← The Tara Palmeri Show
The Tara Palmeri Show
Inside the Swamp: Shutdown Politics and the GOP’s Civil War with Jeff Roe
01:17:51
Loading summary
Transcript123 lines
- [00:00]
A
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states. Welcome to the Tara Palmieri Show. This week we are going deep into the swamp, the real one, where elections are won and lost. In the age of Donald Trump. We're in the middle of a government shutdown and neither side seems to be too bothered about it. They don't really seem to care. The real fight seems to be about who controls the message and whether the Democrats can turn the chaos into leverage. So, so this week I brought in two heavyweights from opposite sides of the ring. First up on this episode, Jeff Rowe, who's one of the most powerful and polarizing Republican consultants in America. Roe is a true insider. He doesn't do many interviews, but his firm, Axiom Strategies, has had its fingerprint on nearly every major race in the country at some point, and he's working on 5,000 races this cycle. One of his consultants even works with Speaker Johnson. At one time, I'm pretty sure they had almost every single House member as one of their clients, whether directly or through independent expenditures. Later this week, I talked to James Carville. You know him, the legendary Democratic strategist. He knows a thing or two about turning dysfunction into victory. It'll be fun to reconnect with him. Last time I had him on it was for debate with John David Hogg, and it got quite spicy. And Hog is is facing some heat right now for how he's handling his own super pac. So I will certainly get Carville to comment on that since he actually really supported him and his mission in a lot of ways. After the podcast, actually, they came together. Now let's get back to the midterms because that's what everyone is really thinking about. President Trump has already mused publicly that he could lose the midterms, and he knows what that means for him. Means he'll probably be impeached again. And historically, he has a right to worry because this is how it works. They switch hands and the Republicans only have a handful of seats on any given day. Absences, resignations, or even death. Their razor thin majority could come down to like one or two seats. So, you know, they have to seem united and they are. Trump is the establishment of the party and they look united from the outside, but really, for them to win this, they need to be focused on frontline seats and winning them and these redistricting wars that they're going through right now, and they can't get into messy primaries. But underneath it all, that's why it's interesting that there's this all out consultancy war, and it's not over ideology, but over loyalty and money. Are you really surprised? So, just for a little bit of history here, Trump's political team, his White House team, all the way up to his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, they still hold a grudge against Ron DeSantis. Well, first of all, Susie Wiles worked for Ron DeSantis and she helped him win his. His election. That made him government governor of his first election. And he fired her shortly after, unceremoniously, a number of other aides in the White House, like the political director, James Blair, who makes a lot of these decisions, by the way, he also worked for Ron DeSantis, and they did not have a great relationship either. And Jeff Rowe at one time was interviewed to be Donald Trump's campaign manager. Yeah, yeah, they wanted him. And instead he ended up going with Ron DeSantis. And Ron DeSantis super PAC never backed down. He, you may remember this super PAC because they burned through a record $145 million and he didn't even make it to New Hampshire. It was a colossal failure, Huge failure. Actually spoke to Roe about this on my podcast. Somebody's got to win. That was the last time we spoke about it. But for. But for some reason, like the bad blood still runs really deep. Even though President Trump has met with Ron DeSantis after this, although he still has that grudge that Ron DeSantis would run against him in the primaries after he endorsed him in the election, when he was really struggling in his gubernatorial race. So he was like, how dare he run against me? And then of course, all the nicknames, the sanctimonious meatball Ron. And everybody really seemed to enjoy it on Trump's team because they worked for Ron DeSantis and he didn't treat them well. He does not have a good reputation of treating his staff well. And so this extended to Jeff Ross Row. And Also when Ron DeSantis came forward, he came forward as the white knight for the party and all of the big donors rallied behind him. And that's why he was able to, you know, have a super PAC that was at $145 million. It was insane. So this is all to say that there is still a grudge against Jeff Rowe because he worked with Ron DeSantis. So much so that there has been a quiet warning to sort of undermine Roe and his company, Axiom, that if you work with Axiom, you will not get the coveted Trump endorsement. I know, crazy. Now, Jeff differs and he has his own explanation for all this, which is why you should stick around for the interview. But these childish games like it helping you understand how Washington works a little bit. I mean, President Trump's former campaign manager, Chris La, he literally gotten a tit for tat with Roe online comparing who has won more races. And this was after my last podcast with Roe. So, yeah, this is the full blown civil war going on inside of the GOP consulting consultancy class. And, and Roe has really, like, kind of put the pirate flag up. And he's taking on a very serious primary challenger, which is causing headaches for the party, and that's Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas. Okay, this guy is a disaster, but the base loves him. Let me just go through some of the allegations against Ken Paxton. All right, first of all, he's trying to take out an incumbent Senator, John Cornyn. This is not an MDC John Cornyn. You know, he was going to run. He ran for Senate leadership and he lost. But he is, he's been around for a very long time. And there's fears that if Paxton runs against a generic Democrat like Colin Allred, that he could lose. Some of the polling, like from the Senate leadership fund, shows him losing by a few points because Ken Paxton is that scandal scarred. Okay, here's, here's just a few things. I'm just going to name three things. There's tons of baggage. If you want to Google him, go for it. He's been impeached for alleged bribery. He was under indictment for security fraud since 2014. And then this past summer, in July 2025, his wife, state Senator Angela Paxton, filed for divorce on biblical terms, citing some sort of extramarital affair. First of all, I love that phrase, biblical terms. I will certainly use that if I ever get divorced. I am filing on biblical terms. But, yeah, this guy could cause a lot of trouble. Now, John Cornyn, ever since his campaign has started spending money they've picked up. For a while, Paxton was ahead of him by double digits.
- [08:00]
B
But.
- [08:01]
A
But he was losing by a few digits by two or three to a generic Democrat like Colin Allred. So, yeah, that's a lot of, that's a lot of concern. I mean, Republicans don't need to just like, hand over a seat to Democrats because Ken Paxton is so popular with the base. But, but yeah, Jeff Rowe took him on as a client and that pits him directly against the White House. It's like a face off right now. And it's interesting to see Cornyn rising. But I think this is, this is what happens when you try to isolate a firm. And it's just proof that, you know, the wind blows in favor of whoever is closely associated to Trump. But, you know, the others have to move in their own political headwinds and this is where we are right now. Okay, so beyond all the kind of insidery gossip of what goes on in Washington, another good reason to have Jeff Rowe on the show is that he has his ear to the ground in almost every corner of the country. He understands the Republican base better than anyone. And in this conversation, we talk about the real state of the midterms right now and the special elections that are coming up in New Jersey and Virginia, the issues that are moving voters and who's shaping up to lead the party in 2028 against the Democrats. Presumptive frontrunner, Gavin Newsom. Stick around. This is an interesting one.
- [09:32]
B
Monday Sidekick, the AI agent that knows you and your business, thinks ahead and takes action task at anything seriously. Monday Sidekick, AI you'll love to use.
- [09:44]
A
Start a free trial today on Monday.com. jeff, thank you so much for joining the show. And I know you don't do many interviews, so it is great to hear from you. I'm sure everyone in Washington will be listening very closely, but everyone outside of Washington who's trying to understand how the game works should also pay very close attention to Jeff. He's been around for a very long time. He is the Ted Cruz whisperer, a guy who's got his, his ear to the ground, especially when it comes to the Republican base. But I feel like we need to just get to the elephant in the room, the shutdown. It feels like it will never end. No one really cares if it will end on either side. And I'm wondering, will it have any impact on the upcoming elections?
