← The Tara Palmeri Show
The Tara Palmeri Show
Is America Being Lied To? Democrat Michael LaRosa v Republican Erin Maguire Debate
01:08:40
Loading summary
Transcript177 lines
- [00:00]
A
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart Choice make another smart choice with Auto Quote Explorer to compare rates from multiple car insurance companies all at once. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy foreign. Welcome back to the Tara Palmerie Show. On this episode, I'm doing something a little different. I'm hosting a debate with two Washington insiders who have worked for presidents and speakers. And after protecting power for years, they're willing to admit when their parties were right or wrong while still not agreeing on very much. Michael LaRosa served as Jill Biden's press secretary and as a top communications aide to Nancy Pelosi. He was once tasked with defending President Biden until he publicly broke with him on this show, accusing Democrats of gaslighting the public about Biden's health.
- [01:07]
B
I mean, like the gaslighting, there was a lot of denial of the polling. And I will use the term gaslight because that's what they were doing the campaign.
- [01:18]
A
Former colleagues on the other side is Erin McGuire, a veteran Republican strategist who worked as Trump's deputy communications director and as a press secretary to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. She's defended Trump through chaos, through scandal, and through moments the party would rather forget. And she's also seen firsthand how loyalty and power really work in the GOP when Trump's team turned on her for working for Ron DeSantis. These two have lived through spin cycles, cover ups, and the inner party knife fights. We're all too familiar with the so I put them head to head. We debate about everything from the transparency of both presidents, their handling of the Epstein case, their leadership in foreign affairs, the economy, immigration, and what it all means for the midterms, the 2020 elections and beyond. Take a listen here. Thanks for joining the show. I'm really excited for this one and I'm going to break this up into three parts. We're going to get right into it. The first part of this debate will be the presidency. Then we'll go into the midterms and the 2028 elections and beyond. Thank you again for being here. I know you guys are very busy with your campaigns and your clients, but let's get started. So first I want to talk about a kind of touchy subject, transparency about their health. Who has been more transparent, President Trump or President Biden? As we can see, President Trump keeps falling asleep. His hand obviously has a lot of bruising on it, and they're covering it up with makeup. His ankles are pooling with blood. And, you know, he says his MRIs are perfect, but clearly he's going to get checked on for something. We just don't know what. Meanwhile, President Biden had a hard time even just communicating. His cognitive issues were pretty bad. He was never really in front of the press, rarely did any interviews. Um, and it was revealed that he had cancer as soon as he left office. But, you know, Trump is out there speaking in front of the camera, but it's not really pretty. So I'll start with you, Erin. Who do you think has been more transparent about their health?
- [03:24]
C
I think given what the American people have seen, it's been President Trump. And I think there are a few indicators that point to that. One, anytime there has been a question about the President's health, whether it's the makeup seeming to cover bruising on his hands, whether it is his legs, whether it's the mri, the maybe he's not answering every question, but he's giving insight and answering at least some of them. At least the right White House is responding. With Joe Biden, it was very clear there was a decline for years that when was brought up during the 20 cycle, when I was on the campaign, members of the staff were shouted down by members of the media during interviews for pointing out the very obvious to the American people. And then there was a clear cover up within the White House to try and hide the level of decline the President was experiencing. You saw that with the new sneakers, him taking the low stairs on Air Force One, having staff walk with him to try and hide a clear shuffling and changing of his gait. It was all of those compounding factors that really showed that there was a level of dishonesty to what we were seeing. Is the Trump administration giving every ounce of full medical information about the President? No, but I think the American people clearly see that at least Donald Trump is a healthier, cognitively more prepared president than Joe Biden. And they were lied to for years about that.
- [04:45]
A
I don't know. What do you think, Michael? You are in the White House. What do you think? Who do you think is being more transparent?
- [04:52]
B
Well, transparency is hard to measure in the moment, and we can only go by the effort at transparency. And yeah, I agree with Aaron, actually, they get a lot of credit, but because whenever there is a question or whenever there is an issue medically with the president, they are really fast about disseminating information and getting information to the public. So their accessibility is quite frankly, really impressive. And their speed at which they communicate to the public, which tends to limit or it limits the amount of questions there are because they're always talking to us. And that was the opposite of my colleagues who chose a very different kind of strategy for a really long time. And Tara, I remember when you and I did a one on one in 23 when you were with Puck and you were asking me about this and I said to them, they need to just lean into the age issue. Like, you can't outrun it. You gotta like be self deprecating about it, but be, you know, embrace it. Be completely transparent and open. And I remember Anthony Bernal calling me and said, we're so proud of what you said. That's exactly right. That's exactly what everybody needed to hear. But they went in the opposite direction, you know, after that. I mean, they, they were gaslighting, they were evasive. And it was the show, not the tell so much because everything Aaron already explained, the optics of the shoes, the stairs, the defensiveness, and the fact that they chose to really disengage from organic impromptu moments that would not allow him to be authentic. So if you're gated and bubble wrapped the whole time, you get a set, you got a sense that everything was choreographed with them and that they were hiding something. And so I have to, I can't. There's not a ton of disagreement here, unfortunately. You know, I would have advocated for something completely different, but the Trump people have it right. Whether they're being honest or not, we will know in the future. But at least when it comes to the speed of communicating and creating perception, they're very good at that.
- [07:24]
A
Yeah, I was gonna say they, they address things, but it's not really clear what they're saying. It might, may or may not be honest what they're saying.
- [07:33]
B
That's why it's hard to say, like, are they transparent?
- [07:36]
A
Well, they're transparent in their response, but.
- [07:40]
B
Is it an their efforts at transparency get high marks versus the Biden people who stalled and were invas evasive and just running scared of their own shadow all the time.
- [07:53]
A
And could you make the argument though, that the Trump administration is more comfortable with lying and the Biden administration feared losing?
- [08:01]
B
I think Democrats.
- [08:05]
C
Well, I understand the framing of your question, but I haven't seen anything that indicates whatsoever that the White House has lied about the President's medical background, what the doctors have said, anything like that.
- [08:17]
A
But he just saying. They're only saying he had a largely.
- [08:20]
C
About Trump, but he hasn't done anything to indicate that on this topic. And so I think if you're going to talk about his health and try and say, well, there's always questions whether or not this White House is giving all the information. This is a subject that I think just sits in a different category when it comes to how the White House handles and approaches it, because it is about the President's health. And no matter what the framing about whether or not they're being honest, at least the American people can see with their own eyes that is a man who is available and aware and the questions get answered. I just don't think that the framing of the question is necessarily fair when it comes to his health, about their honesty, because there's no proof up to this point that they've lied.
- [08:59]
A
Well, they are saying that the MRI was a perfect mri, but they're not telling us what it's for.
- [09:04]
C
I mean, both things can be true in that instance. Right. It could be a perfect mri.
