This Is How Trump Will Destroy His Own Goons

Summary

Podcast Summary: "This Is How Trump Will Destroy His Own Goons"

Inside Trump's Head
Hosts: Michael Wolff & Joanna Coles
Release Date: July 5, 2026
Podcast by The Daily Beast

---

Overview:

This episode plunges into the tumult of the 2026 election season, focusing on Trump’s peculiar capacity for self-sabotage and the unprecedented psychological hold he maintains over the Republican Party. Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles debate whether Trump’s conduct is setting the GOP up for electoral disaster, dissect the Democrats' uncanny knack for self-destruction, and examine the most consequential Senate and House races. Throughout, they analyze the "wave" effect, Trump’s psychological impact, Democratic messaging failures, and the personalities driving the changing landscape of American politics, all with an unvarnished and insightful banter.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

---

1. The State of the Election & "The Trump Effect"

• Historic Stakes: With four months to go, this election is pitched as possibly "the most historic election in our lifetimes" ([00:00]).
• Trump’s Self-Sabotage: Wolff repeatedly asserts, “Donald Trump’s capacity to shoot himself in the foot should never be underestimated” ([00:06], [38:58]), suggesting Trump’s instinct for undermining both his own standing and his party.
• The "Wave" Theory: Wolff argues the only thing that matters is the prevailing mood—a wave either for or against Trump that will broadly dictate results, superseding individual races.

  "If the wind is against Donald Trump, as it seems now that it is... the blue tsunami is going to carry all of the Democrats into Congress and effectively Donald Trump out." — Michael Wolff ([03:18])

• Republican Malaise: Wolff and Coles agree that current Republican candidates seem “depressed, embarrassed,” less motivated and less supported by Trump ([06:14], [07:34]).
• Trump’s Luck & Media Mastery: Trump’s “remarkable luck” and “gift to command attention” are acknowledged as enduring strengths that could disrupt expectations at any moment ([19:54], [20:19]).

---

2. Democrats: Still Their Own Worst Enemy?

• Chronic Dysfunction:

  "I’m just amazed, frustrated, furious... that they screw it up constantly." — Michael Wolff ([11:28])

• Authenticity Deficit: Wolff claims Democrats sound “relentlessly phony,” driven by focus groups and a lack of original ideas ([11:56]).
• Counterpoint: Coles counters that a new generation of Democratic candidates—disciplined, mission-oriented, often with military backgrounds—are more impressive and serious ([12:35]).
• Messaging: The Dems’ strategy is described as defaulting to “the economy, stupid”—now framed as “affordability”—but lacking credibility with solutions ([13:05]).

  “They just changed the name of an old idea?” — Michael Wolff ([13:23])

• Leadership Vacuum: The absence of a single national Democratic leader is seen as a double-edged sword: a weakness, but also potentially an advantage versus the monolithic focus on Trump ([37:19], [37:42]).

---

3. The Senate Races: Maine & Texas

• Maine: Graham Platner vs. Susan Collins
  • Platner, running as a progressive, seemingly has “a slight advantage,” but Wolff doubts his chances due to being a “wild card” versus the experienced, professional Collins ([21:40], [22:07], [16:36]).
  • Coles maintains Platner benefits from a “favorability to new candidates versus old” and enormous influx of campaign funds ([21:54]).
• Texas: James Talarico vs. Ken Paxton
  • Remarkable because Trump forced out incumbent John Cornyn in favor of Paxton, “a character very much like himself—impeached, shameless, brilliant at commanding attention” ([23:32], [24:10]).
  • Talarico, described as mild-mannered, exudes decency, but the true dynamic is whether voters will reject the scandal-plagued Paxton ([24:16], [24:38]).
  • Wolff and Coles speculate if “mild” might be back in fashion, citing Andy Beshear as an example ([25:03]).
• Overarching Stakes: The Democrats need to win four Senate seats without losing any—a significant challenge but not impossible given the “wave” theory ([27:00]).

---

4. House Races & Notable Candidates

• Tom Keene Jr. (New Jersey):
  • Keene vanished, missing 100 votes. His absence is now revealed as due to depression, sparking commentary on mental health in politics ([27:46]-[30:45]).
  • Democrat Rebecca Bennett, a helicopter pilot, is running against him. Wolff is skeptical of “helicopter pilot” as a political qualification, while Coles defends the calm composure and military generation entering politics ([31:00]-[31:45]).
• Far-left Democrats and Party Identity:
  • Discussion of figures like Chevalier, Mamdani, and the Democratic Socialists—seen as both a hope and a fear for the party's future, especially regarding pro-Gaza platforms and leftward lurch ([32:45]-[34:40]).
  • Wolff warns that Republicans may successfully use Chevalier and the far-left as negative symbols in swing races ([34:15]-[35:43]).

---

5. The Nationalization of the Election

• “Vote Nationally, Ignore the Left?”
  • Dems aim to nationalize the message as “against Trump,” but GOP will nationalize using the far-left’s positions—especially Chevalier as an attack vector ([35:00]-[36:59]).
• Republican Message:
  • Trump “simplifies and repeats,” successfully distilling complex matters into powerful slogans, whereas Democrats “complicate and digress” ([21:16], [21:23], [21:26]).