- [10:31]
B
No, it won't. But I think there's. But I. And they rarely do. I mean, there's, you know, referencing back to Obamacare and the shutdown that the aforementioned Ted Cruz was involved in. Everybody, there was some blame there for Virginia in that race, but that might be ascribed to the shutdown. There's a lot of federal workers, it's an off year election, etc. Etc. But really there's no news. And because these are rumored, you know, just set your watch on, on, they can't get it Done. They need these votes and it's just all process. And because they're always being rumored they're going to happen that people just kind of tune it out. And frankly, from a day to day standpoint, there's not a lot of impact to the average American. And so because of that, I think that's why it's, you know, the fourth block on, on the morning news programs. And but I think there are a couple triggers here that probably get a deal done. One would be the next pay period on the 15th for those that are essential, essentially deemed military. I mean they'll start going without pay on the 15th. So I think that might get some people to the table. I mean it's kind of fun and games till, till you get there. You know, in the first big shutdown, shut down at least in my career with new Gingrich, there's a lot of messaging around it. There weren't 100 different outlets to get your news the way you want to hear it. And so they had live reports from national parks that weren't open and people being turned away and things like that. But that's not the case now. And so I think it's just kind of more dysfunction in Washington D.C. and that's kind of baked in the cake.
- [12:09]
A
Yeah. Although it seems like the Obamacare subsidies seem to be a tick like a sticking point even for Republicans. I think they even understand that that could hit their base in some ways.
- [12:21]
B
Yeah, there would be concerns about taking away something that people have relied on, of course. And so that would that and the health care is the one, one of the very few issues where Democrats have a slight edge. But a lot of people, you know, understand that the Democrats just have to vote yes and, and come back and negotiate. It's a very clean bill. There's not a lot of things in there that are, that are, that makes people at their wits end and those cuts don't even come into play until, you know, several years from now. So I don't again, I think it's maybe good political posturing, but I don't think it's impactful for the election.
- [12:54]
A
You don't think that people are going to feel the impact of losing their subsidies soon?
- [12:59]
B
I don't, I mean there's, there's a lot of coverage examples about this and I'm not a policy expert so I'll stay in my lane. But from a standpoint of a, of a Democrat advantage on health care of 7%, which typically historically that'd be 28, 29% they won national elections on preexisting conditions. They won two national elections on preexisting conditions, which is not a top thousand issue. But after a few billion dollars they made it a very important issue. But healthcare is something they're going to win on. So just from the politics of it, I mean they might be re getting their own votes, but I don't think it's a major turnout or major persuasion campaign.
- [13:34]
A
Okay, interesting. So you think that Republicans are ultimately winning the messaging war right now?
- [13:42]
B
To the extent that anyone's watching the battle, I think so. But everybody's in their tribes. There's 150 million people that that vote in a presidential election. There's 100 million people to vote in an off year election. So the entire name of the game is who can turn out their base.
- [13:57]
A
And I will say like Google is showing shutdown government as one of its top trending topics right now.
- [14:04]
B
Yeah, well they'll probably be having a vote today. I would say my assume they're going to have a vote every couple days. Just make the Democrats vote against it time and time again. But frankly I wish that this shutdown was actually about something bigger and we actually would cut more than cut more spending than we have. I mean this is obviously unsustainable from anyone that has paid any attention to politics. But to continue the growth of government and to reset government based on the pandemic which is now passed, which is the levels that we're spending at that were just instituted for that pandemic, but we still keep spending that money. But regardless of that, the political implications are pretty narrow. There's not the Republicans say just vote for it and then we can negotiate. And the Democrats say no, you're going to kill people. So kind of rinse and repeat. That's the way these always go.
- [14:51]
A
And but what about the special elections coming up, like particularly the ones in Virginia where there are so many federal workers that are, you know, not being paid, they're either furloughed, some of them are going to get fired by Russ Vote Trump's Office of Management Budget, the director of the Grim Reaper in his own words.
- [15:10]
B
I didn't see use those words. Yeah, that was probably in artful. Yeah, but well, that every campaign has an impact. It's the overlay. It's the alpha in the race is the, is the standard deviation of where the election would typically play out. And then you have different things that impact that race, whether it be spending on one side versus the other, whether it be the can of quality and of course, you have the impact of the shutdown in Virginia, most notably because the federal employees and military bases there in installations. And then you have an attorney general that said he wanted to shoot the speaker of the House. And so, I don't know, I think I'd take our hand over their hand. There's about a five point delta.
- [15:47]
A
But Abigail, Abigail Spamberger is a pretty strong candidate, don't you think?
- [15:52]
B
I think she is, yeah. She's got a good profile, at least. I don't know if her campaign has been that good. You know, Governor Gubertro campaigns are the least ideological race you can run because if a governor knocks on your door and says, hey, will you vote for me? They're going to ask about roads and bridges and infrastructure and education and leadership, vision, accomplishments. If you knock on the door for a legislative race and say, hey, will you vote for me? They're going to say, well, are you pro life, pro gun, Republican, Democrat, Ukraine Hunter's laptop? I mean, they're going to talk about partisan issues. Much more, yeah. Much, much more. So though, in a governor's race, it's about the personal brand and the narrative of the campaign. And so I think that that has some opportunities. I also think that Winsome and I haven't paid that close attention, but she could be a bit of a crossover candidate. And Youngkin is. Has historically high numbers for any Republican in Virginia ever. And so if she can coattail off that a bit and be in part of his administration, that would help. And now they have a scandal that is well played. I don't think it came out exactly in October 1st, but somewhere around there. So, you know, well held. And I think that's going to be really impactful. I don't know why she doesn't dump him now instead of playing out another week and then calling for him to be dumped. And that goes to leadership and vision. And so she's on tape 100 times saying he's great ag now he clearly is not qualified. This is one of those moments that, beyond the partisan nature of it, really lets a candidate stand apart from their party and get crossover votes. And she's already failed that test. So this will be a pretty interesting how it plays out. What's more important? And also if the, if the shutdown gets fixed before the 15th, it won't even have that impact.
- [17:36]
A
You really think these text messages will shake up Virginia?
- [17:41]
B
I do. I do. The last Washington Post poll, which historically had us, you know, probably two or three points under where we had internally they had the AG's race down six. They had winsome, I think, down 12. I don't. I think those are pretty tight races. And I think if nothing else, it will. It will hurt turnout on the Democrat side. It's a rallying cry for which they haven't had a lot of rallying cry.
- [18:08]
A
And this feels like it's coming off of Charlie Kirk's murder, too. That has really incited the base. Just for everyone who's not familiar with this scandal in Virginia, the then Virginia House Speaker, Todd Gilbert, he. Sorry, Jones. Jones is the Virginia's Democratic nominee for Attorney general. And he, you know, he would be the attorney general under an administration that would be Abigail Spanberger. So he writes, Jones wrote about shooting the Virginia House speaker, the former Virginia House Speaker, Todd Gilbert, saying three people, two bullet bullets. Gilbert, Hitler and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head. And then, you know, this is. Obviously, I think I. I do think it comes at a very sensitive time. And I don't know that the Republican Party has ever experienced anything like an assassination before. And I don't know that we really know how much it's motivated their base, too, to come out in the midterms. I mean, what do you think the.
