Why Marco Rubio Is Suddenly a 2028 Frontrunner, Vance’s GOP Challenge and Iran’s Real Story

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Next Up with Mark Halperin"

Episode: Why Marco Rubio Is Suddenly a 2028 Frontrunner, Vance’s GOP Challenge and Iran’s Real Story
Date: May 7, 2026
Host: Mark Halperin (MK Media)

Episode Overview

This episode explores the sudden surge of interest in Marco Rubio as a leading contender for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, analyses the strengths and vulnerabilities of both Rubio and J.D. Vance within the GOP, and offers a deep dive into media coverage and recent developments in the US-Iran conflict. The episode features political analysis, media criticism, and insider perspectives from guests Leland Vittert (News Nation) and Jaime Moore (Democratic strategist).

---

1. Rubio’s Meteoric Rise: Explaining the Boomlet

Main Theme:

Why has Marco Rubio become the dominant conversation in GOP circles about 2028, rivaling or even surpassing Vice President J.D. Vance?

Key Discussion Points:

• Rubio’s Rising Profile: Rubio’s appearance at the White House briefing—stepping in for Caroline Levitt—captured the political world’s attention. The positive media reaction, combined with his role as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, has made him the center of an unusual bipartisan “love fest.”
  Notable quote:

  • “From the moment he walked in, throughout the entire time he was there with reporters... it was a love fest, ladies and gentlemen. Laughter and respect, and just a love festival.” — Halperin [06:15]

• Why Now?: Rubio’s recent high-profile events, especially his widely circulated answer about his "hope for America," set to music by the State Department, went viral and reinvigorated his image as an inspirational leader.
  Quote, Rubio at Briefing:

  • “It’s a place where you are able to overcome challenges and achieve your full potential. ... Ours is a story of perpetual improvement. Each generation has left the next generation of Americans freer, more prosperous, safer.” — Rubio [07:53]

• Rubio’s Unique Positioning in the GOP:

  • Loved by MAGA crowds and the establishment, as well as the donor class and the mainstream media—rare in contemporary Republican politics.
  • Consensus: Rubio and Vance currently account for about 95% of the “pie” in GOP 2028 speculation.

Memorable Moments:

• Rubio joking with reporters about his DJ name and colorblindness, showing a relaxed and humorous side.
  [Sample exchange: 06:20–07:02]

---

2. Cautions from 2016: Can Rubio Really Win?

Main Theme:

Despite the current Rubio “mania”, history—and particularly his 2016 presidential run—raises recurring questions about his true electoral strength.

Key Discussion Points:

• 2016 Primary Lessons:

  • Rubio’s prior bid fizzled despite high expectations. Struggled with grassroots fundraising ($7M vs. Trump and Harris’s $300-400M ten years later) [14:15], and had missteps in debates, most notably being filleted by Chris Christie for canned answers [16:42–17:51].
  • “At the time... this gobsmacked people. Christie accuses Rubio of giving a pre canned answer—a rehearsed line in response. Part of Rubio’s response was to repeat the exact same line...” — Halperin [17:04]

• Likability & Fundraising Challenge:

  • Rubio is liked by elites and the media, but Halperin questions if "regular people" actually gravitate to him—the true test for a nominee.

• 2016 "Cringy" Moment:

  • Rubio's temporary imitation of Trump's mockery style (the infamous "small hands" joke):
    • “You know what they say about men with small hands. You can't trust them.” — Rubio [19:21]

• Key Question:

  • Has Rubio truly improved as a candidate, and will past weaknesses resurface under intense scrutiny?

---

3. J.D. Vance’s GOP Challenge

Main Theme:

While Vance retains the inside track as sitting Vice President, doubts are growing about his relatability and campaign skills compared to Rubio.

Key Discussion Points:

• Vance’s Iowa Appearance:

  • Vance visited Iowa—crucial for Republican primaries—demonstrating ambitions, but local media coverage was notably less enthusiastic than Rubio’s recent press.
  • Sample stump speech remarks: “Finding fraud in the federal government—it's kind of like fishing in a barrel with dynamite.” [22:42]

• Vance’s Perception Problems:

  • Growing worry among GOP insiders that Vance is seen as aloof, phony, or simply less likable compared to Rubio.
  • Halperin:
    • “I don't think Vance can win him [Rubio]... in the likability [contest]. ...Rubio is improved enough... the perceptions are such that Vance is going to have a hard time.” [22:56]

• The Likely 2028 Outcome:

  • Halperin sees it unlikely that Rubio and Vance would directly compete, predicting instead that one will stand aside or they could jointly run as a ticket.

---

4. The Iran War & Failures of Media Coverage

Guest: Leland Vittert (News Nation) [30:38–48:46]

Main Theme:

The media’s focus on gas prices and disconnected reporting misses the most important storylines of the US-Iran conflict.

Key Discussion Points:

• Media’s Myopic Focus:

  • Vittert criticizes the US media for reducing the complexity of Middle East politics and US military successes to the price of gas:
    • “The US Media... has boiled this remaking of the Middle East, confronting America's single longest running enemy... into what does it cost to fill up your car.” — Vittert [32:10]
  • Both complain about the absence of real on-the-ground reporting from inside Iran, owing to internet cut-offs and regime repression.
    • “Are you trying to book the Iranian foreign minister every night and getting a no...?” — Halperin [36:56]

• Should We Platform Iran’s Regime?

  • Debate over the merit of putting Iranian officials on air:
    • Halperin: “I’d put the Iranian foreign minister on every night. I’d ask him tough questions... Even if he ignored them, I just, I just think there’s... I want to hear him every night.” [38:27]
    • Vittert: “If somebody’s just going to sit there and deny that the sky is blue... that to me doesn’t really serve our viewer.” [40:50]

• Journalism in Authoritarian States:

  • Evolution from journalists as "protected class" to "targeted class" after the Arab Spring—risk assessments now limit in-depth, in-country reporting. [45:13]

• Best Dream Bookings:

  • Vittert: “MBS or MBZ... whoever’s actually in charge of Iran right now” [47:11]
  • Halperin: “President Xi of China... and whoever’s in charge of Iran” [48:06]

---

5. Listener Feedback: "8 for 28 Hate" Segment [48:47–57:52]

Main Theme:

Intense audience reaction and debate over Halperin’s monthly ranking of the eight likeliest Democratic nominees for 2028.

Key Discussion Points:

• Sanders Controversy:

  • Many listeners objected to Bernie Sanders debuting on the list. Some, like Kenny, were skeptical but “thought you made a strong case.” [52:10]

• Electability Debates:

  • Comments from listeners challenge the notion that a Jew, gay person, or a woman of color can win the Democratic nomination—Halperin rebuts these pessimisms. [52:35]

• Jon Ossoff’s Rise:

  • Some see Ossoff’s inclusion as motivated by Democrats’ urge to nominate white males; Halperin argues Ossoff’s real appeal is winning in a red/blue state. [53:15]

• Moderation vs. Progressivism:

  • Ongoing tension within the Democratic Party: Nominating moderates may be strategic, but progressives will demand their shot (e.g., Sanders, Polis).

---

6. Democratic Strategist on Stopping Rubio: Jaime Moore Interview [58:10–69:41]

Main Theme:

How should Democrats prepare to combat Rubio if he continues to surge heading toward 2028?

Key Discussion Points:

• Democratic Opposition Planning:

  • DNC likely already has extensive “books” (opposition research) on Rubio:
    • “Marco Rubio... said so many things, he's made so many policy decisions. So you go back and you have to comb through all of those things. ...Make him seem like... a flip flopper.” — Moore [59:46]

• Challenges for Democrats:

  • Despite oppo research, getting negative stories into a pro-Rubio media environment is difficult. Riding the wave of Rubio’s current “moment” is required, but hope that future events (war, economy, etc.) will change the narrative. [61:41]

• Targeted Messaging:

  • Democrats must feed tailored stories to MAGA influencers (Rubio’s not MAGA!) and progressives (Rubio’s too conservative) to sow skepticism in both camps.