  “Democrats complicate and digress.” — Michael Wolff ([21:26])

• Effect of Gerrymandering:
  • While designed to protect GOP seats, Wolff points out that gerrymandering can inadvertently weaken Republicans if a Democratic wave is large enough, making “zero sum” shifts between districts ([41:16]-[41:47]).

---

6. Trump, Loyalty, and Blame

• Post-Election Blame:
  • Wolff predicts Trump will simply “deny it and blame someone else” if things go badly—and might even be undermining the GOP in anticipation ([10:55], [11:02], [26:29]).
  • Coles: “He’ll clearly blame John Cornyn somehow” if Texas is lost ([26:18]).

  “There is no such phrase even for Donald Trump. How can you even say that out…” — Joanna Coles ([26:39])

• Bipartisan Bill Sabotage:
  • Trump is refusing to sign the bipartisan Housing Act, dismissing a key issue for campaign optics and harming Republicans' ability to show concern for voters ([39:39]).
• Narrative Control:
  • Trump’s readiness to “pull something out of the bag” remains a wild card, as illustrated by how the Pennsylvania shooting incident gave his campaign surprising momentum in the past ([19:34], [38:23]).

---

7. Memorable Quotes

• “If the wind is against Donald Trump... then it’s over.” — Michael Wolff ([00:00])
• “Donald Trump’s capacity to shoot himself in the foot should never be underestimated.” — Michael Wolff ([38:58])
• “Democrats complicate and digress.” — Michael Wolff ([21:26])
• “Simplify and repeat. Even if it’s completely untrue.” — Joanna Coles ([21:23])
• “There is no such phrase even for Donald Trump… There is a bridge further.” — Joanna Coles ([26:39])
• “This is like Germany. The playoffs at this point, so exciting.” — Michael Wolff ([26:58])
• “I’m pro women having choice over their own bodies… If that’s a Democrat position, then I’m a Democrat.” — Joanna Coles ([14:55])

---

8. Timestamps for Key Sections

• [03:18] — The "wave" vs. specific races
• [06:14] — Republican malaise and turnout
• [12:35] — New generation of Democratic candidates
• [19:34] — “Butler, Pennsylvania moment” and Trump’s unpredictability
• [21:16] — Trump’s message consistency (Iran war)
• [22:07] — Maine Senate race detailed discussion
• [23:12] — Texas Senate race and the Paxton saga
• [27:46] — Tom Keene’s disappearance and mental health
• [32:45] — Rise of Democratic Socialist candidates
• [35:00] — Chevalier and the challenge for swing races
• [39:39] — Trump and the bipartisan Housing Act
• [41:16] — Effects and risks of gerrymandering

---

Notable Moments

• Banter over how “mild” candidates or “fresh blood” may or may not be the answer to political disillusionment ([16:58]-[17:16]).
• The duo’s repeated bets on Senate outcomes—over mugs, naturally—injects lightness and stakes ([22:46]).
• Coles’ defense of being a “political nerd” and her confession that Trump is what got her truly interested in American politics ([43:39]-[45:02]).
• The snappy thread of “where is Tom Keene?” and the handling of mental health in politics stands out as both lightly comic and serious ([28:27]-[30:45]).

---

Tone & Style

• The conversation is candid, sharp, often sardonic, mixing world-weary skepticism (especially Wolff’s) with Coles’ persistent optimism about “fresh blood” and Democratic seriousness.
• Frequent light mockery—of each other, the parties, political rituals—gives the episode a brisk, irreverent energy.
• Deep dives into nuanced dynamics balance out the wry asides, making for an engaging, intellectual, and at times provocative listen.

---

In sum:
This episode offers a trenchant, personality-driven analysis of the 2026 midterm chaos, the paradoxes driving both parties, and the way Trump’s inimitable psychology continues to warp the destiny of American politics. Wolff and Coles’ banter frames the stakes and uncertainties of the coming months with insight and candor, posing the question: Will Trump destroy his own party, or is there another twist yet to come?

---

Transcript

[A]

There are four months left to what could well turn out to be the most historic election in our lifetimes. It could unleash an already unleashed Donald Trump, or it could close it down. How much wind is against Trump at this point? And if the wind is against Donald Trump, as it seems now that. That it is, then it's over. Donald Trump's capacity to shoot himself in the foot should never be underestimated, it would seem now that he has gone down the path to do almost everything to undermine the Republicans.

[B]

Michael.

[A]

Joanna.

[B]

Happy Fourth. What are you doing for July 4th?

[A]

You know, I live in the Hamptons, so virtually every day is July 4th.

[B]

Oh, please. It's not. Every day is 250 years of American independence. As you know, I think nothing of import happened that day.

[A]

You know, it's getting my head around two. I mean, frankly, I'm still in 200 because I remember that well. 1976, Utah. Yes. Guess where I saw that from?

[B]

Where?

[A]

The World Trade Center.

[B]

The World Trade Center. Oh, the whole landscape of New York was different.

[A]

Yes. So, anyway, I haven't caught up to 250 yet, which seems an arbitrary number.

[B]

Well, and who would have known 50 years ago because Donald Trump was on the scene then in New York. Right. That he would be president for a second time? Running.

[A]

Just coming on the scene, actually. Okay, that was.

[B]

You both were just coming on the scene.