- [09:09]
A
What is the.
- [09:09]
C
Because we don't know what it's of. Just because we don't know what it's of doesn't mean they're lying about the results.
- [09:15]
A
Well, they're evading the reason why the MRI was taken in the first place.
- [09:20]
C
Yeah. And that's a fair point to shine a light on that. They're not being completely transparent and there are questions they haven't completely answered. But that does not equate to them lying and up. And as I've said up to this point, there's no indication that they've lied about the President's health.
- [09:37]
A
Okay, so let's talk about foreign affairs. Biden was viewed as incompetent for his handling of the withdrawal of Afghanistan, the withdrawal of troops. It was a mess. It was a seminal moment in his presidency. It really marked the downfall, especially in terms of his polling. I mean, you just saw a drop off in October. He also had a really bad economy at the same time. But this is obviously a foreign affair, not a domestic one. That marked a real downfall for him, in the opinion of the American people, a war that we had been engaged in for decades. And Trump's mishandling of the drug boats has become a scandal as well. Do you think it will be seen in hindsight as a scandal of the same magnitude if it's possibly considered a war crime? I want to start with you on that one, Michael.
- [10:27]
B
Yeah, so I guess stay tuned for the Trump administration, but the, the problem for them is that it's not. It's not just Democrats Complaining and communicating concerns to the public. It's a lot of Republicans too. And the only reason why it's more of an issue because, and, and you know, and like, Trump is very proactive, typically, like, like we said on the health issue about communicating to the public. I don't understand why they won't release the second video. I think there's no pro, there's probably really no excuse. I think even Republicans, some Republican senators are saying that. So I think there's a lot we don't know. I'm not on the side of defending narco terrorism. I think, I think it's fine to treat them as, you know, enemy combatants. That's fine. But, and you know, they did say that there was JAG lawyers in the room at the time. I mean, it would be nice to hear from some of those people. We don't know. But you are right. The, you know, Afghanistan was a. And it happened around the same time, I guess as like nine months, ten.
- [11:41]
A
Months into the administration, almost exactly around the same time. September was the narco boat fiasco. And then I believe October was the Afghanistan.
- [11:52]
B
August.
- [11:53]
A
August, sorry, August.
- [11:54]
B
Yeah, but, but, but he did never, he never recovered. And a big part of that was because of how it played visually. It looked. When you run on competence and restoring competence and you have such an incompetent logistical response to a crisis that is living and breathing and airing on tv, it's hard to escape that, that. Now, to be fair to President Biden on the pull out, the decision to pull out, it was just actually executing on President Trump's own deal with the Taliban. We literally took his deal and ended the war. Now, the problem that we run into is over real time intelligence on whether that was, you know, what we could have done better. And it's a little bit too policy wonky if we really want to get into it. But the visa program and temporary visas of the Afghan refugees, the Trump administration, before we got there, really did everything they could to choke off those immigration programs. And so we were left and inherited a lot of backlog that made it hard to get people out in a timely manner. But we were actually executing on the deal that he made that we inherited.
- [13:18]
A
Erin, what do you think? I mean, they did leave billions of dollars of weapons behind for the Taliban.
- [13:27]
C
Yeah, I completely agree that Joe Biden completely failed when it came to the Afghanistan withdrawal. And I think the Trump administration would push back to say, yes, this was our timeline, but we would not have pulled out at that point on the agreement of the deal. Because it was clear that the Taliban wasn't completely keeping up their end of the bargain at that point. And as we saw the visuals on it with people falling off of planes is very different than narco terror boats being blown out of the water. And as the President frames it, trying to keep those drugs from killing Americans, I think that those will be viewed very differently. Very differently.
- [14:06]
B
Well, let's see, let's see the visual then. What are they scared of?
- [14:10]
A
Right.
- [14:10]
C
I would. Okay. Hey, I'm not arguing whether or not the visual is there. I was actually mid thought on something else. I actually do think that if everybody agrees it should be out, it should be out. But to not distract from the point that people watched innocent civilians in Afghanistan because of Joe Biden trying to run next to US carrier planes and, and falling off the side and out of wheel wells because of the abject failure of Joe Biden. That's a hard and fast fact. The narco terror boats I don't think at this point are indicating they will be treated the same way by the American people toward Donald Trump and his polling. I think when you look at Donald Trump and his polling, people are more focused on the economy, on energy costs, on the costs of living, on cost of goods, for where he actually numbers situation not as much on his geopolitical work. Because overall the work he's done geopolitically, if that's whether it's on the borders or abroad, I think the American people see that more favorably.
- [15:11]
A
What if he actually gets us into a war with Venezuela? I mean, it feels like that is what is happening right now.
- [15:17]
C
Well, I mean that is a huge hypothetical to situation and it would be against the ethos of kind of what the Trump and MAGA group have always kind of been about, which is no troops on the ground, no, no new conflicts, no foreign engagements, that kind of stuff.
- [15:32]
B
So.
- [15:32]
A
But I would have engaged. He's so engaged.
- [15:36]
C
He's very engaged. And from what we're seeing in recent reporting, it's very clear that the administration wants to see regime change. And so they're trying to ramp up the pressure it seems as much as they can in as many ways as they can without having to go into a full blown conflict. I don't know where that line sits for them and, and I'm certainly not going to expect them to give an Obama red line on it, but this will be a hard conversation for them, a bridge to have to cross should they get there. But again, this is a massive hypothetical at this point because it's not the reality we're facing. What you're seeing is that ramped up pressure from the administration which you are seeing is them seizing sanctioned boats that should, that have, you know, have already been agreed upon by the federal government as bad and nefarious actors. When you couple that all together, it's clear what they're aiming for. I don't know how they get to the final result of the regime change.
- [16:29]
A
I mean, they could be accused of a possible war crime for that second shooting. I mean, for that second detonation.
- [16:36]
C
Yeah, I don't, I don't, I'm not the international criminal courts. I don't know how those functions. I don't know what the lines are on that. So again, that's a hypothetical. It could, it might, will it? We don't know. You have to go on the facts we're sitting in front of right now, which is that we're looking at narco terror boats and an increase, but we don't have pressure on to change their regime.
- [16:58]
A
We just don't have the full picture because we don't have literally the pictures.
- [17:02]
B
And Tara, like when you, when you zoom out a little bit, this is kind of where I think he, he could cut his losses. The, the defense. I have nothing against the Defense secretary. I, I wouldn't have voted for him. But he has been a huge media and political liability for the President. And it just 10 months in, or, I'm sorry, 12 months in, he seems to create more problems than he solves for President Trump. And if you're trying to be clinical about it, I mean, I just don't know how much longer hegseth in that position is sustainable only because there's nothing good that ever. The point of cabinet secretaries is to hire people to keep the president out of trouble. People who know the building, who know the workforce, who know what they're doing. And every step of the way he sort of has demonstrated that he doesn't really know what he's doing. And maybe that's fair or unfair, I don't know. But all we can go by is the really bad publicity that he gets more than anybody else in the cabinet. That's why I think Trump's nuts to keep him in there from a. And you know Trump well, I mean like, he doesn't like getting distracted by other people's screw ups. He doesn't tolerate that very long.
