mean, I'd like to think we try to be consistent. I will tell you. I think that back in, you know, the years I was serving as a staffer in Congress of the Obama administration, we bemoan the notion of government intervention in health care. And I think that was a rallying point for conservatives to win elections in 2010 in the House, in 2014, the Senate. We made an example of Solyndra, you know, and government intervention there. And yet again, it seems like those are very similar policies now with Intel, Nvidia, US Steel that this administration is pursuing. And those are three that have become public. I'm certainly aware of a lot more examples from friends who were working downtown of where they've looked to take a much stronger muscle relationship and basically have winners and losers from the economy, those who support administration versus those who don't. I, you know, I believe, Mark, that maybe this is too simplistic, but I felt like the first Trump administration was very Reagan esque in its, in its policies that are economic. If you stick in the Republican lane, I feel like the second administration is for former Nixonian where it's like we're going to reward those that have been good to us and we're going to punish those have not been on our side.

[A]

Yeah. What year did you meet your boss and friend Mike Pence?

[B]

So I was serving in the Senate in 2008. I was the chief of staff on the Senate side. And after the election, 2008, when Democrats swept through and had huge margins in the House and the Senate. Mike was approached by the House leadership to ask him to have a seat at the table. And so when he took over leadership as the House Conference chairman In December of 2008, he was looking for a new chief of staff to come on board and run his leadership office. And that's when I joined up with pence, was in December 2008.

[A]

I'm pretty sure I've known him longer than you have. Not as well, but longer. And my view is, I know what your view is, which is everybody should like Mike Pence. He's a funny guy, he's a smart guy, he's a well meaning guy. He treats everybody, including people he disagrees with ideologically, extremely politely and well. He's a thoughtful guy. He cares about the country. Like, Mike Pence should be the most popular person in America. And in fact, as you know, the left hates them and MAGA hates them. Now, let's just not sugarcoat it. It's, it's unfortunate to me. And, and he has done what you have done, which is he has tried to keep his disagreements with the administration principle. Now, one big disagreement is, is January six. Right. Understandably so. And as you know, there are a lot of Republicans who were MAGA who broke with President Trump just over January 6th. They don't care about intel, they don't care about the tariffs, they don't care about some of the other stuff. They're outraged about that. Mike Pence last weekend was on a Sunday show and Jake Tapper tried to tee him up to basically say, well, in effect, January 6th was so outrageous. And now President Trump is interfering with law enforcement in D.C. surely, Mike Pence, that outrages you. Here's the exchange. I am curious what goes through your mind when you see the President aggressively pushing out the National Guard when he didn't do so on January 6, 2021.

[B]

As the Capitol was under attack, a mob was trying to lynch you and.

[A]

Your family was in danger. Well, January 6th was a tragic day, but I know we did our duty that day and I wish the President.

[B]

Would have done more. But I welcome his decision to deploy.

[A]

The National Guard and essentially federalize the D.C. police Department. All right, tell people what that answer says about Mike Pence.

[B]

Well, I mean, to your preface, there's no public servant I know who has had the interest of the American people in wanting to serve that in a selfless way like Mike Pence. And so I agree with your premise and the opening to your question, the answer to that question I think is very consistent with Mike where he would look and say, you know, it is our nation's capital and yet it's, it's, it's one of the most poorly run cities in the country. Mike didn't give examples, but I mean, obviously most recently you've had the attack on a Rand Paul staffer, you had attack on the Doge staffer, you had celebrated just a couple summers ago when the Redskins running back Brian Robinson was shot. And so I think people know that there's a problem. And you've seen since the administration took this action, violent crime has dropped precipitously. And so you can applaud the action, but at the same time, I don't think it's unfair to note the irony that the President and Pam Bondi said that anybody who touches a federal law enforcement officer will get the full wave of the law and be imprisoned when at the same time one of the first actions they had is to pardon all the people who assaulted police on January 6th. So again, I don't think that's consistent, but it doesn't mean you can't support the current policy.

[A]

Yeah, and, but there just aren't that many people who would have the intellectual rigor and personal confidence to say exactly what he said and say exactly what you said, which is again why I was the longest wind up to a question and a sound bite in American history. But I just, I just think the guy's so badly misunderstood and unnecessarily reviled by too many people.

[B]

Well, you know, I'll tell you one other one of the story in that market. When I had the opportunity to work for him, you know, Mike was a Mike when, when Mike stood up against the big spending, the Bush administration, there were many Republicans who didn't like him. And he comments, you know, there were a lot that didn't like me for standing for conservatism then, and there might be some who don't like me for standing for the same principles today. But at that time he was consistently the Mona's most conservative member in Congress. And yet some of his closest friends were John Lewis. Some of his closest friends were Congressman Berman who he formed the anti Semitism caucus with. John Lewis invited Mike Pence to lead the Republican caucus down to anniversary celebration of the shouldn't say celebration, but the anniversary of the Edmund Pettus Bridge tragedy. And so, so Mike, some of his closest friends were Democrats even though he never voted with them. But he believed you could have friendships and have cordial conversations even with those you didn't you didn't agree with. And I think sadly today it's just far more acrimonious. And I think sometimes say people say, I wish there was more bipartisanship. I don't know. That's what I want. Mark. I'm a pretty consistent conservative. I don't. There's not a lot of policies I want to agree with liberals, but doesn't mean I can't be friends with them. I raised my children in Arlington, Virginia. It's a pretty Democrat area. Some of my best friends are their parents who are Democrats. I think we can be friends. Doesn't mean we have to embrace the same policies.