• Rubio’s Cross-Demographic Appeal:

  • Moore:
    • “He will have some appeal to black Southern women who are religious, and he can build from that.” [65:48]

• Strategic Limitation:

  • Currently, DNC’s resources are focused on the midterms; Rubio’s appeal may grow simply due to lack of Democratic bandwidth to counter him.
  • “He does one stint in the briefing room, and all of a sudden people are just so gaga for him.” — Halperin [67:09]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Mark Halperin:

  • “As we sit here today, there's an argument to be made that Marco Rubio is the most likely next president of the United States.” [04:57]
  • “Marcomania is strong in my world. ...But need to temper the Marcomania.” [26:47]
  • “You cannot beat an incumbent vice president running for president unless you rip their face off. ...I do not think they'll run against each other.” [23:56]

• Rubio (at briefing):

  • "This is chaos, guys." [06:44]
  • “Where you are able to overcome challenges and achieve your full potential... perpetual and continuous improvement...” [07:53]

• Leland Vittert:

  • “Donald Trump understood the essential truth of the Middle east, which is that Iran is the root of all evil.” [32:10]
  • “The other problem with interviewing the Iranians, any Iranian official, is you have no idea who you are talking to vis a vis the regime.” [42:22]

• Jaime Moore:

  • “You have to remind people of things he's done and said that are antithetical to what he's doing now... Make him seem like he is a flip flopper or someone who's wish washy.” [59:46]
  • “If Marco can continue to show that level of compassion and exude that through social media and through the media, I think it's going to be really hard to make a case that he won't be a viable nominee.” [66:00]

---

Key Timestamps

• Rubio’s viral moment/briefing room banter: 06:20–07:02
• Rubio “hope for America” answer: 07:53–08:48
• 2016 debate ‘fileting’ by Christie: 16:42–17:51
• Rubio “small hands” cringy attack: 19:08–19:33
• Vance’s Iowa event/local political coverage: 22:42–23:56
• Leland Vittert interview—media & Middle East: 30:38–48:46
• Listener “8 for 28 Hate” feedback: 48:47–57:52
• Democratic strategist Jaime Moore—Rubio counterstrategy: 58:10–69:41

---

Episode Tone & Language

• Tone: Informal but analytical, sometimes self-deprecating (“Marcomania...need to temper it”), with an insider, conversational feel. Mark Halperin leads with a blend of serious political analysis punctuated by humor and storytelling.
• Language: Plainspoken, accessible, and at times irreverent. Frequent use of banter, direct address to the audience, and reflective self-questioning.

---

Summary Takeaways

• Marco Rubio’s star is rapidly rising, but his past weaknesses and questions about broad-based voter appeal linger.
• J.D. Vance, while still a central figure, increasingly looks like the underdog in a head-to-head contest of likability and performance.
• The media’s handling of the Iran conflict is criticized for being shallow and disconnected from strategic and humanitarian realities.
• Democrats are aware of Rubio’s threat but have limited means to counter his surge at present, relying on future missteps or shifts in the news cycle.
• Listener feedback is impassioned and contentious, reflecting the deep divisions and uncertainties within both parties as 2028 approaches.

Transcript

[A]

For 45 years, Dish has been connecting America with the best in family, tv, entertainment and advanced technology at an unbeatable value. And that commitment continues with our new 45th anniversary special offer. Get the lowest price in satellite TV, starting as low as $89.99 a month. In a world of rising costs and hidden fees, Dish stays transparent, reliable and honest, just like our founders intended. Learn more by calling 888-1-add-d Dish or visit dish.com Terms and conditions apply and we vault into our second year. Next up, one year anniversary in the rear view mirror. Year two begins now. I'm Mark Halpern. Welcome to Nextup, you Nexters. I'm the editor in chief of two WAY and your host here for another year. Grateful to you for being here. A great show for you. Two fine gentlemen are going to walk us through a bunch of stuff. Leland Vitter will be here, the News Nation chief Washington anchor host of On Balance with Leland Vittert, at 9pm on News Nation. And Leland and I are going to talk about how the media has covered the Iran conflict and what are things that are going well, maybe not so well, and his perspective as a former Middle east correspondent and someone who understands the nuances. Would you book the Iranian foreign minister or the head of the Iranian parliament? Would you book him on your TV show or your podcast if you had one? Leland I will sort that out. And then Jaime Moore will be here. He's a principal at Cornerstone Government affairs, used to be a big job at the DNC and is a new member announced this week on the morning meeting on two Way. We're going to talk about how things are going politically from the Democratic perspective. Also, our new segment, hate for 28 hate. We'll take a look at how many of you reacted, including some brutal feedback to the May rankings that I put out, including my daring, shocking, maybe super risky inclusion of Bernie Sanders on the list for the most likely Democratic nominees. What what are you all saying about it? And where do people think I got things wrong? And a few of you think I got some things right. So we'll take a look at that. But first, my reported monologue. This episode is on two Republican heavyweights, J.D. vance and Marco Rubio. They happen to be close personal friends. And this week, because of how they spent their Tuesday, an explosion of interest amongst my sources in the question of who will and who should Republicans pick as their presidential candidate in 2028. We haven't done 8 for 28 rankings for the Republican side because up until now it's been A one person show, JD Vance, and the polls continue to show that. But let's get into this conversation that I've had with my sources, a lot of Republicans and some Democrats this week on question of why is this happening? Why is there an explosion of interest in Marco Rubio didn't just start this week. His speech in Europe a few weeks ago, his general performance in media interviews and some of the questions around JD Vance have really led to this really interesting question of why is it happening? Why is Marco Rubio up and Vance down in the estimation of some, at least. I talked to a lot of Republicans since Tuesday about what's driving this, what's propelling this. Again, Marco Rubio did the White House briefing on Tuesday. Caroline Levitt out having her baby. Congratulations, Caroline. And J.D. vance went to Iowa for a political rally for a House Republican incumbent there who's embattled and being targeted by Democrats. So this is a great moment, if you like American history, because it's certainly the case cut away all the, all the things that I think are off base. It's certainly the case that as we sit here today, there's an argument to be made that Marco Rubio is the most likely next president of the United States. And I say that because we don't know who the Democrats are going to nominate at this point. If you take Vance and Rubio and there's other people who are interested, including Ted Cruz, between the two of them, I don't know how to divide the pie for odds of being the not Republican nominee, but the two of them would divide that pie. And if you take 100%, I think they divide about 95% of it right now. And if you're the nominee of a major party, your chances of being President maybe not 50 50, but they're pretty close to 5050 given the way the Electoral college is currently stacked. So before I thought Rubio, Vance was a lock, a lock to be the nominee. And now I'm less sure. I'm less sure. I still think he's most likely and I'll get to that. But no doubt Rubio is up and, and a lot of it was supercharged for my sources by the briefing room appearance. He, he went in, he talked to the media about almost all the questions were about Iran. There were some on Cuba and a few other topics, but it was a love fest. And if you're a Republican running for president in the current age, having the press, the mainstream, the dominant media love you is a double edged sword. Rubios right now is part of this. This moment he's having is. He's. He's loved by maga, even though he used to support immigration reform. That is anathema to a lot of folks in maga. He. He's loved by everyone in the administration. Universally praise him for the job he's doing. This unorthodox thing where he's both National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. Loved by a lot of the Republican establishment who supported him in 2016 when he ran for president. Donor, class, elected officials, beloved by the media. His poll numbers aren't that great, in all honesty. So that's an interesting question and variable. But when he walked in the briefing room, from the moment he walked in, throughout the entire time he was there with reporters, some reporters who are from conservative organizations, but a lot of dominant media reporters. It was a love fest, ladies and gentlemen. Laughter and respect, and just a love festival. Here's Marco Rubio. Some of Marco Rubio in the briefing. This is S3, please.

[B]

Are you guys all the TV people? All right. I'm learning. They gave me a little map. I don't know where I put it. Of the people here. Some of you had, like, red X's. I'm kidding. No, that's not true. What happened? Why is everybody giggling? What happened?

[A]

I have two questions on two separate issues that come up.

[B]

Do they get two questions for these two questions? There's a lot of people in here. All right, well, you had to. You had. Ask me two questions. I'll give you one answer.

[A]

He's closer.

[B]

No, you don't have black. You have blue on. I'm colorblind, but I know blue and black right there. Yes. This is chaos, guys.

[C]

Secretary, many people want to know, what

[A]

is your DJ name?

[B]

My DJ name?

[A]

Your DJ name.

[B]

You're not ready for my dj.