- [19:15]
B
Impact of Charlie Kirk? The Republican Party's really been based in the pews and the conservative policy and the merger of those two as the pews got harder from a policy standpoint for some Republicans, whether it be gay marriage or whether it be abortion, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And those got. When they became less theoretical and more practical and Republicans had a harder time dealing with something that we've been calling for for 50 years that grew a wedge, and it grew a wedge into, I'm a Republican, but I'm agnostic on social issues or I really don't care about those. I'm a Republican because I want less taxes and government overreach, et cetera. I think Charlie, and this was spoken to at his funeral, that his ability to weave those together into a profile of a person that most can ascribe to was really a powerful time for us. And so what the impact of that will be electorally, I don't know. But I do know that the two wings of the Republican Party, be it social or economic, certainly were brought together by Charlie in his speeches and talks on campuses and saying it on a terrain that is unfavorable for Republicans. But most of the people up there talked about how they talked more about their faith in the last, you know, since his. Since his assassination that they have their whole entire life. And I believe that. I believe that he inspired a lot of people. And with his killing, I think it really puts into stark terms what this is about and who he was and how someone like him who doesn't hold office doesn't, you know, doesn't do anything except wakes up every day, preps and debates issues in a very earnest way. And by the way, a very kind way, if you ever noticed. Everything he said. I've known him for. Since Joe.
- [21:08]
A
Charlie was not the kindest I've been. I've known him too, for a very long.
- [21:12]
B
Yeah, I know. I think definitely first campaign. Well, he's very kind. He could be. He could be, you know, sharp and that sort of thing. But I've noticed Mr. Joe Walsh, I.
- [21:20]
A
Think he could be really inflammatory to people that he didn't approve of their lives, and he could definitely be offensive.
- [21:27]
B
I think it would depend on where you stand. Everybody could be offensive. You can. I can. Everybody can be offensive. If you don't like our positions. But what I would say is, if you ever listen to his opening line, he would say, you know, well, we agree on X, Y or Z. And they try and get them to his side instead of push them away. Certainly it's spicy moments along the way. You can't Talk for probably 50,000 hours on camera without that occurring. But I think it's the person he was, the people that know him well, I think that. And the people that saw what he did and the aftermath after shooting that paid attention that I think it's. It could be a political moment. I thought when it happened that it was. It was going to be like a Malcolm X moment, but our version of Malcolm X. But I think as it's played out, I think it's more Martin Luther than Malcolm.
- [22:19]
A
Yeah. So you think it will have lasting impact on all the elections going forward in terms of getting the base out? Because I know that you. You believe that elections are really, especially midterm elections and specials are base elections.
- [22:30]
B
I think all elections are base elections. I do. But. But also I think that the number one question that's always the hardest to respond to in a campaign and the worst campaigns can't answer it at all, and the best campaigns have a hard time answering it is, I want to be involved. What can I do? Okay, so that question is like dismantling to a campaign because it's, well, you can go knock doors in 100 degree heat if you want to, or you can sit here and make.
- [22:56]
A
Don't say the wrong thing. Right. We don't know if you're crazy.
- [22:59]
B
You don't know who's coming in. But. And if they're going to be effective. And also people say they want to do something and what they realize. Everybody thinks they're like a mini Karl Rove when they could. When they actually get in there. And now they're calling people and getting yelled out on the phone. So it's always hard. What can you do? What can I do? I want to help. What can I do? Well, Charlie's group and the outgrowth of that, now everybody has an answer. It's if you're young.
- [23:21]
A
But it was such a mess. Like Turning Points. I remember writing tons of stories about the disastrous ground game of Turning Points. I mean, they were never really seen in Washington. You never use them. Like, have you ever really used Turning Points?
- [23:35]
B
Well, we do. Well, we do it. We have our own ground company. So I don't use. But sure, I absolutely. I don't want to. Like he was very impactful in the 16 election. 16 when it really took off. And then after Trump got elected it put it on, on steroids. But no, there was, you could reliably count when you would go to a, to a conference or national conference for sure. Or a Turning Point regional conference that there were activists there that were looking to be engaged and so using them as like the Turning Point. Ever endorse for my candidates and go work for them? No, but. And did I ever use any of the subs or any of the groups that they used to knock doors? No, they never used me.
- [24:14]
A
But there's so many stories of the mess around that. But I do think he was like active in getting out Ronna Romney McDaniel. I mean, he was very much involved in pushing her out.
- [24:24]
B
Ye. We definitely, definitely had a big impact there.
- [24:29]
A
Let's talk a bit more about what you're hearing on the ground. What do voters really care about in this cycle? What are you hearing?
- [24:37]
B
Well, it's kind of the same as it always is. But, but, but economy is number one and always, always is and always has been and probably forever will be. And there's a big stratification there between the haves and have nots. You have 10% of the people owning 90% of the stock that's doing exceedingly well. You have 40% of the people owning the other 10% and you have 50% that don't own any. So that part of the economic conditions are, you know, somewhat pronounced. The haves are doing really well, and the have nots aren't impacted by that. So then you have then your second layer of, of economy. And that's a big thing that we put a big bucket under when we poll. But there's really two or three different branches of it. One's the cost of living, which can include inflation. And then the second piece is really the, the atmosphere for job creation and business development. And so that's taxes and all the rest. And so when we win, because the big beautiful bill on taxes and the tax on tips and all these things are very popular, no tax on Social Security, all the things that were in the big bill, that gives us an advantage to talk about as far as actually getting something done. And then we have cost of living. And cost of living is a little bit more immune to policies and legislation and more controlled by worldwide events and things like that. And so.
- [26:04]
A
But Trump always says he has a control over that.
- [26:07]
B
Yeah, well, when he puts his, there's a lot of watermelons to pick up at the White House. And so when he goes and picks one up, which he picked up, eggs and eggs are down. But I think there's going to be a bunch into that. Gas prices are lowest, you know, lowest prices they've been in quite some time. But I think that cost of living is where the battle will be waged and the messaging will matter. And you can get that right. You can get that wrong. If you focus on, you know, more people making more money, that's great. If you have, if you talk about more people spending more for daily items, that's bad. And so there's an emphasis, I'm sure, from the White House perspective and economic council and everybody else that's focused on the cost of living because the real cost of living is up. And, and it's not up year over year. It's up generally in this environment. And so I think that's.
- [26:55]
A
What do I mean, Because I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue with the Biden administration was they were unwilling to admit that there was a problem. And it really pissed voters off. They felt like, stop telling us Biden nomics is so great. Inflation is out of control now. Trump inflation is rising at a similar rate to Biden inflation. So what do you do? How do you run a campaign and claim that the ruling party is doing well?
- [27:25]
B
So I think besides George Washington, every president has blamed his predecessor. And so we're still in the window where you can do that. George Washington didn't have that Opportunity. And so not only the inability to articulate a vision for the economy that Biden and Harris had, both of them, that hurt. And then they're focused on other issues really hurt. Well, there's no lack of focus from the administration on trying to improve the conditions of every American. And I think they talk about that ad nauseam. Nobody thinks he's whistling past the graveyard, be it trade deals, be it tariffs or threat of tariffs, to realign our economic priorities, whether it be again, the tax cuts that impact millions of Americans. There's no lack of emphasis on it. There's no lack of, you know, working to get something done. I think there's some economic conditions in this modern area that we haven't dealt with for a long time where you have the top 1% national, nationally, their net income's got up 29 trillion and the bottom 99% has gone up 1 or 2%. And that's a real thing. And so that's an economic condition that anybody would, would be going through right now. But those caught the delivery of goods and the cost of things that people use every single day has to be a main priority. And, and Congress and the administration are both talking about those things every single day, unlike the previous one where they didn't talk about it much and in fact ignored it when it was clear on every, on its face that it was happening. And inflation, I think the rising, rising, I'm not sure that's accurate, but somebody afterwards can fact check it.