[A]

Yeah. Let's talk about Ukraine. Things moving so fast. Even if you wanted to spend a million dollars on polling, it'd be hard to know how people are feeling about the developments day to day. But in general, where do you think the party is? The Republican Party is. And where do you think the country is on a plan that seems to be the one on the table where there would be an American military role working with the Europeans and that the United States would. Would be effectively on record as saying Putin is rewarded for his illegal invasion by getting some land. Do you think that's. That kind of a deal would be popular with the party and with the country? Unpopular? What's your view on that?

[B]

I think that for a lot of Americans, they're just anxious for it to be done. I think there's no doubt in the 2024 election that the Trump Vance ticket was able to kind of portray it as we're tired of sending our dollars to Ukraine. JD Vance at 1 point said, I don't really care what happens in Ukraine. I think it's the wrong policy to not care. I think that the reality is that, you know, ever since the United States had an agreement in 1994 with Russia and Europe to say that when the Soviet Union collapsed that Ukraine would give up its nuclear weapons in exchange, Russia would never cross its territorial lines and the United States be part of those who help to protect that, that territorial integrity. Reality is that Putin has invaded multiple times. He took Georgia when he took Georgia during the Bush administration, but in Ukraine specifically took Crimea during the Obama administration. And he obviously had further advances during the Biden administration. And so I think that you're rewarding a despot by basically providing appeasement. And I think the first Trump administration had a different approach. Mark. I think that when you killed more than 100 Russian mercenaries in Syria, when they crossed the red line, when you had serious sanctions on Russia. When you canceled Nord Stream 2, it sent a very different signal to Vladimir Putin than it appears what we're doing today. So I think polling wise, there probably be relief of just having peace and having the conflict resolved. But I think from a national security perspective, America is much safer when we deal with Vladimir Putin with strength as opposed to appeasement.

[A]

What has Donald Trump and his administration done to produce what for now looks like a pretty strong bond between European leaders and the president's administration and solidarity against Putin? How is that? How does that happen?

[B]

Well, I think that President Trump is very gifted at understanding leverage and understanding how to use it. And I think that Europe understands the importance of the United States to their common defense. And they certainly understand the importance of the United States, their economy. And so I think that there is a little bit of a sense from them that says we need to make sure we don't break this bond with President Trump. And as I said, he's a gifted negotiator and understand where he has leverage. And I think that's helped form right now what that relationship is. Sometimes that could be more tenuous. But I think that for right now, it was, I think, a pretty, a pretty strong meeting he had at the White House yesterday.

[A]

Okay, switch to economy first. My favorite John McCain question, are the fundamentals of the US economy strong now?

[B]

I'm worried about the economy, Mark. And I, and I say that with full recognition. The markets have at all time highs, unemployment has stayed relatively low, and I think that inflation has stayed somewhat in check. Remote recent uptick. But I think if you look underneath that, you continue to see worrisome trends on the employment front. I know the president is inclined to fire a BLS director if he doesn't get the numbers he wanted. But I think that much of what the current trade policy is doing is creating a lot of softness in the economy. And so markets were at all time highs in 2008 before financial crisis. And I think sometimes that we should celebrate where they are. But I think the underlying underpinnings of the economy are much softer. And I think that there's actually growing concern inside the administration because they've seen some of these job numbers too. And whereas they highlight some of the trade deals they claim they've reached, I think that there's growing concern that many small businesses are basically shuttering. We've had highest number of bankruptcies in the last couple months since 2010. And I think that there's, I would be very concerned if I were inside the administration today about where the economy is.

[A]

Do you share President Trump's view that the Trump Pence administration had the strongest economy in the history of the country the first term?

[B]

I think that the Trump Pence administration had a remarkable economic turnaround from the Obama years. I think that the tax relief of 2017 did bring back a lot of companies. I think there's a lot of focus in the media about saying that there's a reward for the rich. But I mean, keep in mind one thing he campaigned on 2016 was bringing jobs back. And I think where he was successful was less in forcing companies back with tariff policy. It was an incentive to say America's corporate tax system, at 35%, had a higher corporate tax rate than Communist China. It was out of whack. And so when we lowered it 21%, you saw a lot of companies come back to the United States and bring jobs back. I think it was an enormous success. Having said that, there's no doubt that the last year of the administration was tarnished by the COVID situation. So I think that we did have a remarkable economy that is going strong until the pandemic struck.

[A]

Yeah. So the tariffs are obviously an outlier because the tariff policy in the first term was not nearly aggressive. But if you look at the other parts of the economy and the policy of lower taxes, extension of the Bush tax cuts, and passage of some additional reduction in tax taxes for different groups, emphasis on energy, exploration, distribution, export, emphasis on deregulation, those were the hallmarks of the Trump Pence administration. So again, I'm not, I'm not eliminating tariffs here because obviously that's a big one, although it doesn't seem to have destroyed our economy as some had predicted. In general, do you like the tariffs aside, do you like the Trump advance economic policies as much?