[A]

I mean, again, not. There are other Republicans who could have that kind of banter, but not. Not for that length of time. Not around a topic on which the press is pretty contentious with the administration. So from that event, one of the last answers the Secretary of State gave was he was asked about his vision for the country and that the answer's gone viral. And the State Department decided to take the audio of his answer and set it to music and include images of Secretary Rubio and the president to. To. To make a bigger splash. And again, it's gotten so many views. This is the video the State Department put together off of one of Secretary Rubio's answers in that White House briefing on Tuesday. This S4, please.

[C]

I got to ask you.

[B]

What is your hope for America at a time such as this? My hope for America and my hope for America is what it's always been. I think it's the hope I. I hope we all share. We want it to continue to be the place where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything, where you're not limited by the circumstances of your birth, by the color of your skin, by your ethnicity, but frankly, it's a place where you are able to overcome challenges and achieve your full potential. I think that should be the goal of every country in the world. But I think in the US we're not perfect. Our history is not one of perfection, but it's still better than anybody else's history. Ours is a story of perpetual improvement. Each generation has left an next generation of Americans freer, more prosperous, safer. And that is our goal as well. And as we come upon this 250 year anniversary, I think we have a lot to learn and be proud of in our history. It is one of perpetual and continuous improvement, where each generation has done its part to bring us closer to fulfilling the vision that the founders of this country had upon its founding.

[A]

I mean, in all honesty, it's a great answer. And. And not everybody in politics could pull that thing off. Off the top of his head, Marco Rubio, since his earliest days in Florida politics, when he rose up in the legislature, has been, like Barack Obama before him, tagged for greatness as someone who will someday run for president. Someday, his supporters would say, someday would be president. And he ran in 2016 and didn't do all that well, but then stayed in the Senate, rose up in the Senate, really developed a lot more confidence. There's the famous moment when he did the State of the Union response, where he reached for the water bottle. Not a highlight, but respected by his colleagues in the Senate, overwhelmingly supported when he was confirmed for Secretary of State. They've turned on him now, the Democrats have, but. And then becoming Secretary of State, Secretary of State is always for both parties, one of the most sought after jobs in politics. There are many people, and I put Joe Biden in this category, who would rather be Secretary of State than Vice President and would want to be Secretary of State more than anything, but President. It's just a huge job. And now he's got both jobs, right? So people look at him in the party and they say, here's the issue. Vance is not as impressive as Rubio in the minds of some. He's not going to be as tied to the administration as Vance is. And there's worry that the midterms could go poorly, the economy may not be in great shape by 2028. And so what these folks say is, if we want to win the White House, we got to take the guy who can quit. The administration doesn't have to stay as Secretary of State. Harder for Vance to quit, can run as more opposed to the Trump Vance record, who can win the Hispanic vote and remake the politics of America, and whose performance, whose likability, whose sense of humor are all superior to advances. That's what the pro Rubio crowd says. Now, I've heard, as I've said from so many people this week, unsolicited, over the last couple weeks, we need Rubio. Republicans say and Democrats say we wouldn't be the least bit afraid of Rubio, of Vance, rather, if he were the nominee, but we'd be afraid of Rubio, the Hispanic vote, likability, et cetera. But I've also heard of a lot of amateurish, just too over the top, really posture towards Rubio. Okay, again, I said this on, on two way and I got hammered. I'm not against Marco Rubio. I quite like the guy. I think he's a very nice guy. I've always been impressed by him. But, but you gotta, you gotta not just go. You can't go overboard. You can't just say, oh, he's the greatest thing ever and greatest thing since Jiffy Pop. As I like to say, you gotta, you gotta look at, look at the reality. When and if Marco Rubio decides to run for president, there'll be MAGA people who will be shocked at some of the positions he's taken in the past, including on immigration. And there'll be questions of is he really just as, as impressive and, and unbeatable as is. Some of his supporters think so. Let's be serious, folks. The guy's run for president before. Now, some people run for president and do poorly, and they learned from it. And there's no doubt that Marco Rubio's performance on the national stage has improved since then. But there were some pretty weak moments when he ran. This is a decade ago now. He has learned a lot. But let's look at that. Let's look at the question of his 2016 experience and are there cautionary notes there? Are there reasons to think maybe both in running for the nomination and in a general election, if he's the nominee, maybe Marco Rubio's got some issues. Okay. One of the things I was so fascinated by in 2016, when again, he ran not just against Donald Trump but a big field. Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Rand Paul, a bunch of others. Was why he didn't catch on more. Okay, on a couple measures. One is as communicator. Why wasn't he seen as as greater with voters and pundits and then fundraising small dollar donor. So here's a video. He had a great team working with him in 2016 to make videos intended to get his name id up to raise money. Here's a video he made. Guy's a huge sports fan and he. And, and, and again, just like with Vance. These are two normal guys. These are suburban dads who can speak to people in a very natural way who don't need to be called Mr. Secretary or Mr. Vice President. They're fine if you, you call them JD and Marco, you met them at a restaurant, whatever. They'd be fine with that. They do not. They do not stand on ceremony. Here's an ad video Rubio made in 2016. Very representative of the kinds of ways his team tried to shape his image. He's a huge sports fan. This is S1, please.

[D]

Did you get that super bowl pick this year?

[B]

Same one I've made for the last 40 years. The Miami Dolphins super bowl pick.

[D]

Winning percentage.

[B]

I have never gotten a Super Bowl.

[C]

Right, sorry.

[D]

What's your fantasy football team name this year?

[B]

I think we're going to call it the Marco Polos.

[D]

Best coaching advice you ever gave your youth team.

[B]

Have fun.

[A]

All right. A very likable and intended again to get his name out there and to raise money. This is of all the things from 2016 that most cautionary for me and it goes back to what I said which is his poll numbers aren't that great with the voters. Is fundraising okay. Marco Rubio in 2016 should have been a spectacularly on paper, a spectacularly strong fundraiser. At the grassroots level he should have raised a ton and he didn't. Now this is a question I ask in general about candidates is they have trouble raising money online. Some do, some don't. It's a little bit ineffable. Talked about this many times. It's hard to say what makes a great low dollar fundraiser. You all know the importance of being able to raise money at the grassroots. It's cheaper than having big, big events. You can go back to people and keep raising from them until they max out. And people have skin in the game once they give you money and it's. And the press sees it as a sign correctly of grassroots support. Look how much money this Guy raised as a candidate in, in 2016 online. This is a one, please. And just comparing it to two other folks. Donald Trump in 2024, Kamala Harris in 2024, Rubio raised about $7 million online, small dollars in 2016. Now that's 10 years ago. And there's more ways to raise money online. But, but look at this. Donald Trump raised over 300 million. Kamala Harris, 400 million. Again, this is apples to oranges because they were the general election nominees, but that is a, that is a paltry sum for someone of Rubio's profile. And, and again, I wonder, I know that. I know elites like him. I know a lot of fat cat donors like him. I know a lot of his colleagues like him. Again, universally liked by a lot of elites. And we saw in the media. But, but do, do regular people like him? Right. Then there's a question of performance. There's that famous State of the Union response I mentioned. This happened in a debate in New Hampshire in 2016 when Chris Christie decided that he had to take out Rubio. Now, Chris Christie is a very good debater, a very former prosecutor, very smart guy. Christie decided in this, going into this debate at St. Anselm College, basically, I'm going to try to take out Rubio. And Rubio went in there having done extremely well in Iowa with an opportunity to become the alternative to Trump. Look what Chris Christie did to Filet Marco Rubio. This is S5.

[B]

Please let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is trying to change this country. He wants America to become more like the rest of the world. We don't want to be like the rest of the world. We want to be the United States of America. And when I'm elected president, this will become once again the single greatest nation in the history of the world. Not the disaster Barack Obama has imposed upon us.

[A]

You see, everybody, I want the people at home to think about this. That's what Washington D.C. does. The drive by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25 second speech, that is exactly what his advisors gave him. See, see, Marco, Marco, the thing is this. When you're president, United States, when you're a governor of a state, the memorized 32nd speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it, doesn't solve one problem for one person.

[B]

Chris, your state got hit by a massive snowstorm two weeks ago. You didn't even want to go back. They had to shame you into going back. And then you stayed there for 36 hours and then he left and came back to campaign. Those are the facts. Here's the bottom line. This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not there. It is.