[A]

We both. And you know, and I saw him on the scene after that quite often.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I mean, in fact, you could not, for quite a long period, go out in New York at night without seeing Donald Trump.

[B]

And he saw you with your beautiful, beautiful hair that we have had so many comments on since we shared the photo of your magnificent hair when you were student body president. All right, so we've got the midterms coming up. It looks like the wind is against Trump. Of course. Never count him out.

[A]

Well, let's. Let's frame this with more gravitas. I mean, there are four months left to what could well turn out to be the most historic election in our lifetimes. And it could go either way. It really unleashes Donald Trump. It could unleash and already unleashed Donald Trump. Or it could close it down. Forget it. Donald Trump overdone with just cleaning up the mess.

[B]

It's over. It's full lame duck. Donald Trump goes full lame duck. All right, where do we begin? Do we want to think about the races that really are tight? No, I think we want to take a bigger picture.

[A]

I think. I think that there is really only. I Mean, there's a central thing that matters here and it's that kind of psychological factor, how much wind is against us, Donald Trump at this point. And if the wind is against Donald Trump, as it seems now that it is, then it's. Then it's over. Then it doesn't matter that actually every individual race matters significantly less. And it just means that the wave, the blue tsunami is going to carry everybody, carry all of the Democrats into Congress and effectively Donald Trump out of.

[B]

Washes Donald Trump's candidates away.

[A]

And that could very well happen. I think it's absolutely poised. I think he has after this, what will then be almost two years of Donald Trump. He has run from any political, in any political context, a completely irresponsible, let's not forget policy, forget democracy, just from a political point of view. He has done. It has been completely irresponsible. It has as though been designed to alienate people.

[B]

So he's made it all about himself. Which is actually one of the criticisms that Obama got when he was in office, that he didn't do enough to support the party, that he was very much a lone wolf candidate. Of course, different kind of lone wolf. But I can't imagine anything worse right now than being a Republican congressperson hoping to get back into office with this man as the head of the party and as president. He's done nothing to help anybody get back into office. He's only served to undermine them. Yeah.

[A]

And to serve up candidates who have a significantly diminished chance of winning and therefore supporting the party's majorities, which it would seem by every indication that they will lose their majority in Congress. And every day they seem to have a better chance of losing their majority.

[B]

Except for. Except for. And I'm going to antagonize everybody watching and everybody listening by saying this. Except that the opposition is. The opposition is, Michael. The Democrats, the Democrats who often cannot get out of their way.

[A]

No, absolutely. But before even going that, I just want to get the fundamentals here. And the first fundamental is the wave. It just is whatever is everybody. If the thing in everybody's head is that we are tired of Donald Trump,

[B]

we're tired of the drama, we're tired of the rudeness, the kind of chaos of it all, the unpleasantness of it

[A]

all, but then the next. So that's one fundamental. The next fundamental is turnout. I mean, all elections. That's it. I mean, if you don't turn out your people or if your people don't turn themselves out because they're not motivated, you're screwed now, right now, it would seem. And all of the races that we've seen, the primary races or the races to fill empty seats and have shown enormous turnout for the Democrats. The Democrats appear to be uniquely motivated and the Republicans, frankly, they appear to be depressed, embarrassed, I think all of those things.

[B]

And they're feeling it in their pocketbooks. They're feeling it at the checkout.

[A]

Yeah, no, I mean, and we should just run down the issues that are going to be top of mind. So it is a top of mind issue. The wave is dictated by what is top of mind.

[B]

Okay, so top of mind. It's the economy, stupid inflation, which Donald Trump has said he doesn't care about. But everything feels.

[A]

Well, there are two. So it's the economy and it's Donald Trump.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Those are the two. The two.

[B]

Which do you think is most important at this point?

[A]

Probably Donald Trump.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

You know, that's, that's the, that's the motivator. And if he is blamed, you can get a double whack out of this. Is he is, if he is blamed not only for being Donald Trump, but blamed for the economy. And I think that's what we're looking at. But as you say, and this is truly one of the interesting things to me, almost more interesting than Donald Trump, because we know where that is, is the Democrats their incredible ability to fuck this up. And you know, I mean, the Democrats, basically, they only have those things to run on too.

[B]

Right.

[A]

They're running on Donald Trump and they're running on the economy. Not that they have any idea how to fix the economy.

[B]

Well, they're running on affordability. Right. So the kind of amorphous sense that everything's too expensive. So they're running on. Not the Donald Trump policy.

[A]

Yeah. And they can. And because unless they are the party out of office, so they go into a midterm election with the ex expectation that they will do considerably better than the Republicans. That's historically true. That's almost. There's little way around that.

[B]

Except for Joe Biden. Interestingly, Joe Biden did so well at the midterms in his last, you know, the last president we had, which unfortunately set him up to think that he would then win in the general election should have been the moment when he stepped aside and said onto the next.

[A]

Yes, but he did less poorly than it was expected.

[B]

Okay. But he still did fine.

[A]

But there's also another point here which is important is that the Trump, the Republicans do appreciably poorer when Donald Trump is not A candidate. So it's a kind of a mixed thing. We're running against Donald Trump, and that's a major issue. But in fact, the Republicans would be helped, or have historically over the last 10 years been helped when Donald Trump is a candidate.

[B]

So what would be inside his head if he loses bigly in the midterms? Does he take this personally or does he just deny it and say, oh, it's.