[B]

I do not. I think that much of what you're seeing is, I think many in the Republican Party look at, I think, the unique attraction that Donald Trump has for blue collar workers and they, they've interpreted as what we need to do, as Josh Hawley suggested, is embrace a national minimum wage for the entire country. Or to say we need to have a stiffer regulatory approach or to say, you know, we need, we need legislation to rebate people for the tariff policy. I think that there's a lot of big government push right now inside the Republican Party who thinks that's the way to appeal to these voters. Mark, My viewpoint was, having traveled all over the country on the campaign in 2016 and again in 2020, is I never heard those voters come up to President Trump, those rallies, and say, I really wish you'd socket to the rich. We really need more class warfare like the Democrats have. I think his appeal was unique because of the cultural issues and how far left the Democrats had gone on cultural issues. And so I think it's a misinterpretation by many in our party. And I think that you're right in what you said. The first administration, even though the president had the same core convictions on trade policy, it really was targeted toward China in steel and aluminum on a smaller scale. What this is doing is across the board tariff policy that we've not seen since, honestly, Smoot Hawley. And the reality is that effective rate on tariffs today is as high as it's been in 100 years. And so there's a question asked you that says, well, you know, if you're a doomsday sayer, then why hasn't it happened yet? Well, I think there's a couple reasons. I think the largest retailers in our country repurchased inventory in anticipation of this. And many of them looked at and said, the president often uses this rhetorically and he's going to pivot. So I'm not going to raise price on my customers yet because he's going to change the policy. But I really think, Mark, this is really where the president's trade policy is what he wants. He's surrounded himself with trade advisors who are consistently pro protectionist economists and who really believe in this policy. And so I don't think it's transitory. And I think you're going to see the impact in the second half of this year.

[A]

I take your point. And again, it's reasonable to say the terrorists are going to overwhelm the other stuff. But the policies you listed, the Josh Hawley minimum wage and raising taxes on the rich, those aren't Trump administration policies. So I say again, with the exception of tariffs. And I know that's like the old joke. Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how is the theater? They're mostly pursuing the exact same types of policies as they did in the first term that you were part of, right?

[B]

Well, I think that the trade policy is huge, so it's hard to just put that aside. Secondly, on the taxes, don't forget that during the negotiation on one big beautiful bill, the Trump administration actually floated raising the top rates. But they didn't do it very specifically.

[A]

But they didn't do it. But they didn't do it.

[B]

Well, it was coming very specifically from the vice president's office and you're right, they did not have the votes in the House and the Senate to do that, but it wasn't because they weren't supportive of that policy. And so I do think there's a difference in what they're. What. What actually coming out of the White House.

[A]

I don't, I don't want to be punished for things I think about, but don't. Do.

[B]

You don't know what.

[A]

Sorry. I don't want to be punished for things I think about, but don't actually do. They didn't do it.

[B]

They didn't succeed. You're correct.

[A]

All right, let me ask you about this again. Your relationship with the administration. It is what it is. Do you get invited to the White House? Have you been to the White House this year?

[B]

No, no, I don't anticipate that happening.

[A]

Okay. Who would you consider to be the star of the Cabinet or a star in the Cabinet?

[B]

Look, I, I think that obviously Secretary Rubio has had more and more assignments put on his plate and it's clear has as enormous trust in him. I think one of the people I think is unheralded star, who I think a lot of is Scott Turner at hud. HUD never gets the same sort of attention, but he's a phenomenal man and a great person of great character. So, so one I think is a high profile, I'd say is Rubio one of the lesser profile cabinet members? I think a lot of is Scott Turner.

[A]

Yeah. And you think forward. There's all this debate about what the Republican Party will be, quote, unquote, post Trump. Are you someone who believes that the next leaders of the party, including your nominee in 28, will be, you know, a MAGA heir or, or is it possible or more likely that the party would revert back to more of a. More of a pen short conservatism?

[B]

You know, I'm probably less declarative on that mark. Much to your chagrin, I'm sure. I feel like there's a lot of people who say, you know, Donald Trump's a unique figure and then the party is going to pivot back. And I hear that from members a lot who say, you know, they, they appreciate the positions but feel they're basically fearful of Donald Trump and being primaries, they stick with his policies. And there are others who say our party's changed forever and Trump has changed it forever. I think it's undecided, to be honest with you. I'm not, I'm not convinced that this pendulum is like we're on this track now where you're going to be a populist party forever and you're never going to go back to traditional conservatism, nor am I on the track that says, hey, this pendulum is going to swing automatically back. I think Donald Trump has changed the party significantly, but I think it's going to depend a lot on the character and personality of whoever we nominate in 28 decide what direction we go. So I'm not as I think that Trump is a unique figure who has dominated this with his personality. I'm not as confident that it is decided which direction the party's going to go until we actually nominate a person.

[A]

Yeah, you didn't disappoint me. I'm a man who loves ambiguity and mystery, so. Good answer. Has Advancing America Freedom developed any populist policies or you don't see anything to populism?

[B]

Well, you know, I actually look, I think that again, what Donald Trump did in 2016 in reaching New voters across the Midwest who Republicans struggled was additive. And so I don't want to be, I don't want to be here suggesting that I want to be anti populist. Mark, I do think that what he brought to our party was great, but it was built in the first administration on a foundation of conservative policies. And I worry that in too many cases we're veering off, that our party always needs to be refreshed. Our conservative movement needs to be refreshed with new ideas, but it doesn't mean throwing out everything that's been successful for us. And I feel like that's where a lot of our conservative organizations are today. And we want to hold the mantle of conservatism that's been successful for us. So in some cases, the populist flair is good. I think that in many cases we certainly embrace a notion of not having career politicians in D.C. i think that we've embraced the notion of term limits in the past. So there's certain elements that you can be supportive of. But I worry that where we are today is actually walking away from a lot of the conservative principles he once held.