- [29:02]
A
What has Trump actually done, though, on the front of dealing with the economy and changing?
- [29:07]
B
Well, I think he's reor. Well, I think he's reordering it and I think it's long overdue for from be it trade deals. I didn't really follow trade policy, to be honest. My last class on economics or math was called math, so. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night and I read the New York Times to my kids every morning when we get up and the last page, we flip it over and they all yell fake news. But the stories that are in there about the trade deals that we had and how they were unfair to Americans, nobody's ever talked about that. That was not a major issue in any administration really ever. And so that, that is a reordering on the national scale that may take some time to pay dividends, but as we onshore more jobs that can do nothing but benefit. And with AI and all the disruption that's coming, it is high time that we tackle that because people's jobs certainly some People's jobs won't be here tomorrow that are here today. And so where should they go for employment and what should they prepare for?
- [30:14]
A
Yeah, but you know, some Polling shows that 60% of people oppose the tariffs. And there's also the issue that they're now arguing for subsidies for farmers like soybean farmers. And, and they're depressed. And you know, there's like, there are real ramifications to this trade war. Are you seeing that?
- [30:34]
B
Yeah, but they are talking about, in fact, I think they have a package that they're going to pass for farmers that's being either crafted or introduced or passed somewhere along the legislative chain right now. Certainly there are short term pain for what would be a long term opportunity. And the fact that we are exporting more and, and not and, and importing things that we actually have and can grow ourselves. There's no reason that besides cheap labor, there's no reason that China is suddenly this burging economy. There's no reason for that. The one reason is you could do it cheaper over there. But we, there's nothing they can make that we don't, we can't make. There's no rare earth thing, rare earth materials that they have a lock on that we don't have the capacity. It just costs too much to build a plant to get it out of the ground and make it usable. And we actually pay our people a real wage. And so there's no reason outside of cheap labor that we do anything else around the world. And I'm not some protectionist, but I am for, and voters aren't either. But taking care of our own instead of taking care of others is something that's pretty instinctual for every voter. And so I think that, that while there might be a short term blip on this, on an industry here and there, the opportunity way outweighs and the fact that if we let it keep going, they're going to control our national supply on really essential things that we need. There's no reason why pharmaceutical drugs are made overseas except that people that work on their plants do it cheaper. That's crazy. And then they charge us more when they bring it here than they do the UK So having a critical.
- [32:10]
A
Because then the price of goods continue to go up for America because, because.
- [32:15]
B
Because we have to like build the plants to build them. I mean we gotta start somewhere.
- [32:18]
A
Yeah, but it's gonna take, this is all not gonna happen before the midterm elections. Certainly it will take decades to build those plants.
- [32:25]
B
Some will.
- [32:25]
A
And do Americans want Those jobs.
- [32:27]
B
Of course they do. Of course they do. Everybody wants. I mean, we had a shortage in chump drivers, which we still do, but now truck drivers make 100 grand. I mean, you know, a bad one makes 100 grand. So it will change what the jobs in America do. What. I can't stand that when people say that people will work and have pride in it. What has changed, what Americans will do is when I'm older than you, but when I was growing up and he'd read the obituary page in the Brookfield Daily News Bulletin, it would say so and so died. He worked at the Brown Shoe, The Brown shoe Co. For 34 years and was proud. It was in everybody's. Everybody's obituary had. Where they worked because there was pride in it. And they invested in their company and their company invested in them. Well, stock buybacks and everything else that happened. I'm in selling off, you know, that plant because it's cheaper in China or Mexico. I mean, that changed it. We don't read that obituaries anymore.
- [33:18]
A
Yeah, no, it's. I don't. I'm not. I don't deny that the globalization has impacted the workforce, has impacted a huge. You know, it's a big part of the reason why President Trump is president right now and that our leaders were not. Are not. We're not adapting to it. They're also going to face that with AI as well. But I do think we have to, like, be aware of the fact that 2/4 of Americans surveyed by Pew recently said that they think that the economic.
- [33:46]
B
It's okay not to be perfect with finances.
- [33:49]
A
Experian is your big financial friend and here to help. Did you know you can get matched with credit cards on the app?
- [33:56]
B
Some cards are labeled no Ding decline, which means if you're not approved, they won't hurt your credit scores. Download the Experian app for free today. Applying for no Ding Decline cards won't hurt your credit scores if you aren't initially approved. Initial approval will result in a hard.
- [34:11]
A
Inquiry which may impact your credit scores. Experian conditions are poor or fair. Not really great right now. That's not a great indicator for the. The midterms, though, don't you think?
- [34:22]
B
No. We got to win every election at a time, one at a time. But I do say, by the way, what a perfect time for essentially what will be a one term, a second one term president can tackle that and change it and, and also do the political things it takes to win the next election, because we know what's going to happen in the next election if we lose. And that's why, by the way, I want every seat in America to be, you know, 50, 50. I want redistricting every year. I mean, I'm like, you know, I benefit of every race is 50, 50, and we have 435 competitive seats. But the reality is we know what happens and we don't have to wonder it. We don't have to study history. We don't have to like, guess. We know what's going to happen. The Democrats take the House. And so what's going to happen is it's not going to be some focus on economic conditions all of a sudden it's going to be investigations, impeachments and all the rest. And so I think American people know that and Democrats definitely know it because they're, they're jazzed up. They're 93% intensity for 20, 26. Kind of tough to measure that in October a year out. But they are more intense than Republicans are because things are going pretty well if you're Republican. And so I think we have to win every election at a time. But at the same time, we need somebody that's not beholden by a next election or just do half measures while he's in there to save reelect, like, let's take full measures and reorganize this because we cannot continue to have all of our steel made, not all of it, but most of our steel either made or controlled by foreign countries. Every car part and every hot tub part and every drug. Like, there's no reason why that's in China. There's really not. Americans won't do it. Oh, they won't do it. I mean, they'll do it if we pay them to do it. And if that money was coming here and staying here, absolutely, they do it. But they don't have an opportunity now. And with AI, which is a, you know, I think it's going to be along the, along the lines of the pream press and the Internet, the cotton gin. As far as the reorient of American industry, we better be ready for that as well. And we better be preparing our students and our parents and our teachers to prepare for that. Because some of the skills that they're learning today, I mean, how long do we hear about just learn to code? Okay, well, we don't need to learn to code anymore. And so we have a whole generation.
- [36:31]
A
You have to be adaptable.
- [36:32]
B
Yeah. So we have a whole generation that we're told to learn to code. Okay, well, now I can do that in about three seconds.
- [36:41]
A
I do want to ask you, though, you know. Well, first of all, I like making bets. And what do you think's going to happen in this next election? Obviously, we can go back to it. I hope I have you on before that. But what do you think's going to happen in 2026, the midterms I'm talking about?
- [36:58]
B
Yeah, well, historically, we know the numbers, right? 25, 30 seats go the other way for the party in power. And.
- [37:04]
A
And how many do we have to lose at this? How many do Republicans have to lose at this point?