[A]

He knows exactly the memorized 25 second speech. So if you didn't follow it there, just, just to make the point that at the time, again, this is a decade ago. Gobsmacked people. Christie accuses Rubio of giving a pre canned answer, a rehearsed line and response. Part of Rubio's response was to repeat the exact same line he just said. And again, would he do that today? Probably not. But, but it was cautionary for people to say, how could the guy, how could the guy fall right into that? The other thing that happened back then was when he, he thought he could be the Trump alternative, he decided rather than denigrate Donald Trump's technique of criticizing people, of mocking people in a very, uh, out there way, uh, Rubio decided for one brief moment, never did it again. Rubio decided, you know what? I'm going to, I'm going to fight fire with fire. I'm going to go after Donald Trump the way he's gone after me, Rubio and everybody else in the race. This is, this is cringy. It's cringy. This is Marco Rubio, for a brief moment in the 2016 campaign, deciding to fight fire with fire and go after Donald Trump in personal terms. S2, please.

[B]

He says he's always calling me Little Marco. And I'll admit the guy, he's taller than me is like 6:2, which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who's 5 2. Have you seen his hands?

[A]

They're like this.

[B]

And you know what they say about men with small hands. You can't trust them. You can't trust them. You can't trust them.

[A]

All right, so again, if I'm using the 2016 Marco Rubio Presidential campaign as a template, as a, as a sample space to try to understand how would he be as a presidential candidate? I don't know. I mean, again, that wasn't great. That didn't go well. And he never did it again because I think he recognized it didn't go well. He, he acknowledged as much. So poor debate performance or grassroots fundraising or judgment about how to react to being attacked personally, does that mean he wouldn't be a good candidate? No. And again, he's improved so much since then. But, but I just think people who are, who are, you know, measuring the Oval Office drapes form, or at least the Republican nomination drapes, whatever those would be, need to think about how was he as a candidate last time. Okay, then we get to. Then we get to the. What I think is driving a lot of this, besides people loving Marco Rubio and a lot of people in my sources do, is Vance. Concerns that Vance is not handling himself well. Not just shackled to the administration, their gas prices and potential bloodbath in the midterms and, and the Iran war, but a belief that the, the downside image of Vance is true, that he's a phony, that he's not good with people, that he, that he comes off as. As aloof or odd to some. So he went to Iowa on Tuesday. A big moment. If you're ever thinking about running for president, you're doing a big political event in Iowa. It's a big deal. He met with some of the big power brokers in the party. The kind of people you meet with if you're thinking of running for president someday because the Iowa caucuses, while the Democrats have eliminated them, will be big for the Republicans. And then he gave a stump speech. Here's a little bit of advance in Iowa. Please, please take a seat. We're going to be here. You gave a politician a microphone. We got about three hours to go, so I don't want anybody. No heat exhaustion. I mean, think finding fraud in the federal government. It's kind of like fishing in a barrel with dynamite. The media asked me who I voted for. None of your business. I can't wait to tell my wife when we get home that we've watched about nine episodes of X Men and my son has eaten four chocolate chip cookies. She's going to be very pleased and be very pleased with the vice president. Okay. I found that perfectly likable. But I will tell you, I've reached a conclusion. People, People improve. Rubio's improved. People who want to be president can improve. I will say that in the next two years, as people in the party and the media are comparing Rubio and Vance side by side, I don't think Vance can win him win the. The performance competition. I don't think the. I don't. In the likability. I may be wrong, but I just think Rubio is improved enough and the perceptions are such that Vance is going to have a hard time of people looking at him in a press conference, in an interview on the Stump, Whether he drops his nasty tweet Persona or not, I think he's going to have a hard time winning that. And that's a big part of how people think about presidential candidates and presidents likability, performance, etc. Okay, here's how the Vance trip got covered by some of the local TV stations in Des Moines. This is, this is. Yeah, is S7, please.

[C]

Now, of course, this stop isn't all about 2026. There is a lot of speculation that Vice President J.D. vance may actually run for president in 2028. And because Republicans in Iowa kick off the presidential race right here, Vance visiting this early state gives him an opportunity to test out his message with voters and also lay the groundwork for a potential bid for the White House.

[A]

Trump's vice president, J.D. vance, his trip to Iowa can help re engage with those MAGA followers on things like tax cuts, Warner on gas

[C]

prices was one of the biggest things that people outside the event wanted to hear about today. They didn't really hear much of anything about it.

[A]

Vance also applauded the Trump administration's tariff

[C]

policies and framed the GOP as being on the side of working class voters. If the Vice President decides to throw

[A]

his hat into the 2028 presidential run,

[C]

Iowa will host the first contest to select the Republican Party's next presidential nominee.

[A]

Pretty good coverage, but again, not as good as Rubio would got. Would have gotten, probably. Here's the bottom line for me, these two guys are genuine friends. And even though people tell me I'm naive, you cannot beat an incumbent vice president running for president unless you rip their face off. That's just, that's the way our politics work. So I do not think they'll run against each other. I also am not sure that one or both of them will run because their young dads, Vances, are about to have a baby. Rubio's kids are still relatively young and, and they both know what scrutiny is like. And they both know they're both smart enough to know that if they run, the level of scrutiny they get will be unlike anything they've ever gotten before. So if Vance chooses not to run, and I think that's a possibility probably because of his kids, I think Rubio will be in extremely strong position. I think he'll have the support of the president, of Vance, his friend, and I think he'll be pretty close to a lock for the nomination if Vance runs. I think they'll run together. I think there'll be a ticket and they may even announce as a ticket from the beginning of the campaign potentially and raise $2 billion before the new Hampshire primary. Vance is a very competitive guy. They both are. But my sense of it is Vance is in some ways more competitive than Rubio. Rubio is a little bit more laid back, a little bit more let things come to him. Obviously, you don't get to be Secretary of State if you're not competitive. They're both competitive. But I think Vance is more so. And I still think for all the current boom lit for, for Rubio, I still think in the end, if he runs and he's more likely to run than not, he'll be endorsed by the president and Rubio will be for him, not run against him and maybe run as his running mate. That's, that's where I see things based on all my reporting. But I will tell you this, this force for Rubio, this belief that things amongst some in the Republican Party, in both the establishment and the MAGA wing, that the Trump, the Trump administration is, is not going to succeed enough to make it possible for Vance to just waltz into the White House. And this love affair with Marco Rubio ain't going away. He's still going to be charming and funny and have the capacity demographically to revolutionize the party. Young heir of an outsider, even though he's got experience, it's not going away. Unless Rubio really messes stuff up, that's not going away. And so this dynamic will continue, and it's going to continue until Vance decides whether he's running. But the minute he decides if it's a yes, I continue to believe, contrary to some of my sources and a lot of the conventional wisdom, that Rubio will stand down. And we'll never know if that happens in the context of 2028, whether Rubio could beat Vance. I don't think it's going to come to that. We'll see. But everybody needs to temper their. Marcomania is. Is basically my message. Marcomania is strong in my world. And I'm not. I'm not saying he's not a contender because he is, but need to temper the Marcomania in part because of Vance's hold on the vice presidency and his support from Erica Kirk and others. Don Jr. And we need to temper it, looking at the 2016 experience. And we need to temper it because as great as Marco Rubio is currently seen, there's always questions about what happens when you actually get on the field. All right, that's my report for today. Let me know what you think. Am I undervaluing the strength of Rubio, am I under, am I overstating the strength of ants? Let me know what you hear, what you think, what you see. Send me an email nextup halpert gmail.com and let everybody know about the show. Also send it around to your friends, your family, the neighbors. Let everybody know that if they not an extra, they're missing out. If you're watching us on YouTube, make sure you subscribed. If you subscribe in YouTube.com NextUp Halperin, you'll get the full episodes, but also when we put bonus content up there. And if you're listening on the podcast version, always make sure your downloads are turned on. And please tell people about the show if you like it. Our ad budget's not as big as it should be. Let me just put it that way. We rely on you to spread the word. Thank you for that. All right, a quick break and then when we come back, next up, my friend Leland Vitter of News Nation, we'll talk about media coverage of the Iran conflict. Leland Vitter is next up. Did you know that high blood pressure is the number one risk factor for mortality? One in two adults has it. So that means there's a 5050 chance that you are walking time bomb. Here's some good news, though. You can take control of your blood pressure naturally without relying on Big Pharma. 120 Life is a blend of great tasting super fruit juices that have been shown to help lower blood pressure. It's backed by hundreds of doctors and trusted by thousands of people who've seen measurable results. And here's the very best part. It's completely risk free. Try 120Life for two weeks and if you don't see a difference in your numbers, you get your money back. Go to 120life.com that's120life.com use my code nextup to save 20% and get yourself free shipping. This is serious. This is your life we're talking about. 120 life can help. All right, next up and joining me in just a moment, Leland Bittert. He's News Nation's chief Washington anchor and every night he makes time to host On Balance with Leland Bittert on News Nation every weeknight, 9pm Eastern Time. One of my favorite Bill Clinton jokes, and let's be honest, Bill Clinton is not our funniest president. But one of my favorite jokes of his is he used to say, growing up in Arkansas, we were so poor that the only way anyone could make money was we took in each other's wash. And when I tell that joke, I think most people don't even understand what I'm talking about because they're, they don't understand what that means to take in each other's wash. The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that everyone I know now practically has their own show. And we just go on each other's shows and it's hilarious. I remember once, I won't say who it is, but a very famous person asked me to be on his show and then I went on his show and then I said, well, come on my show. And he's like, oh, no, I can't do that. That's not the kind of person I like. But the kind of person I like, ladies and gentlemen, is our next guest. Next up is Leland Vitter, on whose program I appear regularly, including as recently as last night, and who has graciously accepted the reciprocal obligation to come on Next up. Sir, welcome in.