- [18:25]
A
No, I'm going to move on though from this, but thank you guys. We're going to move on to the economy. Who's done A poor job. Sorry, A better job of handling a poor economy. Biden with the stimulus checks under build back better or Trump with his tariffs. I'm gonna start. If you're anything like me, then you hate running around from store to store to store for holiday gifting. But you still want to get people that you love something beautiful, something timeless, something that they will wear for years. And that's why this year I'm going to Quince. From Mongolian cashmere sweaters that only cost $50 to Italian wool coats, everything is premium quality at a price that actually makes sense. I personally wear a lot of their silk tops I on this show because they're so reasonably priced and they're made with premium materials from ethical trusted factories priced so far below luxury brands. I don't know how they do it. Their craftsmanship is shown in every single detail. The stitching, the fit, the drape. It's elevated. It's timeless. It's. It's clothing you'll wear forever. So if you want to find gifts that you'll want to keep for yourself, Then head to quint.comtara for free shipping on your order and 365 days of returns. They're now available in Canada too. That's Quince. Q-U I N C E.com Tara T A R A to get free shipping and 365 days of returns. Quints.com Tara start with you on this one, Aaron.
- [19:57]
B
The American rescue plan.
- [20:00]
A
Oh, sorry, the American res. What was it? The American rescue plan and Build Back Better. But they were both stimulus plans, essentially.
- [20:06]
B
Well, yeah, but the checks came from the rescue plan a month in because the country was on the brink of collapse from COVID Okay, okay.
- [20:18]
C
Well, I think that to frame Trump's economic plan as just tariffs, I think is missing the larger picture on what he's really been doing. And I think you have to go back to the one big beautiful bill which kept the middle class tax cuts, the. That allowed the American people to keep more of their paychecks. No tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, really codifying those into law. And you have to look at that, plus the deregulation that's being done. Right. You've seen that the president has been trying to get bureaucratic red tape out of the way to allow agencies and industries to further the American process. And we've seen when President Trump has removed regulatory red tape before that that has been successful. Operation Warp Speed, I think, is probably the prime example of that from the first administration where you saw success and when you look back, when you could. When you continue to look back. Okay, I don't understand. When you continue to look at the totality of Trump here, you look at the deregulation that you've seen be successful, you look at the tariffs as part of this, you look at the tax cuts. So when it comes to the economy, this is a much more robust plan when it comes to being able to address this. And he's trying to change it long term. The tariffs are the one that seem to be the most wobbly on this. But you see, again, where he's been using those as kind of levers. He pushes one up a little, he pulls one back a little, he brings one up a little, he brings one down a little. He's really trying to change the trade policy across the country, and he was using tariffs as a tool. Now, if you go back and look at Donald Trump's history, he's been talking about tariffs as an economic tool since the 1980s. This wasn't anything unexpected or new. But the one thing that I think economically is different between this administration that makes them highly more successful than the previous administration is the honesty with the American people. You have J.D. vance, who was just out there the other day saying, I know when, you know, when we've grown wages by $1,000, but they were still down 3,000 under Biden. I know that that's still tough. I grew up in a family that lived on tight means. I know what it's like having to watch my grandmother pick between groceries and prescriptions. He really added that human element to it. But he also added the acknowledgement that it's still tough out there for a lot of the American people. It doesn't always feel like it's getting better as quickly as we'd want, but this is the long game, and that is the difference. I think that shows the economic success that the American people will, as the Trump administration says, see in the first quarter of next year that the Biden administration wasn't willing to do. They continued to tell the American people, don't believe your lying eyes. Things aren't more expensive. You, inflation is transitory to tell the American people that. And I think when it comes to economic success, when it comes to changing the United States economy for the long run, at least acknowledging the reality that it's hard and it's going to take time, that success we did not see in the previous administration.
- [23:10]
A
Okay, Michael, what do you think? Oh, it's a lot to take in.
- [23:15]
B
Okay. Yeah. I don't know where to begin. But I'm going to try to be organized in my thoughts because I agree with a portion of what Erin said and then she went a little too far. So then I have. So now I'm thinking about the PR part versus the actual substance. Both White Houses inherited a huge mess on their doorsteps. Ours was once in a lifetime. No president had ever walked into the White House, opened the doors. Half a million Americans dead, kids out of school, businesses closed, economy on the brink. And I think we, I think Biden deserves a lot of credit. And Aaron mentioned operation warp speed and vaccines. Yes, Trump deserves a lot of credit for those vaccines. We wish he would have helped us a little bit get, get them started and administered a little faster. But we did that in 100 days and continued to get the rest of the country vaccinated and the country reopened again. So we crawled back and inflation popped off. It was bad. What was surprising about our inflation when it happened. And we had to do that American rescue plan, of course, once Trump left because we had to get money in people's pockets. But the Democrats, we lost the House, but we expanded our seats in the Senate and we really weren't punished for that huge inflation number. And I think that's because of Roe. So you have all that. And let's talk about the tariffs, right? Not as bad as what economists predict it. They haven't done the damage that's been predicted. Does the business community and job makers, do they do like them? No, they don't like them. They're creating a lot of uncertainty and they're preventing businesses from doing a lot because there's so much uncertainty. But they did raise revenue. Inflation, as we saw today, is cooling. The AI boom is really helping the economy grow in the second and third quarter. And wages are outpacing inflation. At the same time, unemployment is back to a four year high. The purpose of the tariffs was to bring back this manufacturing boom and actually manufactured has suffered the most, cutting 50,000 jobs. And the opposite has happened in China. We tried to punish China. Their export boom is at record productivity. They are, they actually are doing better by being punished by our tariffs because they're producing, they're producing so much more in and exporting to Latin America and Africa and Asia. It hasn't hurt them at all. We're actually now behind in that race. And retailers, by the way, if you just look at the Wall Street Journal, retailers are warning like, yeah, Christmas is good right now. Just come January, wait till prices go up. At least that's what they're saying so who knows? But the China thing is the most concerning about the tariffs. I don't think it's done the damage that we thought it would do, but there's a lot of TBD in that, according to the business community, our job, our job creators, etc.
- [26:43]
A
Okay, Aaron, I want to ask you, do you think Trump's raids have done more good or harm for the party?
- [26:50]
C
I think that's a tough question when it comes to the totality of the party. I think overall the party is happy that immigration is being enforced, but I don't think that that's necessarily a party good or bad thing. I think it's more like the midterms.