[A]

I call Mark Short, the same thing I called the late John Dingell and I called John Kasich today. Mr. Chairman, chairman advancing American Freedom and an ally of Vice President Pence and someone who's navigated as a principled conservative, the MAGA era, as well as anybody else. Mark, grateful to you for making time and coming on next up, Mark, thanks.

[B]

So much for having me. I appreciate you.

[A]

All right, next up, Patty Solis Doyle, Stay with us. That's next up. Answer me this. What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments? That's right. Imagine putting those two payments right back in your pocket and finally getting some breathing room. It's possible when you call the folks at American Financing right now, if you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, the groceries, the gas prices, bills piling up around the house, you are not alone. Most Americans now are putting these expenses on credit cards and there doesn't seem to be any way out. American Financing though can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off your debt. So call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make your payments. Their salary based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you to restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without any upfront fees. And their customers are saving an average, get this, $800 per month. That's the equivalent of a ten thousand dollar raise. So it's fast, it's simple and it could save your budget this summer. Call now before it's too late. 866-886-2026. That's 866-886-2026 or visit American financing.net next.

[C]

When it comes to delivering flowers for life's special occasions, trust the name that's been setting the standard for nearly 50 years. 1-800-flowers.com from breathtaking bouquets to one of a kind arrangements, 1-800-flowers is your authority on quality blooms. Always fresh, always stunning, always delivered with care. And right now, for a limited time, you can save up to 40% off your bouquet and make someone's day. Save up to 40% off today at 1-800-flowers.com sxm. That's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

[A]

All right, next up, Patti Sully's Doyle, Democratic strategist was Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager in 2008. And when I told people Patty was my guest on the program today, they all said the same thing, she's smart and she's fierce. Patty, welcome. Guilty as charged. Smart and fierce.

[C]

I think so. Definitely on the first one. I don't know about the second one.

[A]

You are smart and fierce and coming back, we'd love to have you on and we're grateful for you to come back. I want to talk to you about running for president because I'm hoping you agree with my thesis. If not, we'll fight about it. But I think you'll agree so many of the people who might thinking about running so many of the operatives around them, I just think they're a little naive about how hard this is. And obviously running for president now is not the same. When Hillary Clinton did not have a TikTok strategy in 2008 because you didn't need to, didn't exist. But just talk about basically why, why, why is it harder to be a candidate, be a presidential campaign manager than most people think it is? What are the dimensions that make it so much harder than, than people who've never done it before realize?

[C]

So, I mean, it's really, really hard. It is hard on your body physically. It is hard. It is hard on your mind mentally, because you're obviously creating policies, agendas, priorities that affect the entire country, also the entire world. And while you're doing the proactive stuff, you're getting attacked constantly, daily, you know, every minute of the day. And that just wears on you. Everything from, you know, building. Let's talk about building a team. Let's say you've been in politics for, you know, a relatively long period of time. You know, five years, 10 years, 15 years. That's still not long enough to be able to teach you how to win. Not just wherever you're a politician and whether you're a governor or a senator or a House member or a mayor, but you have to learn how to win everywhere. So you have to, sure, keep loyalists with you, people who've known you for a long time, people who have know who you are and what you believe in, what your passions are. But you also need to bring new people in, right, to sort of test those brands, beliefs and test those passions and test your ideas. And also who know things that your loyalists don't necessarily know, know how to win in the early states, know how to win in South Carolina and Nevada and New Hampshire, know how to win a caucus, know how to have a tic tac strategy, as you mentioned. And then the key is to get your new people and your old people to get along and work together. And that's really, really, really hard.

[A]

Yeah. And just, just that, just that one thing is so hard. And you and I have seen it in, in the races you've done and people we know in other races just say, these people have been with me 10, 15, 20 years longer, and, and they're all about me, and they know everything about me and my weaknesses and my strengths and what I need on the road and what kind of policy papers I like. And here come these new people who, as you say, you need them because you need more people and you need them because they've got skills you don't have. And all of a sudden you're asking these new people to understand the history of the old people and the. And the old people to not resent the new people. Just. That could. It's so. Just that is so hard for the candidate and the campaign manager because the new people are shiny and exciting and, and. And they have these skills. But the old people have been with you. So that's one. Now, you mentioned the physical thing. Did you listen to Taylor Swift's interview with her with her boyfriend and on the new hype? Not.

[C]

And I know I'm gonna get hate for that.

[A]

You don't need to. I'll tell you. I'll tell you the applicable part, and I recognize it. I recommend it to you. So Travis went on the road with her for the ERAS tour, right? And he walked into her suite and he saw, set up, like, all of this equipment, like massage table and like, hot tub and all this stuff. Because. And he said, this is just like me. This is like after an NFL game, I'm a wreck, and I need all this rehab and, you know, my feet massage and all this stuff. And. Same, same thing. It's the same thing for a presidential candidate. They're shaking a thousand hands a day. They're walking, they're standing, they're getting no sleep. Just talk about some specifics of just how grueling it physically.