- [37:08]
B
Yeah, three. And so guess what, we're registered. And I think depending on California, which I don't think is a, we won't have that answer, you know, for a little bit here. But if they don't get their five out of California, then we could be walking in on election night at 235 instead of 220 county. And so when you have Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, Florida, Texas, I mean, there's a lot of opportunities there, probably upwards of 15 to 18 seats. Now, obviously California passes theirs and Maryland does theirs. Washington gets creative and figures they're out. New York can't do it because their own, you know, state laws. But I mean, we were going to be looking at being plus 15. So what does that mean electorally? So let's just say we net 15 seats in redistricting. Well, first of all, that means the competitive seats, which when I started in this, in the federal election business Anyway, really, 2006, 2008, there were 70 seats that could, that could actually, in a tidal wave year, could switch hands. And 2010, the last big one, when you had Obama was rolling in election day at 41% and we picked up 63 or 64 seats. That's not possible.
- [38:22]
A
A shellac.
- [38:22]
B
That's not possible. That's not possible anymore because there's not that many seats that can switch hands. And so now we're talking about a playing field of 25 to 35 and we're going to take in redistricting, probably 10 of those away. And so we're looking at 15 to 25 seats that can change hands. And if we're at 235 going into election night because of redistricting, that's a lot better chance to hang on even in a tidal wave. And if it's not a tidal wave, but it's just bad, a tidal wave is going to be close if we get the redistricting done. But a tidal wave will make it close and, and by the way, I'd love to see the Democrats go through this, but I don't want to see him, you know, tank the rest of this administration. But the, if they have, we've, we've seen Democrats when the, when the margins are close and we see what it makes to mansion and cinema and people like that, imagine in the House where that would go. That'd be fun to watch but not worth the pay per view. I think that we're going to walk in with 235 and if it's a bad year, not a tidal wave year, but if it's a bad year, then we'll keep it by five Senate.
- [39:26]
A
You think that the Republicans will hold on to the House then by five.
- [39:29]
B
Seats if we get the redistricting done?
- [39:31]
A
Yep, if you get the reducing done. Okay. I know you're a Republican consultant, but Democrats seem pretty listless right now. First of all, I want you to analyze like what are their greatest strengths right now and what would you advise them to do?
- [39:49]
B
Their greatest strength is that they, that they've had historically over us for a while is a really critical polling question which is do you, do you understand people like me? Okay, not me, Jeff Rowe, but me, the respondent and that compassion and their ability to synthesize issues into a person's daily life with emotion. They've historically been very good at that. They've gone adrift. And by the way, every party goes through this after a loss. Nothing worked. If you win, you're a genius, you lose, you're an idiot if you win. You had the right message in the silver bullet and you're a genius and, and if you lose, you can't figure it out. But what happened is as they realigned really in the Obama years and additionally with Biden because he was a little bit, you know, not really in control of his party, that they really got away from the understanding of the issues facing people like me and their focus on that and we by the way helped them with that. Their emphasis and focus on issues that don't impact people or the people didn't believe or that they didn't vote on really became a crisis for them. And so threat to democracy and abortion was their issue for the last two campaigns. And by the way, the precinct too was pre existing conditions, put a billion dollars behind it made a number one issue. Republicans were kind of stuck and they already had bad votes. Then they came, you know, tried to get back and we lost elections over it. Now it's, it's a threat to democracy and abortion. And neither one of those are winners for them.
- [41:20]
A
I mean there's not that they energize their base. Right.
- [41:23]
B
It certainly energized their base. But if you take a look, it was not a vote producer though. It wasn't a net producer of votes. If you take a look at two states where there's only two states that you can really talk about, special elections for sure, off your elections for sure. If you're heightened, you know, intensity that's going to impact it. But there's two races last, last cycle now, a cycle ago, 22 where abortion was on the ballot and that was Michigan and Montana. Okay, Two states that don't have a lot in common and one reliably red. You get an off brand, you know, Democrat to win potentially. And then you have. I'm sorry, yes. And then another one somewhat reliably blue. But if you get the right Republican, they can win it. Right Republican at the right time. Okay. Abortion was on the ballot. More people voted in the governor's race in those two states than voted in the abortion initiative. I mean we don't have to like go do some theoretical exam or poll to see what the intensity does. We saw it, we saw it in two different states. You couldn't pick two better states to test it in. More people voted.
- [42:24]
A
It's hard to get people out for those.
- [42:25]
B
No, it was a governor's election. And so if there was this big intensity we would have seen, more people would have frankly voted in the abortion issue than voted in the governor's race. But it was big, like dramatic drop. Not dramatic, but I mean seven or eight point drop off between the turnout for the governor and the turnout for abortion. If they were single issue, go in and vote on abortion and leave, which that can happen, then we would have seen that intensity. And that's why I think they probably moved on. I've not heard a lot about that since it's become a state's issue. People can vote how they want in their state and if they don't like the rules they can go to another state, probably a neighboring. But that is kind of gone. And now you have this threat to democracy argument which use against Trump, which is a stand in for saying that he's going to, you know, dismantle the United States and make it a, a, I don't know what the monarchy, I guess, but that doesn't, people don't believe that either. And it's also not one of the most important issues. Even if he did that to them, because they got to get through the, you know, they got too much month at the end of the money. So we need to, like, focus on those issues. And Democrats just don't have it when you talk. Why are they listless? I mean, they're listless because they don't have an issue. They don't have an economic plan. I can't believe Kamala Harris didn't come out and grab crime. Probably would have been hard to take the border. And every. Every modern Republican and every modern Democrat has gone against their own party on a big issue, except for Biden and Harris. And Harris had an opportunity. 107 days, she could have came out on crime. She was a prosecutor. She put people jail, protected consumers, and that sort of thing broke with her party and then said, hey, some of this stuff is kind of crazy. Their parties do. I want to focus on what matters to you. That's all she had to do. And by the way, increased taxes on billionaires. That's widely popular. I mean, she had a whole host of places to go. And I didn't go in. Didn't go to any of them.
- [44:07]
A
Yeah, I would have, probably. Yeah, exactly. I mean, she was sort of running from her. From her nickname as Coppola if she did not want to embrace that.
- [44:17]
B
So.
- [44:19]
A
What do you think of the fact that Kamala Harris's book is selling like hotcakes, though? 107 days.
- [44:26]
B
Well, most nominees of the party have good book sales. Democrats are good book sales too. But it's catnip, right? I mean, the press eating their own. I mean, some of the stuff is just. I didn't buy it, but, you know, I'll probably blink list it. I'm a big fan of blink List. I should probably be a ambassador for them. And they should, like, sponsor a show of mine or something. Because Blink List, you can read an Entire book in 30 minutes and get the main takeaways. But I blink listed it to be clear. And. And it's. It's just catnip for people like us, frankly. And so it's the internal workings. It's like unreturned.
- [45:03]
A
You can't. You can't. You can't sell bestsellers off of the. The swamp, you know?
- [45:08]
B
Well, but I mean, you didn't know. You're right. She sold, like a bunch. I'm not sure what the number is. 300,000, I think.
- [45:14]
A
I mean, she did run for president.
- [45:15]
B
Yeah. So she's got, you know, high name ID, but yeah, to make the list, you gotta sell 10,000 bucks. So, I mean, she had, she got that in pre orders and then when she went after her own party, probably got a few Republicans to buy it. Maybe not many, but probably got a few. But yeah, I think she's kind of open and wide. The chasm that exists in the Democrat Party where they're really controlled and we can be also, although Trump has broken that for us. So we aren't beholden by either the money interest or the populist. The populist part of our party that's on the ascent. It's not by small donors, it's not by the Freedom Caucus. I mean, Trump has overridden all that. So it makes our problems look much less pronounced than it will for another three years. On their side. Are you going to be.
- [46:00]
A
Trump is the one who controls everything.