[A]

Yeah, he just, he just denies it, blames it on somebody else. Okay. Makes it his issue.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And I mean, and you can actually kind of get inside his head and think that's what he's doing, that he is now undermining the Republicans in order to perhaps blame it on them, to reinforce the fact that they can't do anything if he's not running.

[B]

Interesting. So he's in a bit of a double bind.

[A]

But get back to the Democrats just a second, because I am just amazed, frustrated, furious, as so many Democrats are that they screw it up constantly. Why is that? There is just something so relentlessly. Let me answer my own question.

[B]

I thought you might go on relentlessly

[A]

phony seeming about them. I mean, it's as though no word out of their mouth is a genuine word. It's as though it's all by focus group in the head. It's all, you know, I mean, somebody like, you know, this woman, Molly Zhang, fast, who the Democrats for some reason have pushed out and the media never had one original thought ever. Just a kind of cottonmouth, constantly echoing what you're supposed to say, trying to anticipate nervously what you're supposed to say.

[B]

Okay, well, what are her talking points? What are the Democratic. Because I don't feel like this. I have spent quite a lot of time, time over the last few months interviewing lots of Democratic candidates and congressmen and women. And I'm increasingly impressed by how serious they are, how disciplined they are. Many of them come out of the military and they seem mission oriented to win.

[A]

Tell me what the mission is.

[B]

The mission is to win. The mission is to win the constituency.

[A]

Tell me an original idea. Well, Republicans are full of cockamamie original ideas.

[B]

Well, I think the original idea is. And it's not an original idea. It's James Carville and the Clinton thing. It's the economy, stupid. It's just now called affordability, and it's about making.

[A]

So they just changed the name of an old idea?

[B]

Yeah, but at least it appears to be working.

[A]

And no demonstrable abilities to actually fix the economy. I mean, Joe Biden became well, they

[B]

do have a plan to fix the economy, and it would be largely to tax the rich, of which you would be one. I mean, I think it's. I mean, I'm being slightly facetious, but I don't agree with you. I don't agree with you, actually, about the Democrats.

[A]

And also the Democrats that you have been talking to, by the way, are the Democrats who are. Do not seem to be ascendant at this point.

[B]

That's true. James Tallarico, he's totally in the ascendant.

[A]

I don't have the Platner, you know, Democratic Socialists, I don't see them coming on this. This table. I don't see you talking to. What's the name of that woman who is just. Just. Who's going to defeat the entire Republican Party. Chevalier, you haven't interviewed any of the Democratic socialists or whatever.

[B]

Well, Graham Platner is running on a progressive platform. I've interviewed Graham Platner.

[A]

Yes. Progressive. You like Graham Platner?

[B]

I do like Graham Platner. I think he's a sort of. Versus Susan Collins. Susan Collins. We've said this before. Susan Collins is the enemy.

[A]

I. Okay, I. I see.

[B]

Voted against the Hyde Amendment. You don't want to know who.

[A]

I got it. You're a Democrat. You're Molly Jones.

[B]

No, I'm pro. I'm pro women having choice over their own bodies. I'm pro women having options if they get pregnant. If that's a Democrat position, then I'm a Democrat. It's a lot of Republican women's positions, too, and Susan Collins made that less possible. Would I rather have Graham Platner in Maine? Yes, I would.

[A]

You know, I would be. I mean, sure. But in the.

[B]

She's been there enough, time enough. Enough. Now, these jobs should have. I think there should be term limits. The president is, you know, term limited.

[A]

It's. Yes. Nevertheless, the contrast here. And I have no, I don't know who people in Maine should vote for. And I assume, and I hope, and I hope it's a Republican, it turns into a Democratic Senate. But nevertheless, you have Susan Collins, who is a professional, who has done this job, who knows how to do this job, who has been elected, who is viewed enormously favorable by her constituency. Then you have someone who's just a wild card. This is what we know about Graham Platner. Nothing. He is a wild card. He has. And there's all kinds of indications that he is a serious wild card. So if you want to vote for that, this is what you know and it is someone who has. Who has certainly demonstrated their professionalism. And this is someone you don't know.

[B]

But this is exactly what got Donald Trump elected. People don't want professional politicians anymore. They see them feathering their nest. They see them looking out for themselves.

[A]

Yeah. Do you hear what you're saying? That's what got us Donald Trump. So we're gonna apply that same logic to Graham Platner.

[B]

Okay, well, that's a good argument. Okay, well argued. I argued myself into a corner there. Okay, I can see that. Nevertheless, I think it's time for Fresh Blood. Ed Markey, the senior.

[A]

I don't even know what that means. Fresh blood.

[B]

I think it means people who haven't been in Congress or Senate for 50 years.

[A]

Well, that's most of the people in the country. You know, that means anybody off the street qualifies for fresh blood. And a lot of these people seem.

[B]

Most people wouldn't bother to run.

[A]

We have, you know, Chevalier, you know, the grad student. Grad student. Grad student. Chevalier going to Washington.

[B]

Well, that's because she got the endorsement of Bamdani. Right?

[A]

Yeah. No, I mean, Mamdani himself.

[B]

Yeah. No, mean.

[A]

Well, yeah, I'm just.