[C]

Like a typical day on a campaign trail, on a national campaign trail, you probably wake up somewhere around, you know, four or five. You got to read all the news. You got to read your clips. You got to, you know, people come in and brief you on what's happening today, what other people said about you today, hear the points you're going to hit. So. And if you're a woman, you got to get your hair and makeup done. And that adds an hour to, you know, that a candidate doesn't have to have very little time to work out to sort of keep your stamina up. And then literally, you're going from event to event to event in various states. You're not like, just hanging out in Des Moines, Iowa, all day long. You're going to do a hit in Des Moines, and then you're going to do a hit in New Hampshire. Then you're going to do maybe a hit fly to the west coast because it's earlier there, and you may be able to make a hit in Nevada. And that, you know, wears on your body.

[A]

Physically, you're lucky if you get a Package of peanut butter crackers.

[C]

That's right. You're eating crap all day long. You're eating. If you're eating at all, if you're eating at all. You're drinking a lot of caffeine because you got to stay awake because you didn't really sleep that night. You have a lot of people around you, you know, fussing at you. Here's your talking points for this. Here's your briefing book for that. You know, you have to fix your hair. You have to fix your, you know, change the tie. Doesn't look good. And that can get annoying.

[A]

Right. So. So I'll play a senator or governor from a really big state who's run for elective office. 40, you know, seven times, Patty, I've run. I've been. I've been governor of. Blah, blah, blah. I've been to senator, blah, blah. I know how tough campaigns are.

[C]

No, you don't.

[A]

Explain to him. What would you say to him? What would you say to him?

[C]

No, you don't, Patty.

[A]

I was in the military. I'm governor of Maryland. I know how hard this stuff is. Go ahead.

[C]

I'm sure you think you do, but you don't. And unless you've done it, unless you've lived it, and there are some people who have, who've run for president more than once. You really, really don't know. The TOLA tanks. So it's just a rigorous day. But then you have to add on just how. And you may have the thickest skin in all the world, how debilitating it is for people to attack you constantly, day in and day out, and still, you know, have a smile on your face.

[A]

Yeah. And it's not just taking it. It's also here's what they'll say to you, and you tell them why they're wrong. And you saw this with both Clintons when they ran. Patty, I've run for Senate three times in a very competitive political state. Everything about my background has already been scrutinized by my enemies and the party, by Republicans, by the media. Everything's already out there. What would you say to that?

[C]

No, it hasn't. Respect. No. I mean, people come out of the woodwork, as, you know, and they also make stuff up, as, you know, people will make stuff up, and you have to combat it and you have to fight it. And we are now living in a. In a. You know, I don't think when I was running campaigns, when I was in the thick of things, we had the kind of media cycle and AI and all of this stuff going on that we didn't have then, where, you know, there are false facts and there are made up things even more so and it's harder and harder to come back.

[A]

And of course, sometimes it's a combination, it's like a lot of truth, but then the, the fake part. And so you, you have to walk in as a campaign manager to the candidate and say, hey, there's a story about you and this land deal in little in Arkansas called Whitewater. And then the candidate invariably will say this. You'll tell them, well, they're saying these seven things and, and six will be true and the seventh will be false. They'll say, well, that one is false. This whole thing is a big put up job because that one's false. And you say, well, with respect, Mr. Candidate or Ms. Candidate, like, no, a lot of this might be true. So we got to walk through it. And they don't want to walk through it. They're busy. They don't want to talk about some embarrassing thing. And you, and as you said, it just, it's a different thing.

[C]

So the claim, sometimes your candidate, you know, maybe not on purpose, but we'll lie to you and say, oh no, that's wrong. When.

[A]

Yeah, sometimes. And sometimes they'll lie on purpose. So Bill Clinton ran very competitively in Arkansas. Right. The Republican Party wanted to destroy him. He ran for governor over and over. Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers, the draft letter never came out. Never came out. Right. Even though he was constantly on the ballot. And then you take George W. Bush ran in Texas. Right. He had a DWI with his teenage sister in the car. Never came out. And so what these people don't get is until you run for president, the level of screw, even if you're vice president of the United States, the level of scrutiny is just not the same. And all of them seem to just want to be in denial about that.

[C]

Correct. And the, the, all of it. I mean there are people who just make it their business to dig up.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Stuff that is, has never been dug up before and it's going to come out. It's going to come out.

[A]

Yeah. So would you recommend if you were asked by Gavin Newsom or, or Wesmore, anybody, would you say hire someone to do investigative research on yourself questions with that?

[C]

Yeah, that would be the first thing I would do. Yeah. Make sure you know everything there is to know about it.

[A]

And then if the investor comes back and says, hey, they found this thing where you, you owned a home in Canada and no one's ever known you've owned a home in Canada, would you say, tell me, tell me why you bought it. Tell me everything about that?

[C]

Yeah, of course. Of course. And not just me. You need a whole team of people.

[A]

Okay, so you're the campaign manager and you find out. I'm just hypothetical. Westmore owns an apartment in, in Edmonton, Canada, and it's never been reported. And we googled, there's no evidence. They say, governor, what's the deal with the house? And he says, that's just a private thing. I just bought that for my family. Just a private thing. What would you say?

[C]

I would say there are no private things when you run for president.

[A]

There you go. All right, here's a challenge. Normally at this point in the cycle, if you were running a campaign in waiting, you'd say, well, we got to do well in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. So let's start having you find out when the birthdays are of every key legislator and calling them on their birthday. And you got to find out, you know, when the fish fries are. We don't know what the calendar is going to be.