- [27:05]
A
When people are, yeah, like when people are going to go out to vote next, are they thinking, yeah, I'm so happy about this.
- [27:12]
C
I think within the Republican base, yeah, folks are stoked about that. I do have concerns about moderate swing voters, kind of people who sit in the middle and all that imagery of some of these raids and roundups. Right. I think that at the beginning when they were first doing them, I understood the kind of the gravitas of it. But now that we've seen really kind of a really aggressive level of violence ramp up towards these law enforcement actions, where you're seeing officers targeted, you're seeing officers hit, I think that there should be a bit more of attack to make these more lower key than middle of the day. I think that there should be more consideration, at least in my view, for the safety of the officers by moving these to different hours so it's not the middle of the day. So you're not drumming up all this unrest. If people have broken the law, the vast majority of the American people in polling time and again have showed they want them out of the country, and if they're here illegally, absolutely, they want them out of the country. So you put that together, that's all good. But the visuals of the raids can be really hard, especially when they're clashing with local people. Now, don't get me wrong, these local people are also breaking law themselves. Assaulting officers, blocking law enforcement proceedings, standing in the way of law enforcement. We've seen these ICE agents being shot at. The increased violence, I think is a big part of, of why people may not like the visuals on this. And so changing that a little bit, I think is good. But if you're a voter, at the end of the day, I don't think that those are going to change your views. Going into the midterms, it really is the Economy voting is deeply personal to people. And so when they go into a voting booth, if they are a moderate voter and listen with who knows what the actual makeup is going to look like for the midterms with this redistricting continuing to go on right now. But if you're a moderate swing voter in a competitive district, I don't know that the immigration enforcement anti message will move you more toward a Democrat than an economic message would at this point. I think that the economy still remains the top thing for voters and I think you will see that going into midterms. I don't see this as an issue that's really going to shake that moderate voter as much as much as they may be uneasy seeing it on air.
- [29:30]
A
Michael, who do you think is better positioned going into the midterms? And would you factor this in as well, the ICE raids and the impacts they've had on communities?
- [29:38]
B
Yeah, I think you have to factor it in. Just based on anecdotal evidence that's being reported out everywhere in the states that have held elections this year. It has turned out to be a motivator from what we know. I don't know if it's going to be the issue. I mean, I also think there's still a lot to be determined yet. I think midterms are, you know, the people who come out from midterms are either coming out because they are really happy with things going or they are really unhappy. It's either a yes or no. Yes, I want more of this or no, I want to change. And you know, traditionally the party that's in power takes a big hit. Our, our goal in 2022 was, well, first of all, there's always events that shape elections. And Roe turned out to be a huge, hugely defining issue of our 2022 midterms that led to really historic over performance for a party in power and mitigated a lot of damage. But we focused a lot on, you know, you might not like us, but just look at them. You know, we ran against crazy candidate, the quality of their candidates, Carrie Lakes and Ozzes and Herschel Walkers. And we were able to really say, okay, you might not be happy with us yet. Give us some time to look at them. And that's going to be sort of what the Republicans will need to do in some ways if they can, barring other, you know, major shape shifting events. So, you know, look, we also have the redistricting stuff, right? There's a lot of seats that could be, this could have totally backfired in the end, it could come to a draw in terms of how many seats they pick up, but we don't know yet. So I think it's still, it's hard to say who has the edge. I would put money on the house flipping. If I had to put money right now, I would say the house will flip. But I also think we can't be cavalier about it like the Republicans were in 22 when this red wave just never, never showed up. So we need to be careful.
- [31:52]
A
Why should independents trust your side? DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse is the one stop shop for all your footwear needs with sneakers, boots and everything in between. For every style, mood and occasion. You'll definitely find shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. DSW has what you need. More importantly, they have what you didn't even know you wanted. You never know what you'll find at dsw. Find the shoes that get you at.
- [32:19]
C
Prices that get your budget at DSW.
- [32:22]
A
Stores or dsw.com I'd more Aaron?
- [32:27]
C
Yeah, I think if you're an independent swing voter, I think the reason you've got to look at Republicans really closely here is the freedom and economic message, right? I think Republicans have always really remained tried and true to that. It means more money in your paycheck. It means less government interference. It means making sure that the government is there to do its job and not overreach. It means that you're not going to have things like the Department of Justice targeting parents and calling them terrorists for standing up in school board meetings. It means that education will go back to the states. Really think if you're an independent voter, you're not beholden to one party or the other. You're about finding a middle ground where, where you can live the life the way you wanna live it in the United States. I think you see much more of that with the Republican Party than you do with the Democrat Party. When it comes to tax cuts, those are Republicans. When it comes to tax increases, those are Democrats. Right? When I think that economic kind of message really is something that if you're an independent swing voter, that's what you're looking for. But if you're looking for it in this midterm, if you're trying to model out kind of what an independent voter is going to be looking at, message wise, I think it goes back to my point before it's going to be about the economy. So right now all of these campaigns are out there kind of message testing where they say one thing in a poll and then they follow it up to see which one moves voters the most, whether it's in the primary or the general, to build their coalition, especially on the economy. You know, if you find out the Republicans make sure you're getting $1200 more a year or $3400 or whatever it is with tax cut cuts, are you more or less likely that kind of stuff is happening all behind the scenes right now. And I put my good money on that. It will be the economic message for independent voters. And that has to come in prices and it's gotta come in energy prices. So Republicans focusing on that, I think is gonna be a huge part of the message going into midterms and on prices overall. You have seen some grocery prices come down, but natural gas prices and energy costs are still, still going up. And as we go into these colder seasons, that's going to be part of that economic pressure factor that independents will be looking at. And you'll see how Republicans shape their message. But I do think Republicans message and all of the above on energy, making sure we have every opportunity to bring down costs, will fare better than the Democrat message. But I think Michael's right here. It's really a coin toss going into these midterms since we don't know where these lines are gonna fall. And so it's really hard to say. But I think for independent voters, it still remains the economy.
- [34:59]
B
And Tara, to jump in real quick, I mean, Aaron talked about tax cuts and the Republicans being the party of tax cuts. But, you know, a couple of things that they did in the big beautiful bill was to get rid of subsidies for a lot of small businesses that primarily target their type of voter. They also, you know, it's hard for them to talk about the big beautiful bill in terms of tax cuts because all it, what they did was prevent taxes from going up. They didn't restore it, or they restore a cut that was made five years ago so people's tax rates aren't going up. But now in January, 22 million people are going to see their premiums sometimes triple when it comes to healthcare. So they're almost, they've almost like hurt themselves and kind of shot themselves in the foot. And I don't blame them that they don't like Obamacare. They never voted for it in the first place. But politically, I'm just so surprised that they were willing to let the subsidies lapse because the subsidies affect their voters. That's the dirty secret. Affect their voters more than ours.