- [46:02]
B
That's what I'm saying. They didn't like if you step out.
- [46:04]
A
Of line, he's, you know, as we'll get to later in this episode.
- [46:09]
B
Yeah, but I think they don't have a message because they can't agree on one because they come from two different sets of the world. And you have the rank and file Democrats that, that are for the working poor and better, you know, opportunity for their, for labor unions and teachers unions and that sort of thing. But do you get any higher than that? And it's a fragmentation of LGBTQIA and these special rights for every special group of people. And they can't. I don't think you get all the frogs in the wheelbarrow.
- [46:38]
A
Yeah. So too, too diverse is what you think to a cumbersome coalition, in the words of James Carville, our next guest. Actually, I should one time. I'm going to have both of you guys on. That would be fun. We'll do a little debate. But I do want to talk to you about Trump and how he's playing the, the midterms. So I've heard some complaints from consultants that he's not endorsing quickly enough. And for everybody who doesn't understand why this matters, you know, for people that, people that want this to be a clean election where they don't spend a ton of money and they don't want messy primaries, it's good when the president, you know, we have a kingmaker as a president in the party. And so if he endorses, it basically clears the field and it's good for the nrcc, that's the National Republican Congressional Committee and you know, the nrc, that's the Senatorial Committee. They want everything sorted out. And Trump, some say, has not endorsed enough candidates yet. Do you, what do you think, do you think he's done enough endorsements over the summer?
- [47:47]
B
Yeah, he's endorsed 79 candidates in the 2025 and 2026 election. 79 is a historical number for any president. They typically don't meddle in this. Obama has the same power. He got 11 people out of a presidential race in about 48 hours for Joe Biden.
- [48:03]
A
That's fair.
- [48:03]
B
And so he has that same power and he doesn't utilize it. But, but for a same president to do 79 endorsements and I'm not just talking about state ledge and stuff like that, I mean I'm talking about real endorsements to clear fields. I mean I think that's a lot and I think it's, I think one thing it's probably doing is credentialing people that he won't like seeing in there after he's gone. But I think he's taken care of a lot of primaries and, and I think we have fewer prime, I don't think I know we have more, fewer competitive primaries than we've ever had at a high level either for governor or for Senate. And this is really a year for Senate for governors. There's so many that are up but he's not done a lot of those. I think he's got a pretty good temperament on not only were they with me in 16 and what they said about bad about me and those sort of things which are impactful to him but also are they putting together a campaign apparatus that can actually succeed in the general. And so I think he waits for them to satisfy that requirement. But you take a look at Iowa, Iowa would have been a hot mess and every congressman running and everybody, every statewide running and he took care of that one afternoon. And so you take that state by state, whether it be Mike Rogers or all over the map, he's done that. And so we still have some but Democrats have them all over the place and some of these fights and we're talking about the Democrats being listless. I think we're going to get, get to see some of those play out between more mainstream Democrats and far left Democrats. I think we'll see more of that.
- [49:36]
A
So you think no. Yeah. Sorry to cut you off. Do you think no more double endorsements?
- [49:43]
B
Well, he likes to play and pat the stats probably. So I think, I don't know there might be some down the stretch where he's can't tell he's going to win the primary and Likes them both. They're both friends. They both been banging on him for, you know, six months to do it, so we might see a few, but I doubt there's going to be too many.
- [49:58]
A
So you mentioned the whole idea of loyalty and how much that means to Trump. There's clearly, you know, still some bad blood because of the fact that, you know, you worked with DeSantis on his super PAC. I'm old enough to remember when they wanted to hire you after Glenn Youngkin won in Virginia, when he won the governor's race. I've heard there's this sort of edict, you know, if you work with Axiom or you work with, you know, you're not going to get an endorsement from Trump. How do you deal with that as. As a. With your business? I mean, I know you're still up there as one of the top consultancies, but how do you convince some, you know, a candidate to work with you?
- [50:38]
B
So. Well, we're 6 for 6 this cycle. We were 41 for 51. Ian Dawson, I think 379 races in 20, 24 of the race endorsed in 92 races that Axiom was involved in. And we went 41 for 51, by the way, we lost all 10 that he endorsed.
- [50:57]
A
Wait, did he endorse your candidates in.
- [50:59]
B
Those 92 they endorsed in our race? And I'm sorry, not necessarily your candidates. I add those up. He endorsed at 51 campaigns that Axiom had a candidate in. 41 of those times he endorsed our candidate. 10 of those times he endorsed an opponent. And, and so, not surprisingly, we went, oh, 10 for those. So far, he's endorsed up at 79. He's endorsed in six races that we're a part of, and we're six for six. He's endorsed our candidate. So I think that there's a Trump himself, and I don't want to speak. So, you know, I feel like we had a good moment before the election happened when he was in Houston for an event and spent, you know, a little bit of time together. But, I mean, if you are a Trump consultant, like, this time to ride. And so if I wanted to use that against me, I do it, too. And we're, you know, depending on how you measure, two to five times bigger than the next closest competitor. So we're easy to hate. And I'm personally, you know, somewhat easy to hate, although a lot of people haven't met me. But I'm an easy proxy. And so. So, yeah, I probably use it, too, I don't think, but it Also comes down to who can run the best campaign. And we're still a meritocracy and we have great inroads around Washington D.C. and the Trump world. And so we're, we're pitching and hustling and doing everything we can.
- [52:22]
A
You are working with Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton. You know, quite a, he's a bit of a scandal scarred candidate and he's going after leadership. He's going after Senator John Cornyn. Is this a sign the pirate flag is up that you're willing to take on candidates who will take down incumbents? I mean, in some of the polling it shows that Paxton loses to Democratic challenger Colin Allred. We had him on the show that Corning could win. Obviously now Cornyn has started spending money in the race and his, he's up substantially. He wasn't spending money before and Paxton was crushing him before he started spending money. You know, are you concerned about that?
- [53:08]
B
Concerned about the losing or concerned about.
- [53:10]
A
Which part of that losing, pissing off, you know, Senate leadership, the White House, you know, all of, all of it.
- [53:22]
B
Yeah, no, I, so first, the last two Republican senators that were defeated for reelect, we did, we had hands in both those elections. Dick Lugar and, and Senator Bennett and, and so I've kind of tried to work in building a company that people can spend their career in and their grandkids can work here. I try to spend as much of my time as I can refining the argument for why we're one of the best in the business, like to more people than anyone. And, and I, so I don't rely on committees to hand me business or for entities to hand me business. I, we get on a plane every day. There's somebody in the air right now at Axiom flying to a pitch and we're just going to take care of ourselves and provide the best services we can to our clients with the best chance to win. Frankly, a lot of these races become somewhat settled around filing deadline. So we kind of know roughly, you know, our candidates quality is better than theirs. And that all happens in the pitch. You can't win races, you know, that you don't have. And so this was a unique one. We don't go out there and seek the pirate flag is that we depend on ourselves not, you know, anyone to hand us business. And I don't like anybody telling my team or us who don't work for who you can't work for. We're not, you know, big into that. But I would say that there's a, on the race here. This whole Colin Allred, which we won't have to deal with him. He's actually great on paper and a terrible candidate as I, as it played out against Cruz, but I think we'll be running against Talarico. But the whole notion of, and I, I really mean this when I say it, and I say it with respect to a lot of smart people. I don't think I'm the only person with intelligence in politics, but I can't believe what they actually say. They actually say that Ken Paxton puts his seat in jeopardy. Okay, so let's play that out.