[C]

Not an obligation and opportunity of the highest order.

[A]

All right. Well, I appreciate that. I want to talk about one of your favorite topics, which is to be clear eyed about the media. If you could put everybody in the media in a time machine and go to a week before the US Iran conflict began and put them in the Pepsi center or some big arena and said, okay, I've seen the future, here's what I think we've done. We will do poorly, but with this magical intercession, let's do better. What would you, what would you tell them to the media collective media about how to cover the war better than we've done?

[C]

Mark, I will say that journalists make lousy media critics. But with that caveat and disclaimer, what is shocking to me that has been lost in this conversation is anything about Iran, the evils of Iran, the victories against Iran, the successes of the US Military, which have been extraordinarily significant, and the long range effects of changing the Middle East. Donald Trump has single handedly remade the Middle east between term one and term two with the Abraham Accords. The Middle east is realigned behind Israel and the United States and away from Iran. And that's because Donald Trump understood the essential truth of the Middle east, which is that Iran is the root of all evil. The Palestinians and the Iranians have propagated this lie that the Palestinians were the root of all problems in the Middle East. Solve the Palestinian issue with Israel and somehow there would be figs, dates, olives and happy camels in the Middle East. That was a complete farce and that was meant to distract from the evil that the Iranians were doing. And the US Media, that prides itself on being so learned and so understanding of world affairs, has boiled this remaking of the Middle east, confronting America's single longest running enemy the past 47 years, into what does it cost to fill up your car? And that's yes, because the American people care about what it costs to fill up our car. But most people care because it is the lead story at 6pm every night on the local news and the national news.

[A]

I know you throat cleared and said you wouldn't be good at this, but that was brilliant. I mean, it's just is spot on. Of course Secretary Rubio made this point in the brief room the other day and really tried to bring back the focus of the press to at least be part of the conversation. To say, this is as the President says all the time. This has been the mission of every one of his immediate predecessors to try to deal with this. And, and he may fail, but he's trying to deal with it. And, and Iran is not some cute, adorable nation with happy camels. It has been the source of the murder and slaughter of both its own people and others. And you're absolutely right, that doesn't imbue the coverage. That's one of my two. I'll tell you what my other one is, and I'd literally love your perspective on this. To me, the challenge not just for the media, but for the, the American government and anyone who wants to be involved in the conversation about this is what's going on in Iran. Like, are restaurants open? How, how, how, how disrupted his business. And then of course, what's going on inside the government. Here's the thing I'm confused about, and I'd love your perspective on it. Every so often we see the Iranian foreign minister, like on CNN or, or talking to Kristen Welker. Every so often there's this one New York Times reporter is interviewing like today. She interviewed like a guy who works for the Iran Chamber of Commerce. It's possible every so often I've been able to interview like an academic, like a pro regime academic from Iran, but these things happen very rarely. It seems like in the age in which we live, we should be talking to Iranians every night. And I know there's a crackdown on talking to citizens, but what's the why? Why is that episodic and infrequent as opposed to every day?

[C]

Well, the problem for a lot of Iran is that they're cut off from the world. Right? Having a starlink or Any kind of outside access, sort of like North Korea, is a death sentence. Now the Iranians have cut off the Internet, basically with a big switch. Why the Israelis and the Americans did not, during the war, take out Iran's ability to limit the Internet and take out their firewall systems. I don't know. Maybe it wasn't possible, but that certainly would help the flow of information out of Iran. And the Iranians are using Russian systems and Chinese systems to find anybody with the Starlink and kill them. To your point about why isn't the regime putting more people out? I don't really know. I think probably one of the biggest problems right now inside of Iran is that there is a power struggle going on, which, by the way, another feature, not a bug of the US Military action. Anytime your enemy is fighting with each other, that's better than. It's a lot better than them fighting with you or being able to reconstitute and rearm. So I think your point's well made, that there's not a lot of information about what's coming out of Iran to that point. I think that should make the American media all the more skeptical of the Iranian regime and of what they say and all the more thoughtful about the evils of Iran. I'll just put a little finer point on what you said about killing millions. I think if you added it up, Iran. Iran is responsible for the killing of more people in the past 47 years since the Islamic Revolution than any other country that still exists.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

And for a media that prides itself on looking after women's rights and gay rights, in protecting those that are oppressed, they're awfully uninterested in the people that are being oppressed in. In Iran and awfully loving of the oppressors inside Iran, which I think tells you so much about not only the media, but also so many Democrats who are, I don't want to say rooting for Iran, but certainly aren't doing anything to help the American cause because they view it's bad for Donald Trump.

[A]

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. Again, there's still this question to me of like, are you trying to book the Iranian foreign minister every night and

[C]

getting a no or we've reached out, it's very opaque of how you get there. I also have, and I spent a lot of time in the Middle east and I've interviewed a lot of terrorists and everything else. I am very suspect of giving the Iranian regime unfettered access to American airwaves. Insofar as I think that they are known liars, they're known propagandists, and they are professionals at not answering the question. Now, sometimes you can say, well, by doing that interview, you're showing America who they are. Fine. There's not much the Iranian foreign minister that has said that is true in the past eight weeks. I have a hard time agreeing to often their ground rules that are required before any kind of interview to be willing to let them just sort of spew whatever it is that they want to spew.

[A]

Yeah, I want to. That was on my list of things I wanted to talk to you about because I think, I'm sure you and I mostly agree about this, but based on the way you just framed it, I disagree. I'll put people on NextUp or on two way who people say you're platforming them and, and, and I platform anybody as long as they're interesting and, or they have a following. So, for instance, we had Laura Loomer on two Way several months ago, and people criticize that I put on anybody. And the example I always give is bin Laden. When bin Laden was the, you know, the chief terrorist in the world, I was at abc. John Miller, who had a bunch of other jobs and did a big interview with bin Laden, I'd put the Iranian foreign minister on every night. I'd ask him tough questions, but even if he ignored them, I just, I just think there's. Again, I'm not trying to have a fight with you. I'm just trying to. This topic. I agree. I just, I just think if, if, you know, the Iranian foreign minister, I'd want to hear him every night. And, and I'd ask him hard questions. And if you didn't answer them at the end, I'd say, here's. Here are the questions you didn't answer. But what's the, what's the objection to putting him on every night? Just say, say it again. Of, of the argument against it.

[C]

I think it's. I think there's a nuance here because when I was at Fox and overseas, I interviewed Mohamed al Zawahiri.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Ayman al Zawahiri's brother, who was the leader of the Benghazi attacks and one of the original founders of Militant Muslim, the Muslim Brotherhood. And I had no problem putting him on because there were direct questions to ask, and his obfuscations made a real point. My bigger issue with the Iranian foreign minister is what are the ground rules that they are requiring, number one, and number two.