[C]

So the calendar is going to be.

[A]

So. So do you just say, now some people are going to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina thinking, maybe, but how do you deal with that now in this cycle if you just don't know what the early states are?

[C]

So look, first of all, I don't think you need to go in the early states right now, especially if we don't know what the calendar is. But I do think that you can be doing some things like getting out there, whether it's in an early state or in other ways, like Gavin Newsom is doing right now. Right. He is really sort of taking the fight to President Trump in the same sort of manner that Trump fights everybody else. And it's getting him some attention. It's getting him some very good attention. So there are ways to get your name out there and get you visible without having to go into the early states. I don't mean don't go to New Hampshire, don't go to Iowa, don't go to South Carolina, don't go to Vanna. You should. It's a long process, for sure, to get these people who have no idea who you are to start to get to know you, to start to kick the tires a little bit, to get a sense of who you are and what you believe and what you feel strongly about. So the more you can do it, great. But sometimes the calendar doesn't allow finances. Don't allow there are things that you can do to make yourself visible without having to travel out to the early stage.

[A]

Let's talk about one more challenge that I think candidates and their teams underestimated. Then we'll talk about some specific people fundraising. This is a made up number, but it's not like, yeah, if you're running for president, you got to raise like 40,000aminute or some, something that, that seems impossible. And unlike when you were doing it, where you did it, the main way you raised money back in the olden days was bundling, right? You would call rich people in New York and say, I'm coming to New York, I need to raise 2 million. So I need you all to get other people and their wives and their husbands and their kids to write $2,000 checks or whatever the maximum was. Now you've got super PACs are a bigger priority and small dollar fundraising, being a good fundraiser on the web. And of course, if you can be a good small dollar fundraiser, that's great because it costs much less to raise the money and it just keeps coming in. How much do you think people thinking about running and their campaign teams, how much you think they don't appreciate because they say, well, I've run for governor of Pennsylvania, I've had to raise, I know about fundraising, I know about dialing for dollars. How much do you think they're underestimating that?

[C]

Well, I can't imagine any candidate not underestimating the amount of money it takes to run for President of the United States. You have to include not only, I mean, paying your staff, keeping offices open across the country in all of these states, advertising. It costs money to raise money, you know, money. So it's astronomical. And the figures that were spent in 2024 blew my mind. Not just how much was raised, but how much was spent. Doing a rally costs a lot of money. Cost tens of thousands of dollars. And it's, and it's hard, it's really hard to ask people for money. It's, it's a little bit, you know, humbling for sure. But when you're running in an open primary where there's going to be, you know, 10, 12, 15 people running, you're competing for dollars with all of those people. And they're all, I mean, there's only a limited number of big Democratic donors out there and you're competing with them, you're also competing with them for staff. As, as a matter of fact, when we were talking about the staff stuff, so you have to call these people constantly And I call it dialing for dollars. But we would put on the candidates races that I ran hours at a time of phone time, calling people for money, asking them to bundle money, asking them to host events for you. And that's hours and hours of time that you're not on the campaign trail. Right. So the idea that you could raise money on the Internet, you know, low dollar stuff is really something that you should, a candidate, any candidate considering running should invest in and, but it's hard.

[A]

It'S hard to know how to unlock that. There are people who seem like they'd be good at that, like Marco Rubio in 2016 who just wasn't. So it's not like you can just do it. There's some mechanics.

[C]

By the way, Hillary Clinton wasn't either.

[A]

Yeah, that's right. And Barack Obama was twice. Okay, Gavin Newsom. I still, I'm by myself on a lonely little island. I don't think he's going to run in part because on this program he told the story of how much his daughter hates having security details with her now as he's governor of California. And if she doesn't like the California detail, wait till she meets the United States Secret Service. Maybe I'm wrong, but he is obviously. I shouldn't say obviously, people I talk to, and I want your opinion on this, say he's elevated himself through the fights over the fires, the fights over immigration, fights over redistricting. He's now in the top tier by himself. He's an aircraft carrier. And I say this, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. Aircraft carriers can build a billion dollar machine, have staff they can hire, have policy jobs. I think he's now in the tier one by himself. What do you think?

[C]

I agree with that. Three months ago, if you had asked me about Gavin Newsom, I said no, he's, he doesn't have what it takes. Yes, he's good looking, people like good looking politicians, but he doesn't really have what it takes to run, run against Trump because basically between now and this, you know, the next election, 2028, you're running against Trump whether you like it or not, you're going to run against Trump. Even though Trump is not going to be on the ballot in 2028 or so, we think he's going to run against his policies, he's going to run against his style. He's going to run against or she, sorry, he or she will run against. And Gavin Newsom has proven to really be able to do that thus far. And it's Been in a very short period of time. I think Democrats right now. And I think the last time I was on this show, I said that we were leaderless and messageless lists and.

[A]

And a few people noticed.

[C]

A few people noticed. But Gavin Newsom is sort of picking up that, you know, I'm gonna be there, I'm gonna take down the message, and I'm gonna have some ideas. And as you said, I think he's tier one right now.

[A]

Okay. I'm gonna create.

[C]

That's not to say other people will not.