- [36:15]
A
Yeah, I mean, Republicans are in power right now. Aaron and they don't seem to be getting much done. It's just gridlock. So who do you think they're going to blame when they're looking at their paychecks, when they're looking at, you know.
- [36:27]
B
Their premiums, their health care premiums?
- [36:29]
C
Well, I will, yeah, yeah. I'll say this. I think when the American people look at their paychecks, they should be thankful that the Republicans made sure that their taxes didn't go up. Because if it had been up to Democrats, they would have gone up. And this is part of the peril right now for Republicans in leadership. Everything they're cleaning up are the failures of Democrats. Obamacare is a signature Democrat policy proposal. The fact that there were, there were subsidies put on it and the fact that the costs are going up is because this was a poorly written bill in the first place and it was jammed down the American people's throat on a party line vote and now it's imploding the way that everybody said it would. All of that politics aside on this, people are going to be hurt by this directly if premiums go up. And so while I understand the political arguments as well as anybody else about the disaster of Obamacare not providing some level of bridge for people with constraints because there should be income constraints on receiving subsidies, I think we can all agree if you're making 250, $300,000 a year, you should not be receiving a subsidy to be receiving health insurance. You make a lot. You make a good living at that point. Those kind of constraints aren't unfounded. Making sure that there is reasonable, making sure that people who should be receiving it do receive it and those who should not, do not. Right. Those kind of easy constraints make sense. And that's the things Republicans need to be focusing on right now. Because Republicans will get the blame for premiums going up. Even if it is a Democrat disaster and it was Democrats fault. Nobody will care about that. They will care that Republicans are in the White House, the House and the Senate. And if, if health insurance becomes too unaffordable because of this, then yes, they will be blamed. And so this is, and this is one of the hardest things, everybody knows this health care is a boondoggle in this country that neither party has been able to adequately address and handle for people to get lower costs and better care. So all of that together, Republicans need to step up in this leadership moment and make sure that those who should be getting subsidies, those who need additional assistance to receive the health care and the benefits that they need, that we take care of that and that. We make sure we don't rip the rug out from under people. Those are really hard conversations. And given how tight the majority is in the House, it's an even harder conversation to try and consider extending those Obamacare subsidies again. That's a Democrat name. It's a Democrat bill. Why would we give them a leash? Why would we give them anything to, to, to, to make this continue? And I would argue as, as a regular American, not just as a Republican, you don't want to hurt other people for the sake of politics. And right now it seems like both sides are more dug in on that than they are on finding a solution. Because, because a straight extension, that's just, that doesn't make sense. Because there are people who, A straight extension for three years doesn't make sense. That's Republicans throwing up their hands. So there has to be a middle ground. It can't be all or nothing from either side because the only people who get hurt are the American people.
- [39:36]
A
What if people actually like Obamacare?
- [39:39]
C
So that's the thing. I think if you tested this in polling, the word Obamacare, popular people like the idea of, I think if you went through, and I have been playing with this in my head, if you tested, do you like your, your healthcare first? Right. People probably say no. And then if you go on further down and you ask about Obamacare, ask a bunch of questions, do you like Obamacare? I'm sure that would pull favorably. And then I think if you pull.
- [40:03]
A
On, some people don't have health care.
- [40:05]
C
But if you pull on a little later on in a poll and ask people what's your insurance, that's really where you're going to find the break in this. But, but I think a lot of people don't like necessarily their health care, but they like the idea of Obamacare. And I think that's some polling that really should get looked at.
- [40:23]
A
I mean, Obamacare is just a marketplace to get health insurance. Everybody hates health insurance.
- [40:28]
B
Yeah.
- [40:29]
C
So that's the difference, though, right? People like the idea of Obamacare, but they don't like their insurance. Right. And so Trump, Trump don't always equate.
- [40:37]
A
To the American people, but people don't.
- [40:39]
C
Always equate the two together.
- [40:41]
A
Yeah, but Trump tried to slap his name on Obamacare a few weeks ago and Republicans shot that down. Like, you know, they, he, he gets it. He sees how popular it is. I do want to talk about leadership because you guys both worked in House leadership. You worked for Kevin McCarthy, Aaron, and Michael, you work for Nancy Pelosi. Who do you think's wielding their power better? Pelosi or Mike Johnson or has Pelosi versus Mike Johnson because obviously she's no longer in leadership. But who's done a better job? There are a lot of complaints about Mike Johnson right now. You know, a lot of people are saying that, yeah, I actually think Mike.
- [41:16]
B
Mike Johnson, I've been in the room with him a couple times. He's actually a really funny guy. He's really very likable. But unfortunately there's just no, there's no competition there. Nancy Pelosi never put bills on the floor that she knew she couldn't. Didn't have the votes for McCarthy and Johnson did not have. Just don't have the type of respect and allegiance in their own conferences as Pelosi did. And when, you know, the first Pelosi go around, you know, there were. That was when the Blue Dogs were at the height of their power and she did not have these embarrassing floor situations the way McCarthy and, and the Johnson do. You know, there were ideological differences, but they never got to the floor. And we never put up a. We never made our members go to the floor for a vote to take that we knew was going to lose.
- [42:23]
A
Yeah. What do you think, Aaron?
- [42:25]
C
Yeah, so I think that unsurprisingly, Michael and I frame this differently in our minds. I don't think that point Pelosi necessarily had more loyalty as much as she had more control of her caucus. I think there's a difference. I don't think that everybody was just happily lining up behind Nancy Pelosi. I think Democrats, and I've said this before, do a much better job of keeping their party, the House Party, fighting behind closed doors versus Republicans. I remember standing in meetings and knowing members are texting reporters in real time to give all the tea about what's going on behind the scenes. But I think when it comes to power, people have definitely underestimated Speaker Mike Johnson. He's done a really good job on a number of really difficult votes. And yeah. Do Republicans make the messy middle on the floor Sometimes? Right. Like that sausage making that messy middle of getting bills done. Do they put it out in daylight in front of all the American people? Yeah, they do. And that's the difference. That is a leadership style difference between Nancy Pelosi who, oh wait, she might have always known her vote count, but that's because their level of control in fighting is much more behind the scenes. I don't know what kind of thumb screws Nancy Pelosi has. But that is not a completely unified party. It's just one that handles how they bring their fights differently. Republicans don't have a problem having that fight in front of the American people, especially on big policy differences. But every time Mike Johnson has been asked to step up and lead and keep the government going or deliver on a big bill, and, and people have underestimated him and the fractures within the Republican conference and caucus he's delivered. And that's something that for a man who I think five years ago, nobody thought had on their radar for potential speaker of the House. When it comes to power from a guy that went from a rank and file member to Speaker, I think Mike Johnson has shown that he is an incredibly powerful Speaker. He just wields his power very differently.