[A]

Sorry. Sorry to interrupt, but before you Leave. Number one, what's an example of a ground rule that they would require?

[C]

Whatever it is, I don't want to get into the inner discussions that we've had.

[A]

Well, but non specific. If you don't want to talk about specific, is it taking topics off limit?

[C]

Topics may be off limits. Or you can't put up video. I've had that. I'm not going to speak to the Iranian foreign minister, but I have had discussions where. Oh, you, you can't put up video of X while talking to me. Right. Because the most obvious thing to the Iranian foreign minister is to put up video of them killing their own people and all of the body bags and say, how can you claim to be the legitimate government of Iran? How many more of your own people are you going to slaughter? Right. There's all these sort of obvious things. Again, I don't want to get into our internal negotiations. That's just an example. But my point being, I don't have a problem with platforming people. My bigger question about the Iranian foreign minister, for my viewers, you say you'll put them on every night at some point, if somebody's just going to sit there and deny that the sky is blue or tell you, well, we've agreed to all these things that we haven't. That to me doesn't really serve our viewer in terms of enhancing their knowledge. Right. Or understanding of the situation. I think it's pretty obvious to anybody who knows the Iranians. Number one, they're lying. Number two, they'll tell you kind of whatever you want to hear in the moment and then do something else. I'd a lot rather take a hard look at what the Iranians are doing than what they're saying.

[A]

Yeah, all very sensible. At some point, if there's going to be a deal under any terms, the Iranians are going to have to acknowledge they have a nuclear weapons program. They may not want to say they've always had it, but they're going to have to say this thing that you guys think is a nuclear weapons program we're not going to have anymore. And until they say that, I don't think there can be a deal. And every night I want to hear what they say about that. So I get it. It can be boring and I get for some people it's about platforming, but I just feel like every time I see on X or, or on the BBC, anytime I see anything, any Iranian official says I'm super interested in it. Even if. Even if all we're doing is looking for Nuance or lack of nuance. In other words, if they say, yesterday we said the sky is green and today we still think the sky is green at this point, given the stakes here, I want, I thirst for it as a consumer of news, as a citizen of the world. And I'm just, like I said, sometimes that guy, the foreign minister is available and sometimes he's not. But I just want, I want unlimited that.

[C]

It's a, it's a great point. The only other thing I would say, and this speaks to, I think a really big problem not only for the media but for the American government as well. The other problem with interviewing the Iranians, any Iranian official, is you have no idea who you are talking to vis a vis the regime. Is the Iranian foreign minister relevant even in these conversations or is he a mouthpiece speaking for a couple of people who may still be in the government and have absolutely no say in any deal? So I think, Mark, you know, one of the things about like Baghdad Bob or when I was interviewing Ayman Al Zahiri's brother is you knew who they spoke for. You knew who Bin Laden was. The Iranian foreign minister can either be a very meaningful person in these negotiations or he can be like what President Trump describes is talking to the Iranians. And one Muhammad says one thing and the other Muhammad says, oh, never mind. That guy has absolutely no say in what we do. And by the way, we never talk to you.

[A]

Yeah, well said. You're a fancy anchor now. You almost never leave the air conditioned studio, but back when you were Middle east correspondent and you traveled around, if you could, if your safety could be guaranteed, and that's a crazy hypothetical, but if you, if you could be in Tehran now, would that be a good assignment? And like what would you do?

[C]

Well, it's a great question. You say if your safety can be guaranteed, if you say what the regime wants you to say, your safety is guaranteed. That that's fairly fair. I don't, again, I don't know what the value in going would be if you couldn't report freely. And you saw CNN get a lot of flack for just puppeting the regime's talking points in return for being allowed to go in so that I, I would not do. No, I think if you were there, obviously you would want to report on. What are the Iranian resistance groups doing? They exist. We know they exist. Why have they not risen up? Is there a resistance or possible secondary government? Government in waiting forming? Is there fractures inside the regime? What do those look like? These are all things that if you were there and had, you know, kind of fairy godmother, like protection you could go report on, that's not something you could do right now.

[A]

Yeah. It's interesting because again, the ap, like, a few weeks ago, they had some reporters drive from, I think it was north of Tehran, like, miles and miles, and they drove to Tehran and on the ramp they did reporting, just like you're describing. And again, I just don't quite understand why they were able to do that once, you know, and I understand American organizations not being in, but like, shouldn't the Dutch be in there? Shouldn't the British be in there?

[C]

You know, Mark, the one thing I learned when I was in the Middle east and I was there for the transition between when journalists were a protected class.

[A]

Right.

[C]

To when journalists became targets. And it happened very quickly, you know, basically, you know, from Egypt, the Arab Spring, through Libya and then into Syria when ISIS started beheading people. That was only a couple of years. And I think there's a lot of journalists now, rightfully so, in a lot of organizations that realize that we are no longer a protected class. In fact, we're a targeted class. We are now legitimate targets to then be traded or tortured or held or anything like that. So it doesn't surprise me, especially with the cruelty of the Iranians, that no one is sending people in. The flip side of that is for media organizations, especially Americans, that seem so concerned with defensive democracy, the freedom of the press, anyone who dares attack the press or criticize them, they are awfully accepting of everything the Iranians do in the name of brutality and regime survival that they ignore. And it's perplexing to me. The only obvious answer is anything that could be good for Donald Trump they won't report on. And that sort of seems to be where we're at.

[A]

Yeah. Last question. If. If you could have any two bookings on your show tonight are related to the Iran war, broadly, not counting President Trump, any two bookings, who would you take

[C]

and into the sense that they would. They would tell me what. What is it that they're going to actually answer the questions?

[A]

I can't guarantee that you can have any. It doesn't have to be Iranians. It could be anybody in the world besides President Trump to talk about the Iran war. And you take what you get. They may not tell you a thing.

[C]

Would your two choices be MBS of Saudi Arabia?

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

You either MBS or mbz. MBZ of. Of the United Arab Emirates?

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I think one of those two would Be really interesting. I think you'd have to say. And I don't have a. You. You'd have to say, like the head of the Iranian revolution, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard of the irgc, whoever's the head of that right now. Yeah, that. That would probably be the answer, but you'd have to say that. I would put it opaquely. Right. Whoever's actually in charge of Iran right now, or who speaks for that person, we just don't know who it is.

[A]

Yeah. God help your booker. If that were your instructions to go

[C]

go figure out who's in charge of Iran.

[A]

Book them. I'll tell you mine. Mine would be that person. Same thing. And. And President Xi of China. That'd be a good booking, right, to get.

[C]

Yeah, that'd be a very good booking, especially ahead of the summit.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

Putin right now would be a very good booking.

[A]

Yeah, I was thinking of Putin, except we know his answers would be ridiculous. And your show's only an hour, so you'd probably get a couple questions.

[C]

Well, yeah, and you'd get, you get a long history of the, the, all the ways Russia has been. Agreed. But Xi is the same way. I think. I think those guys who are so scripted like that. It's a great booking and it's an uninteresting interview.

[A]

I would, I would break Xi's discipline. I would, I would wear him down. He'd be confessing to everything and, and giving the inside story of his efforts to make peace. Leland, thank you, man. Grateful to you for making time always fun.

[C]

Thanks, Mark.