[B]

They're always saying that. People are constantly pointing it out. They're like, Michael says yes, then he says no, then he says, it's a clearing of the. Of the palate, cleanser of.

[A]

And trying to acknowledge that these things are nuanced, are complicated. But nevertheless, at the same time, Mamdani, who is also. Is a person without a job, without experience, you know, there is.

[B]

Well, the issue.

[A]

There is no logic that would have made him the mayor. And I'm not saying he's not going to be a good mayor. And he hasn't had a. Had a. Had a really good, good, good run since his election. But, you know, come on.

[B]

Well, part of this is who you're running against, right? Mamdani was running against Curtis Sliwa, who's an eccentric on the New York scene and nobody thinks could do anything. And Andrew Cuomo, who'd resigned from being governor after being accused by multiple women of sexual harassment and had been seen as an incredible opportunist over Covid when he accepted $5 million to write a book on American leadership, which he made his staff do.

[A]

Apparently, nobody likes Andrew Cuomo of the

[B]

three of them, except me.

[A]

I always liked them.

[B]

His time had been and gone.

[A]

I get it, I get it. I get it. Anyway, let's go on midterms. Who wins, who loses?

[B]

I think it's too early to know whether or not Trump is gonna pull something out of the hat or whether or not people are so over Donald Trump that whatever he pulls out of the hat.

[A]

Well, we have a couple things.

[B]

I mean, he could get shot at again. Remember how helpful that was to him, the Butler, Pennsylvania moment?

[A]

Totally. And there is the thing about, you know, what everyone, and everyone who works for Donald Trump will almost immediately caution you and say, you know, remember, it's Donald Trump.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And somehow, I mean, we're here 10 years later. How did this happen? I mean, and he has. He has this remarkable first thing. He has remarkable luck. And then he has that one gift that no other. He has a gift greater than any other politician, which is the gift to be able to command attention.

[B]

Right. Command attention.

[A]

And there are four months, and four months is both a very short period of time. I mean, it's a very short period of time to pull prices down. It's a very short period of time to fix the economy. It's a very short period of time in which you're trusting that people are not going to remember this catastrophic and ludicrous war in Iran. But on the other hand, it's four months in which anything can happen.

[B]

Well, and he may also. Now he's reduced his messaging. It's as if he started the war and he didn't quite know what he was doing. He's now got the message for the war four months in, which is Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. And now you hear people out in focus groups on vox pops and things saying, well, I know the price of gas is up, but Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. And you're like, oh, the messaging might be getting through.

[A]

No, again, that other thing, that Trump gift. Simplify and repeat.

[B]

Simplify and repeat. Even if it's completely untrue.

[A]

Democrats complicate and digress.

[B]

Well, do we want to look at specific races? I mean, we've talked about. We've got Maine and Texas in the Senate. Are the two really interesting races.

[A]

Maine, let's just. So Maine is now incredibly close. I mean, Platner would seem to have a slight advantage at this point over.

[B]

Well, and I do think there's a favorability to new candidates versus old. I really do. And I think there'll be, you know, clearly a ton of money flooding into Maine. I think his was the most expensive primary.

[A]

Yeah, no, I mean, I think it is. And I think. I mean, he certainly could win. I think we have a bet on this. I tend to think that he will, you know, screw it up. But. And I tend to think also, also, you know, there's a reason these people like Susan Collins win again and again and again because they know something, they understand something about their constituency. So.

[B]

Well, I'm not saying she's not a formidable opponent. Clearly she is. But I just think he'll win.

[A]

Well, we will.

[B]

We'll see. We've got money on it. What have we got on it?

[A]

Whatever.

[B]

An inside Trump's had mug invaluable.

[A]

But then the more, perhaps the more interesting race because neither of them are incumbents.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

It's Texas and it's Texas.

[B]

Well, it's Texas. So it's eccentric. And Donald Trump has.

[A]

Well, Texas is not that eccentric. It is actually reliably Republican and has been for, what are we talking, the better part of 20 years now. So Talarico would be extraordinary if he wins. And he may win. So it may be extraordinary.

[B]

Well, and extraordinary because Donald Trump has really put his thumb, or tried to put his thumb on the scale by supporting Ken Paxton over the incumbent John Cornyn, who actually there was an incumbent who was. What's the word? Scooped out of the way by Donald Trump, who has found a character very much like himself who's been impeached. He was the former AG Biblical scale divorce. And a brilliance also like Trump, of commanding attention and being shameless, utterly shameless.

[A]

Which is why, which is why Talarico has a chance here because he's running

[B]

against Ken Paxton and he's popular in the state. He's been a state senator for some time. He's a former teacher, he's training to be a minister. And he has a very mild manner and he talks about wanting to repair the culture that he says has, you

[A]

know, but I wonder if that's, if that's his, if that's his strong card. I think the strong card is Ken

[B]

Paxton, but maybe clearly his card is Ken Paxton. Do you actually want this guy representing you? He seems to be an alleged crook. He's also very mild mannered. And whether or not he can suggest to people that he knows what to do for the economy, I don't know.

[A]

Mild mannered in politics in 2026 is not necessarily a calling card.

[B]

Well, unless it's the big switcheroo and the pendulum has moved and, you know, unless like wide legged pants mild is back, in which case your friend Andy Beshear might stand a chance in 2028. Cause he's super mild. He's like Kraft cheese slice.