- [44:17]
A
He hasn't really put any bills forward.
- [44:21]
B
There's been barely anything.
- [44:22]
C
One big, beautiful bill was a hard one to put through. That took a lot of work. It was a massive piece of legislation that's taken a lot of time. Reconciliation is not an easy process in the Senate. So to get it from the House to the Senate, to keep the government open multiple times, I mean, you want to talk about what major legislative accomplishments have happened, those are some really big ones that Mike Johnson was able to do. When people doubted him and like him, love him or lump them, the guy was deeply underestimated and has managed to deliver multiple times.
- [44:52]
B
Well, I think you have to ask yourself one thing. You know, who does, who does more vote whipping Speaker Johnson or Donald Trump? Would any of these votes take? First of all, nothing goes to the floor unless Donald Trump says so. And nobody is whipped without Donald Trump. No, nobody take, nobody's gonna. The loyalty is not so much to Johnson's leadership. It's to, it's to Trump's leadership. And maybe that's how it's supposed to be. When you, when the party controls power, the party in the White House controls Congress. Biden and Pelosi had much more of a collegial relationship because they were both legislators. So it was a little bit different. But this, this executive wields a lot of strong authority. And so even if you take it, if you zoom out like the business sector or the private sector or, or interest groups, there's no point in lobbying Congress right now. Congress doesn't to get anything done. You have to go through the door at the White House. That's how, that's how strong of an executive the White House has chosen. Or that's the style of leadership they have there's nothing happens in Congress. In this Congress at least. Nobody wants to lobby Congress. Nobody needs to. Nobody needs. Congress is basically impotent because it's controlled by one party, but one party that has a very strong executive.
- [46:21]
A
Yeah. I mean, he jokes that he is the speaker and the President.
- [46:24]
B
Oh, he is. He's the speaker, he's the whip. He's out. I mean, he's out. And I, I admire it, trust me. I wish we had our own lbj. I wish we used. Democrats use power as a reward. Republicans use it as a tool. And I respect it. I respect it.
- [46:40]
A
Well, I want to go into how they handled the Epstein files. The President has called it a hoax. Mike Johnson refused to hold a House vote, had to go into a discharge petition. They whipped against it. He sent his members home, you know, during Christmas. Sorry. During the holidays, summer holidays. And then during the shutdown, he, you know, home tonight.
- [47:04]
B
Sending them home today.
- [47:06]
A
Yeah, exactly. So it's, he's been keeping them out. And a lot of this has revolved around Jeffrey Epstein and President Trump's sensitivity around it. But I've got to ask you, you know, the Biden administration also ignored the files completely. So I'm going to start with you, Michael. Who's handled this worse, the Trump administration or the Biden administration? Who? You know, Democrats now like to use the Epstein files as a cudgel.
- [47:32]
B
Yeah.
- [47:33]
A
But they never even.
- [47:34]
B
Oh, you're telling me. No, I'm with you. I mean, I think Democrats are just turning into like a TMZ kind of outlet right now by just disseminating useless information, information that we all. That is not new, like photos. We've only embarrassed ourselves through the recent disclosures. Everything has been like. All of the damaging new information has been about Democrats, maybe Democrats from a different generation, but they're all Democrats who hung out with Epstein. And when Trump hung out with them, he was a Democrat, so it makes sense. So look, Democrats did not care about this issue the four years that, that we were. The two years that I was at the White House or the four years of the Biden administration. I don't remember it being an issue ever. That's not like, I don't know, I don't believe that there are actual files or files exist, but they're court sealed documents. They're not the DOJ sitting on a desk. So this whole thing has been really politicized and weaponized.
- [48:37]
A
No, they have 330 gigabytes of files of evidence. They have that. And yes, a lot of them are Court sealed.
- [48:44]
B
Right.
- [48:45]
A
But they do have a lot of.
- [48:46]
B
They do have, but it's not like they can just give them away. They have. Aren't the courts responsible for unsealing some.
- [48:53]
A
Of them that have to do with civil matters have to go through the courts.
- [48:56]
B
Okay, so I don't mean the answer to your question is I don't think anybody's hands are clean. We, we did nothing with it. And first of all, if we, if there was damaging information, what I don't understand his. What, why didn't we do anything with it before the election? Like, what kind of political malpractice is that for talking about this in terms of crass politics?
- [49:20]
A
Because there were Democrats, like a lot of Democrats on the list who are also who are close with Jeffrey Epstein. I know, you know, we know that Virginia, Virginia Giuffre alleged that Bill Richardson and Senator George Mitchell sexually assaulted her.
- [49:34]
B
And that's our own CIA director who was Deputy Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton. Bill Burns at the time, I think had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein while he was in office. I don't think there's anything good in there for Democrats. I think this has been a losing issue. I don't know what the point is. We're not running against Trump anymore. It's, it's, it. I don't know, Tara, this, this is not something that, like I get in super. Like, this is a crime story. This is a crime. This is a, like a major crime. And if there was, if there's criminal wrongdoing, people should be punished. But I, the politics of it, I don't think it, I think it cuts both ways.
- [50:20]
A
What do you think, Aaron? Who's handled it worse, the Trump administration or the Biden administration? The Epstein files.
- [50:26]
C
I'm going to go with Michael on this. I don't think. Yeah, I don't think either side is clean on this. I think that the Democrats didn't do a single thing with it. And I think Michael's point is completely correct, that if there was something damaging in there about Donald Trump, there is no way in high heaven that that wouldn't have been politically used by Democrats against him. And I can appreciate that honesty because it would work both ways. Right. I think if there was something super damning in there, people would use that as a political weapon against each other, which is what they're trying to do now. But there were a number of unforced errors by the Trump admin administration, Pam Bondi, and the binders full of no new information to those influencers that was just completely unnecessary. Her time and again going on TV about it. That's really a hard position to go on TV as America's Attorney general, to stand there. You are always in a constant litigation. There's constant like, I don't understand how you go on TV and talk about anything that's pending at any point. But that's, that's beside the point. But I do think that she's made a lot of unforced errors on this and I think that that has not helped the administration. And it's, it's almost leads to that constant conspiracy theory lane where people kind of get into where there's a vacuum of information and so they start to fill it with their own and start to ask questions and demand, why am. Why are you not giving us more daylight? And I think that the points Michael made are completely correct. Those who committed crimes should be held accountable when it comes to releasing this information. I think protecting survivors and victims, people who don't want that information out there should be paramount. These are people's lives. And as much as we tried to use this as a political weapon against each other, what Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell did to countless women across this country should be. Should be absolutely condemned and not used as a political weapon against each other. This isn't help by the whole idea though. It's just silly nonsense noise. And the American people really don't care about it. The only thing I care about is.