- [55:24]
A
The polling, the S. S.L. u.S. The Senate leadership funds polling showed that. And that was before the second affair scandal came out.
- [55:32]
B
So there's, I mean, I think the last SLF poll I saw was like a two point spread between who did better versus a fictional Democrat candidate. But this, we, we don't have to wonder. John Cornyn has, has a long service and tenure in Texas and he's been on the ballot several times and undefeated and, and has worked tirelessly on that record and mostly unopposed. But when Donald Trump was on the ballot in 2020, so when the entire election, I laid this out a little bit, but I'll go deeper on it now. In 2026, the number one job of any Republican candidate is get the people that voted for Trump in 2024, particularly in Texas, but every state really, but particularly in Texas, get as many of those people out in 2026 as you possibly can because turnout drops by a third. And so what is the, so the argument would have to be, if you're an intelligent, not on the payroll, just a casual observer who can do a better job of getting the middle votes, the people in the middle, versus getting Trump voters to turn out. Okay, so that's the, that's the, that's the, you know, George Mason Politics 101 class. Okay, so we have a use case. We don't have to wonder, we don't have to guess, we don't have to wonder what that looks like. John Cornyn got 72,000 more votes than Donald Trump did in 2020. That's a, you know, that's a good number that he should know tout. He got more votes, more crossovers. He got 72,000 more votes. So then the question becomes, do you believe that, that Ken Paxton will turn out more than 72,000 votes of Trump 2024 voters than Cornyn would in a general election? Of course, the answer to that is yes. It's probably 3 or 4, maybe even 5x that number. And so I don't understand the philosophy that we're trying to find the person that can get the most votes out of election presidential year voters to participate in an off year when that's the entire entirety of the argument. And by the way, Donald Trump was running under the pandemic against Joe Biden and, and Corn was running against MJ Hagar, not exactly a household name. So I don't believe that this is a contest. I, and, and the fear of spending $250 million, if they're going to spend $250 million in Texas, they could go up today in the big three markets and stay up for the rest of the cycle. I don't even know what they would spend that money on. You, you almost, I mean, you can spend a lot of money dumb, but without dumb money, I don't even know how you'd spend that much money.
- [58:13]
A
Okay, I do want to talk about someone who is probably in a awkward place right now thanks to your involvement in the John Coran campaign, Senator Ted Cruz. I know you guys have been together for a very long time. You literally live in the same neighborhood. You are a big part of his career and the reason you know that he is who he is. Some might call you the Carl Rove of the Ted Cruz machine. But do you think he's going to run in 2028? Is he running for president?
- [58:46]
B
Well, let me clean you up a little bit. I mean, we do live two miles apart, so we're not exactly a precise neighborhood.
- [58:51]
A
Oh.
- [58:51]
B
And being the coral robe of a losing presidential versus a win presidential, that's a big deal. So, so, yeah, I think that, and so in 2028 politics, I mean, I think that there is a, a, a leader in the clubhouse and that's JD. I mean, JD's got 50% in almost any survey of Republican voters on who they want to be the next one. And we ask questions like this often. I have a couple polling companies and so we see a lot of data around it. And I've actually stopped asking about Lincoln, which, you know, is too bad, but because he would always get 9 or 10 or maybe 11%. But if you ask who is the best Republican president in American history, Trump over Reagan is 55, 45. Now that's, that's him and that's him in office. And so, and by the way, the 11 or 10 that Lincoln would get, if we put him in the survey, it'd be 55, 35, 10. And so we've taken him out because it's, it's, he's just a subset for being Reagan. And so that's the divide again, that 55 is Trump and it's also in office currently. So there's probably a little juice there. But, but I think there's going to be, I think we're, it will be settled in a year, obviously, because the calendar will settle it for us, if anything else. But I think there's a lot of people that would fancy themselves as being a candidate. And so the question is going to be, can you articulate where you have a different vision of the Republican Party from JD And Trump? While I'm assuming that that would assume that Marco doesn't run. If Marco runs, you know, I think everybody that's gotten more than 50,000 votes will take a serious look at it. But if Marco doesn't run, essentially kind of folds in. I don't think so on a ticket per se. But if he folds in by this is the Trump Organization and administration's candidate, this will all, this entire campaign will be conducted.
- [61:00]
A
This is the second Trump term, essentially.
- [61:02]
B
Yeah. Or the third. And by the way, we asked the question. Yeah, right. Would you suspend. This is Republican primary voters, but would you, would you vote to override the constitutional prohibition on two terms in order to allow Donald Trump to serve a third term? And that answer is 30, 36. Yes. So which is. Some people say, well, that's not a very big number. That's an enormous number. But anyway, so he's wildly popular and wildly widely accepted as the leader of the party for the last 10 years and potentially the next 10 years. So you have to make a couple of assumptions. One, he stays out and lets everybody kind of free fall free for all It. Okay, I don't know if I subscribe to that. Then Two, you have to assume that he doesn't do that and no one else within the administration runs, which I'm not sure I'd make that bet either. But let's just assume those two things. So now you got somebody that's going to be somewhere between 50 and 60%. And so if you're a candidate looking at Ryan, what can you consolidate the 45 and then battle him down to his brand and not Trump's brand? And that's a big question. I think it's a question that people are going to ask. But I mean, I don't think I've seen a front runner for a nomination as clear and compelling today and with the trappings of not only power, but authority and positioning. So he has the right relationships at the RNC where he's able to take advantage of that. He has enabled Observatory to blue campaign donors, which I'm sure they're doing a great job at. He's got a smart team and so I think they're doing everything.
- [62:37]
A
He has a relationship with Elon Musk still?
- [62:39]
B
Yeah, I think so. I mean, he was mostly silent during that dust up. I don't know if that's a $250 million relationship or not, but I mean it's, you know, not insignificant. He could write that check at a whim and not feel it more than likely. And so, yeah, so there's, there's a big, will there be a big field? There could be, but it would take a couple things happening. One, Trump not blessing him. I have no idea, literally no idea. But I doubt that. And then two, if he doesn't do that, does someone else in the administration in a high ranking position run as an alternative?
- [63:15]
A
And so, and you only see Rubio, you don't see RFK Jr. Well, I.
- [63:21]
B
Don'T think Rubio would do it, but I don't, I, I don't sit in his head. He's got a big job and he's got a lot to think about and he's got a lot of things that he can monetize going forward. So I would assume that his career in public service would maybe end at the conclusion of this term, but I don't know that I don't have any inside knowledge on that. Others in the administration would not measure up to him. He's done an amazing job and, and, and really has a good brand with a big job and big portfolio and can impact a lot of policies. So he doesn't, if he doesn't run and Trump endorses, then it's, boy, you better figure out a way to swim up the stream because it's going to be maybe. George W. Bush was the most heir apparent that we've ever had and really he got beat in a primary and battled McCain for a few states and he had every opportunity to win, had the narrative and the compelling narrative of winning Hispanics and all the things he'd done in Texas and the president's son, I don't think we've seen a non vice president, at least ever have this kind of positioning and even a vice president have this kind of positioning since probably, probably George H.W. bush.
- [64:28]
A
So you think that he's really shed the establishment all off of him. You know, he's taken a, he, he's a Classic. He was a classic GOP establishment Republican until he was blessed by Bannon and the rest.