[A]

Ladies and gentlemen, if you, if you enjoyed this moment, this opportunity, this brief interlude with Leland, believe it or not, you can catch him every night for a full hour, minus the commercials. 9pm Eastern Time on News Nation. Leland Vitter. Leland, thank you, man. Grateful to you. All right, up next, or as we say here, next up, 8 for 28 hate. We take a look at your reactions to my May rankings of the eight most likely Democratic presidential nominees in 2028. The hate will be on full display. Right back with that. That's next up. Are you being lied to? They tell you to defer paying your taxes by saving, say, in a 401k or an IRA because you'll retire in a lower tax bracket. But if that were true, why are so many retirees now in the highest tax brackets of their lives? It's time now to get the truth and discover a better way to grow and protect your money. Bank on yourself is the proven retirement plan alternative that big banks and Wall street desperately hope you never hear about. It gives you guaranteed predictable growth that doesn't go backward when the market drops. It can provide you tax free retirement income under current tax law, putting you in control of your future tax rate. You also have control of your money. Access it when you need to with no government penalties or any restrictions and your money keeps growing even when you use it. You can get a free report that reveals how you can bank on yourself and enjoy tax free retirement income, guaranteed growth and the control of your own money. Just go to bankonyourself.com mark and get that free report. That's bankonyourself.com mark again. Go now to bankonyourself.com/mark. All right, next up, we're looking at their reaction, questions, comments, concerns and a little bit of hate from what we had on our last episode. My May last rankings 8 for 28 most likely Democratic presidential nominees. And as always, people have some strong feelings. Let's look at the latest rankings for this month. Just to remind everybody, Gavin Newsom won moved Harris from further down to number two, Josh Shapiro from two down to three. Buttigieg number four, debuting Bernie Sanders at number five, which I knew would cause some controversy. Rahm Emanuel six, Andy Beshear at seven and Jon Ossoff at eight. First time Ossoff on the list. Again, the ones I knew would be controversial. Harris is always Kamala Harris always going to be controversial. But I knew the Sanders one would and, and maybe Ossoff and and sure enough, that's what the reaction's been like. Lots of emails and lots of comments on both Instagram and on X. So let's start with the Sanders one. I made my best case and I still have people, both political professionals and some people outside politics, excuse me, who are interested questioning it. Lots of people basically just saying I'm nuts. But here's one I like from Kenny. Kenny wrote this. Kenny said, mark, I thought you were crazy to include Bernie Sanders, but I think you made a strong case for him. Stranger things have happened. I appreciate that. Kenny goes on to say that he he thinks that both Bashir and Rahm Emanuel should be higher because conservatives will like them. We'll get back to that theme in a second. But Kenny, I appreciate you listening closely and hearing me out on Sanders. I've heard a few other people say that, but most people still saying I'm nuts. Here's another one and is an issue I raised in in the monologue about the rankings. This is from On X from MF Hussey, CFA CMT said says this. You've said it yourself, Mark, there's no way today's Democratic Party will nominate a Jew. So no Bernie, no Rom, no Josh Shapiro and I should say both Ossoff is as well as the governor of Illinois, he'd say I'll add that a party disproportionately relying on black support won't nominate a gay man. Pete Buttigieg, he says there fix it for you and now you're at four. So what he says is if the party's not going to nominate a gay person or Jew, my list gets cut in half. And of course, as we've discussed here before, some people say they won't nominate a woman or a person of color. So if we do all that, we're basically just down to to Gavin Newsom and Andy Beshear, they can arm wrestle for it.

[C]

All right.

[A]

Another big theme that came up was this question of adding Ossoff to the list. And our friend Andrew Kova at at Turning Point USA wrote this on Twitter. He said on actually says what is also done for Dem insiders to mention him or is it just the classic Democrat pension to want to find white males to run because they know how much they've alienated the larger demo. Andrew, thank you for that. You know, when I do my reporting on this, it's not just quote unquote Dem insiders in addition to talking to some Republicans I'm constantly sampling thanks to Two Way and NextUp Nexters here, grassroots opinion. What justifies Ossoff being on there is first of all he's on track to win reelection in a pretty red slash purple state, but state certainly that's more red and then than blue. And he's just demonstrating a lot of the things Democrats want. Grassroots Democrats want very tough on Trump but also talking about the real lives of real people and issues that matter to folks. So Ostoff has said he's not interested in running, but I'm going to expect if he does win reelection handily and in Georgia for a Democrat that means a couple points. I suspect he's going to be under a lot of pressure to look at it. He's young even though he's a senator, he's got the vibes of an outsider and and the party definitely wants that. Lastly, again, this issue of whether the Democrats will vote for a centrist and this goes back to one of the these tensions which we talked about in the monologue. This is an email from William or Billy. Billy says I enjoy your take on this as a former centrist Democrat, now independent, I'm personally pulling for those centrist Democratic candidates like Rahm Emanuel and Andy Beshear. He says he's from Kentucky and for Ossoff. And then he says, what about Jared Polis? He's the governor of Colorado. I think he's fantastic. He'd be a great candidate. I'd enjoy hearing your take. So again, here's the tension as we talked about in last episode. The party tends to nominate people who are more moderate, but there's also this issue of in some ways for electability in the general. But this is not about who can win a general election. And we know that the party is more moderate, more progressive in terms of the grassroots and the influence, the grassroots than it's been really in the generations. And so maybe a moderate will win. That's still my gut. But the progressives like Sanders or whoever runs instead of Sanders, they're going to have a moment. They're going to have their moment to try to win. So Jared Polis is interesting, governor of Colorado. He certainly would like to be president. There's no doubt about that. But my sense from talking to folks is he's not thinking of running this cycle. But let's see somebody like that who can raise a decent amount of money, not as much as others. Let's see if he decides to jump in if some of these other people on the list now take a pass. Always grateful to get feedback on 8 for 28. And thank you for whether you sent an email or went on social media. Love to hear the comments and what people are thinking. It helps me work through as I think about the June edition. So thank you for that. Always like to hear what I got wrong and what you agree with. All right, next up after a quick break. Hi Amore, Democratic strategist and one of the new members of the two Way Morning Meeting community. Contributors will be here. Jaime Moore is next up. All right, so think about the last 30 bucks that you spent, maybe on a streaming subscription you don't watch or a lunch you've already forgotten about. That's $30 that's gone forever. Acre Gold lets you turn that lost money into physical 24 karat Swiss gold. You pick a plan you like, your balance builds. And once you hit the price of a bar, they ship it straight to your front door. We're talking real gold here in your hand at your house. And over time, you're sitting on something that's been valuable since the dawn of civilization. And for you collectors out there, they've just dropped the limited edition Hot Wheels collection. These are officially licensed by Mattel. Really cool, strictly capped. And once they're gone, they are history. While you're checking those out, claim your free entry to the Speed Club sweepstakes. They're giving away a 1 gram Hot Wheels gold bar plus a massive grand prize, the 10 gram 24 karat gold Hot Wheels bar. Both come in official collector packaging and they're up for grabs right now. Start stacking for just $30 at getacregold.com mark again, that's getacregold.com mark go on. Subscribe today.

[C]

A vacation rental shouldn't come with surprises.

[A]

It should come with verbo Care and 24.

[C]

7 Life Support. If the hot tub's broken, that's a verbo care thing. If my teenager starts calling me Leslie, that's a family thing. Lesl Verbo Care and 24. 7 Life Support. If you know you've erbo terms apply. Seeverbo.com trust for details.

[A]

All right, next up and joining me now, Jaime Moore, principal at Cornerstone Government affairs and a former director in the office of the Democratic National Committee's chair's office, and this week joined the Two Way Family. Officially, he's been a regular in the morning meeting in Two Way tonight, but is one of our contributors now on the morning meeting. Jaime, welcome back to next up.

[D]

Good to see you. Happy to be a part of the family.

[A]

Yeah. Really happy to have you here and grateful to you for making time. We talked, I talked in my monologue about Marco Rubio and how he's having this moment. I remember in 1998, George W. Bush was seen as a big threat to win the White House. Successful governor in Texas, appeal to Hispanic voters, black voters, young voters, and the Democratic Party knew you got to slow this guy down. We got to slow him down. So you're too young. You ever heard of Tony Morrow? You know, that is.

[D]

Yeah, I do, actually. All right.

[A]

All right. So Tony was the person nominated to run against Bush. And Al Gore went down to Texas and campaigned with Tony Morrow. And they did their best to prop him up, but Bush, Bush destroyed him and built up momentum to become the Republican nominee and a formidable general election candidate. Here's my question to you. If you were at the DNC and you were in charge of the Stop Rubio war room, to say, look, guys, if this guy continues unmolested politically and becomes a Republican nominee in 28, he's going to be hard to beat. And, and right now the media is just, it's just a slobber love fest. So if you were in charge of that war room, oppo research, social media, et cetera, what would you do to try to slow Marco Rubio down?

[D]

Well, one mark, we can't be surprised. I think the dnc, we did this, you know, a few years ago where you would do sort of the book, you know, on all of the prospective candidates. And so I think they probably have one on Marco Rubio already because we've seen this coming from a while. So you start with the book and then look, Marco Rubio, who's been a senator, has been in politics for so long, he said so many things, he's made so many policy decisions. And so you go back and you have to comb through all of those things. You either remind people when he was absolutely in opposition to Donald Trump to just sort of draw some distinction between the two of them and sort of kind of play them against each other. And then two, you have to say, you have to remind people of things that he's done and said that are antithetical to what he's doing right now, what he's saying right now. So make him seem like he is a flip flopper or someone who's wish washy. And then you look at all his social media. You know, he said things about Donald Trump in 2016. He said things about other Republicans in 2016. You remind people what those things were.