[A]

No if you think, I mean, that would be great news if we all, if this all went back to boring and then Andy Beshear is really the

[B]

poster child or Andy Beshear again, taking a stray in our conversation. I think he took a stray last time and he's getting another one this time. So the other. So those are the Senate races.

[A]

But let's talk, though, inside Trump's head. If Ken Paxton loses, what does he. And I can't really figure this out. How does. I mean, clearly.

[B]

Well, he will clearly blame John Cornyn somehow.

[A]

Clearly, Trump is responsible for this. Ken Paxton does not exist without Donald Trump. And if they lose Texas, which then may mean they lose the Senate, how does he come back from that? How does he, how does he create a justification? Who does he blame for that?

[B]

Well, don't you think he'll blame the Republican senators? He's gonna blame John Thune. He's gonna blame John Cornyn, the outgoing senator that he primaried.

[A]

Yeah, but that doesn't, I mean, there's gotta be. I mean, he's good at blaming. But this doesn't seem, even, even for Donald Trump, this seems like a bridge too far.

[B]

No, no, no. There is no such phrase even for Donald Trump. How can you even say that out. There is a bridge further. You know, there is a bridge further. All right, so that's the Senate race. So Maine and Texas very much in play. Incredibly tight, very exciting races. This is like the playoffs at this point. So exciting. It's like Germany.

[A]

The Democrats need to win four seats in the Senate. They need to not lose any seats and win four seats. That is what's going to need. That needs the wind, the win the hurricane against Trump.

[B]

Right. So they need to win four seats out of a hundred. Right. The House is much more interesting because there's probably 30 to 40 seats in play and two of them are local, which are quite interesting.

[A]

Local for us. Local for us, our audience.

[B]

Yes. Not for our audience. Sorry about that. That's very self absorbed.

[A]

Well, let's, let's do the one that's, that's so eccentric that I think.

[B]

So eccentric.

[A]

I think it would appeal to anyone anywhere.

[B]

No, it's a fascinating story. Tom Keene in New Jersey. Right. Who has missed 100. I'm going to say that one more time. 100 votes because he just disappeared.

[A]

Well, he's disappeared. It's not even that. I mean, some, you know, there are occasions when, when a member of Congress gets sick and there's much discussion about that person's health and what's going on. And a certain sympathy is engendered on that basis.

[B]

Right. Because everybody wants to be empathetic to someone who's got.

[A]

Tom Keene Jr. Who is the son of a former governor of New Jersey, has just disappeared. Literally no one has known where he is, what is going on. What, his health issues. He said there's a health issue. No one knows what that is. Is he dying? Is he something else? This has been absolutely opaque, a mystery, almost as though it was set up to be a mystery and then there

[B]

would be a reveal, the mystery of the missing congressman.

[A]

Last Tuesday, he returned to Congress and then that was his reve. What was up. He was suffering from depression.

[B]

I would be depressed, too, if I were a Republican.

[A]

Conspiracy Donald Trump, in other words, that he was.

[B]

He had mental health issues.

[A]

Well, I was going to say that. Where. Where was Tom Keene? He was in the loony bin.

[B]

I don't think you call it that anymore.

[A]

No, I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you're going to take this out.

[B]

No, I'm not gonna take it out.

[A]

Okay. But that is, I mean, that also prompts the question, okay, so you couldn't have told people this.

[B]

Right. I don't understand why they didn't tell people. Because first of all.

[A]

Well, it is. I mean, one of the reasons you don't tell people is that you do consider it still the loony bin, which we don't consider that anymore. And it's just a health issue that you're addressing. Right. But obviously they've turned this into some.

[B]

Well, they've now turned it into something. Because the minute you don't tell anybody something, nature abhors a vacuum. It's filled with all sorts of conspiracy theories, especially online. So he was depressed. He went into an institution to have some help. There's no shame in that. People do it all the time. Actually, it's one of the good things that Senator Fetterman has talked about, this thing of feeling depressed. So he was depressed post stroke and he has other issues in office. But it shouldn't be an issue of shame by not admitting to it in that kind of a role. Alas, you draw attention to it. And Also he missed 100 votes and nobody understood why.

[A]

At any rate, he is being a seemingly very eligible Democrat is running against him.

[B]

Yes. Who is that? It's Rebecca Bennett, isn't it?

[A]

Right. And she's, you know, she's phenomenal.

[B]

She's a helicopter pilot. I mean, I mean, these young military

[A]

candidates let Me just stop you there to see.

[B]

She's a helicopter pilot.

[A]

I know. Let's.

[B]

Does this mean Lauren Sanchez is going to run for office?

[A]

Repeat that. She's a helicopter pilot who wants to go to Congress. Being a helicopter pilot and being in Congress, there is no crossover in experience, skill sets, temperament and anything else. These are two.

[B]

I think you have to be quite calm to be a helicopter pilot, don't you? Because what if you hit turbulence?

[A]

I don't know. I'm sure you've never met a helicopter pilot. You have no idea.

[B]

I think there's this very interesting generation of military people. Mikey Sherrill is another one. Helicopter pilots stormed into the governorship.