[A]

Oh, of course. We're just. We're just tearing today. Tomorrow could be a whole different tier. All right, so I'm gonna make up a second tier, and I'm going to ask you what you think. My second tier right now is Governor Shapiro, Pennsylvania. West Moore, even though he says he's not running, and Rob Emanuel, even though I don't think he can be the nominee. And maybe Pete Buttigieg. Maybe. So my tier is those three guys, plus maybe Pete Buttigieg. What do you think of my second tier? Who would you kick out? Who would you include?

[C]

I would kick out Pete Buttigieg. It's just a maybe.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I think if we could somehow Frankenstein Rom with John and Gavin Newsom kind of thing.

[A]

Sure. That'd be great if you could, but it's unlikely.

[C]

Right. Look, I. I think.

[A]

All right. Just we're kicking Pete out, and I. And the only reason I'm including Ron, because I don't think he can win the nomination because I think the base hates him too much. The only reason I'm including him is he can raise money, he can get on any media thing he wants. He'll have some political support, and if he enters the race, he'll be aggressive. He'll be on the debate stage. Like, you just can't ignore him. So do you want to kick it? We're kicking Pete out of the first year in part because the support from black voters is zero percent, and that's not a non starter. So do you want to kick any of my three out of the top tier or the second tier? Do you want to kick Rom out? Do you want to kick Shapiro out or do you want to kick Westmore out? Want to kick any of them out?

[C]

I would not kick any of them out.

[A]

All right, do you want to add any. Do you want to add anybody? Hold on. Do you want to add anybody?

[C]

I would like to add. I would like to add JP Pritzker. I think he's pretty good.

[A]

Okay, let's Talk, let's talk about that. Tell me why he deserves to be in the state.

[C]

He can certainly raise money. You can most certainly raise money.

[A]

Just by opening his checkbook.

[C]

Just by opening his checkbook. He's been a solid governor for the state of Illinois. And he also, I think, is capable of taking the fight, the fat, the fight, on to Donald Trump, I think.

[A]

Yeah. Let me tell you why I'm kicking. I, I would not put him in the second tier. Okay? Three reasons. And you tell me what you think and then I want to talk about our other three guy. Just to be clear, you don't want anyone else in the second tier. Right. You're just adding a fourth, but you're, you're leaving that as a second tier. Okay, so here's why. Here's what I say. His record in Illinois, your home state, it's just not good. It's just not. The state's a mess, the budget's a mess. He's got some social issue, accomplishments, but number one, but I don't think he'll be seen, he would be seen as a strong general election candidate. Number two, self funding never works because you don't build grassroots support. And so I think it's a mistake to self fund and I think he'd be forced to because I don't think people would see him. And then number three, and I say this as a portly person, I just think he's too happy to be, to be an attractive candidate. I just don't think people are going to go for somebody that heavy. He's, he's fatter than me, Patty, and that's, you know, that's something.

[C]

First of all.

[A]

Yeah, go ahead.

[C]

First of all, I mean, I don't think he's fatter than Donald Trump.

[A]

Donald Trump defies all rules.

[C]

Well, maybe so, but, you know, that doesn't mean that others can't defy it.

[A]

Yeah, understood.

[C]

Okay, let's just talk about the rest of them because we'll agree to disagree.

[A]

Okay. All right, so tell me about why you put all those three guys in the second tier.

[C]

So let's do the easiest one first, which is Ron. I think he just is one of the smartest people in politics I have ever met. And the experience, the wealth of experience he brings, whether it's House member, mayor, chief of staff, you know, he's been there, he's won races. I agree that it's going to be very, very difficult for him to actually win a primary, but he is going to make, if he decides to run he's going to make everybody else better. Right. Just because he is going to be so good on the campaign trail when he's running Josh Shapiro. I just. You know what? I like him. I like. I, I cannot tell you how much I was rooting for him to be the VP nominee for Harris. I think we would have won Pennsylvania if she had done that. I think we. Maybe, maybe I don't know that at least closer. It wouldn't have been a. An ass whooping as I like to think of it. He's moderate. He is done a great job as governor in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is a swing state and I think when he goes out, people just like. I think when he goes out and meets voters, people like him.

[A]

Why isn't he in the first?

[C]

I don't think there is a first. Gavin. I agree with you. Gavin Newsom, sort of.

[A]

But why do you rate him as high as Gavin Newsom? I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying where, where does he need to prove. I guess to get in the first.

[C]

Tier, I think he needs to prove that he can go mano amano with Donald Trump. And he hasn't done that yet.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. And Wesmore, I like Westmore.

[C]

I just think he has said he's not running, but he's smart, he's beloved. The people who like people would kill for him. I think the people who support him would kill for him. And that's like. To have that kind of a strong base is really important when you run for president. To have people. Bill Clinton had that. He didn't have a broad base, but his base was there for him through all sorts of horribleness in the, in the primary. And I think Wes Moore has that. And I also think he would do extraordinarily well on a debate stage when there are 10 people on that stage. He will, you know, make himself known.

[A]

Yeah, you caught yourself before when you use the male pronoun. Who's the female candidate who now looks the strongest to you? Potential candidate who looks the strongest.

[C]

I mean, Whitmer was my person, but I think. And we just, we just haven't seen much of her or heard much from her. So I wouldn't put her in the second tier. I also like Gina Raimondo. I know nobody knows her. She has zero name recognition, but I think she has, you know, I think she has the ideas and I think she has the reach to business. And I think. I hope she runs, actually.

[A]

Yeah, I do too. And she's. She actually is one of the few who's been open and saying she's thinking about it, she's open to it.