- [52:25]
A
That they actually do really care about. No, they actually do. The American people actually really do care about this story. I think it's overwhelming the polling. 80%, 90% of their day to day life though.
- [52:37]
C
They really. Every day the American people are not waking up. A lot of people wish they knew more about the Epstein files. They just find it interesting because it's a crime story.
- [52:44]
A
Never. No, you've never seen a strong. You've never seen a more united country in terms of the Epstein files and wanting them out there. You've never. What poll? That 80%.
- [52:56]
C
I mean I can appreciate that. But on a day to day level, that one poll is just a snapshot. The American people are not like, oh, I really. They want to know because it's a salacious story to them. They want to know because they're big names in there.
- [53:09]
A
No, I think you're wrong.
- [53:10]
B
I don't.
- [53:11]
A
You're not right about this.
- [53:12]
B
I'm sorry.
- [53:13]
A
You're not like. It's not just about that. It's about justice. It's about feeling that justice is Important in the world get away with things that other people don't. There's a feeling of injustice. There's a feeling of the, of the, the little people who get away with things and everyone else who doesn't. And, you know, this whole idea of we're holding the files to protect the victims. Why would the victims be standing outside of Capitol Hill demanding the files be released and then Mike Johnson's inside saying, don't worry, little lady, we're holding back the files to protect you?
- [53:42]
C
I think there. I think there. I think there are some victims who do want it out there. Very vocal. And for those people. Absolutely, absolutely. If they. They want that information out there. Absolutely. And there are some who probably don't. But again, I just think that to try and use this the way people have as a weapon against each other, I think the ultimate thing is just getting the facts out there. And when there aren't facts, that's where conspiracy theories start. And I think there are facts.
- [54:08]
A
There are a lot of facts. There are in files.
- [54:11]
C
Absolutely.
- [54:12]
A
Yeah. And they're in depositions, and they're in testimony and victim testimony. And then these victims want this out there.
- [54:19]
B
So I want to raise one thing, though, and sort of piggybacking off of a little bit of what Aaron said, because sometimes I'm reluctant to. To really put this into the category of political issue. I think you're right. At a basic populist level, people want justice and they want bad people punished. Right. He's a bad person.
- [54:43]
C
Yeah.
- [54:43]
B
But like, but I, But I think I've always wondered the, the salacious part of it, the sort of how would the commercializing or the Netflixing and, you know, the. That sort of theatrical. Not theatrical, but the, the fact that it's been so publicized in terms of, like, on, like, on entertainment networks.
- [55:08]
A
This is the. Was probably the largest sex trafficking operation of our time, and everyone died mysteriously involved in it. And it involved children. No, I know. And the most powerful people in the world. How is this not.
- [55:22]
B
No, no, I agree with you. I agree with you. But, like, in the same way as the. Don't. Don't jump on me just yet. But in the same way that people really didn't understand or know much about the Menendez brothers until it was sensationalized, would it have bled into the political bloodstream as much if there wasn't this sort of populist interest in this story? And I agree that there is a basic.
- [55:49]
A
There weren't people in leadership that were a part of this.
- [55:52]
B
Maybe politicians. I Mean, that's. But that's part of, you know, you're.
- [55:56]
A
Not, you know, people aren't getting all worked up about the JP Morgan Chase executives that have been, you know, had to lose their jobs is the fact that there are people in politics, in leadership, who have not paid. Whereas a prince literally had to step down from a throne for this, whereas the. The actual US Ambassador to UK ambassadors, the US had to lose his position. It just involves, you know, foreign dignitaries, this involves princes, this involves the richest people in the world. The picture just came out right now of Bill Gates with a girl. There's another one that just came out where, you know, there's a text message where he's talking about sending a girl 18 years old for $1,000.
- [56:36]
C
Is this.
- [56:37]
A
Is. This is real?
- [56:38]
B
Yeah.
- [56:39]
A
And I think a lot of people are cynical about it because they don't know the facts. And they do. And they, and they, they don't want to know it. So, I mean, I do.
- [56:49]
B
I want to know the. I mean, yeah, I want to. I want to know the facts, but I'm, I'm. I'm focused more on, like, there. I kind of separate the criminality from the politics because I don't think it's. I don't think politicizing something as serious as this. I find that kind of gross. It's horrible to use in politics.
- [57:11]
A
I think a lot of the people who are in so interested in this. And yes, you're right, there are a lot of Democrats who have come around now and suddenly care now that Trump is involved. Um, but there were a lot of Republicans before that who were. Who cared and still do. Like, they thought it was all Democrats. And by the way, Trump was a Democrat then.
- [57:29]
B
By the way, I view you as more of the. Of like the thought leader in this space because you've been working on it for years. Yeah, but you tell, you tell us, tell who. Who in your expert opinion, what party has fumbled this the most and, and what party should bear more responsibility if they're. If you want to put it in those terms. I don't know the answer. I truly don't.
- [57:52]
A
I'm very cynical about all parties, considering that the FBI has known about this story since 1996 and no one did anything.
- [57:57]
B
I agree.
- [57:58]
A
How many administrations that was.
- [58:00]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [58:01]
C
It's about the accountability in this. Right. Getting all the facts out is making sure that there's accountability for everybody who committed a crime here and that this massive, massive.
- [58:12]
A
And the Justice Department, that looked the.
- [58:14]
C
Other way because the other Part. There needs to be accountability across the board on this, Tara. I think ultimately that's the point you're making. Is that about the justice and the accountability and that's what the American people care about. And I think that that's not. I think two things can be true at the same time. That accountability and making sure that there is daylight and that criminals are not getting away with human trafficking and what happened to those girls and those children, that is unbelievable and abhorrent. And I think it can also be true that people are because of the media cycle around it and the Netflix of it and the documentaries and that kind of pop culture information side of it, that there were plenty of people who were also interested in it based on that as well. The two things can be true at the same time.
- [58:59]
A
I don't know. I don't judge people for documentary watching documentaries.
- [59:04]
B
No, not what I'm doing. I'm addicted to documentaries. But what I'm wondering is if are has that part of it.
- [59:14]
A
There is a sense of injustice. That is the problem. There is a sense of injustice. Yeah.
- [59:18]
C
The accountability. Yeah.
- [59:19]
A
There's a set of. Okay, I want to move on to 2028. And this will be our final question. I had a lot more, but we got into it, which I enjoyed.
- [59:26]
B
No, keep going. This is fun.
- [59:29]
A
I don't know about Iris. Fine.
- [59:31]
C
I'm enjoying it. I got no problems. Yeah.
- [59:33]
B
Okay.
- [59:34]
A
Well, then who has a stronger hand going into 2028? JD Vance, who is inheriting Trump's economy. Maybe it will change. We don't know. Or Gavin Newsom, who is inheriting California's reputation.
- [59:46]
C
A mochi moment from Mark, who writes, I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with.