[A]

So you're absolutely right about phase one, which is you got to collect all that stuff. And as you suggested, you can make him seem unappealing to the general election electorate, but you can also drive wedges between him and maga, him and the president. But how do you execute that? Because they had a book on bush too, in 98. Where does that happens on social. Do you need a surrogate? Do you need, who's like, how do you, how do you get that out in the bloodstream to start taking, slowing him down?

[D]

Well, you need all the above. And you know, right now what I, what I imagine, I don't know, I haven't heard this because I don't work there anymore. But what I imagine Democrats are doing is they're all these reporters who you're talking about who are feigning over Marco Rubio. The Democratic machine is sending them oppo research, sending them quotes, sending them things to just sprinkle into the coverage of Marco. They say, you know, we love him, but in 2016 he said this. So that's one part.

[A]

The second thing is let me, let me stop you on that one, because I really want to get in the nitty gritty of this to give people the benefit of your understanding of how this works. Like if, if, if, if a reporter who's writing how great Marco Ruby is, if they get a thing that says, oh, remember in 2016 he had this, these weird payments from a college and it seemed like it was pay to play, they're not going to put that in the story. Like, it fights the, it fights the current momentum. I just, I, I just think if sending that stuff out now is not going to work, that's my judgment as a reporter. Because the reporters aren't going to argue, how do you, how do you, how do you change the paradigm? So whether they're including it in the stories, because I went back and looked, there hadn't been a negative story about the guy. He's, he's the Secretary of state and the national security advisor during a war which many people say aren't going well, that's not even getting in the story. So, so you got the oppo research, you reach out to reporters, but how do you get the paradigm change? So they're putting that in the stories or writing whole stories about, well, maybe he's not so great.

[D]

Yeah, well, there are two parts to that. I mean, I come from the old school of feeding the beast. So regardless of if it's not covered immediate or, you know, if the reporter's not going to put that in that story, they'll have some context for future stories. So that's one part. The second part, you know, we're in the world of online influence right now, and so you have to figure out a way to get to the MAGA influencers, to get to the super liberal influencers and sort of feed them a message that, you know, you mentioned this a second ago on the MAGA side. You know, he's not MAGA enough. He is not a Donald Trump acolyte. And so how do we feed that flame? And then the second piece on the liberal side, just to start inoculating on the general election, start feeding that. You know, this is why Marco is too liberal. I mean, sorry, too conservative. Or this is why he'll take it too far, Too much of a war of a hawk or something like that. So that's a big piece of it. But a lot of this right now, Mark, you know, you have to sort of ride the wave. You know, Marco's having a moment, and I think we knew he would have a moment. And so you don't expect, expect to undercut him at this exact moment. This is going to be something that they're going to build on for months and months to come. And so you'll see some friendly reporters, some liberal reporters who are going to start writing these stories that sort of, here's the real biography of Marco Rubio from a liberal perspective. And so you'll see those things happen over the next couple months. It won't all happen right now.

[A]

Let's say between now and the midterms. What would be a realistic but dream hit where if you worked in that DNC war room, you say the National Review attacked him or the Wall Street Journal editorial page, what would be something that could happen this year to slow him down that would be realistic?

[D]

Well, I think, and we'll talk about this at some point, but look, the Iran war, the continued relationship with Russia or lack thereof, and then obviously what happens in China over the next couple weeks, those can be a big pieces of him telling his story. Because you got to think about this. One of the things that J.D. vance is going to have an advantage over Marco is he'll be in the news all the time during the primary season and during the general election because he can do that. Secretary of State can't do domestic politicking. And so if the war goes poorly, if the China summit goes poorly, if Russia continues to become aggressive, then we can start drawing a picture around him being a warhawk and things are just not going well and not being America first. But he will get some distance from, from the domestic policy stuff because JD Will be the face of that over the next couple months. It's going to be tricky, you know, sort of telling the big Marco isn't the right guy story right now. That's probably more of a, of a, of a later fall story than it is pre midterm.

[A]

We talk about your mom and her sensibilities sometimes. Could you see your mom voting for Marco Rubio in a general election against the Democrat?

[D]

Look, I, Mark, I'll be honest with you. What I'd said this, you know, six, seven months ago. I said, if you're a Republican, you ought to be looking at Marco Rubio, and you have to give him a really close look because he does have some mass appeal and he does have an ability, as we saw this week, you know, with the levity he brought to that. We haven't had that amount of levity in the, in the press, in the press room in quite some time.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And the way he commended the press and where he commanded such a different diverse audience So I think he will have some appeal to black Southern women who are religious, and he can build from that.

[A]

Yeah. So if you were out to dinner with a bunch of your friends who were not professional Democrats, but people who voted for Biden and Harris and Obama, and they said, you know, Barcarube seems like a nice guy, you know, young dad, and if he's funny and multicultural, what would you say to him? What would you say to them to keep the. To keep the Rubio flame from burning brighter?

[D]

I mean, look, I think that's the only anecdote to that right now is having a viable Democratic candidate that Democrats and independents can coalesce around and start see some of those same attributes in that person. But as it stands, you know, there's something to say about compassion and conservatism, as you and I both know, and that was one of Bush's big components. And so if Marco can continue to show that level of compassion and exude that through social media and through the media, I think it's going to be really hard to make a case that he won't be a viable nominee for. For the Republicans.

[A]

Yeah. You know, again, I just think so much about the bush experience in 98. You've laid out in this conversation probably more thought than has actually been given to it at the DNC because they're so busy, they have so much to do there. And, and the thought of saying we're going to put serious bandwidth, we're going to develop a whole ad campaign, a social media campaign, and brief surrogates on this when they're trying to win the midterms, it just. It's just not realistic. It's unfortunate for the party's point of view. If. Fast forward to January of 2029, and Marco Rubio is taking the oath of office for president because. Because it's a little bit of a paradox. They know they need to do it, but. But, but they just. They just don't have the time or the bandwidth or the resources. And Rubio, he's not even doing that much. Like, there's such a love affair for him now that he does one stint in the briefing room, and all of a sudden people are just. Just so gaga for him. And again, I'll say, I've heard from so many Democrats this week, either this guy's really going to be a challenge if he's the nominee, or, hey, I kind of, again, not professional Democrats saying, I like this guy. Like, like, what's wrong with Rubio? Like, why, why wouldn't I support Rubio if it were, you know, whoever for the Democrats. Right.

[D]

No, you're going to be, you're going to be hearing that a lot more. But look, you know, there's a lot of talk about the DNC right now and about sort of the leadership chairman, Ken Martin. Very well. I've worked with them for years. And I think one, and there are two things that I think he's really good at. He's really good at walking and chewing gum because, you know, he had to do that when he was in Minnesota. And Minnesota, as you, as we all know, has just been a mess for quite some time and he's had to wade through that. But the second piece is he's really good at elections. And you've seen and while he can't articulate the story right now, but he's been at the center of winning a lot of these Democratic elections over the last couple of months. And so he's looking toward 2028 because he understands that, you know, Jeffries and Schumer have got to put more stake in the midterms than he does. And so he does have the ability to do, to look forward a little bit more than the other other committees.

[A]

Next time you see him, ask him what his plan is to slow down the Rubio Express.

[D]

No, I will. I'm going to text him after this.

[A]

All right, Text me. Forward the text. Hi, Momore. Grateful to you. Love having you on. And like I said, I knew you'd have such a clear eyed view about how to do this. And every day I'm just going to be checking, is anybody listening to Jaime's advice on how to get this done? That's what I'll be looking for.

[D]

I love that. Let's play that clip. I love it.

[A]

Yeah. All right, man. Thank you, Mark.

[D]

Good to see you.

[A]

All right, that's it for today's program. We'll be back on Tuesday, a whole brand new episode. Hope everybody has a great weekend. A reminder, please share the program around. Subscribe yourself on YouTube, YouTube and where you get your podcast. But also tell all your friends to become Nexters. Thank you. Join us always. So you know what's coming next up.