- [64:43]
B
Oh, I don't know. I think. No, I think he's got a. So his time, he spent VC obviously getting good relationships with Peter Thiel and others that invested heavily in his races. But I don't know as he's conventional, I think he's more, he's much more populist and I think he's much more, I don't necessarily, it would be defined as Trump now, but he's, I mean he's more blue collar than the average off the rack. Dillard's Republican, you know, contender for sure. Now he's got, you know, some strengths and weaknesses that I just don't have. I think his ability to, to talk in terms of, of how he differentiates himself from the, the brand, the Republican brand, I think he could incredibly make and be it his origins or policies that he's taken East Palestine being an example and his labor is fighting of labor support, other Republicans wouldn't have that. There's more kind of Wall street brand Republicans that don't have that same opinion. But I think if a bunch run, they're going to be swimming in a pretty shallow pond and they've got to get in the big river pretty quick.
- [65:51]
A
And I don't hear you talking about your former client, Ron DeSantis.
- [65:54]
B
Well, I think Ron, I mean, he's got, I mean, the one thing that, that, that both Ted and Ron have, that a lot of the others, Marco would have it too, is having done this. It's awful hard to explain to somebody what a cheeseburger tastes like unless you've done it. And so both of those would know what they believe didn't work in their last campaign and have an opportunity to, to affect it and change it. And what they, if they had an honest team around them that didn't mind speaking truth to power about where they failed, where the team has to accept that responsibility first. And then, I mean, consultants lose campaigns, candidates win campaigns. We can only really screw it up if the candidate's that good. So the candidate really has to take a look too. And some are easier to communicate that to than others, all being difficult. So there's a tallest dwarf, you know, kind of thing going on there. But yeah, I think that these things don't come around. But the good news is as longevity takes hold, I mean everybody can take a pass and they're only four to eight years older and so that's okay too. But, but JD has a seismic hold on the party apparatus and he's got a brand alignment with the current dominant person in American politics being Trump. And so I think he's got some things to say that that won't be easily dissuaded. And so the field I believe then probably becomes small. And just a few rfk, I'm not sure about rfk but, but I think just a few would, would take a run and I think Ted and Ron and a lot of the big names in the party, you know, you see him thinking about it.
- [67:30]
A
So I am seeing though that he's not the best match against a Democrat like Gavin Newsom though. JD Vance, are you. What do you think? 49:41 is what they're showing Gavin 49: JD 41 yeah.
- [67:50]
B
I think Gavin Newsom would be a dream candidate now. He's hard working, he's earnest, he's palatable from his issue set. So he'll do extreme makeover and build incredibly, you know, sell pieces of that. But he has got a record. It used to be a real advantage to be a governor in a presidential race because you actually showed best things done that is off, that's over. That all politics is local is wrong. That doesn't exist anymore. Tip o' Neill was the last, you know, last time that that was true. All politics is national but and so it's actually advantage to be at the national level now. But Gavin, and that's why Gavin plays in national issues, that's why he goes head on against Trump. And Gavin had the best season of any Democrat and was rewarded for doing so. He really separated himself from the field. I think of all the contenders that would be there on the Democrat side he had the best summer and he's having the best fall but at the end so because of that he'll probably walk in with an advantage in a Democrat primary and it would surprise me if he came out as a nominee. But he's liberal enough and talented enough that he's kind of in his own tier. Everyone else, everyone else is a tier below him right now and that didn't in March, I wouldn't have said that in April, I wouldn't have said it but certain around in May. I mean you can, you can definitely see the separation. I think he's got a couple nicks he's got to work through. He's got to make sure to win this election coming up redistricting. But if he's, if he's the bulwark against where the Republicans are going. But I will tell you on the debate stage, which matters. I mean, he got, I mean, I'm not objective observer, but I think Desantis, he pantsed him at that debate.
- [69:27]
A
Yeah, at a Fox debate.
- [69:29]
B
It was a Fox debate. But at the same time he showed the courage to go do it, which is something that others don't have. But yeah, no, I think people like a fighter. Newsom would be a, you know, a sturdy opponent, but he really is just out of alignment on a lot of issues that he's currently trying to fix. So we'll see how many of those actually go into that move from a podcast to policy. If you listen to his podcast, like he's moving on issues. If you see his policy, he's not moving. And so we're going to see a lot of play out. But anyway, I think every election, I mean, 234,000 votes, 44,000 votes, 66,000 votes. The last three presidential elections have been decided by that. And so there's no 4941 in any near term election.
- [70:16]
A
It's actually the YouTube election now, to be clear. Welcome.
- [70:22]
B
It's the YouTube world. We're all just living it. You know, one of the biggest things why he has become and use a mode that I think many have woken up to because of Trump, is that there are more people listening to the top five. Now, I haven't checked Charlie's, his, his legacy show, but including Charlie's show, and assuming they haven't lost any. In fact, they've probably grown it since the, since the murder. But the top five Republican podcast weekly viewership is higher than the big four broadcast network works.
- [70:55]
A
Absolutely. It always has been. I mean, like, not, not always has been, but it, it is. Even cable, like just your rank and file podcast blows past it. But I do want to ask you about Trump and his approval rating. I mean, he is underwater. And that's got to impact someone like J.D. vance. And it's year one, he's at 43%. So how does, you know, how does J.D. vance spring from that? That's my only question.
- [71:21]
B
Yeah, well, if he's, I mean, I've seen some numbers higher than that, but let's just take your number. That means that he's at, you know, 97% with Republicans and he's upside down with independents and upside down obviously historically with Democrats. But we got to win game six to win game seven. And I don't think that the Republicans, historically, as have Democrats, get in line when a big election's on the line. And so whatever that number is it's going to be 45. 45 and we're going to have 9% of the electorate that's going to decide and the unification will be there and it won't be some underwater and tagged with it. I mean I understand how that would happen. I think that's more impactful in the midterms than I do in the presidential because it resets. We got a new person. It'll be a year long campaign for the primary or year long campaign for the general or at least nine months in the general. And so we're going to know a lot more about JD Than we know today if he's a nominee or anyone else on the Democrat side. And we're going to know a lot more about where we're going as a party post Trump than and I suspect there'll be a fight about that. Whether it's a Reagan, Reagan type of approach or a Trump type of approach. I think we'll probably re litigate that. And then when it's all over we'll all come together and everybody vote against Republican votes against Gavin and every Democrat votes against our nominee. And so I don't see that as being some hindrance. I think it's a huge advantage in fact.
- [72:41]
A
Thanks Jeff. I really appreciate it. That was another episode of the Tara Palmeri show. I hope you enjoyed it. We are obviously going to be tackling the midterm elections in addition to the Epstein story and many others. But I figured if you wanted to hear the facts on the ground, you might as well hear it from the insiders who are working with the candidates. I want to thank my team, my producer, Eric Abenate, who had to deal with a few technical difficulties, difficulties in this podcast if you notice some glitches. We had a lot of technical difficulties, unfortunately. I also want to thank my researcher, Abby Baker and I want to thank Adam Stewart who is doing the graphics. And if you like this show, please rate it, subscribe, share it with your friends, leave a written review. If you're on Spotify or Apple, it helps, you know, just show people what you think about the show. And of course, course I appreciate all of your comments, your likes. This is a show. We're building it. It's a community. I want to hear from you what you want to hear more about what you think I missed because I'm just a human. I don't get everything right. And we'll be back again soon. I'm excited for the Carville interview. There are others to come. I'll be doing Lives on my substack. That's the red letter. And you can go to tara palmari.com to find it. That's T A R A P A L M E R I dot com. You can sign up for my newsletter, the Red Letter, and that's how you get my exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. And it's also a way to support my independent journalism by becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you again, and I'll see you soon.