- [59:56]
A
Mochi money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller.
- [60:01]
C
Jeans and a bigger wallet. You're the best. Thanks, Mark.
- [60:05]
A
I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com.
- [60:12]
C
Mark is a Mochi member compensated for.
- [60:14]
A
His story and for poor management. Let's start with you on this one, Aaron.
- [60:19]
C
Yeah, I will say I think it's J.D. vance, and I think that's because people are underestimating a little bit of how much the American people overall have a favorable view of JD Vance on Gavin Newsom. The one thing about Gavin Newsom that makes me think he's going to have the harder time going into 28 even besides litigating California. Right. And the myriad of things, Republicans can lean in on that. It's the Kamala Harris of it all. The two of them have been on. I've been side by side rising the ranks in Democrat politics in California. One went federal and one stayed in the state. But with 2028, this is gonna come to a head for him. And so even with, you know, him versus Vance, I still think it's like, I think Vance has the upper hand on it, but I think that Gavin actually has a very tough time ahead of him for the fight that's going to happen between him and Kamala should she decide to run. And she's certainly not putting that away.
- [61:13]
A
Yeah. Michael, what do you think? Gavin or J.D.
- [61:16]
B
Well, first of all. So to answer your question, Gavin, I think he has a much better chance. First of all, a couple of reasons.
- [61:23]
A
One, who JD Or Gavin?
- [61:25]
B
Gavin Newsom has a. I would give the edge in a head to head.
- [61:29]
A
Okay.
- [61:30]
B
Because first of all, elections, as you. As we keep seeing, like every election is becoming a change election and I just feel like he gets the bet. I think the Democrat will get the benefit of the doubt if they are a good vessel. I think, I happen to think and believe that Newsom is a good vessel. I also think Vance is a pretty sharp political athlete who has come across extremely likable and like I said, just very skilled at the performance aspect. I think he, I would disagree with, with Aaron on this. Kamala Harris is a, is a fun foil for Republicans and the media and I understand why, but she will be a non factor in 2028. It will be such a big.
- [62:20]
C
You don't think she's gonna run?
- [62:21]
B
Oh, I think she might run. I think she will run. But even if she does, I don't think she's gonna be much of a factor. She just does not know. She does not have her hand on the pulse of how to communicate and, and people like Newsom and Shapiro are just much, much more, much better at this than she is. She's. She's not a very authentic messenger. She hasn't learned from many of her mistakes. She's still not very accessible and she's still not. She's just not. She's not as good of a political athlete as Gavin Newsom and. But I do think JD Vance is also a political athlete and I think he's. I don't think. But I think the bigger question is for him is, is the Trump base transferable to him? And yeah, you're seeing a Lot of cracks right now in that base.
- [63:19]
C
I don't think that's the biggest question for any Republican. Yeah, I think that's the biggest question for any Republican is how do you, the MAGA coalition, the Republican base and those, and those real low propensity voters that have come out only for Donald Trump. How do you catch that lightning in a bottle? I mean, Susie Wiles asked it on air. She's right. She's like, how do we motivate those voters? And I think that's a problem for any Republican going into the 28 cycle. It's problem Republicans have to face going into the 26 cycle.
- [63:46]
B
Yeah.
- [63:47]
A
I wonder if Trump could even motivate his own voters, honestly.
- [63:50]
B
Well, we're going to find out, I think this year because I think Trump, I think unlike most presidents during midterms. So you didn't find Biden out on the campaign trail. Right. In 2022. He wasn't out there. Jill was out there. But Biden himself was not out there. Obama wasn't out there in 2010. They don't go out. But Trump is doing. Trump does something very different. He runs into the fire. He's not afraid. He doesn't follow the traditional rules of, of political mechanics and things like that. He's going to go make this about him. He wants it to be a referendum on him. And I think Democrats underestimate the power of his use of the bully pulpit. We don't.
- [64:32]
C
We've never had a real time. Yeah, yeah. This last week, I think, is a great microcosm of that. Right. You saw him last week on the road. You saw J.D. vance on the road. You saw the presidential speech last night. I think you're right. He's going to use that bully pulpit to smash people over the head going into midterms.
- [64:48]
B
And they were both in, they both went to the same area of Pennsylvania, Michael Rose, the country that ground zero, the Lehigh Valley. It is truly a Biden. Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump District. One of those guys signed the petition yesterday. The discharge petition was one of the four. I mean, they're not stupid. They're playing, it seems like they're also playing the long game. They want to, they want to save those. The Republicans. I think Trump's really going to try to defeat expectations here in the midterms. I think he's going to try really hard.
- [65:25]
C
And he also has a massive money behind him too. Right. He has a massive war chest that I think could play huge in the midterms if they're willing to and that's another really interesting factor is how much of the political money of the Trump apparatus are they going to spend in these midterms for candidates that they feel in these Trump swing districts that they can push over the edge. Right. Because that's, you know, they have half a million, half a billion dollars in their war. I mean, it's an unbelievable amount of money to be sitting on.
- [65:57]
B
And Democrats have to be really careful. Tara, in 2022, when we were doing, when we were running in our midterms, we had 20, I think with 18 Republicans in Biden districts, there's only three in Harris district right now. The landscape is different and it's, it's, it's tougher. We had, we had 13 Democrats in Trump districts then. Now we have 14. So a slight difference, but an uptick, like we still have a really uphill battle.
- [66:26]
C
Yeah.
- [66:28]
A
Well, I'm going to end on that note. Thanks so much, guys. This was fascinating and love to have you back on another time. And maybe we can look back on this and I'll play some old clips and see who's who got it right.
- [66:40]
C
Yes. Let's bring the receipts. I love it.
- [66:43]
A
Yeah, we love it. All right, thank you so much. That was another episode of the Tara Palmeri Show. Thanks so much for tuning in. I hope you enjoyed it. It's a little something different, but we're going to keep doing these debates. I think I'm going to try to at least do them once per week. If you have any ideas for guests, please leave them in the comments. As always, if you like this show, please follow, subscribe, rate it, share it with all your friends. If you like my reporting, go to Tara Palmeri.com that's T A R A P A L m e r I.com and sign up for my exclusive reporting at the Red Letter. It's how you can support my independent journalism. And if you become a paid subscriber, you get the news first. Straight to you exclusive reporting. I want to thank my producer Eric Abenate. I want to thank Abby Baker who does my research and social media, Dan Rosen, my manager and Adam Stewart on the graphics. See you again soon and happy holidays, everybody.
- [67:35]
B
Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a.
- [67:37]
C
Very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the.
- [67:42]
B
Gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day.
- [67:55]
A
Yeah.
- [67:55]
B
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.
- [67:59]
A
Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only.
- [68:02]
C
Speed slow 135 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra.
- [68:05]
A
See mint mobile.com.