[A]

Okay, you're talking and I don't, and I don't disag. But when you talk about this new generation, you also have to talk about this other part of the new generation of Democrats who will probably complicate things for the Democrats, which is these Mamdani group of Democratic socialists who are first thing far left and against Israel. So that really, I mean the other, the helicopter pilots and the military people. That's, that's, that's, that's from one piece of the Democratic game book playbook. They're largely moderates playbook and they're all, they're all moderates.

[B]

Right. Alyssa Slotkin, a good example, even veering

[A]

toward the conservative side of the, of the liberal agenda. And then you have the exact opposite people who are not moderates, people who are, who represent an altogether new direction for the Democratic Party.

[B]

Well, and they're sort of, they've inherited the mantle from Mittens.

[A]

Bernie Sanders, very much so. And I mean he is. So it's just, it's the combination of Mamdani and Bernie Sanders and AOC and aoc. And this is about, I mean this may be, or this is a question that we will see if this is which way this is going that this is the ascendant group of the Democratic Party. I mean that's the fear of a lot of people and it's the hope of the Republicans.

[B]

But I think locally it's not. I mean the primaries are over now. Right. So that sort of civil war going on in the Democratic Party has sorted itself out for the, the midterms that can't sell them.

[A]

I don't think that that's true at all. I think this will become the issue against Democrats that the one of the issues that the Republicans will pursue. Chevalier. Chevalier. We're going to come to know. We barely know this name now. We are going to come. This is going to be the best known name in America, the grad student

[B]

Chevalier, because her platform is essentially Gaza

[A]

and she said all kinds of, I mean there's a whole litany of social media, a social media trail of things that many people in the country might consider reprehensible.

[B]

So do you think that she will lose the seat for the Democrats? I mean, it's a pretty safe Democratic seat.

[A]

No, she will probably win that seat, but she or her presence and the other people who she will come to symbolize might well damage prospects for other Democrats, especially swing situations.

[B]

I wonder if people will just vote locally this time around, though.

[A]

Well, I mean that's a hard thing to say because in effect the Democrats are asking people to vote nationally. This is against Trump, we are against Trump. So the Democrats are trying to nationalize this election. That's where a wave, a blue wave comes from, a blue tsunami comes from. But then also asking them, forget about Chevalier. It's not really. And I think the Republicans are going to come storming back. Chevalier. Chevalier.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But you know, it's, I mean, I mean, I don't, I mean you're going to come back to this, which has always, I mean this has now played out over 10 years, the Republicans trying to pin this left wing communist, whatever kind of thing on, on a set of, on the Democrats which have shown no inclination. Even AOC seems like, just seems like a regular old political career.

[B]

Right. And the squad which once seemed so out there has had the corners rubbed off it. Right.

[A]

Yeah. It's not as though the, the Republicans don't have an issue here. So that should, you know, I mean it seems overwhelmingly the Democrats have an issue because what issue is bigger than Donald Trump?

[B]

Right.

[A]

But you know, Donald Trump exists in part because a not insignificant part of the country found the Democrats, you know, a hard pill to swallow.

[B]

Well, and you remember how effective the trans ad against boys in girls sports was at the general election. It's highly possible they could do that with Chevalier and turn her, some of the things she said into one of those ads.

[A]

Yeah, no, completely.

[B]

To what extent do you think the problem here is also that there seems to be that there's no overall leader yet national leader for the Democrats. There's no singular voice. And of course they say, well, we're a big tent party, we don't need a singular voice. You've got to vote local. But the Republicans manage effectively with one voice.

[A]

But there is usually not a singular voice in the midterms and that's usually that may be an advantage because. Because the focus then becomes the person who is the singular voice, who is the incumbent, who is Donald Trump. So the Republicans can't go after that singular representative of what they're asking people to vote against. So it's not like a general election where it's a binary essentially.

[B]

Right? No, it's more like Gulliver, which is Donald Trump, and then the Lilliputians, which is the Democrats. Okay, I think that's a suitable analogy. So, of course, as you're saying, people when you're talking to them in the White House, say, well, you can't rule anything out. It's Donald Trump. He could pull something out of the bag. No one would have anticipated Butler, Pennsylvania, and the incredible lift that gave him. Remember when Elon Musk came out and said, oh, my goodness, he's my candidate.

[A]

On the other hand.

[B]

Right.

[A]

It's very possible that he will do things that are detrimental, deeply detrimental to the Republicans. You know, Donald Trump's capacity to shoot himself in the foot should never be underestimated. So. And he's, you know, all. I mean, it would seem now that he has gone down the path to do almost everything to undermine the Republicans. I mean, he's now literally under. I mean, he has. He's literally so far refusing to sign this bipartisan housing act, which will get made law anyway.

[B]

But what he's stolen from the Republicans is the ability to show that they care and that this would have been very helpful. This was actually a bipartisan win that might have helped them during the midterms.

[A]

Right. And he's calling this marginal or some. I mean, he's literally dismissing this. One of the, if not the pivotal issue in this campaign. No, pay no attention to that. That's not what I want. Is this voting bill that is never

[B]

going to pass and which people don't

[A]

care about because people don't care about. And also, I suspect that people think, no, he's. He's screwing around with the election.

[B]

Right. Do you think they are thinking that? Yeah, I think Democrats might be thinking that. I don't know if Republicans are thinking,

[A]

well, there's Democrats and there's Republicans and then there's the people in between who are at issue here.