[C]

Yeah. I hope she doesn't.

[A]

So that I, I think she'd be a very strong candidate. And you, and I know tons of people who said if only she could win the nomination, she'd be a great candidate and a great president. And, and a lot of, a lot of Republican business people would tell you that at the business roundtable, et cetera. So ideas, she's obviously someone who would put together a very strong policy team. I look at these kids, even Gavin Newsom, who we both think is having a great run here, like, what are his national ideas? Right. Because the stuff he's talking about, confronting Trump on redistricting, confronting Trump on, on immigration, these are not, these are not policies that are, that are original ideas that are going to make the real lives of real people better. So just talk about the importance, the underrated importance of actually having good ideas to help people in winning the nomination and then, and then getting elected in the general.

[C]

Right. Well, I, look, I think the best thing I could say about showing how important having ideas is is just look back at the 2024 race. You know, Democrats did not have any real new ideas, and it's a big reason why they, why we lost. I'm still a Democrat.

[A]

Why we lost.

[C]

But I think, I know this is going to sound silly and there's going to be so many people disagreeing with me. I think it's a little early to come out with new policy agenda ideas right now. I think we have to wait for the real impact of President Trump's ideas and policies and the execution of those ideas to have impact on the country, see where it lands. And we're starting to see it. You know, we saw horrible jobs report, report last month, which I know he says is, is, is was wrong. And they were made up numbers. We're starting to see, you know, the prices of produce, produce go up, tariffs are starting to kick in. So I think, you know, those people who are thinking about running are probably smart to wait and see how all of this and then come out with.

[A]

Let me play devil's advocate, let me play devil's advocate on that. And there are some exceptions to this. And I would say Barack Obama and Joe Biden might be exceptions, but if you look at Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, they talked about the things they eventually ran on for years, and that means they felt them in their gut and they knew how to talk about them. They knew how crowds reacted to maybe not 15 point plans, but the basic issues. George W. Bush's welfare reform and education reform and taxes and Bill Clinton national service and health care and Donald Trump. All the things, you know, so if somebody says, somebody's going to say two years from now to primary and caucus voters, I know how to be president. I'm the best person in the country. Shouldn't they be talking about the policies that they think are so fundamental, that reflect their work and where they see the country's needs? Shouldn't they be talking about those things for three years? Is that too much to ask?

[C]

No, I do think they should be talking about, but we're, I agree with you, but we're in a very, very different place right now where President Trump and Republicans sort of control everything. And I think it would be unwise to not wait and see how that complete control of government plays out before you start, you know, really putting out, here's what I'm going to run out on 2028. You can talk about the things that make you, that are, that you're passionate about for sure. And you should. I think you, we see Rahm doing that right now.

[A]

I think we see, yeah, he's doing a little bit.

[C]

I think we see some of that. But I think to put out a full policy agenda right now would be.

[A]

I don't mean full. Lastly, about JD Vance and I raise this with people. Almost everybody disagrees with the premise. The biggest mistake Democrats made in the 2000 cycle was not trying to stop George W. Bush from getting reelected with a huge head of Steam in 1998 when he was running for reelection. They just didn't do, they just didn't do all the opposition research and really try to rough him up. Right now there's a strong prospect that democrats have a 16 person field, really expensive bloody nomination fight. And JD Vance raises $2 billion before the spring of 28 and it wins it uncontested. Wouldn't it be wise for the Democratic Party to, to really try every day to mock the guy on social media to do opposition research? Like, wouldn't that be smart? Otherwise they wake up and he's got it, he's got the kind of head of steam George W. Bush does. But everybody I say says there's no resources for that, there's no bandwidth to do that.

[C]

Well, there's definitely no resources for that. I think Democrats are having a hard time raising money the, you know, for the DNC as opposed to, you know, their own personal campaign coffers. But I, I don't know, I think there's going to be just as big a field on the Republican side as there is going to be on the Democratic side. Maybe not as big, but pretty big. I don't, I don't think, I don't think they're just going to hand it to J.D. vance. I really, I really don't. I think there are other, depending on how Trump's second term really plays out, I think there may be some folks who say, you know what, it's time for a change.

[A]

It's time and I'm gonna, you might be right. But if J.D. vance wins the nomination in the general election, easily take you out from here. I'll be, I'll be playing this tape for the whole world. Okay, Patty, Solely Storl, so grateful to you. Love having you on it. And again, it's just literally last 50 years. It's just so few people with your level of knowledge and wisdom about this. And if anyone who's thinking of running for president or managing a campaign in the next cycle would be well to take all of that to heart or they're going to have a sick, tired scandal, scandal rid, scandal risen, broke candidate in the presidential field. Patty, thank you. Great to see you.

[C]

Thanks, Mark. Great seeing you.

[A]

All right, that is it for today's program. Thank you for watching. Well, we're going to be back on Thursday, brand new episode of the first program. As we always tell you, please make sure you subscribe and download nextup. Wherever you get your podcasts, Watch us on YouTube, tell all your friends, your neighbors, even tell your enemies. Everybody deserves in America to know what's coming. Next up, hey, everybody. Conan o' Brien here with an ad about my podcast. Conan o' Brien needs a friend. I've had so many fantastic conversations with people I truly admire, people like Michelle Obama, Bruce Springsteen, Maya Rudolph, Tom Hanks. New episodes are out every Monday and we have a really good time. So subscribe and listen wherever you get your podcasts.