[B]

Right. Okay, fair. All right, so should we take a bet on it? We're four months out. How many seats do you think the Democrats are going to win? Oh, I should first just say, what about the gerrymandering? To what extent do we think.

[A]

Well, no, I mean, I think obviously that is that will play somewhat, appears like it will play somewhat to his benefit. But of course, if the wave, the blue wave is the hurricane is big enough, it's not going to make any difference, right?

[B]

Well, it might give him a few seats here or there. I mean in Mississippi.

[A]

Not necessarily. I mean it actually could have the opposite effect that this could be a significant backfire, remember, because you know, when you move Republicans into another district, you move them out of the district that they were in. This is a comp, this at some level, this is a zero sum game.

[B]

Okay, I'm not sure I understand that.

[A]

Well, just, just, just think if you have, you have to move the Republicans, you have a Democratic district over here or, or a district that was swing district that was formally weighted to the Democrat side or was a swing side. So in order to make that more Republican, you have to take Republicans from somewhere else and put them there. Therefore, if you take Republicans from somewhere else, then they're not going to be where they once were. So you're going to reduce. One becomes less swing, but the one becomes more swing. And if you have a wave then that means that you're going to. Potentially your design for gerrymandering may go in a counter indicated fashion.

[B]

There really should be fantasy political leagues at this point, shouldn't there? Why is nobody doing that or are

[A]

they doing it there? May be.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Would we know?

[B]

But this is our, we're such nerds. This is our sport. Why are you looking like that? You're a nerd.

[A]

Well, no, first thing, I don't think that that's true. Matter of fact, do you think you're a nerd? I once in my. No, I am. I don't think I'm a nerd and I don't think you're. I've known you for years and years. You haven't. We have never had a political discussion. So I don't think you're interested in. I don't think you're a political nerd. I don't even think you're interested in politics. We're just pretend here.

[B]

But what are you talking about? I'm riveted by this stuff. I'm interested in the people, I'm interested in the characters and the change of that has been Donald Trump.

[A]

I once ran a political magazine.

[B]

What was that called then?

[A]

It was actually a trade magazine for politicians and it was called Campaigns and Elections.

[B]

I can't imagine you doing that.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And this is a whole side of your life.

[A]

No, no, that's all my checkered career but when I came into this Washington based magazine, I came into this magazine and they kept saying, well, you know, who's your audience? And they would say political junkies. I said, don't say that anymore. Don't call your audience junkies. So anyway, that's.

[B]

Aren't they self appointed junkies though? They want to be called junkies. Cause it suggests that this is an addiction. But I am interested in the people and the characters in this. I do think that's interesting and I think the change of the world we're living in is incredibly interesting. And how Donald Trump has changed is interesting. And having grown up in Europe, I'm interested in the future of NATO.

[A]

So in other words, you got interested in politics because of Donald Trump?

[B]

Totally, totally. As did a lot of other people, actually. I mean, to be fair, I've always been quite interested.

[A]

I was never interested in politics. I'm still not interested in politics.

[B]

I was interested in British politics, especially when Tony Blair came to pass.

[A]

But I feel stuck with Donald Trump. Donald Trump. Donald Trump. My character.

[B]

Yeah, your character. All right, well, I think it's time that we go and enjoy July 4th. I think there's hot dogs to be had and burgers and flags to wave.

[A]

Are you coming to my neighborhood?

[B]

I might be coming to your neighborhood. I might be coming to your neighborhood. Yes, indeed I am. I'm against it. I'm going to be out in Sag harbor actually. Very much looking forward to it. And you know, fireworks, enormous fireworks. I'm just sorry we didn't go to the state fireworks. State fire. You hate fireworks. Who hates fireworks?

[A]

So boring. The same thing.

[B]

They are a bit boring all the time.

[A]

Jeez.

[B]

Well, this year at the state fair,

[A]

everybody waiting for them to be over. When's the finale? Is that the finale?

[B]

I know that is true. But the good news is that the fireworks on the mall are going to be the best ever. It's going to be the biggest firework display that's ever happened in the history of the firework world. The firework community are going to be thrilled by this.

[A]

Where is he going to be? He, he himself.

[B]

I guess he'll be. Well, I'm assuming he'll be at the White House, won't he?

[A]

I don't know. Does he come out?

[B]

Did you see the AI golden eagle that he wants to put? I'm sure he's going to come out on the balcony and look at the fireworks.

[A]

I did see something about this golden eagle.

[B]

Yeah, he's planning to put an eagle on the Truman balcony.

[A]

Oh, great.

[B]

We could get you one for your Amagansett house if you like. I know you're going to have your flag there. I told you I've got a flag which I'm going to put out. It's time for hot dogs. It's time for corn dogs and we'll go to the next state fair. Michael, happy 4th. Happy Independence Day. Not independent from Donald Trump though. We're symbiotic at this point.

[A]

Independent from you

[B]

if you have been. Thank you for joining us. Don't forget to subscribe to the Daily beast and happy July 4th.

[A]

Ryan, John, Heather, Rachel, Neil, as always.

[B]

And we have an intern, Max.

[A]

Max.

[B]

Max the intern.

[A]

Max the intern.

[B]

Happy 4th, everybody. And we'll be back on Tuesday. So the good news is we have so many Beebeast tier members now there are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate your support.